X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 21:12:30 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from p01c12o143.mxlogic.net ([208.65.145.66] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.8) with ESMTPS id 3196586 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 02 Oct 2008 11:55:33 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=208.65.145.66; envelope-from=dave@edt.com Received: from unknown [198.107.46.129] (EHLO swift.edt.com) by p01c12o143.mxlogic.net (mxl_mta-5.7.0-2) over TLS secured channel with ESMTP id 4fee4e84.2881420208.70738.00-004.p01c12o143.mxlogic.net (envelope-from ); Thu, 02 Oct 2008 09:55:32 -0600 (MDT) Received: from CO2 (dhcp-97 [198.107.47.97]) by swift.edt.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with SMTP id m92Fsprw025488 for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2008 08:54:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-Message-ID: From: "David Lowry" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: [LML] Re: New ELT X-Original-Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 08:54:55 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001E_01C9246C.8A5BF500" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 X-Spam: [F=0.1000000000; S=0.100(2008091601)] X-MAIL-FROM: X-SOURCE-IP: [(unknown)] This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_001E_01C9246C.8A5BF500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable There was a recent article last month in AOPA magazine (I think). The interesting part was that CAP does not have and will not have for quite some time locator equipment in all their aircraft. This = would imply you would want GPS location as the sat can locate you to a smaller area = than 121.5 but it is still big in rugged terrain. Of course you have to = crash where you get good GPS reception on the ground. You probably also want to hedge you bet with a = dual unit 121.5 and 406. The independent libertarian streak in most pilots would say that if I = do not survive to set off my personal locator then I don't care if they find = me. A acquaintance of mine in the Search and Rescue business counters that by asserting that nearly every pilots family has enough pull in = Wasington to get millions spent of a search for their loved ones partially = consumed (by bears) remains. It was a good article though for real information. David Lowry ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Robert Pastusek=20 To: lml@lancaironline.net=20 Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 7:54 PM Subject: [LML] Re: New ELT Jim Scales wrote in part: I have not seen any reference to the new = ELT rules that go into effect next year. =20 Evidently, our current equipment will no longer work ( or perhaps even = be legal) as of Feb 1, 2009. =20 Jim, =20 The US and other participating countries will turn off COSPAS/SARSAT = monitoring of frequencies 121.5 and 243.0 next February. That is the = only "real change" that will occur; there are no "new ELT rules" = associated with this change-at least for US-registered aircraft. It is = being done to try to reduce the number of false emergency alerts they = are responding to-at least if you believe the media spin that's been = applied. As a practical matter, many ground and airborne systems will = still monitor these frequencies, but this does not provide the same = level coverage now provided by SARSAT. There are a number of good web = sites that discuss this, starting with the NOAA site at = www.sarsat.noaa.gov. If you have access, do a Google search on SARSAT = and you'll find more information than you can digest. =20 The FAA has not, at least yet, required any US-registered aircraft to = change ELT's as a result of this loss of monitoring (while flying in US = airspace), but has encouraged aircraft owners to upgrade to 406 MHz = beacons through media and public presentations. There is a "common = sense" issue here: A 406 MHz ELT will provide an increased likelihood = that you'll be positively identified if you go down, a more accurate = position location of where you are, and an increased likelihood that the = ELT itself will work when needed-because of better design and = reliability of the newer equipment.=20 =20 Bottom line: You don't have to do/change anything if you're only = flying in the US, BUT you'd be prudent to upgrade if you can afford it. = ARTEX sells some very nice 406 units. I've installed their Artex ME406 = unit in my new IV-P. This unit does not have GPS position reporting, but = they have (more costly) units that do. For me, the ME406 was the right = cost/effectiveness trade off. Others will disagree-on both sides. =20 Bob ------=_NextPart_000_001E_01C9246C.8A5BF500 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
There was a recent article last month = in AOPA=20 magazine (I think).
 The interesting part was that CAP = does not=20 have and will not have
 for quite some time locator = equipment in all=20 their aircraft.  This would imply
 you would want GPS location as = the sat can=20 locate you to a smaller area than
 121.5 but it is still big in = rugged terrain.=20 Of course you have to crash where you get good GPS
 reception on the ground. You = probably also=20 want to hedge you bet with a dual
 unit 121.5 and 406.
 
 The independent libertarian = streak in most=20 pilots would say that if I do not
 survive to set off my personal = locator then I=20 don't care if they find me.
 A acquaintance of mine in the = Search and=20 Rescue business counters that
 by asserting that nearly every = pilots family=20 has enough pull in Wasington
 to get millions spent of a search = for their=20 loved ones partially consumed (by bears)
 remains.
 
 It was a good article though for = real=20 information.
 
 David Lowry
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Robert=20 Pastusek
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, = 2008 7:54=20 PM
Subject: [LML] Re: New = ELT

Jim Scales wrote in part:  I=20 have not seen any reference to the new ELT rules that go into effect = next=20 year.

 

Evidently, our current equipment will no longer = work (=20 or perhaps even be legal) as of Feb 1, = 2009.

 

Jim,

 

The US and other participating countries will = turn off=20 COSPAS/SARSAT monitoring of frequencies 121.5 and 243.0 next February. = That is=20 the only =93real change=94 that will occur; there are no =93new ELT = rules=94=20 associated with this change=97at least for US-registered aircraft. It = is being=20 done to try to reduce the number of false emergency alerts they are = responding=20 to=97at least if you believe the media spin that=92s been applied. As = a practical=20 matter, many ground and airborne systems will still monitor these = frequencies,=20 but this does not provide the same level coverage now provided by = SARSAT.=20 There are a number of good web sites that discuss this, starting with = the NOAA=20 site at  www.sarsat.noaa.gov. If=20 you have access, do a Google search on SARSAT and you=92ll find more = information=20 than you can digest.

 

The FAA has not, at least yet, required any=20 US-registered aircraft to change ELT=92s as a result of this loss of = monitoring=20 (while flying in US airspace), but has encouraged aircraft owners to = upgrade=20 to 406 MHz beacons through media and public presentations. There is a = =93common=20 sense=94 issue here: A 406 MHz ELT will provide an increased = likelihood that=20 you=92ll be positively identified if you go down, a more accurate = position=20 location of where you are, and an increased likelihood that the ELT = itself=20 will work when needed=97because of better design and reliability of = the newer=20 equipment.

 

Bottom line: You don=92t have to do/change = anything if=20 you=92re only flying in the US, BUT you=92d be prudent to upgrade if = you can=20 afford it. ARTEX sells some very nice 406 units. I=92ve installed = their Artex=20 ME406 unit in my new IV-P. This unit does not have GPS position = reporting, but=20 they have (more costly) units that do. For me, the ME406 was the right = cost/effectiveness trade off. Others will disagree=97on both=20 sides.

 

Bob

= ------=_NextPart_000_001E_01C9246C.8A5BF500--