Indeed. Sorry. Didn’t get the informal part. I jumped to the old LIST/MEST system and thought there was something similar in place in EASA.
At the beginning of this thread, it was stated that 121.5 MHz only ELTs in N-reg airplanes no longer pass ramp checks and have to be replaced with 406MHz ELTs. Is this still true for N-reg aircraft?
If 121.5 MHz ELTs remain permissible on N-reg, would this still be a problem for certain European airspaces such as Holland?
achimha wrote:
At the beginning of this thread, it was stated that 121.5 MHz only ELTs in N-reg airplanes no longer pass ramp checks and have to be replaced with 406MHz ELTs. Is this still true for N-reg aircraft?If 121.5 MHz ELTs remain permissible on N-reg, would this still be a problem for certain European airspaces such as Holland?
I don’t know the requirements now for sure but thought the FAA now mandated 406 ELTs. But I would personally always want to fly with a monitored ELT particularly if ever flying outside developed areas.
Is it the case that ELTs (EASA reg) need to be sent to a manufacturer approved shop to have the battery, replaced or can any mx organisation order one and replace it?
zuutroy wrote:
Is it the case that ELTs (EASA reg) need to be sent to a manufacturer approved shop to have the battery, replaced or can any mx organisation order one and replace it?
It depends on your maintenance program, it may even be declared as owner-pilot maintenance and in that case, done by yourself. Just look at your document. If you do, make sure you keep the sticker with the expiration date in your aircraft files.
JasonC wrote:
I don’t know the requirements now for sure but thought the FAA now mandated 406 ELTs. But I would personally always want to fly with a monitored ELT particularly if ever flying outside developed areas.
FAA does not mandate 406 MHz ELT, but FCC has prohibited the manufacture or sale of new units. The existing 121.5 MHz units may still be used in the US. The 121.5 MHz units are unlikely to work, but for that matter, the 406 MHz don’t have a great track record, but at least there are fewer false alerts.
NCYankee hit it spot on.
That said, why the bad rap all of a sudden for 121.5s ?
I mean they are dead simple to use and any “rescuer” with a VHF can pick up the signal and probably even get reasonably close to finding the ELT . At least the fire crew on my home airport seem pretty good at tracking down tripped ELTs !
Michael wrote:
That said, why the bad rap all of a sudden for 121.5s ?
406 MHz signal is the only one sensed by COSPAS-SARSAT satellites; if your ELT has a built-in GPS, then the satellite will receive your coordinates right away and retransmit them to the relevant rescue authority. 121.5 MHz beacons are only good for local homing.
When EASA mandated ELT’s should be fitted the flying club I was leasing three aircraft to acquired a PLB for each of the aircraft and the flying order book was amended to note that the PLB should be carred on all flights IAW the UK CAA derogation.
While this met the requirements of the UK law I became concerned that in the event of an accident that incapacitated the occupants or if the pilot forgot the PLB I might be seen to be not be complying with the leagal obligation of a duty of care to those flying in the aircraft.
The result of this is I fitted a GPS enabled 406 / 121.5 ELT in all my aircraft and can sleep at night safe in the knowledge that I have done all I reasonably can should one of the aircraft meet with an accident ………… I note with interest that almost to a man the UK training industry has failed to follow suit.
Ultranomad wrote:
406 MHz signal is the only one sensed by COSPAS-SARSAT satellites; if your ELT has a built-in GPS, then the satellite will receive your coordinates right away and retransmit them to the relevant rescue authority. 121.5 MHz beacons are only good for local homing
Fully aware of what 406 is about, thanks anyway.
Local homing DOES actually work in lot’s of instances and is better than nothing.
