alioth wrote:
Why not? For my situation (every trip I do must require a reasonably long overwater flight, being based on a small island), an ELT is almost useless as it will go to the bottom of the sea with the aircraft. The only useful beacon is one that is attached to me personally, in other words, a PLB.
Yes, there are situations where an ELT will do no good. The old regulations, still valid for experimental and normal class Annex II (not microlight), are much more specific regarding this. ELT is mandatory except where humans are likely to be separated from the aircraft in an emergency, then a PLB is mandatory for all persons on board. Also when flying more than 100 NM off shore (single engine), then a raft and a portable (watertight and floating) VHF emergency radio is also mandatory.
I learnt today from a competent authority that on August 26, 2016 EASA NCO comes in effect which brings a lot of simplifications or operators of light aircraft.
One of them is that a PLB (personal locator beacon) may be used in lieu of an ELT. 
Just thought I’d share this here as it might not be broader knowledge.
Yes, that is correct. And here is the actual wording from Part-NCO:
NCO.IDE.A.170 Emergency locator transmitter (ELT)
(a) Aeroplanes shall be equipped with:
(1) an ELT of any type, when first issued with an individual CofA on or before 1 July 2008;
(2) an automatic ELT, when first issued with an individual CofA after 1 July 2008; or
(3) a survival ELT (ELT(S)) or a personal locator beacon (PLB), carried by a crew member or a
passenger, when certified for a maximum passenger seating configuration of six or less.
(b) ELTs of any type and PLBs shall be capable of transmitting simultaneously on 121,5 MHz and 406
MH
That sounds like sensible, and good news. Thanks for sharing!
Only I can’t help wondering: certain countries (Austria, Netherlands, … ) require an ELT today – will they accept a PLB when this rule comes into effect?
I would say that they are forced to accept it as long as it is an EASA aircraft. For Annex II it is still up to the national authority, most likely there will be a bit of lag for the new rules to influence Annex II.
In the Netherlands this is an airspace requirement. An ELT will still be required for international flights.
Also note that NCO makes it more strict, you now need and ELT or PLB for all EASA aircraft, for which prior part NCO this was not the case.
Carriage of an ELT is always a good idea. A PLB is IMHO not suiteable as replacement for an ELT but very good additional equipment. Whatever you have installed or on you, make sure it is programmed and registered correctly. Incorrect programming of registration WILL delay SAR activities.
In the Netherlands this is an airspace requirement. An ELT will still be required for international flights.
It’s not an airspace requirement: it’s an ops requirement. I’ve seen no evidence that the NL takes the requirement for an installed ELT any more seriously than any other state in practice, but if they fail to respect Part-NCO from Aug 26, they’ll get a finding at the next ops standardisation visit.
I wish when making regulations – or statements – about suitable equipment ther were some facts. The regulators at least should be in a position to get these.
Before maki judgement, it would be intersting to know
– the number of incidents where an elt was on board where the elt was instrumental in the rescue
– the number of incidents where no elt was on board where having onw would have made a difference
– the number of the above where having a PLB would have been insufficient
I guess the numbers above are very low, especially the last one, which is probably very close to zero in Europe. Mainly driven by the fact that this scenario basically only applies to land accidents where the people on board get injured just the right amount to cause incapacitating injuries that are potentially deadly in a few hours, but not if help arrives within an hour or so.
I can’t remember when, maybe 15 years ago, Australia allowed PLBs in lieu of ELTs and one of the big (clearly successful) arguments was the fact that many aircraft went down in remote areas where the aircraft became inverted or damaged to the extent that the in-built ELT did not activate or couldn’t get its signal out. In the cases where there were survivors it was posited that in some of those cases they could have activated a PLB… Personally, I woulf advocate having both…
bookworm wrote:
It’s not an airspace requirement:
The Dutch (national) requirement is requiring an ELT for international flights. This is also applicable to visiting aircraft. This is a point which is looked at during ramp checks. I asked the Dutch CAA about this, and they will keep their requirement active, next to part NCO, which is a different requirement.
So it would they would comply with Part NCO AND also require an ELT for crossing the Dutch border.
Cobalt wrote:
the number of incidents where no elt was on board where having onw would have made a difference
There have been several in the Netherlands, on national flights where aircraft where lost for hours. This means no medical attention for hours either.
Cobalt wrote:
the number of the above where having a PLB would have been insufficient
This will always be hard to proof. Fact is that an PLB doesn’t get activated automatically, and it doesn’t have a fixed location. An correctly programmed ELT is programmed such that SAR directly knows what kind of aircraft it is, which can help is selecting the correct measures for SAR.
AnthonyQ wrote:
In the cases where there were survivors it was posited that in some of those cases they could have activated a PLB… Personally, I woulf advocate having both…
Having both is the best. The problem with this discussion is that people try to compare to systems which can not be compared in a fair way. They have different advantages and disadvantages.
Whatever you have it programmed correctly and registered it correctly.
