Jesse wrote:
Whatever you have it programmed correctly and registered it correctly.
Yes. And to continue the Australian comparison, for flights where the carriage us required, a PLB must be registered with AMSA (SAR Authority) and is subject to the same testing and battery replacement regime as a fixed ELT. An EPIRB (emergency position indicating radio beacon) is recommended rather than a simple PLB. No beacon is required if staying within 50nm of the airfield of departure… There used to be a requirement for HF radio or a beacon if operating in a Designated Remote Area…they’ve done away with the HF only option now…
Another important point to note is that part NCO does not allow any PLB. Have a look at that when you buy a PLB.
Jesse wrote:
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.
If only national authorities would not make it a top priority to circumvent the intent of European regulation by making all these clever national rules…
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.
Apart from bureaucracy, what would prevent a PLB programmed like this?
The problem with this discussion is that people try to compare to systems which can not be compared in a fair way.
I think these two systems have very similar goals and can be compared fairly and directly. I personally think that with modern technology it would be very easy to come up with a solution that is both cheaper than either and would provide vastly better functionality.
Another important point to note is that part NCO does not allow any PLB. Have a look at that when you buy a PLB.
Any suggestions where to look for such a device? All I find on the internet are American PLBs that are only for use by US citizens.
Here , perhaps? Kanad is a French company.
JnsV wrote:
Any suggestions where to look for such a device? All I find on the internet are American PLBs that are only for use by US citizens.
Any European pilot shop can supply a PLB-EPIRB for registration in any nominated country
Peter_Mundy wrote:
Any European pilot shop can supply a PLB-EPIRB for registration in any nominated country
But why do I need an intermediary here? Why is it not possible to simply buy this highly advanced piece of technology online, supply the necessary data for programming and receive the device programmed?
You can do, and in fact I bought this one directly from the USA.
I then registered it with the US NOAA, who will do it (with a non US address) but they do remind you that ideally you should do it locally.
Jesse has since had that unit to change the battery pack, and I hereby authorise him to comment on what he found 
JnsV wrote:
I think these two systems have very similar goals and can be compared fairly and directly.
I do not agree on that one:
Pro PLB:
- Low pricing
- You can take it with you, depending on country you can even take it in multiple aircraft
- Can work in water as long as you keep antenna out of the water, and keep the GPS antenna facing up.
Con PLB:
- You MUST activate it manually, therefore you must either activate before impact, or you must still be able to activate it after impact.
- You must have access to the PLB, so you should find a good point, where you can still find your PLB after a crash
- Antenna and battery are quite small, less performance. Inside the aircraft, especially an aluminium one might suffer from screening.
Pro ELT:
- Automatic activation on impact, so even activation when your unable to activate
- Manual activation also possible from pilots seated position
- Programming data supplies SAR with information on YOUR aircraft
- Better antenna as long as antenna is upright
Con ELT:
- When the aircraft is flipped over in water, the ELT is as good as useless.
- Fixed to aircraft
It depens on the kind of operation. Ideally you would have both.
From the Kannad PLB usermanual:
bq. Aviation
The PLB is not designed for activation aboard an aircraft although they are often used as an additional carry – off safety device.
JnsV wrote:
I personally think that with modern technology it would be very easy to come up with a solution that is both cheaper than either and would provide vastly better functionality.
You are free to design such a device. If it would work better and has a better pricing then you would have an excellent product which will sell very well.
JnsV wrote:
Apart from bureaucracy, what would prevent a PLB programmed like this?
There are several different programming methods for these kind of products (PLB / ELT / EPIRB). Not all of them can do all of the functions. Most PLB’s are programmed with the PLB serial number. Then there is no automatic feedback on which aircraft, other then to have it looked up.
JnsV wrote:
Any suggestions where to look for such a device?
As your avionics shop advised, Kannad are good quality products. I have had issues with them, but use them the most, and they have had the lowest number of issues on them.
Peter_Mundy wrote:
Any European pilot shop can supply a PLB-EPIRB for registration in any nominated country
Correct. Again, whatever you choose, make it is programmed correctly and that you have registered it correctly.
When the beacon will activate the SAR will look into the register and try to find more information by phone first. If no information is registered they will try to find who is the owner before taking SAR action. Needles to say this can take hours while your life is at risk. Take programming AND registration seriously.
JnsV wrote:
Why is it not possible to simply buy this highly advanced piece of technology online, supply the necessary data for programming and receive the device programmed?
Because any (good) dealer will give you background information, and will help you in getting the correct product for you situation, with correct programming and correct registration, such that is a usefull product. Any good dealer will also have equipment to test your equipment, and verifiy that it functions ok, and it is programmed correctly.
Peter wrote:
You can do, and in fact I bought this one directly from the USA.
Why buy a French product all the way from the USA?
Jesse wrote:
I asked the Dutch CAA about this, and they will keep their requirement active
The question is if that requirement is still valid when part-NCO comes into force.
