A rather timely recommendation from the NTSB to the FAA (one wonders if the Steve Fossett incident had anything to do with its release just now).

In a Safety Recommendation released yesterday, the NTSB has once again recommended that the FAA require all aircraft to have 406 MHz ELTs. They first recommended this back in 2000 and after vigorous opposition by AOPA, the FAA declined to do so. The NTSB also recommended that this be required to be done by the February 1, 2009 end of 121.5 MHz satellite alerting.

I take a look at some of the issues and offer some opinions on my Equipped.org Blog:

http://www.equipped.org/blog/?p=70

They do require ELT's, just not 406 MHz models. The 406 MHz PLB's have more capability in getting you found than the 121.5 MHz ELTs installed in most GA aircraft.

If I understand this correctly, a 121.5 MHz ELT will continue to satisfy the FAA requirement for aircraft to carry an ELT even after satellites stop monitoring 121.5 MHz signals in 2009.

Tell me this isn't a government operation...

Here is link to the actual recommendation from the NTSB to the FAA:

Link

As the article on the Blog clearly states, 121.5 MHz ELTs are currently required.

That's exactly right. And, that's how it was until COSPAS-SARSAT came into being, which was well after 121.5 MHz ELTs were required. Satellite alerting is relatively recent in the grand scheme of things. So, while it is a big step backwards, but the system did function back then, albeit not as effectively.

However, the value of ELTs in general is a very open question that's not easily answered. Back in 2000 when the NTSB first recommended it and AOPA came unglued, the cost to convert was up near $5000. Their argument regarding the issue of the cost-benefit ratio carried a good deal of weight in the FAA's eventual decision not to require them. That was also well before a date was set to eliminate 121.5 MHz satellite alerting.

If folks will read the article and the linked reports, they will have a better understanding of the issues.

There is one thing here that I do not understand:- How is it that the manufacturer's are able to get away with marketing a product that has a 70% failure rate?

Is it a fixed Federal design or what?

By and large, it isn't a manufacturing quality issue. There are service issues and sometimes the battery is simply outdated and dead, despite FAA mandated inspections. Activation is by a g switch in a crash of an aircraft. That can be a rather violent sort of experience. Sometimes either the ELT or the Gz switch is simply destroyed, even though tested to 40Gz and in fire and all the rest. The ELT is connected to an antenna. If that cable is severed, it doesn't work so well. If the antenna is broken off, it also sort of doesn't work so well. If the aircraft ends up with the antenna under the wreckage, it doesn't transmit to the satellites. There's more ways for an ELT to fail than you can shake a stick at. The ELTs themselves are pretty darn robust and reliable, but they are just a part of the system and any single piece in the chain can cause a failure.

I thought Fossett had a wristwatch that worked like an ELT? Maybe I was mistaken, but in any case, I doubt that the signal it produces is good enough for anything more than line of sight, probably a lot less than that even.

There are such things as indefinite power storage devices (batteries that don't leak a charge until first use) and potted substrate circuits that can survive being shot out of a cannon, impact the earth, and still transmit a signal.

Someday I think we will have a gamma source transmitter that will constantly send a signal through water, earth, the hull of a ship, lead walls, which someone will be able to monitor. You won't have to worry about it shutting off or having the signal attenuated, but it might not be the healthiest thing to EDC.

It puts out about 10 Mw, which is just adequate to be picked up by the SARSAT satellites if the antenna and watch are properly positioned so it has a good ground plane. It has a reported range of 100 miles to an aircraft at 20,000 ft. It would likely be heard by any airline traffic overhead and monitoring 121.5 (which they are supposed to do and would especially if over the search area, if for no other reason than curiosity or interest in possibly helping find him) and with as many aircraft in the area monitoring the freq, it would almost certainly have been heard if he had deployed it.

I am not a big fan of the Brietling Emergency watch, but it is a far sight better than nothing, but it is nowhere near as effective as a PLB. I would never spend the money for one, but if someone gave it to me, I'd wear it. Ironic that he wasn't actually wearing it as most pilots I know who have one wear it all the time. It's also a status thing with them.

I suspect a lot of pilot husbands and boyfriends will be getting one this coming holiday. While not nearly as good publicity as if it saved him, no doubt Brietling will sell a ton from the publicity they are getting. I only hope the buyers realize hat they are buying and don't expect more than it can provide.

Wish somebody would buy me one. I could trade it in and get one of the newer PLBs -- I've got plenty of watches to tell time. Sad that of all times to leave it behind, he'd leave it when the world wasn't tracking his every move via satellite as he circled it one more time. Just a quick flight around the block. . . Most accidents happen within 25 miles of home.