FCC rules old 121.5 ELT no longer can be used.

[Carl Prather]

I wonder just how many times an ELT actually made a difference in saving lives. While I can imagine a time or place for their use, most of the time I personally don't feel safer flying a small airplane with an ELT installed. ELTs are not like extra fuel, extra runway, a few knots extra speed, or better yet, well-controlled airspeed, well-coordinated turns, or the willingness to land promptly or stay grounded if there is poor weather or if a pilot is not good condition to fly. ELTs simply do not seem to carry the same measure of prudence as preceding examples. It would be interesting what statistics have been kept, if any.

Carl Prather

[Captgrumps]

I have witnessed four aircraft accidents--no fatal--first question the FAA investigator asked--did the ELT activate--the answer was NO in all four cses. I could see ELT's required if on is flying in the boonies or isolatd areas--but to fly locally in most areas they are just extra weight. I have a private strip and lost track of how many times the CAP cadets have called or come by to check on ELT's going off on aircraft sitting in the hangars. Fortunately it was none. If I flew in never land I would have an ELT and personal beacon and the government would not have to tell me to have one. Before the deadline, if it goes through, remove your 121.5 ELT per 91.207, have a log book entry made, "ELT Not Installed" sent for repair and fly for 90 days--maybe by then government agencies will get some sense and talk to each other.

Doug

[Nathan K. Hammond]

The ELT requirement came from congress after the 1972 crash of U.S. Representative Hale Boggs and Nick Begich who were never found. The good 'ol guvment and their knee jerk reactions.

Personally I'll do what Doug says; remove per 91.207. And every 90 days make a note in the logs that it was installed and then removed again. Once the FCC and FAA get their collective heads de-assed, I'll make the necessary changes.

In all seriousness; I don't rely on ATC, CAP or any other resource for my Search and Rescue needs. I always have a flight plan filed with a family member; because they have a better reason to look after me... I hope. And now days, with the advent of Satphone's, SPOT, Spidertracks, and PLB's; their ability to track and follow my progress is as good or better than ATC.

Carl; I've witnessed 8 accidents with serious damage; only once did an ELT trip and that was a fatality, so it's not like it would have saved them anyway. According to AOPA "ELT's have an activation rate of less than 25 percent in actual crashes and a 97 percent false-alarm rate."

nkh

[jc pacquin]

many of you, by the way you write about technical things, are obviously very bright about things like this. One or more of you should be able to dope out a simple gps (inexpensive) type unit that would suffice. The current ELT apparently is and has been almost worthless. Something the size of a cell phone with a longer antenna, mounted in the plane should do the job shouldn't it? JP

[joea]

JP,

The problem is not in simply making a unit, its getting it past all of the testing and hoops that the FAA forces you to jump through.

JoeA

[Larry]

Joe is right...make your own, but it must meet TSO C-91a (old 121.5 ELT) or TSO C-126 (new 406 EPIRB). Those require the G switch, hard case to withstand impact, sinking, fire, etc.

If you have an old Narco ELT-10, notice that when you remove the old battery every two years, that 80% of the ELT is made up of the battery. Only the small top piece is the actual ELT electronics, switch, etc.

Look carefully at FAR 91.207 sub para. (f) and maybe you can find a way to fit your airplane into one of those 11 categories that don't require an ELT. Perhaps if you were to carry a spray can of Raid and open the side window to squirt out a burst of bug killer, you could qualify as "aerial application of chemicals".

[jc pacquin]

The reg. about single pilot, like in a clip wing, doesn't need to have an ELT is typical of the FAA as it makes no sense whatsoever!JP