REFLECTOR:ELT

[Scott Derrick]

My feelings about ELT's is that they are pretty useless.  When I was 
working as an ATC we got false alarms all the time.  Major pain in the 
ass. YOu can't ignore them even though your 99.9% sure its a false 
alarm. Usually set off by a hard landing, plane tied down or in the 
hanger, owner at home asleep.  It was stupid CYA legislation that made 
them a law.

Just so I don't get one of those 2am calls to unlock my plane because 
the damn ELT is going off I want a panel enunciator that lets me know if 
its bleeping.  So I can shut it up!

Also my emergency checklist for off field landing has "Activate ELT" on 
it. SUre enough it will set off if I blow a landing and bounce it in, 
but it won't go off if I off field it.

Most of the new 121.5 units have a telephone cord between the panel and 
the unit. Makes for easy running of the control wires.

Scott


KeithHallsten wrote:
> The ACK unit is probably a good way to go for now, unless you really 
> want an ELT that works; in that case you would have to spring $2500 or 
> so for a 406 MHz unit.  The 121.5/243 MHz units will no longer be 
> monitored after early 2009, so by then we'll all have to go to the 406 
> MHz units.  The hope is that the price on them will have dropped by then. 
>  
> The only airplane crash located by a 121.5 MHz ELT signal in the 48 
> contiguous states was a C-150 that crashed into the Pacific off Punta 
> Gorda, CA   There was one "save" in Hawaii, and several in Alaska, but 
> the probability of a 121.5 MHz ELT providing for a prompt rescue after a 
> crash is only marginally better than zero.  
> See  http://avweb.com/news/safety/184213-1.html
>  
> Keith
> 
>     ----- Original Message -----
>     From: Wayne Owens <mailto:wamowens@bellsouth.net>
>     To: reflector@tvbf.org <mailto:reflector@tvbf.org>
>     Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2003 3:44 PM
>     Subject: Re: REFLECTOR:ELT
> 
>     One of the cheapest  conforming ELTs from ACK has a very simple to
>     wire panel annunciator which will allow you to test and reset it
>     from the driver's seat. It also has an indicator light to let you
>     know it is activated.
>     Wayne
> 
>         ----- Original Message -----
>         From: KeithHallsten <mailto:KeithHallsten@quiknet.com>
>         To: reflector@tvbf.org <mailto:reflector@tvbf.org>
>         Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2003 6:06 PM
>         Subject: Re: REFLECTOR:ELT
> 
>         Considering the horrendous record of ELT's being very nearly
>         useless, I would think that you would want to spend as little on
>         this device as possible!!  There is no requirement for a panel
>         annunciator and switch.
>          
>         Keith
>          
> 
>             ----- Original Message -----
>             From: Donald Royer <mailto:djroyer@earthlink.net>
>             To: reflector@tvbf.org <mailto:reflector@tvbf.org>
>             Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2003 1:49 PM
>             Subject: Re: REFLECTOR:ELT
> 
>             Considering the very bad record of ELT's not being
>             automatically triggered in accidents. I would think that one
>             would certainly want a remote switch on the panel for
>             safety's sake whether it is required or not.
>              
>             Don
> 
>                 ----- Original Message -----
>                 From: Tom Martino <mailto:tmartino@troubleshooter.com>
>                 To: reflector@www.tvbf.org <mailto:reflector@www.tvbf.org>
>                 Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2003 1:32 PM
>                 Subject: REFLECTOR:ELT
> 
>                 I can’t seem to get a consistent answer on experimentals
>                 and ELT requirements.  Do we have to have a panel
>                 annunciator and a remote switch on the panel?  Or can we
>                 use a completely self contained unit and tuck it behind
>                 the trim panel at the rear firewall? 
> 
>                  
>