ELT on Expermentals

[bbryan]

I think I must have been in the woods too long. I didn't think it was required to have an ELT in an experimental but I'm reading otherwise. Not that its a bad idea just tring to get everything for the DAR. What are other folks doing?

[bbryan]

By the way, my plane building is more impressive than my spelling. Just Saying, cause I know by now some of you are getting a little nervous about this whole plane thing.
Pic are coming soon.

[Danzer1]

Yes, it is a requirement. Would plan on a 406MHz unit as 121.5MHz is useless, as that frequency has not been monitored since 2009.

[Esser]

We are going with 121.5 but in combination with a Spot to keep in the plane. Although not officially monitored, 121.5 is monitored by every single airliner and most commercial operators.

[Danzer1]

121.5 is monitored by every single airliner and most commercial operators.

Only monitored by other aircraft IF they have a 121.5 receiver and it is operational and its not required, done as a courtesy only. Most commercial operators only during operating hours and you happen to go down within 6 miles of them (range of transmitter).

121.5 good to a 1200km search area. 406 to 12.5km search area.

121.5 no coded signal (can't tell if false alarm). 406 is coded to the aircraft so they can call to check on status before deploying S&R.

IMHO, I wouldn't waste my money on a 121.5 - eventually the 406's will be mandatory anyway (maybe soon).

May be a little different in Canada, but the OP is in the USA.

[avidflyer]

FAR 91.207 discusses the requirement for ELTs. Paragraphs e and f list situations where an ELT is not required. About 10 different ones listed, such as a single seat aircraft, ect. Experimentals are not exempted by this list. Jim Chuk

[Danzer1]

I should also add, even if a commercial airliner had an operational 121.5 receiver, most fly between 30-40k feet. So unless they flew directly overhead, they would likely be out of range of a 121.5 transmitters range (approx 6 miles on a good day).

Also should add, there are many ground based devices that give off random 121.5MHz signals - like microwave towers - so many "false alarms" resulting in many being ignored altogether until a plane is reported missing! The main reason for switching to the better 406's.

As a side note, the USCG did not give watercraft a choice - 406's are mandatory for seagoing vessels.

[Timberwolf]

Danzer,

You are way off on how radio transmitters work. All military aircraft are still required to monitor 121.5 and your theory on the 40K thing for airliners is false. If that were the case, satellites would never have been able to monitor 121.5. I don't disagree that 406mhz transmitters are the way to go, but please don't spread trash on a subject you have little knowledge about.

[Renard]

Commercial airlines aircraft usually have two vhf transceivers. One is used for ATC communications and the other monitors ARINC (Aeronautical Radio) which is a private company that connects the individual company with the aircraft) 121.5 is simply not monitored.

[jrevens]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe I read that you must use a 406 unit on a new installation. If your aircraft was previously legally airworthy with 121.5, then you can still replace it with a new 121.5 unit, for now. This is in the USA of course.
Also, if your aircraft is a single place machine, you don't need an ELT. That's how it used to be anyway.