Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 12:19 pmHi guys
This is for a project I'm working on (well actually it's for an article). I'm basing my article on 406 MHz beacons, and comparing them to the older 121.5 beacons from a satellite perspective. During my research, I've stumbled across what could be a somewhat interesting deviation: The views of those who actively work in the industry on this subject.
Here's a few of the points I've picked up thus far
1) 121.5MHz is embarrassingly bad when compared to 406MHz from a satellite perspective, and satellite monitoring of it was ceased in february this year to try and reduce unnecessary searches
2) In reality, 406MHz is really only better when the beacon is at least registered (compulsory), and more so when linked to a GPS
3) 406MHz ELTs are comparitively more expensive than 121.5 was, which has upset a number of aircraft owners, particularly those who had only recently bought a new 121.5 beacon
4) Real-time tracking systems exist, but fail to be recognised by powers such as ICAO, therefore, will probably not be considered as a replacement for ELTs in the forseeable future
5) The combination of points 3 and 4 have made a number of owners bring up the case of ZK-HTF, which went down with one of the best 406MHz beacons available at the time but was not detectable by satellites as the antenna had broken off during impact.
What's the general feeling around this subject whenever it comes up around your local aeroclub/workplace/tower/whatever ?
What I'm hoping to find out is why it took such a drastic measure to get users to move away from 121.5-only beacons, when 406 has outperformed them for a number of years. Is there some resistance to them in the GA sector?
Any comments are appreciated.
Richard
This is for a project I'm working on (well actually it's for an article). I'm basing my article on 406 MHz beacons, and comparing them to the older 121.5 beacons from a satellite perspective. During my research, I've stumbled across what could be a somewhat interesting deviation: The views of those who actively work in the industry on this subject.
Here's a few of the points I've picked up thus far
1) 121.5MHz is embarrassingly bad when compared to 406MHz from a satellite perspective, and satellite monitoring of it was ceased in february this year to try and reduce unnecessary searches
2) In reality, 406MHz is really only better when the beacon is at least registered (compulsory), and more so when linked to a GPS
3) 406MHz ELTs are comparitively more expensive than 121.5 was, which has upset a number of aircraft owners, particularly those who had only recently bought a new 121.5 beacon
4) Real-time tracking systems exist, but fail to be recognised by powers such as ICAO, therefore, will probably not be considered as a replacement for ELTs in the forseeable future
5) The combination of points 3 and 4 have made a number of owners bring up the case of ZK-HTF, which went down with one of the best 406MHz beacons available at the time but was not detectable by satellites as the antenna had broken off during impact.
What's the general feeling around this subject whenever it comes up around your local aeroclub/workplace/tower/whatever ?
What I'm hoping to find out is why it took such a drastic measure to get users to move away from 121.5-only beacons, when 406 has outperformed them for a number of years. Is there some resistance to them in the GA sector?
Any comments are appreciated.
Richard