ELT Message From FAA

On 9/7/2007 9:37:43 AM, cjcampbell wrote:

Why bother with new batteries if the thing won't work and is no longer
required? Just yank it out.

The 121.5 MHz ELT will still broadcast the emergency tone on that frequency
after the cutoff date and there will still be overflying aircraft monitoring
121.5, no? Granted that odds of being located by ELT after an off-airport
landing just lowered in this case, but removing the unit altogether reduces
those odds to zero.

--
Peter

I got a McMurdo Fastfind Plus PLB about 2 years ago because I was going to
be flying over the same Nevada countryside where SF disappeared. I'll
upgrade to a 406 MHz ELT as suggested by FAA. No need to die while waiting
for someone to hear a 121.5 beacon.

--
Best Regards,
Mike

http://photoshow.comcast.net/mikenoel

A frog in a well does not know the great sea.
"Ron Lee" wrote in message
...
"Peter R." wrote:

On 9/6/2007 6:34:59 PM, wrote:

Anyone know current prices on the 400 MHz replacements?

I had to replace my ELT about four months ago and at the time the only
400MHz
ELT that I could locate was Artex's model. The price back in May was
around
US $1,100 for the unit.

After a phone conversation with an ACK representative and given that I
carry
a McMurdo handheld PLB with GPS in the aircraft, I opted to purchase an
ACK
E-01 121.5 MHz for US $210 and wait for their 400 MHz unit, which is
supposed
to be significantly cheaper than Artex's unit and will drop right into the
same mounting bracket as the E-01.

--
Peter

I also have the McMurdo Fastfind Plus PLB.

Ron Lee

Not too long ago, a friend of mine had an off airport landing in his
helicopter, better make that a crash. His helicopter was destroyed on a
hill with a direct line of sight to the local airport. He suffered only a
sprain but had to walk out several miles to get cell phone coverage. All
this time the ELT was pinging away. When we got to the crash site several
hours later, we turned the ELT off. No one responded to the ELT signal. It
seems that he had been carrying around a device that is normally ignored due
to its false alarm rate. Since the ELTs are not required on aircraft, just
airplanes, I've removed mine and depend on the cell phone and my legs. I
think that my friends ELT provided just a false sense of security and in his
particular case, nothing else.

--
Stuart & Kathryn Fields, Publishers
Experimental Helo magazine
P. O. Box 1585
Inyokern, CA 93527
(760) 377-4478 ph
(760) 408-9747 publication cell
(760) 608-1299 technical cell
www.experimentalhelo.com
www.vkss.com


"Mike Noel" wrote in message
...
I got a McMurdo Fastfind Plus PLB about 2 years ago because I was going to
be flying over the same Nevada countryside where SF disappeared. I'll
upgrade to a 406 MHz ELT as suggested by FAA. No need to die while waiting
for someone to hear a 121.5 beacon.

--
Best Regards,
Mike

http://photoshow.comcast.net/mikenoel

A frog in a well does not know the great sea.
"Ron Lee" wrote in message
...
"Peter R." wrote:

On 9/6/2007 6:34:59 PM, wrote:

Anyone know current prices on the 400 MHz replacements?

I had to replace my ELT about four months ago and at the time the only
400MHz
ELT that I could locate was Artex's model. The price back in May was
around
US $1,100 for the unit.

After a phone conversation with an ACK representative and given that I
carry
a McMurdo handheld PLB with GPS in the aircraft, I opted to purchase an
ACK
E-01 121.5 MHz for US $210 and wait for their 400 MHz unit, which is
supposed
to be significantly cheaper than Artex's unit and will drop right into
the
same mounting bracket as the E-01.

--
Peter

I also have the McMurdo Fastfind Plus PLB.

Ron Lee

Stuart & Kathryn Fields wrote:
Not too long ago, a friend of mine had an off airport landing in his
helicopter, better make that a crash. His helicopter was destroyed on a
hill with a direct line of sight to the local airport. He suffered only a
sprain but had to walk out several miles to get cell phone coverage. All
this time the ELT was pinging away. When we got to the crash site several
hours later, we turned the ELT off. No one responded to the ELT signal. It
seems that he had been carrying around a device that is normally ignored due
to its false alarm rate. Since the ELTs are not required on aircraft, just
airplanes, I've removed mine and depend on the cell phone and my legs. I
think that my friends ELT provided just a false sense of security and in his
particular case, nothing else.



FAA Technicians and/or the FCC did respond all the time to
ELT signals. FAA staffing is no longer available because all
of the FAA technicians have been replaced by the new FAA
with big bubble butt black women on civil rights staffs
hanging out on the phone or at the local KFC ****ing off on
your IRS tax dime

That is why FAA ELT response has stopped. FAA priorities
have changed from aviation safety to "Kissing the Black
Ass". The false alarm scenario is bull**** to cover for
their ****ed up priorities and reduced staffing.

NoneYa wrote:
Stuart & Kathryn Fields wrote:
Not too long ago, a friend of mine had an off airport landing in his
helicopter, better make that a crash. His helicopter was destroyed on
a hill with a direct line of sight to the local airport. He suffered
only a sprain but had to walk out several miles to get cell phone
coverage. All this time the ELT was pinging away. When we got to the
crash site several hours later, we turned the ELT off. No one
responded to the ELT signal. It seems that he had been carrying
around a device that is normally ignored due to its false alarm rate.
Since the ELTs are not required on aircraft, just airplanes, I've
removed mine and depend on the cell phone and my legs. I think that
my friends ELT provided just a false sense of security and in his
particular case, nothing else.



FAA Technicians and/or the FCC did respond all the time to ELT signals.
FAA staffing is no longer available because all of the FAA technicians
have been replaced by the new FAA with big bubble butt black women on
civil rights staffs hanging out on the phone or at the local KFC ****ing
off on your IRS tax dime

That is why FAA ELT response has stopped. FAA priorities have changed
from aviation safety to "Kissing the Black Ass". The false alarm
scenario is bull**** to cover for their ****ed up priorities and reduced
staffing.

How long have you been lusting after large black girls?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 14:19:47 -0500, Dan wrote in
:


How long have you been lusting after large black girls?

What makes you think she likes girls? :-)

The "old" style, 121.5 units are not necessarily just "a glorified boat
anchor". All of our SAR aircraft still have the VHF trackers installed that
still work very well. The satellites are being switched over to UHF because
the system was completely saturated before. The friend with the helicopter
only needed to wait for enough of the bogus signals to fade or be turned off
before his call could be handled. Sort of like being put on hold when you
call the fire department.

We will still get a call-out based on an overflight (or two or three)
reporting a VHF signal. Just because the Satellites don't hear the signal
doesn't mean that everyone gave up. In parallel with the FAA announcement we
received an admonishment to constantly monitor Guard.


--
Jim Carter
Rogers, Arkansas

Sorry to disapoint you but the FAA does not and never did respond to ELT
signals. The flight service station people do check airports for lost
and missing or overdue aircraft but the search is left to the US Coast
Guard if the elt is wet and the US Air Force/Civil Air Patrol if dry.

Both organizations continue to respond to any and all ELT/EPIRB signals.
This mission will not change with the closure of COSPAS/SARSAT. The 406
mhz signals will provice quicker, more precise position reports that
will result in more rescues and fewer errors.

Dave N

NoneYa wrote:
Stuart & Kathryn Fields wrote:

Not too long ago, a friend of mine had an off airport landing in his
helicopter, better make that a crash. His helicopter was destroyed on
a hill with a direct line of sight to the local airport. He suffered
only a sprain but had to walk out several miles to get cell phone
coverage. All this time the ELT was pinging away. When we got to the
crash site several hours later, we turned the ELT off. No one
responded to the ELT signal. It seems that he had been carrying
around a device that is normally ignored due to its false alarm rate.
Since the ELTs are not required on aircraft, just airplanes, I've
removed mine and depend on the cell phone and my legs. I think that
my friends ELT provided just a false sense of security and in his
particular case, nothing else.



FAA Technicians and/or the FCC did respond all the time to ELT signals.
FAA staffing is no longer available because all of the FAA technicians
have been replaced by the new FAA with big bubble butt black women on
civil rights staffs hanging out on the phone or at the local KFC ****ing
off on your IRS tax dime

That is why FAA ELT response has stopped. FAA priorities have changed
from aviation safety to "Kissing the Black Ass". The false alarm
scenario is bull**** to cover for their ****ed up priorities and reduced
staffing.

Yes they did with mobile DF's if they were pinging around an
airport. I used to see them all the time running around
after AT bitched about them going off. Yes a real crash was
the CAP or Coast Guard but the false alarms were mostly FAA
techs looking for them.


David G. Nagel wrote:
Sorry to disapoint you but the FAA does not and never did respond to ELT
signals. The flight service station people do check airports for lost
and missing or overdue aircraft but the search is left to the US Coast
Guard if the elt is wet and the US Air Force/Civil Air Patrol if dry.

Both organizations continue to respond to any and all ELT/EPIRB signals.
This mission will not change with the closure of COSPAS/SARSAT. The 406
mhz signals will provice quicker, more precise position reports that
will result in more rescues and fewer errors.

Dave N

NoneYa wrote:
Stuart & Kathryn Fields wrote:

Not too long ago, a friend of mine had an off airport landing in his
helicopter, better make that a crash. His helicopter was destroyed
on a hill with a direct line of sight to the local airport. He
suffered only a sprain but had to walk out several miles to get cell
phone coverage. All this time the ELT was pinging away. When we got
to the crash site several hours later, we turned the ELT off. No one
responded to the ELT signal. It seems that he had been carrying
around a device that is normally ignored due to its false alarm
rate. Since the ELTs are not required on aircraft, just airplanes,
I've removed mine and depend on the cell phone and my legs. I think
that my friends ELT provided just a false sense of security and in
his particular case, nothing else.



FAA Technicians and/or the FCC did respond all the time to ELT
signals. FAA staffing is no longer available because all of the FAA
technicians have been replaced by the new FAA with big bubble butt
black women on civil rights staffs hanging out on the phone or at the
local KFC ****ing off on your IRS tax dime

That is why FAA ELT response has stopped. FAA priorities have changed
from aviation safety to "Kissing the Black Ass". The false alarm
scenario is bull**** to cover for their ****ed up priorities and
reduced staffing.

David G. Nagel wrote:
Sorry to disapoint you but the FAA does not and never did respond to ELT
signals.


You don't know what you're talking about. We always have and always
will. If we hear a signal or are told about a signal we start the search.


the search is left to the US Air Force/Civil Air Patrol if dry.


Maybe. In Montana and a few other states we do the search with our own
resources and the Air force is merely a back up.