Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:43 AM - Re: Re: ELT and ELT antenna placement (Patrick Thyssen)
2. 02:28 AM - Re: Re: ELT and ELT antenna placement (Carlos Trigo)
3. 02:57 AM - Re: Re: ELT and ELT antenna placement (Bob Leffler)
4. 05:46 AM - Re: ELT and ELT antenna placement (johngoodman)
5. 06:19 AM - Re: Re: ELT and ELT antenna placement (Linn Walters)
6. 06:31 AM - Re: Re: ELT and ELT antenna placement (Tim Olson)
7. 06:48 AM - Re: Re: ELT and ELT antenna placement (Kelly McMullen)
8. 07:02 AM - Re: Re: ELT and ELT antenna placement (Tim Olson)
9. 10:13 AM - APRS (Albert)
10. 11:34 AM - Re: APRS (Tim Olson)
11. 01:41 PM - Re: APRS (Kelly McMullen)
12. 01:59 PM - Re: APRS (Tim Olson)
13. 02:05 PM - Re: APRS (David Carr)
14. 05:03 PM - Re: ELT and ELT antenna placement (tsts4)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: ELT and ELT antenna placement |
I'll stand by my previous statement.
Sent from my iPad
> On Jun 14, 2017, at 10:17 PM, Kelly McMullen <apilot2@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm not sure who is convinced that the TSO approvals make the ELT any bett
er a transmitter installed as directed than some other way. Engineering data
? Who says there is anything behind the TSO than that was how they chose to t
est it? Has anyone any reliable data on ELT antenna integrity after crashes?
Whether the antenna was positioned for maximum effectiveness? We do know th
at aircraft with first generation ELTs are still legal to use them, in spite
of a record of high 90% false alarming. Not to mention G switches that freq
uently fail to activate. Second generation ELTs are still 121.5/243.0 only a
nd legal to install in any aircraft. Neither frequency is satellite monitore
d anymore.
> All data shows 406 ELTs give better position information than the previous
generations, but no mandate to use them. Sure, vertical works better if you
know the antenna will be in that position after the crash. If a plane plant
s its nose in soft dirt, the vertical antenna will be horizontal, for a sub-
optimal transmission.
> I personally knew a forum member who crashed and most of his family surviv
ed overnight in freezing/snowy conditions until found 12 hours later, due to
crappy 121.5 unit bouncing signals off mountains..but all but a few kids di
ed from exposure. A 406 unit might have saved them.
> However, there are a lot of other factors.
> Accusing someone of putting others at risk....there is the huge warning th
at it is an experimental plane and the big Experimental label telling the pa
ssengers that the aircraft does not meet federal standards. Does it matter w
hether the ELT is perfect when you have an engine that isn't certified, comb
ined with a prop that isn't certified, etc. etc? We could require air bags, s
urvival packs, life jackets, rafts, etc.
>
> -sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm
>
>> On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 7:46 PM, Patrick Thyssen <jump2@sbcglobal.net> wr
ote:
>>
>> > That's exactly why I quit working on other people planes. You become Go
d, who knows all. You do not have the right to take other people lives in yo
ur hands because you think, I don't like a antenna there,it costs me 1/2 mph
or it looks cool with out it. You may wish you had it,god forbidding you ha
ve an accident and that elt might ,just might save you if it was install acc
ording to the way the engineers wanted them to be. Give me data that says th
e elt works Barried in the tail. Then I'll say ok. Until you have engineerin
g data I'll continue to fight about putting it in the tail.
>>
>> Just my two cents.
>> Yes I have been in a couple of high impacts, wear seat belts & shoulder h
arness it's not a fun time when you need them.
>> Excuse me.
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> > On Jun 14, 2017, at 5:32 PM, Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com> wrote
:
>> >
>> >
>> > You are absolutely correct. Not to mention that you can change anything
you want as soon as the DAR leaves the premises.
>> >
>> >> On 6/14/2017 2:29 PM, Bob Turner wrote:
>> >> Hey guys,
>> >> I think we need to take it a bit easier with the DARs. After all, they
are direct or indirect FAA employees, and their job is to see to it that th
e rules are obeyed. The rules say the ELT has to be TSO'd, and the TSO detai
ls antenna mounting. I certainly wish the rules all ended with, "...but use c
ommon sense or good judgement....". But that is certainly not the FAA way. S
o complain - but the complaints should go to the FAA.
>> >> Not to change the subject, but I hope everyone has noted the latest FA
A craziness: If you now are flying under BasicMed you may act as PIC; but yo
u may not act as a required safety pilot if the PIC is under the hood. Where
's the logic in that?
>> >> --------
>> >> Bob Turner
>> >> RV-10 QB
>> >> Read this topic online here:
>> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=470131#470131
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> =========================
>> -List" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navi
gator?RV10-List
>> =========================
>> FORUMS -
>> eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
>> =========================
>> WIKI -
>> errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com
>> =========================
>> b Site -
>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>> rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contributio
n
>> =========================
>
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: ELT and ELT antenna placement |
Gentleman
When I started this thread, I did forget to say that I didn't want to start t
he ELT wars, so please, you don't need to keep going on.
Just answer my initial questions, where did you install your ELT, if any, an
d the ELT antenna.
You may add the reasons why.
Thanks to all who already answered.
Carlos
Enviado do meu iPhone
No dia 15/06/2017, =C3-s 09:39, Patrick Thyssen <jump2@sbcglobal.net> escr
eveu:
> I'll stand by my previous statement.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>> On Jun 14, 2017, at 10:17 PM, Kelly McMullen <apilot2@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I'm not sure who is convinced that the TSO approvals make the ELT any bet
ter a transmitter installed as directed than some other way. Engineering dat
a? Who says there is anything behind the TSO than that was how they chose to
test it? Has anyone any reliable data on ELT antenna integrity after crashe
s? Whether the antenna was positioned for maximum effectiveness? We do know t
hat aircraft with first generation ELTs are still legal to use them, in spit
e of a record of high 90% false alarming. Not to mention G switches that fre
quently fail to activate. Second generation ELTs are still 121.5/243.0 only a
nd legal to install in any aircraft. Neither frequency is satellite monitore
d anymore.
>> All data shows 406 ELTs give better position information than the previou
s generations, but no mandate to use them. Sure, vertical works better if yo
u know the antenna will be in that position after the crash. If a plane plan
ts its nose in soft dirt, the vertical antenna will be horizontal, for a sub
-optimal transmission.
>> I personally knew a forum member who crashed and most of his family survi
ved overnight in freezing/snowy conditions until found 12 hours later, due t
o crappy 121.5 unit bouncing signals off mountains..but all but a few kids d
ied from exposure. A 406 unit might have saved them.
>> However, there are a lot of other factors.
>> Accusing someone of putting others at risk....there is the huge warning t
hat it is an experimental plane and the big Experimental label telling the p
assengers that the aircraft does not meet federal standards. Does it matter w
hether the ELT is perfect when you have an engine that isn't certified, comb
ined with a prop that isn't certified, etc. etc? We could require air bags, s
urvival packs, life jackets, rafts, etc.
>>
>> -sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm
>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 7:46 PM, Patrick Thyssen <jump2@sbcglobal.net> w
rote:
>>>
>>> > That's exactly why I quit working on other people planes. You become G
od, who knows all. You do not have the right to take other people lives in y
our hands because you think, I don't like a antenna there,it costs me 1/2 mp
h or it looks cool with out it. You may wish you had it,god forbidding you h
ave an accident and that elt might ,just might save you if it was install ac
cording to the way the engineers wanted them to be. Give me data that says t
he elt works Barried in the tail. Then I'll say ok. Until you have engineeri
ng data I'll continue to fight about putting it in the tail.
>>>
>>> Just my two cents.
>>> Yes I have been in a couple of high impacts, wear seat belts & shoulder
harness it's not a fun time when you need them.
>>> Excuse me.
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>
>>> > On Jun 14, 2017, at 5:32 PM, Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com> wrot
e:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > You are absolutely correct. Not to mention that you can change anythin
g you want as soon as the DAR leaves the premises.
>>> >
>>> >> On 6/14/2017 2:29 PM, Bob Turner wrote:
>
>>> >> Hey guys,
>>> >> I think we need to take it a bit easier with the DARs. After all, the
y are direct or indirect FAA employees, and their job is to see to it that t
he rules are obeyed. The rules say the ELT has to be TSO'd, and the TSO deta
ils antenna mounting. I certainly wish the rules all ended with, "...but use
common sense or good judgement....". But that is certainly not the FAA way.
So complain - but the complaints should go to the FAA.
>>> >> Not to change the subject, but I hope everyone has noted the latest FA
A craziness: If you now are flying under BasicMed you may act as PIC; but yo
u may not act as a required safety pilot if the PIC is under the hood. Where
's the logic in that?
>>> >> --------
>>> >> Bob Turner
>>> >> RV-10 QB
>>> >> Read this topic online here:
>>> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=470131#470131
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>> ========================
===========
>>> -List" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Nav
igator?RV10-List
>>> ========================
===========
>>> FORUMS -
>>> eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
>>> ========================
===========
>>> WIKI -
>>> errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com
>>> ========================
===========
>>> b Site -
>>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>>> rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contributi
on
>>> ========================
===========
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: ELT and ELT antenna placement |
I installed my antenna on top just in front of the vertical stabilizer per
the manufacturer's plans. The ELT is mounted to the sidewall just behind t
he baggage bulkhead.
My reasoning is that nobody can predict the state of the aircraft once it's
back on the ground. It may be upside down, right side up, or any position
in between. It may be whole, or it may be torn apart upon impact. I am
of the belief that speculation on the final state is an exercise in futili
ty.
With that said, as soon as I declare an emergency, I'm hitting that little
red button to set off the ELT. My hopes that whatever time left, it's tra
nsmitting my location all the way to the ground. Having it installed per
the manufacturere's instructions should yield the most gain out of the ant
enna so that the signal has a better chance of being heard.
Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com <owner-rv10-list-server@matronic
s.com> on behalf of Carlos Trigo <trigo@mail.telepac.pt>
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2017 5:27:36 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: ELT and ELT antenna placement
Gentleman
When I started this thread, I did forget to say that I didn't want to start
the ELT wars, so please, you don't need to keep going on.
Just answer my initial questions, where did you install your ELT, if any, a
nd the ELT antenna.
You may add the reasons why.
Thanks to all who already answered.
Carlos
Enviado do meu iPhone
No dia 15/06/2017, =E0s 09:39, Patrick Thyssen <jump2@sbcglobal.net<mailto:
jump2@sbcglobal.net>> escreveu:
I'll stand by my previous statement.
Sent from my iPad
On Jun 14, 2017, at 10:17 PM, Kelly McMullen <apilot2@gmail.com<mailto:apil
ot2@gmail.com>> wrote:
I'm not sure who is convinced that the TSO approvals make the ELT any bette
r a transmitter installed as directed than some other way. Engineering data
? Who says there is anything behind the TSO than that was how they chose to
test it? Has anyone any reliable data on ELT antenna integrity after crash
es? Whether the antenna was positioned for maximum effectiveness? We do kno
w that aircraft with first generation ELTs are still legal to use them, in
spite of a record of high 90% false alarming. Not to mention G switches tha
t frequently fail to activate. Second generation ELTs are still 121.5/243.0
only and legal to install in any aircraft. Neither frequency is satellite
monitored anymore.
All data shows 406 ELTs give better position information than the previous
generations, but no mandate to use them. Sure, vertical works better if you
know the antenna will be in that position after the crash. If a plane plan
ts its nose in soft dirt, the vertical antenna will be horizontal, for a su
b-optimal transmission.
I personally knew a forum member who crashed and most of his family survive
d overnight in freezing/snowy conditions until found 12 hours later, due to
crappy 121.5 unit bouncing signals off mountains..but all but a few kids d
ied from exposure. A 406 unit might have saved them.
However, there are a lot of other factors.
Accusing someone of putting others at risk....there is the huge warning tha
t it is an experimental plane and the big Experimental label telling the pa
ssengers that the aircraft does not meet federal standards. Does it matter
whether the ELT is perfect when you have an engine that isn't certified, co
mbined with a prop that isn't certified, etc. etc? We could require air bag
s, survival packs, life jackets, rafts, etc.
-sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm
On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 7:46 PM, Patrick Thyssen <jump2@sbcglobal.net<mailt
o:jump2@sbcglobal.net>> wrote:
o:jump2@sbcglobal.net>>
> That's exactly why I quit working on other people planes. You become God,
who knows all. You do not have the right to take other people lives in you
r hands because you think, I don't like a antenna there,it costs me 1/2 mph
or it looks cool with out it. You may wish you had it,god forbidding you h
ave an accident and that elt might ,just might save you if it was install a
ccording to the way the engineers wanted them to be. Give me data that says
the elt works Barried in the tail. Then I'll say ok. Until you have engine
ering data I'll continue to fight about putting it in the tail.
Just my two cents.
Yes I have been in a couple of high impacts, wear seat belts & shoulder ha
rness it's not a fun time when you need them.
Excuse me.
Sent from my iPad
> On Jun 14, 2017, at 5:32 PM, Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com<mailto:k
ellym@aviating.com>> wrote:
>
to:kellym@aviating.com>>
>
> You are absolutely correct. Not to mention that you can change anything y
ou want as soon as the DAR leaves the premises.
>
>> On 6/14/2017 2:29 PM, Bob Turner wrote:
ilto:bobturner@alum.rpi.edu>>
>> Hey guys,
>> I think we need to take it a bit easier with the DARs. After all, they a
re direct or indirect FAA employees, and their job is to see to it that the
rules are obeyed. The rules say the ELT has to be TSO'd, and the TSO detai
ls antenna mounting. I certainly wish the rules all ended with, "...but use
common sense or good judgement....". But that is certainly not the FAA way
. So complain - but the complaints should go to the FAA.
>> Not to change the subject, but I hope everyone has noted the latest FAA
craziness: If you now are flying under BasicMed you may act as PIC; but you
may not act as a required safety pilot if the PIC is under the hood. Where
's the logic in that?
>> --------
>> Bob Turner
>> RV-10 QB
>> Read this topic online here:
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=470131#470131
>
>
-List" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Naviga
tor?RV10-List
FORUMS -
eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
WIKI -
errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com
b Site -
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: ELT and ELT antenna placement |
I put mine where it's supposed to be - 406 ELT on a bulkhead behind the baggage
compartment, and the antenna directly above it. Photo (hopefully) attached.
John
--------
#40572 Phase One complete in 2011
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=470147#470147
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/img_2629_211.jpg
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: ELT and ELT antenna placement |
I replied to Kelly off-line not wanting to get into the ELT antenna
debate and here's his reply to me. I'm not taking sides here ..... there
is no 'wrong' choice in this discussion, but I think it's a good
discussion to have. No matter which orientation you go for, I hope
nobody has to find out whether it works or not!!!
Linn
On 6/15/2017 9:02 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
> I think the list would benefit from that information, especially since
> the only meaningful monitoring for 121.5 is by airliners at 40,000 ft.
> Thanks for sending it.
> The ELT requirement was written long before satellite monitoring, and
> was deficient from the start, because it was a Congressional
> over-reaction to the disappearance of two Congressmen in Alaska while
> flying between campaign stops.
>
> -sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm
>
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 5:24 AM, Linn Walters <flying-nut@cfl.rr.com
> <mailto:flying-nut@cfl.rr.com>> wrote:
>
> It's been a long time since I thought technically about antennas
> ......
> I'm guessing that the antenna mounting orientation for ELTs is
> included in the TSO .... written before satellite technology was
> available ..... and the FAA is slow to change .... anything.
> The vertical whip has a radiation pattern to the sides like a donut
> Image result for vertically polarized antenna radiation pattern
> although the groundplane will reflect some lobes out to the side
> .... which becomes visible to the satellite. The original whip
> worked really well since everything was ground-based like your
> coms .... the system just sucked.
> So, mounting the antenna horizontally gives the satellite a better
> signal ..... if it stays that way.
> Linn
>
>
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: ELT and ELT antenna placement |
I'm not sure if you will agree with me on this, but I agree
with you on your position. My position on ELT's is that
the FAA *should* be mandating a switch to 406Mhz. I
believe that if tax dollars are to be spent on search
and rescue operations, we should be doing our part to
make those rescue operations as successful and timely
as possible. I would prefer to see 121.5 ELT's banned
after a maybe 2 year timeframe, and require 406. These
days you can buy them for $500 which while a lot of
money, is still in reach if you own an airplane.
Many will argue that a 406Mhz PLB is all they need,
but I disagree. You need something that you can
easily activate in flight, and will automatically
activate on crash. THEN you can also carry a PLB.
If I go down some day, I'll have the 406Mhz ELT,
a 406Mhz PLB to carry with me, ADS-B, and APRS all
providing data on where to look. I was just thinking
last night how I'm not overly concerned with my daughter
being able to land at a remote strip like Johnson Creek
Idaho...she has the skills. But what really raises my
back hairs is what will I do if I were to watch her
go down in the mountains over Idaho. Sure, I can provide
emergency radio calls and position reports, but if the
choppers have to come, I would want that GPS position to
be transmitted as quickly as possible to the proper
authorities, and have them start making their way there
a.s.a.p. And, while I will be thankful for the services
we get from our government in such cases, I also want to
be a responsible steward and not cause any additional
tax burden to everyone else for an extended search.
So going with 406Mhz ELT's is just part of my
job.
Regarding antenna placement, I think Kelly has it right
that you can't predict how the airplane will be when it hits.
When mounting my antenna, I used that theory myself and
put it under the tail fairing. My GPS works great that's
under there for my APRS tracker, so I suspect the ELT
will too...because I've had them on-field be picked up
inside metal airplane hangars without issue.
That said, if you really want to do the best that you can
do, I think it's hard to argue with Bob Leffler.
Installing per design, with the antenna mounted
externally, is the best that you could do, and if it's
back by the vertical stab, perhaps it will best survive
the crash. One thing that is very important is that
the ELT be mounted in an area near enough to the
antenna that the crash wouldn't rip the antenna free
of the ELT. This is partly why I have it mounted on the
bulkhead attached to the same area as where my ELT is
mounted. And with it under the fairing, it's probably
less likely to be broken in a flip-over incident also.
If we could predict the crash position better, we
could do the best thing for ourselves, but we don't
have that luxury. That and many other reasons are
why I also have a PLB carried within reach in
the cockpit.
Tim
On 6/15/2017 12:17 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
> I'm not sure who is convinced that the TSO approvals make the ELT any
> better a transmitter installed as directed than some other way.
> Engineering data? Who says there is anything behind the TSO than that
> was how they chose to test it? Has anyone any reliable data on ELT
> antenna integrity after crashes? Whether the antenna was positioned for
> maximum effectiveness? We do know that aircraft with first generation
> ELTs are still legal to use them, in spite of a record of high 90% false
> alarming. Not to mention G switches that frequently fail to activate.
> Second generation ELTs are still 121.5/243.0 only and legal to install
> in any aircraft. Neither frequency is satellite monitored anymore.
> All data shows 406 ELTs give better position information than the
> previous generations, but no mandate to use them. Sure, vertical works
> better if you know the antenna will be in that position after the crash.
> If a plane plants its nose in soft dirt, the vertical antenna will be
> horizontal, for a sub-optimal transmission.
> I personally knew a forum member who crashed and most of his family
> survived overnight in freezing/snowy conditions until found 12 hours
> later, due to crappy 121.5 unit bouncing signals off mountains..but all
> but a few kids died from exposure. A 406 unit might have saved them.
> However, there are a lot of other factors.
> Accusing someone of putting others at risk....there is the huge warning
> that it is an experimental plane and the big Experimental label telling
> the passengers that the aircraft does not meet federal standards. Does
> it matter whether the ELT is perfect when you have an engine that isn't
> certified, combined with a prop that isn't certified, etc. etc? We could
> require air bags, survival packs, life jackets, rafts, etc.
>
> -sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm
>
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: ELT and ELT antenna placement |
Tim,
I agree with 99% of what you said. However, I would just suggest that
rather than banning 121.5, just require 406 by some date and withdraw
approval of 121.5 only units after that date. I think that is what you
meant, because AFAIK, only one brand of 406 is 406 only. All the rest
broadcast both frequencies, to enable homing on the unit to get from the 1
or 2 mile radius the 406 gave. I believe only the CAP has equipment that
can home on 406, because it is a pulse transmission, not a sweep. Everyone
can home on 121.5. While GPS connection to 406 is desirable, I would leave
that to the individual, given that it can add an hour or two to the install
by avionics shop when you consider the factory built aircraft. I suspect
cost would come down if the sales volume increased to a couple hundred
thousand.
I also don't want to see anything like the FCC proposal a few years ago to
actually take away the 121.5 frequency, as it serves a very valid purpose
for emergency communications.
-sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 6:30 AM, Tim Olson <Tim@myrv10.com> wrote:
>
> I'm not sure if you will agree with me on this, but I agree
> with you on your position. My position on ELT's is that
> the FAA *should* be mandating a switch to 406Mhz. I
> believe that if tax dollars are to be spent on search
> and rescue operations, we should be doing our part to
> make those rescue operations as successful and timely
> as possible. I would prefer to see 121.5 ELT's banned
> after a maybe 2 year timeframe, and require 406. These
> days you can buy them for $500 which while a lot of
> money, is still in reach if you own an airplane.
>
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: ELT and ELT antenna placement |
Ah, good point. Yes, that's what I think would be best. It's
not that I don't want 121.5 to be broadcast, just that I want
406 to be required. It's fine to broadcast 121.5 side by side
as it is a handy way to see if your ELT is active.
Regarding the GPS connection, I was able to buy a GPS puck for
I think $30 that is mounted under the same tailcone fairing
that feeds NMEA-0183 GPS right into the ELT, and to my APRS,
and even my autopilot on one plane as a backup source.
As long as the FAA doesn't go wacky and require a fully
approach certified TSO'd GPS source and understands that
a simple GPS is better than nothing, and field approvals
for such situations should be simplified, it would make
adding GPS to an ELT install not be too terribly bad.
Certainly a simple thing for a homebuilder, while less so
for a bonanza driver.
Tim
On 6/15/2017 8:48 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
> Tim,
> I agree with 99% of what you said. However, I would just suggest that
> rather than banning 121.5, just require 406 by some date and withdraw
> approval of 121.5 only units after that date. I think that is what you
> meant, because AFAIK, only one brand of 406 is 406 only. All the rest
> broadcast both frequencies, to enable homing on the unit to get from the
> 1 or 2 mile radius the 406 gave. I believe only the CAP has equipment
> that can home on 406, because it is a pulse transmission, not a sweep.
> Everyone can home on 121.5. While GPS connection to 406 is desirable, I
> would leave that to the individual, given that it can add an hour or two
> to the install by avionics shop when you consider the factory built
> aircraft. I suspect cost would come down if the sales volume increased
> to a couple hundred thousand.
> I also don't want to see anything like the FCC proposal a few years ago
> to actually take away the 121.5 frequency, as it serves a very valid
> purpose for emergency communications.
>
> -sent from the I-droid implanted in my forearm
>
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 6:30 AM, Tim Olson <Tim@myrv10.com
> <mailto:Tim@myrv10.com>> wrote:
>
>
> I'm not sure if you will agree with me on this, but I agree
> with you on your position. My position on ELT's is that
> the FAA *should* be mandating a switch to 406Mhz. I
> believe that if tax dollars are to be spent on search
> and rescue operations, we should be doing our part to
> make those rescue operations as successful and timely
> as possible. I would prefer to see 121.5 ELT's banned
> after a maybe 2 year timeframe, and require 406. These
> days you can buy them for $500 which while a lot of
> money, is still in reach if you own an airplane.
>
>
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Tim, I really like APRS especially in that the family can both track me and tell
my time of arrival pretty close. But in cross-country flying I notice there
are some gaps in coverage that make me wonder how useful it might be in locating
a downed aircraft especially in mountainous terrain. Flying from Santa Fe,
NM, to McCook, Nebraska, there were 2 pretty big gaps in coverage when I went
looked at my track later that day. And some of that was over reasonably flat country
so I assume the gaps came from lack of stations on the ground.
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I've had really good luck with APRS, despite one of the planes
only having 300mw of transmission power. I do get occasional
gaps, and you are correct that in the mountains your mileage
may definitely vary. It's all dependent on someone having a
good ground station. But I have found it to be MUCH better
than tracking via ADS-B and the ground stations that it uses.
It's definitely worth the one-time investment of $10 for the
license, and $100-150 for the MicroTrak 2000 or RTG plus
an antenna of some sort. I've got hundreds of thousands of
miles of tracking time on mine. It's just one more tool,
and probably the most fully functional and easiest to use by
family members that will give your position the quickest.
I do use modified com antennas for mine, so the transmission
is perhaps better than many installs because I'm willing to
have the belly whip whereas many want to hide everything.
If the ELT+PLB is "belt and suspenders", then I guess
adding APRS is "belt / suspenders / spandex". :)
http://byonics.com/mt-2000
http://byonics.com/mt-rtg
Tim
On 6/15/2017 12:12 PM, Albert wrote:
>
> Tim, I really like APRS especially in that the family can both track
> me and tell my time of arrival pretty close. But in cross-country
> flying I notice there are some gaps in coverage that make me wonder
> how useful it might be in locating a downed aircraft especially in
> mountainous terrain. Flying from Santa Fe, NM, to McCook, Nebraska,
> there were 2 pretty big gaps in coverage when I went looked at my
> track later that day. And some of that was over reasonably flat
> country so I assume the gaps came from lack of stations on the
> ground.
>
>
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Interesting. Last summer I tracked a friend flying a Kitfox from Phoenix
to OSH and back, equipped with Dynon ADS-B In and Out. I only had gaps
where he needed to go below 1000 AGL for weather. I even could see him
go from Fisk to turn final to RWY 36. No gaps following him across the
NM mountains. In the Phoenix area the ground station coverage is good
enough that my track starts and ends at 200 AGL. I have the same Dynon
Skyview setup, with a GTN650 providing the position data. I saw about
the same coverage flying from Phoenix to Sun Valley ID, except for my
refueling stop that was between a couple mountains. The return trip was
equally good while I was keeping close to roads while dodging
thunderstorms, since I have the MT prop governor that was suspect last
August (and upgraded right after that trip). I think they have at least
90+ percent of the ADS-B ground stations operational.
On 6/15/2017 11:33 AM, Tim Olson wrote:
>
> I've had really good luck with APRS, despite one of the planes
> only having 300mw of transmission power. But I have found it to be MUCH
better
> than tracking via ADS-B and the ground stations that it uses.
>
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Anything near OSH will have excellent coverage. OSH was the site of one
of the very first GBT's installed, and where I went to test a
pre-production ADS-B system in 2008. So I'm not surprised you had
good reception there. Last fall we took a trip to Idaho with my
RV-14 and another RV-10 and they had ADS-B out and there were giant
gaps in coverage going west past Nebraska/Wyoming. The guaranteed
coverage is only at 5000agl and above by the system, for the large
area of ADS-B installations. In the flats it should be much better,
but I still find it very disappointing for weather coverage at any
lower altitudes. I think it kind of a disaster compared to satellite
WX. Just when you need it most...staying low, avoiding thunderstorms,
you will not have it with ADS-B. So it will be largely dependent
on altitudes flown, and regions flown over, as to how good your
coverage is. If you're flying down Florida, it's probably great.
Get out in the North West and it's not so good anymore.
I think if I look hard enough I saved the track comparison for
that flight between APRS and ADS-B, but I don't have time to
dig it up now. About to depart on a trip.
Tim
On 6/15/2017 3:39 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
> Interesting. Last summer I tracked a friend flying a Kitfox from Phoenix
> to OSH and back, equipped with Dynon ADS-B In and Out. I only had gaps
> where he needed to go below 1000 AGL for weather. I even could see him
> go from Fisk to turn final to RWY 36. No gaps following him across the
> NM mountains. In the Phoenix area the ground station coverage is good
> enough that my track starts and ends at 200 AGL. I have the same Dynon
> Skyview setup, with a GTN650 providing the position data. I saw about
> the same coverage flying from Phoenix to Sun Valley ID, except for my
> refueling stop that was between a couple mountains. The return trip was
> equally good while I was keeping close to roads while dodging
> thunderstorms, since I have the MT prop governor that was suspect last
> August (and upgraded right after that trip). I think they have at least
> 90+ percent of the ADS-B ground stations operational.
>
> On 6/15/2017 11:33 AM, Tim Olson wrote:
>>
>> I've had really good luck with APRS, despite one of the planes
>> only having 300mw of transmission power. But I have found it to
>> be MUCH better
>> than tracking via ADS-B and the ground stations that it uses.
>>
>
>
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
ADS-B coverage map at altitudes from 500-5000' agl. (Click the "switches"
at the top".)
David
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 3:58 PM, Tim Olson <Tim@myrv10.com> wrote:
>
> Anything near OSH will have excellent coverage. OSH was the site of one
> of the very first GBT's installed, and where I went to test a
> pre-production ADS-B system in 2008. So I'm not surprised you had
> good reception there. Last fall we took a trip to Idaho with my
> RV-14 and another RV-10 and they had ADS-B out and there were giant
> gaps in coverage going west past Nebraska/Wyoming. The guaranteed
> coverage is only at 5000agl and above by the system, for the large
> area of ADS-B installations. In the flats it should be much better,
> but I still find it very disappointing for weather coverage at any
> lower altitudes. I think it kind of a disaster compared to satellite
> WX. Just when you need it most...staying low, avoiding thunderstorms,
> you will not have it with ADS-B. So it will be largely dependent
> on altitudes flown, and regions flown over, as to how good your
> coverage is. If you're flying down Florida, it's probably great.
> Get out in the North West and it's not so good anymore.
> I think if I look hard enough I saved the track comparison for
> that flight between APRS and ADS-B, but I don't have time to
> dig it up now. About to depart on a trip.
> Tim
>
>
> On 6/15/2017 3:39 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
>>
>> Interesting. Last summer I tracked a friend flying a Kitfox from Phoenix
>> to OSH and back, equipped with Dynon ADS-B In and Out. I only had gaps
>> where he needed to go below 1000 AGL for weather. I even could see him
>> go from Fisk to turn final to RWY 36. No gaps following him across the
>> NM mountains. In the Phoenix area the ground station coverage is good
>> enough that my track starts and ends at 200 AGL. I have the same Dynon
>> Skyview setup, with a GTN650 providing the position data. I saw about
>> the same coverage flying from Phoenix to Sun Valley ID, except for my
>> refueling stop that was between a couple mountains. The return trip was
>> equally good while I was keeping close to roads while dodging
>> thunderstorms, since I have the MT prop governor that was suspect last
>> August (and upgraded right after that trip). I think they have at least
>> 90+ percent of the ADS-B ground stations operational.
>>
>> On 6/15/2017 11:33 AM, Tim Olson wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I've had really good luck with APRS, despite one of the planes
>>> only having 300mw of transmission power. But I have found it to
>>> be MUCH better
>>> than tracking via ADS-B and the ground stations that it uses.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: ELT and ELT antenna placement |
I installed mine just like Bob Leffler did. For the ELT I used the mount Van's
sells and placed it about a foot behind the baggage bulkehad on the pilot's side.
--------
Todd Stovall
aka Auburntsts on EAA, AOPA, and VAF
RV-10 N728TT -- Flying
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=470168#470168
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/picture_013_resized_171.jpg
http://forums.matronics.com//files/dscn1971_resized_394.jpg
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|