About ELT’s and other such devices . . .

It’s all about getting found when you are down!

For most, an ELT or SPOT device in the aircraft is something that just sits there, and never gets much thought. It is a check item or annual maintenance tick at best. But for those who have experienced, yet alone survived an off-airport emergency landing, the emergency location device takes on a whole new meaning and appreciation for what it does and how it does so. In the world of the ELT, there have been some significant changes that bear discussion and review.

In case you missed it, as of February 1, 2009 the COSPAS satellite monitoring of the frequency 121.5 MHz was discontinued. That has dramatically reduced the level of safety provided by the old VHF ELT’s. Simply put, you do not have a means of automatically notifying the search and rescue authorities if your plane goes down. Basically the only form of VHF ELT detection available now is by other aircraft that may happen to flying close enough to pick up your signal or SAR resources - if they are actually looking for you.

The 406 MHz emergency beacons were designed specifically for satellite detection using geostationary (GEO) and low-earth orbit (LEO) search and rescue satellites. They have a signal power 50 times stronger than the 121.5/243.0 MHz and also provide:

•    improved location accuracy using LEOSAR satellites and ambiguity resolution;

•    increased system capacity;

•    near instantaneous alerting in the GEOSAR coverage area;

•    global coverage; and

•    transmit a digitally encoded message with the emergency beacons unique identification.

On second-generation 406 MHz emergency beacons that are connected to or have an onboard GPS device, position data can be included in the emergency beacon's encoded message. This feature is of particular interest for GEOSAR alerts because the location of the distress signal can be determined without the need to wait for a LEOSAR satellite pass over and is crucial in the event of a distress situation when every minute counts.

With 406 MHz emergency beacons, false alerts are considerably reduced. According to COSPAS-SARSAT, only one out of every 50 alerts from 121.5 MHz is a genuine distress situation. This significantly affects search and rescue resources. With 406 MHz emergency beacons, one of out every 17 is genuine. When registered accurately, most 406 MHz false alerts can normally be resolved with a telephone call to the emergency beacon owner using the encoded identification. Consequently, real alerts can receive the attention they deserve. During 2011, SAR from Trenton received over 500 ELT related callouts. Of those, somewhere north of 300 turned out to be false. While it is a good thing that the calls were in fact non-events, the fact remains there was a cost in human resources and physical response involved. This is where the 406 ELT sets the standard for technical excellence and accuracy today.

The Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs) 605.38 states that 406 MHz ELTs must be registered with the Canadian Beacon Registry. The information contained in the registry includes the owner's name, aircraft details and emergency contact information. Search and rescue authorities cross-reference the emergency beacon ID with the registry and with a single phone call can determine if the distress signal is a false alert or can collect additional details in order to better respond to the incident. The bottom line would seem to be that the fastest and most accurate SAR response to an ELT incident is going to be with the current crop of 406 units.

The 406 MHz emergency beacons also have a 50 second delay in the event of an inadvertent activation to allow people the time to turn it off. However, if an emergency beacon is accidentally activated, it should be reported to Canadian Mission Control Centre by calling 1-800-211-8107.

The Department of National Defense (DND), which runs Canada's Search and Rescue system, favours the 406 MHz ELT.  But it isn't clear yet whether the government is prepared to fully mandate 406 ELTs, knowing the US isn't likely to follow suit, and knowing that there is new technology (Mid Earth Orbit Satellite systems /MEOSAT) on the horizon that may provide better aircraft tracking options.

Dealing with the current versions of the 406 ELT as a “solution”, back in 2003, Transport Canada issued a Notice of Proposed Amendment (NPA) dealing with compliance to ICAO operating rules by Canadian operators. At that time, ICAO policy stated that as of January 2005, all ELTs should have the capability to operate in both 406 Mhz and 121.5 Mhz simultaneously. For its part, Transport Canada proposed the introduction of a requirement that Canadian aircraft used in international air transport services should be equipped with 406 MHz ELTs. Transport Canada did not at that time mandate the use of 406 MHz ELTs for domestic operations.

Transport Canada sent the proposed new regulations “back” for discussions and consultation with “stakeholders” in May 2010. In July of that year the Director General of Civil Aviation for Transport Canada, Martin Eley, while speaking to the Canadian Business Aviation Association convention in Calgary stated "an ELT regulatory package is currently being processed and will come into force as soon as possible." He went on to say that "the current regulation does not mandate a 406 MHz ELT, but it does require that you have a transmitter with similar performance capabilities. We are also giving you time to make this upgrade to your aircraft. This will also provide time for ELT production to increase." He didn't specify what those timeframes would be. Eley also sent the NPAs back for further review again in 2011. So any timing for change from Transport Canada to the 406 ELT regs or a look at integrating the other options and alternative technologies or refinements is anyone’s guess.

In the event that you are thinking you do not need an ELT that is not the case. You still require an ELT – it is just a question of which version for today and then again for tomorrow?

Some pilots are reported to be using satellite flight tracking services (mostly for commercial purposes) or devices like SPOT, in addition to an older 121.5 ELT. SPOT devices are a family of handheld untis or “worn” devices like a watch – or phone apps on a wireless consumer device – that use both the GPS satellite network to determine a user’s location and the Globalstar network to transmit messages. Working with GPS SPOT units coordinate to others including an international rescue coordination center. One important note here – this is not monitored by SAR. That means a third party is involved in relaying any such emergency calls to the authorities after a signal is received by them. SPOT units are popular for their size (most fit in your pocket or sit in a place of choice within the cabin) and price. They do have a track record of success. That said, while SPOT units are legal for use in Canada today, some folks in the know consider them to be a fringe product in comparison to the 406 ELT.

SPOT devices are not designed specifically for the aviation environment and may lack the testing or robust design and structure that is required for the environmental and operational extremes of the airplane. Consider if you will please that during a crash, anything not fixed to the aircraft firmly can and will be subject to separation and scatter – usually away from the fuselage. A possibly incapacitated or injured occupant has limited mobility and movement.  Imagine having to extract yourself from the remains of the aircraft and go in search of your SPOT device so that you can activate it?

This is where a fixed, integrated system like the 406 ELT is designed to work automatically or even upon early, manual activation by the crew as the aircraft is going down.

For their part in this discussion, COPA in a fairly recent report by President, Kevin Psutka report that: “ICAO is both reconsidering its commitment to ELTs and developing a new specification for ELTs to improve their performance with a new constellation of monitoring satellites that will be in place by 2015.”

COPA has offered a compromise solution for many years and feels that it still remains viable. “In light of DND’s commitment to the COSPAS-SARSAT monitoring system, to be compatible with the US, who are not mandating 406 ELTs, and to provide more time for ELTs to be developed, produced and delivered at an affordable price, the requirement to equip with an ELT should continue but non-commercial aircraft should be permitted to retain older ELTs and their pilots should be encouraged to equip with an alerting device (cell phone, sat phone, Personal Locator Beacon, tracking device, etc.) that is appropriate for the type of operation and area over which the aircraft will be flown” says Kevin.

In conclusion – the ELT skies are a little overcast right now. You need to have a way to get found if and when needed and clearly at present there are options, but what you choose, how much you spend and what system of preference you make is all personal. Most of us want the best possible and most reliable system integrated into our aircraft. The best thing to do here is talk with an avionics service provider or dealer and get them to review you operations profile and the available options emergency response and preparedness. The worst thing you can do is be sitting next to the wreckage of your aircraft pondering why you did not have that conversation. 

Canada was built on the spirit of northern flying . . .

Safety then as now was a concern.  

Entrepreneurial spirit, determination and just plain guts were words associated with the development of air service in Canada’s north. Names like Wop May, Punch Dickins, George Gorman, Max Ward, William Munroe Archibald, John Austin and Harry Kennedy among others bring to mind developing and pioneering air service to otherwise poorly accessible regions of this vast nation. For a large portion of this country, air service is still by and large their primary means for service and connection with the rest of the country and world. For many communities everything from mail through to food, water, fuel, medical supplies and even manufacturing support and people is delivered or moved point to point by some sort of air service.

Start with a look back . . .

By the 1960s and early 70s, remote flying was an established and growing service but still somewhat rustic in comparison to today. Jim Morrison is well known to many in the aviation world. While today he is the Managing Director of Toronto based Partner Jet Inc., Jim is one of the guys who earned his way up the aviation ladder through a succession of jobs – starting with flying on the unimproved, underserviced and high demand routes of the day in the North. “I spent the very first years of my career working for Russ Bradley at Bradley Air Services based in Carp Ontario” says Morrison.  After flying aerial survey on Beech 18s, Aero Commanders and DC3’s across North and South America and Africa, Jim headed to Northern Quebec and flew first for Survair and then Air Inuit. “We ran a scheduled charter service in those days with Twin Otters , DC3 and Canso aircraft. The scheduled flights happened 6 days a week typically. The run started in Fort Chimo (Kuujuac now) covered Payne Bay Koartak, Wakenham Bay and Sugluc with stops in Leaf Bay and Aupaluk. All of these communities have new names now. The airstrips in the 70s were anywhere from 800’ to 1200’, gravel with only NBD approaches and limited weather information along the coast. We would fly the schedule with either the Twin Otter or the DC3 and be on call for medevacs through the nights.

Cargo work was steady too. The freight loads needed to be moved as well as the mail and fresh groceries. Charters came up on a regular basis and medevacs happened at least 4 or 5 times a week mostly late a night and often in inclement weather - which added to the excitement. I volunteered for many of the medevac trips as it broke the boredom of the staff house.”

“Turn over was high. Pilots typically flew in the north to build hours and move on to the airlines. The average age of pilots up north then was roughly 35 and the majority were in their mid 20s as I was.  For training, we did an in house course on the Twin Otters, DC3s but the HS748s were done at Eastern Provincial Airways (EPA). EPA was the first formal training I saw in the early years and it was exceptional. There was no pressure put on pilots to perform but it was very competitive in those days. There was a lot of pride in completing flights and getting the job done. Each pilot had his or her own set of limitations and stayed within them carefully. The accidents we saw while flying up there and there were a few, mainly were the result of inexperience or lack of cockpit resource management.”

And today . . .

In speaking with pilots and operators today it seems that while the flying hardware has changed, the runways may now be a bit longer and overall the flight ops are supported by broader reaching nav aids, but the basic work and sort of operators along with the people they attract to their jobs is by and large unchanged. Some northern operators have, at their own expense, implemented on-site improvements at some strips including lighting and radios – complete with a locally trained resident to operate and provide real time observations of local conditions.

Technology on the other hand is the one area where there has been a dramatic shift – and one that affords operators a new level of insight and resulting safety as they try their best to support the vast outlying regions of this country. The introduction of new avionics technologies has allowed for a vastly improved level of safety in these operational models. The problem is that while the technology is available, many operators have elected not to introduce or incorporate these options. But all that could be about to change.

The flight into terrain incident involving Keystone Air at Spirit Lake in January of this year was the third incident for the airline since 2000 and the second involving fatalities. And they are not alone. This was in fact the latest in a rash of incidents over the last few years involving smaller airlines that are by all rights hard working and provide invaluable and much needed service into remote communities. These incidents have raised the question of training and the use – or lack of – modern nav aids in the types of aircraft typically used in this sort of operation. What the Spirit Lake incident has brought into the spotlight are a series of issues related to single pilot commercial operations, the challenges of working from unimproved local airstrips and the use of newer technology in the cockpit to aid pilot operations. The use and application of SMS has also been questioned.

Transport Canada was already in the process of changing some of the requirements related to aircraft that are most commonly used in this sort of flight operation. What Spirit Lake and other incidents over the last year did was simply bring the attention of many to an issue that has been smoldering for quite some time. Ask anyone in the avionics world and they will state with certainty that 2012 will be the year that things change. Transport Canada has published Advisory Circular AC 600-003 for Terrain Awareness Warning System (TAWS) regulations. As they report, from 1977 to 2009, 35 airworthy aeroplanes were flown into the ground while under pilot control. Known as controlled flight into terrain (CFIT) accidents, the reported numbers show 100 fatalities and 46 serious injuries as a result of these CFITs. As TC state “To date, risk information alone has not motivated all of the Canadian aviation industry to voluntarily equip key passenger aircraft with existing technologies that would help mitigate risks associated to CFITs.”

The current proposed regulatory amendment (as of writing this article) will introduce requirements for the installation of Terrain Awareness Warning Systems (TAWS) equipped with an Enhanced Altitude Accuracy (EAA) function in private turbine-powered aeroplanes configured with six or more passenger seats, excluding pilot seats, and in commercial aeroplanes configured with six or more passenger seats, excluding pilot seats. The Gazette from TC goes on to state that operators would have two years from the date on which the Regulations come into force to equip their aeroplanes with TAWS and five years to equip with EAA. Norm Matheis, Universal Avionics’ regional manager for Canada feels that  “This is positive change in real terms in safety of flight for remote operations. Our top Canadian Universal dealers are seeing an upswing in hangar bookings now for TAWS mods, in anticipation of the publishing of the TAWS rule in Canada Gazette II this year”.

A TAWS Class A system provides the highest level of protection. It will be required in Commuter CAR 704 Aeroplanes configured with 10 or more passenger seats, excluding pilot seats, and in all aeroplanes operating under subpart 705 for airline operations.

The Class B system has less capability and will be required for private turbine-powered aeroplanes configured with 6 or more seats, excluding pilot and co-pilot. It will also be mandatory on all commercial subpart 703 air taxi aeroplanes configured with 6 or more passenger seats, as well as Commuter subpart 704 Aeroplanes configured with 6 to nine passenger seats, excluding pilot and co-pilot.

Norm Matheis, Regional Marketing Manager – Canada – with Universal Avionics Systems has a lot of experience in helping with northern flight ops. His firm have been pioneers in the WAAS system introduction and implementation of numerous aircraft in this country. In looking at northern flight op safety as a whole, Matheis says: “Today we still see some air operators in the north operating without CFIT protection apart from their flight crew using MK I eyeball.  Some of these aircraft are not even equipped with legacy Ground Prox.  What is a bit puzzling is that some of these same aircraft ARE however fitted with TCAS at a hardware cost approximately three times that of TAWS.  TCAS monitors the airspace around an aircraft for other aircraft equipped with a transponder, independent of air traffic control, and warns pilots of the presence of other transponder-equipped aircraft that may present a threat of mid-air collision.  It’s well documented that as a pilot you have 10 to 100 times the probability of flying into the ground unexpectedly than you do hitting another aircraft in mid-air. That’s a sobering fact.  And, the problem with TCAS (with no GPWS or TAWS) is the possibility that a recommended avoidance maneuver might direct the crew to descend toward terrain below a safe altitude.  Requirements for incorporation of TAWS ground proximity warning mitigate this risk.  TAWS ground proximity warning alerts have priority in the cockpit over TCAS alerts (windshear alerting has the highest priority, if so equipped).”

According to Norm classic GPWS that have provided a last line of defense from a CFIT incident have been available for well over thirty-five years.  Don Bateman, a Canadian-born engineer, developed and is credited with the invention of GPWS. Since 1974, when the US FAA made it a requirement for large aircraft to carry ground prox, there has not been a single passenger fatality in a CFIT crash by a large jet in US airspace. “Universal TAWS with its’ unique Terrain Awareness modes in addition to standard GPWS modes has been available since 2000.  TAWS will provide crews with a warning of terrain ahead of the aircraft as well as classic GPWS warnings.”

 

Universal TAWS was also designed to complement well-known Universal UNS-1 WAAS Flight Management Systems (wFMS).  Integration with the FMS provides an additional unique predictive alerting feature of Universal TAWS, based on knowing where the aircraft will be later in the flight plan.   Universal TAWS uses aircraft inputs such as position, attitude, air speed and glideslope, along with internal terrain and airport databases to predict a potential conflict between the aircraft's future flight path and terrain.  The resulting unprecedented look-ahead capability can provide warnings and alerts well in advance of potential hazards, allowing time for the pilot to make the necessary maneuvers or data corrections for terrain avoidance.  UNS-1 FMS also supports true track navigation in Northern Domestic Airspace and has gravel runways loaded in the navigation database. The Equal Time Point/Point of No Return pages of UNS-1 specifically benefits northern Canada remote ops.

Norm is far from alone when it comes to options and qualified opinions related to CFIT incidents and their prevention. According to Frank Dennis – Field Aviation Sales Representative, Avionics Sales and Service - many affordable options exist for smaller operators big and small who are looking to improve safety. “They can do so by providing their flight crews with additional tools in the cockpit. As an example Garmin’s new GTN Series of standalone GPS units and GPS/Nav/Com units come standard with high-resolution terrain graphics and WAAS capabilities. Full TAWS-B capability is available as an option and graphical weather and traffic upgrades are available. This allows operators to determine what features are most important to their specific operations and add other features as budget and other operational considerations allow.”

Dennis also points to Avidyne’s TAS 600 Traffic Advisory System series that covers a wide range of aircraft.  They are compatible with many different manufactures displays, meaning operators may not need to upgrade cockpit displays to add this capability. And as Dennis notes, these systems can be purchased for under $30,000.00 installed, depending on what add-ons (traffic, weather, etc.) operators choose to purchase.  “With mandatory TAWS regulations coming into force soon, now is an excellent time for operators to research what options are available to them” he adds.

Collins Radio, now Rockwell Collins, has been manufacturing and selling radio equipment since the early 30’s. Rockwell Collins Commercial System products are in a broad spectrum of aircraft, from communication, navigation and surveillance equipment in turbo prop aircraft, to their Pro Line Fusion system used in intercontinental corporate jet aircraft.

According to John Peterson, Director of Avionics Marketing for Rockwell Collins, “We do have cost-effective solutions for making light business/commercial air travel safer in remote areas.  Rockwell Collins offers services and products that can assist pilots and operators in these situations, from training and airborne warning systems, to complete cockpit upgrades that take advantage of the latest technologies.”   

One example that Peterson provides is the Rockwell Collins ALT-1000 (radar altimeter). It measures height above terrain up to 2,500 feet and it is accurate to within 2 feet at the critical low altitudes. The instrument provides a second altitude check for a pilot, by giving absolute altitude from the ground as well as providing information for alerting functions, such as DH.  “It's robust - it is certified for Category II landings” he says.

Rockwell Collins TCAS system is something else to consider in a modern cockpit according to John. “TCAS II works by interrogating the ATC transponders of other nearby aircraft, to determine and display their altitudes, ranges and relative positions. If necessary, they compute and display a recommended vertical avoidance maneuver to ensure safe separation. Rockwell Collins, in conjunction with Bristow Helicopters, now offers a turn-key package to install and certify TCAS II on Rotary Wing platforms.”

The Rockwell Collins Pro Line 21 avionics suite is no stranger to Canadian skies. It integrates different functions, including TAWS and EVS.  According to Peterson, Pro Line 21 offers cost-effective EVS solutions that can prove valuable during dark hole approaches, dark taxi, and low visibility conditions.

In terms of the future, he points to the Rockwell Collins HGS-3500 (Head-up Guidance System) solution for turboprops and light jets. “This will further improve flight operations by keeping pilots’ eyes forward and outside the aircraft with synthetic vision, EVS and flight guidance cues” says John.

When all is said and done, it is clear that the ability of northern flight operators to provide enhanced and reliable service to their clients and communities with the aid of improved safety and efficiency is readily available. The avionics aids are on the market now can and do make a big difference and more are coming soon. Cost is always a consideration for these operators. As some travellers have reported, a ticket on one these smaller, regional type airlines can easily cost as much if not more as one on the major carriers between hub cities. For those who feel cost is factor, many of the avionics manufacturers will find ways to work with the operators to provide incentives and financing options – for those who qualify. So be totally blunt, not one life should ever be lost again for sake of a few dollars worth of technology and some training. The pending rule change from Transport Canada is simply making the reality of this something more tangible for an invaluable category and area of aviation service and support in Canada.   

How great things grow . . .

From humble beginnings.

I had the pleasure back in my 20s of being part of a very special and at that time unique aviation experience. Little did I know that the experiences I gained and the tuition it offered would become the skills and background I call on today in many different ways. The Canadian Warplane Heritage Museum (CWH) was in its infancy then and became my second home – as was the case for many like-minded aviation folks. This year marks the 40^th Anniversary for what is Canada’s – and for that matter one the worlds – largest collections of flying vintage aircraft. In the years since this group started, it certainly has grown and seen not only its fair share of change, but also survived and bettered itself from incidents that would have closed most operations. The museum we see today is a fine and well developed machine focused on preserving aviation history, being publicly accessible and taking itself out to other aviation locations to broaden its reach. And as it turns 40 it is only fair to look back and see how this impressive organization grew and developed from very simple and humble beginnings. It truly is an “if you build it they will come” scenario.

In the early 1970s, businessmen and friends Dennis Bradley and Alan Ness decided to take their love of aviation to a new level through joint ownership and operation of a high performance aircraft. They thought they wanted a Spitfire. A lead for one in Australia actually turned out to be a Fairey Firefly. Neither of them (or for that matter most of us back then) really knew anything about it. At the 1971 Oshkosh Air Show Dennis learned of a Firefly based at Wadley, Georgia. The owner had intended to turn it into a transcontinental racer but never started.

Dennis and Alan approached John Weir and Peter Matthews to join them as partners in the venture. Travelling to Georgia they found the Firefly sitting in a cornfield. After inspection determined it to be restorable, they purchased it for $10,000. Several weeks later, the Griffon engine was fired up and the Firefly headed towards Toronto. The pilot got as far as Fredericksburg, Virginia, where a hydraulic failure forced him to land with the tail wheel retracted. Dennis and Alan rented a Twin Commanche and flew to Virginia. They were met there by Firefly owner who flew up in his Cessna 310. The Firefly was rendered ferryable and the old owner headed north in it, being followed in formation with Dennis and Alan. The Firefly was equipped with only basic instruments - no compass or radio. The formation encountered poor weather and became separated near the north shore of Lake Ontario. Dennis and Alan landed at the Toronto Island Airport for customs only to discover the Firefly had just arrived ahead of them without communication to the tower. Toronto International Airport was where the restoration was to take place. On starting the Firefly for the short flight there the Kaufmann starter on the engine became unserviceable.  They managed to get running using ropes, tires and a truck borrowed from the airport manager. Once again in flight the Firefly became separated from the group and controllers at Toronto Centre provided radar vectors to the “Nordo” aircraft. They eventually formed up again and were cleared to land.

Restoration work commenced almost immediately and on June 4, 1972 the Fairey Firefly was test flown. At this time all four partners came to the realization that flying a vintage warbird exposed them to certain liabilities. They decided to operate the aircraft through a non-profit corporation and named it "Canadian Warplane Heritage."

By 1973 CWH was calling Mount Hope Airport its home. In March of that year charitable foundation status was obtained and a Chipmunk donation started the expansion of the collection. More aircraft followed, the Harvard and Tiger Moth, followed by the Corsair. The rest as they say is history. One hangar became two. More aircraft and members followed.  Even the devastating fire of 1993 was turned into a positive with the building of the current museum facility – a $12 million dollar purpose designed and build home to one of this countries most valued aviation trusts.

I remember sitting in the original CWH hangar years ago with Dennis and I asked him as we looked around  “did you ever plan on it becoming something like this?” His reply was a simple “no” with a big smile. Funny thing how the right idea can become something incredible and take on a life of its own.