My point (which probably ends up taking away from my main point of death-by-a-thousand-cuts) of ELTs being marginally useful is based on an article in one of the flying mags I read earlier this year, I forget which magazine unfortunately, that performed an analysis of aircraft accidents with the goal of analyzing ELT usefulness. For an ELT to be useful, that is in order for it to accelerate the rescue of survivors in the case of an accident, it needs to be the type of accident that is survivable and in which the ELT survives and is heard by a rescue agency. But, also the type of crash that incapacitates the passengers so they cannot activate emergency services by other means, or that emergency services are not already activated by for example a mayday call or missed flightplan, or by a ground witness (so, it must be away from a populated area).
ELTs may also help locate aircraft where there are no survivors but then it could be argued that the usefulness is not pertinent to the pilot. Also, the crash has to be the type that kills the occupants but allows the ELT to survive.
It turns out the numbers are sketchy because the FAA does not always (and not often, if I remember from the article) track ELT activation or whether the ELT aided in the recovery of the aircraft or survivors, and so it's hard to come to a conclusion on ELT usefulness based on statistics.
But it's the kind of thing that aircraft owners have to worry about, even if they fly alone in densely populated areas and file a flight plan, that makes aviation cumbersome due to regulations. I have an ELT, and I buy the damn batteries. I'm also not sure I would fly without one. But it does feel overbearing to have it as a requirement.
My point (which probably ends up taking away from my main point of death-by-a-thousand-cuts) of ELTs being marginally useful is based on an article in one of the flying mags I read earlier this year, I forget which magazine unfortunately, that performed an analysis of aircraft accidents with the goal of analyzing ELT usefulness. For an ELT to be useful, that is in order for it to accelerate the rescue of survivors in the case of an accident, it needs to be the type of accident that is survivable and in which the ELT survives and is heard by a rescue agency. But, also the type of crash that incapacitates the passengers so they cannot activate emergency services by other means, or that emergency services are not already activated by for example a mayday call or missed flightplan, or by a ground witness (so, it must be away from a populated area).
ELTs may also help locate aircraft where there are no survivors but then it could be argued that the usefulness is not pertinent to the pilot. Also, the crash has to be the type that kills the occupants but allows the ELT to survive.
It turns out the numbers are sketchy because the FAA does not always (and not often, if I remember from the article) track ELT activation or whether the ELT aided in the recovery of the aircraft or survivors, and so it's hard to come to a conclusion on ELT usefulness based on statistics.
But it's the kind of thing that aircraft owners have to worry about, even if they fly alone in densely populated areas and file a flight plan, that makes aviation cumbersome due to regulations. I have an ELT, and I buy the damn batteries. I'm also not sure I would fly without one. But it does feel overbearing to have it as a requirement.