No ELT on a remotely piloted aircraft — and what you may carry instead

Know the one prohibition that governs emergency locator transmitters on an RPA, the tracking equipment that is permitted instead, why the prohibition exists, and what it costs to break it.

• You know what an ELT is: a transmitter that sends an emergency signal to search and rescue when an aircraft is missing. AIM 3.2.33
• You know the difference between an ELT and an ordinary tracking device, because the rule treats them in opposite ways. AIM 3.2.33
• You know the rule is on the pilot, and it is about operating the aircraft rather than owning or carrying it. CAR 901.45

Section 901.45 says exactly this: no pilot shall operate a remotely piloted aircraft equipped with an ELT. There is no exception in the section, no class of aircraft it spares, and no approval that displaces it. CAR 901.45

The AIM states the same prohibition and attributes it to that section, so both sources answer a question the same way. AIM 3.2.33

The prohibition is specific to ELTs. An RPA may carry other types of tracking device that let the pilot locate it — the point of the distinction being that such a device finds your aircraft without notifying first responders. AIM 3.2.33

That is the line to hold: a beacon that summons search and rescue is prohibited; a device that tells you where your own aircraft is, is not. AIM 3.2.33

An ELT exists to bring search and rescue to a missing aircraft, and the resources it summons are scarce. The AIM gives the reason plainly: to ensure that valuable resources are not dispatched to find missing aircraft where no life is at stake, RPAs are not permitted to have ELTs on board. AIM 3.2.33

That is the answer to a "why" question, and it is about search and rescue resources, not about interference, weight or certification. AIM 3.2.33

A small RPA delivered for a survey flight with a functioning ELT built into it is an RPA equipped with an ELT, and the section binds the pilot who operates it. The prohibition is not addressed to the manufacturer, so the fact that the aircraft came that way does not move the duty. CAR 901.45

The AIM states the exposure for a pilot operating an RPA equipped with an ELT: individual penalties of up to $1,000 and corporate penalties of up to $5,000. AIM 3.2.33

For more on ELTs generally, the AIM points the reader to SAR part 3.0 — Emergency Locator Transmitter (ELT) of the TC AIM. AIM 3.2.33

Question	The answer
May an RPA carry an ELT?	No — no pilot shall operate an RPA equipped with one CAR 901.45
May it carry anything else for tracking?	Yes — other tracking devices that locate it without notifying first responders AIM 3.2.33
Why is the ELT prohibited?	So search and rescue resources are not dispatched where no life is at stake AIM 3.2.33
What are the penalties?	Up to $1,000 individually, up to $5,000 for a corporation AIM 3.2.33
Where is more information?	SAR part 3.0 of the TC AIM AIM 3.2.33

• The prohibition is on the pilot, and on operating CAR 901.45
• Tracking devices other than ELTs are permitted AIM 3.2.33
• The reason is SAR resources, not interference AIM 3.2.33
• An aircraft delivered with a working ELT is still an aircraft you may not fly CAR 901.45

Symptom	Likely cause	What to do
A question says an RPA may carry an ELT	The section says the opposite	Answer no CAR 901.45
All tracking equipment is assumed prohibited	Only the ELT is	Fit a device that does not alert first responders AIM 3.2.33
The reason is answered as "interference with other signals"	The AIM's reason is different	SAR resources and no life at stake AIM 3.2.33
The penalty figures are reversed	Individual is the smaller	$1,000 individual, $5,000 corporate AIM 3.2.33
The aircraft came with an ELT from the factory	The duty is the pilot's	Do not operate it as equipped CAR 901.45

Practise: Ops elt

• CAR 901.45 — ELT
• TC AIM RPA 3.2.33 — Emergency Locator Transmitters (ELT)