Tim

Read one of the links on Chris's original post. There the statistics he
quoted are spelled out. Looks like the link is NOAA\FAA related.

Brian


"Tim Mara" wrote in message
.. .
I disagree with the comment that 121.5 ELT's are obsolete and question
where
this data that " only activate properly in about 12% of crashes." Where
did
these statistics come from?
There are proper mounting procedures for ELT's can of course influence the
possibility of the ELT "G" switch functioning properly and antenna
installations will naturally have some affect on the range of the signal.
The use and usefulness of (marine) EPIRBs or PLBs (used for land-based
applications) in sailplanes IMHO is very questionable, that is of course
unless you plan on crashing into a lake or river (Marine EPIRB's are
typically activated by being submersed in water or know you are going to
crash and have time to manually set off the ELT, but in most Sailplane
accidents, like the most recent one with Peter Masak, manually setting of
the ELT would not have been possible therefore the manual triggered PLB
would have been of no use.
Also even though the 406 MHz ELT's "may" be the future standard and "may"
be required (where ELT's are required, in sailplanes they are still not an
FAA requirement), this is not even yet in the USA a mandate, but still
simply proposed, even so, should they become mandated it is still some
time
off, and even AFTER this time, 121.5 MHz ELT's will still be allowed. The
fact is still that in local Search and Rescue operations 121.5 will be
used
and useful, and though the monitoring of the 121.5 frequency will, when
initiated at this future time not be continuous, BUT they will still be
able
to use this frequency when an aircraft is reported missing and will be
able
to switch on the 121.5 HHz searching when needed.
more info on http://www.sarsat.noaa.gov/ Also, I'm not sure how many
local
pilots have or will have the ability to locate 406 MHz signals.....my
radio
sure doesn't go this high, though all current sailplane and local aircraft
transceivers that could be useful in searching for and do have within
their
range the 121.5 MHz frequency and can detect the signal from their current
radio set-up.
Also, 121.5 MHz aircraft ELT's are in fact available for under $200 today
adding these units is not a big financial deterrent, but requiring this
use
of even the lowest cost 406 MHz ELT's which are going to be well over
$1000
($2000 and much higher for any certified units) mandating these be used in
glider contests will certainly adversely affect participation.
tim


"Chris OCallaghan" wrote in message
om...
I just received a note from Lanier Frantz stating that all competitors
at R4S must have an ELT. I understand the reason for this decision,
but I question whether it will have the intended effect. I have long
been against mandatory ELT use in soaring competitions for one reason
only: they do not operate as advertised. While 121.5 MHz ELTs are
useful for locating a crash scene, they are nearly useless as a life
saving device. And, in fact, these units only activate properly in
about 12% of crashes.

The management of R4S has made this decision for safety reasons... for
the safety of their own and emergency personnel. This is laudible. But
if such a decision is to be carried through to its intended ends, it
needs to be more specific. It should require that all pilots use 406
MHz ELTs (as Peter Masak was using) and recommend the use of GPS PLBs.
This would dramitically improve the chances of proper activation as
well as early and pinpoint detection. Of course, there's always a
but...

A 406 MHz unit will cost approximately $1500. A GPS PLB about $800. A
121.5 MHz ELT can be had for under $400. Which will pilots choose? The
nearly useless, and soon to be obsolete (2/1/2009) low cost
alternative offered by soaring parts suppliers nationwide.

R4S is mandating a placebo. Again, I understand and commned their
willingness to take a stand, but clearly some more thought is
warranted. Here are a pair of links to help you (the pilot) cut
through the emotional aspects and understand what your dollars are
buying... or aren't.

http://www.sarsat.noaa.gov/emerbcns.html

http://beacons.amsa.gov.au/What_is/index.asp

Frankly, given this information, I find it unethical for suppliers to
continue selling 121.5 ELTs. Peter was using a 406 transmitter -- the
state of the art. Had he been using a 121.5 unit, there is less than a
1 in 8 chance it would have activated, and assuming it worked
properly, the search area would have been at least 8 times larger (500
nm^2 versus 65 nm^2). Even with the improved unit, it took nearly 16
hours to accurately locate and arrive at the crash site.

It's important to recognize that ELTs are not life saving devices.
They are, at best, crash site locaters. Rapid, life-saving response to
a remote crash site can only happen with a GPS PLB (300-foot accuracy,
several minuts to detection after activation). But these have problems
as well. For instance, they are not automatic. The pilot would need to
recognize danger and activate the unit before the accident or losing
consciousness.

Apologies for wandering here. There's alot to be thought about. By
pilots and contest organizers. This is a response to a well
intentioned, but not necessarily well thought out decision. It
represents a half step: a gesture only. Either we're going to demand
as a group that pilots take more responsibility for protecting those
souls who will risk their lives to find them by installing reliable,
useful devices, or we should leave such decisions entirly up to the
pilot.

Region 4 South has decided that regulation is warranted. Now they
should follow through... or back off. Please, no half steps.

OC