Dear Mr. Ray Cornay,
Since you are posting a very personal letter attacking Ed Byars, you
won't mind receiving a similar reply.
First, personal attacks should at least be signed in name and not
posted in anonymously. I had to look up your name in the SSA
database. Looking further, I found no entry with your name in the SSA
seeding list indicating that you are not flying in contests. While
you are entitled to your opinion, this pretty much disqualifies you
from making statements judging an obviously wide ranging and difficult
decision as the one made by the Region 4S Contest Manager. Having
flown the New Castle contest at least 12 times, let me give you some
facts:
• Lanier Frantz is the private owner of NCI
• SSA contest rules allow him to put requirements out towards contest
participants as he sees fit (e.g. this is a no-ballast contest)
• Without resorting to legal questions regarding liability, flying
with an ELT – even with the 121.5 only dumb transmit – is prudent as
we have found out over the years.
• Only if you have personally been on site can you relate to the
anguish and concerns felt by everyone for the well-being of a missing
pilot. Those posting in this and other threads who are making this a
libertarian issue (Live free or die) are sadly mistaken. This includes
you, Mr. Cornay.
• The rule offered by Lanier is well understandable and supported by I
dare say 90% of the pilots with experience at New Castle – especially
after the recent accident.
• ELT's are cheap and easy to install, see Tim Mara's posts, and they
do work. They will improve the chances of finding a downed glider in
any terrain although they are not perfect.
I support Lanier's decision and ask those who don't to go and enter
other contests. He has my application and $100 and I look forward to
September.

Herbert Kilian, J7


(Romeo Delta) wrote in message . com...
Dear Mr. Byars:

Please explain to me an airport owner's liability concern(s) by
allowing non-ELT equipped aircraft to/from their airport.

Is the airport owner concerned that he somehow would be held liable if
an aircraft (without an ELT) would crash offsite while operating from
his airport? Quite a stretch to what is considered reasonable
"due-diligence" in my opinion. This [non]event happens every day at
every uncontrolled G.A. airport in this country.

Let us not confuse what is "required" with what is convenient or
[WRT to individual opinion] what "should be".

The safety of flight is ultimately the responsibility of the P.I.C.
(so says the FARs)--this includes ensuring the operational condition
of any *required* onboard instrumentation and equipment. Non required
equipment is a moot point, and to consider an airport owner liable for
a mishap pilot's decision not to have optional equipment installed is,
as a legal argument, laughable.

Forgive my assumption, but I think your opinion WRT this matter is
unquestionably jaded by your personal experiences. Obviously you feel
strongly about the benefit of equipping your aircraft with an ELT.
But ask yourself this: if because someone lands gear-up twice should
the airport owner [for liability concerns] demand that all similar
aircraft be installed with a gear warning system as a condition to
operate at his airport?

What I see is a knee-jerk policy unilaterally instituted under the
color of an exagerated concern of liability in the rare case of an off
site aircraft accident during a glider contest. Such a policy
instituted at a public airport could rightly be contrued as
discriminatory in nature an thus in vilotion of federal assurances.
At the very least it sets a questionable precedence to now be
considered by other airport owners.

The proper protocol in this matter would be to defer such decisions to
the sanctioning body (SSA). I urge your friend to consult his insurer
and his lawyer on this matter in an attempt to better define what
exactly his "due diligence" as an airport owner is when hosting a
glider competition.

RD