-
-Hi Jim,
-
- As a writer, I agree that the final responsibility is on the magazine's
-editor's shoulders for accuracy. Bu the fault lies with the writer. In this
-case the writer(s) appear to be insiders.

Yes, as a writer I agree. But to make as many errors of fact as were made in
this article, the writer must shoulder some responsibility. Just as an example,
look at the picture on page 108, and remember that this is an article about the
proper INSTALLATION of an ELT. See the pretty antenna coax draped across the
sharp edge of the aluminum former? With no cable ties anywhere? Ain't THAT a
proper way to show installation.

And the admonition to use an Adel clamp on the tip of the antenna to keep it
from whipping about? Can you say "DETUNE" from the metal in the clamp?



- Huge mags, like National Geographic and others, have dozens of people
-who do nothing but 'fact checking,' name spelling, placement of decimal
-points (like the one you blooped in your message above.

And the failure to close (parentheses)? {;-)



Smaller magazines,
-like Sport Aviation and Flying don't do as good a job because of the staff
-costs. As an entrepreneur, you know the largest costs in any business are
-labor+overhead and overhead (G&A) exceeds labor by multiple factors.
- That doesn't excuse allowing errors to reach print, but it does explain
-why editors rely more and more on us writers to get it right. Go for it,
-Jim, but I don't think you will make much headway. I'll bet the magazine
-just won't increase the staffing to include a technical review board.

Most of us would gladly volunteer to keep crap like this from making its way
into print.



I'd
-also bet that a person with the CVs for doing the review job won't work for
-the pitiful wages the mag would pay. It is a universal problem in the
-industry.
- Now for a fine point in your discussion of frequencies. The guard
-frequency 243.0 Mhz is within the military band 225.0 to 399.9. For as long
-as I can remember, and that goes back at least to the fifties as an
-electronics tech in the USMC, the military band has been considered UHF
-despite the delineation of 30 to 300 attached to the definition of VHF. I
-won't give you points for that one.

And I agree with you. I've called it the Mil UHF band for years. However, this
is just another point that you've found without even having the magazine in your
hands. The POINT was that they didn't mention 243.0, just 121.5. Anybody with
a lick of avionics sense understands what a crystal bitch it is to design
antennas that will radiate efficiently on both the fundamental and second
harmonic.

And the final kicker? The admonition to "replace the battery if there are any
signs of corrosion". Me? I was taught to clean up the corrosion and THEN
replace the battery.

Sigh.


Jim


Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com