This ELT string is likely to start a robust conversation, so I may as well
be first. A few points of interest here. I don't know what this assumption
is about the 406 ELT in the Masak crash, but Peter was using a 121.5 ELT. I
was the first airplane to pick up the signal after the US Air Force called
and told us about where to go look. The range of this thing was no where
near 500 miles as has been suggested here. In fact you could fly out of the
range of it in about 4-5 miles, and by going back to the search area, and
flying a different direction, you could soon have a fairly good idea where
to look.

Now, to address why it took so long to find this crash sight, it is very
simple. The ONLY reason it took this long, was because of a cocky, arrogant
EMS director who thought we had nothing good to offer to there search. And
actually at one point as we were trying to get him to look where the ELT was
pointing, he threatened to arrest some of our people, who were quite frankly
getting real fed up with him as well. The message here is, don't be so quick
to write off ANY ELT, because you did not know what really happened here
with Peter. THERE IS NO REASON that it should have taken that long, we had
BETTER information that the search coordinator did, and he refused for about
6 hours to even consider that we might know what we were talking about. In
short.....he was an a--hole!!!

The other factor here is this. Without that, or any ELT, this crash sight
would not be found yet. It was in a protected watershed, where no hiking OR
hunting is allowed for fear of polluting the drinking water, and it was
fenced in....WELL. We needed a key to get into the mountain. One local man
told us that it could have been at least months, and maybe years until
anyone stumbled onto it by accident. let's face it guys, if something bad
should happen to us while flying, do we really want our families to suffer
for a long period of time without closure! I am sure that we are all aware
that sometimes the "not knowing or being able to find" can be worse than
swallowing the fact that our loved ones have actually perished doing what
they truly enjoyed doing. Do you really want to do that too your family? I
DON'T!!!! Use the ELT, it is better than the alternative.

Brian Glick
Mifflin



"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