![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I'd be interested in an aircraft installed ELT requirement if I
thought it was really useful. I think installing ELTs in aircraft is great. Just like installing a Garmin 430 in the panel. If the individual pilot thinks it fits his/her situation and has the money, then go for it! I'm completely against the requirement for ELTs beyond what 14 CFR 91 (in the USA) requires. ELTs don't even activate in 75% of serious (reportable) accidents. In the 2-33 I'd be using for a Sports class competition in Avenal, an ELT would contribute nothing (zero, nada) to safety, search and rescue, etc. The only thing it might contribute to is nuisance if it was accidentally activated. And a requirement for it would do absolutely nothing except keep this aircraft from participating in a contest. Too bad. Flying a short course close to the airport on a nice day with tons of landouts in a glider that hasn't had a US fatality in 25 years, with a handheld radio and handheld ELT and cell phone would have been a lot of fun. "Only" $300 indeed...perhaps the poster of that one is offering up HIS $300... Perhaps you should require me to carry IFR charts and be IFR trained in the 2-33 also, to ensure I don't get confused in the clouds and crash into a 4000 foot hill? I'm sure the forecast that says CAVU could possibly be wrong too... Requirements come about because you think the pilots are stupid. If you think the pilots are stupid, you have a bigger problem than whether you can find them when they crash. Mark J. Boyd not a fan of pointless blanket requirements In article , Eric Greenwell wrote: jphoenix wrote: The rule should be amended (in my opinion) to allow continued use of TSO C91 units that are currently installed. Granted they are not as accurrate as the C91a units, but at least they are installed. A C91 ELT may be adequate for contest purposes in someone's estimation, but in no case may they be used for a new installation (FAR), so there's no chance of installing the C91 units if you don't already have it installed. Can experimentally licensed aircraft (like my glider) legally install C91 units? I'm not clear on that, but there are plenty of places selling EBC-102a ELTs, so somebody must be able to use them. I'd certainly like to stick with my current C91 unit until the new, improved ELTs are cheaper! This new contest rule means that all 1-26's participating in the Nationals in 2006 shall require an approved ELT installation. I'm thinking lead balloon on this one. Don't they use their own rules, not the SSA rules? I'm assuming you mean the 1-26 Nationals. Or did you mean the Sports Class Nationals? -- Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly Eric Greenwell Washington State USA -- ------------+ Mark J. Boyd |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Third Military-Civil MAC Jan. 18, 2005 | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 37 | February 14th 05 03:21 PM |
millionaire on the Internet... in weeks! | Malcolm Austin | Soaring | 0 | November 5th 04 11:14 PM |
The Internet public meeting on National Air Tour Standards begins Feb. 23 at 9 a.m. | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 0 | February 22nd 04 03:58 PM |
FLASH! U.S.A. Rules Committee to Address Rules Complexity? | SoarPoint | Soaring | 1 | February 3rd 04 02:36 AM |
New SRA Site - New 2003 Rules Minutes and 2004 Rules Summary | Ken Kochanski | Soaring | 0 | December 17th 03 03:38 AM |