Proposed 2005 Rules On SRA Site

wrote:

Reply
Mandatory use of ELT's is a major change which must be proposed a year
in advance in accordance with the SSA Contest Rules process. This is
done, in part to avoid surprise rules and permit pilots to plan
accordingly.

I've had an ELT (EBC-102a) installed for about 5 years now, including
several contests. I got one because it's small size and self-contained
antenna made it much easier to mount. I know several other pilots that
use these, also.

It's TSO C91, not C91a as the proposed rules require, and I'm not keen
on paying another $200-$300 to replace a fairly new, working unit.

Can you tell me why C91 isn't adequate for contest purposes, or if these
units can be accepted specifically? It's not like pilots will rush out
to buy these to save a few bucks, because they cost about $200 more than
a number of C91a units.


--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

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.

A 406 mHz unit would be best, but I'd MUCH prefer to spend the money on
a transponder - if I had to spend the money. At least with a
transponder I could get a FL 180 waiver.

My portable, parachute-mounted ELT does not comply with the proposed
contest rule.

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.

Jim

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

"Eric Greenwell" wrote
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 re-read the rule and since ELT's are not required for gliders (only
airplanes as previously discussed here ad infinitum), I will change my
opinion to say that none of the other requirements of the rule applies to
gliders. I say this because the sentence that states no new installations
may use c91 ELT's says "those required by paragraph (a) - and the ELT is not
required by paragraph (a) for gliders, so I could argue that none of the FAR
requirements are applicable to a non-airplane.

But this view may not be shared by all FSDO's or IA's should you choose to
make a new installation in your glider certificated in any category. I would
also infer that the annual test and logbook entry would not be required, but
I may be out on a limb here tilting a windmill or something like that.

I'd certainly like to stick with my current C91 unit until the new,
improved ELTs are cheaper!

Amen - the FAA would allow you to do that - if they required an ELT in your
aircraft.

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?

The 1-26 Nationals are an SSA sanctioned contest, right? I'll need an SSA
membership to fly in the contest, so I believe it qualifies under the
proposed rule as an "SSA Competition". If not, I'd be interested to hear
that from someone with the real scoop.

Jim

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

I don't know where your statics come from but I know of NO glider with an
installed ELT that did not go off in a serious accident....
Can you give me just one incident where a glider crashed that had an ELT
that did not go off??? Please, just name ONE time......
and still ELT's can be had for well under $200.I sell them and have them on
the shelf.....there are a very large number of gliders already flying with
these.......I know, I've sold them!
And honestly.if a contest orgainizer requires you to have one I think it is
their decision and they are the ones hosting the contest....if you don't
want to compete in their contest or follow their rules then that is going to
be your decision...they may also require you to wear a parachute, carry some
kind of data-logger and even have some form of badge required.that's their
rules for having you as their guest.....if you don't want to follow their
rules for entry I'm sure you'll be missed but then again, forgotten....
tim
www.wingsandwheels.com


"Mark James Boyd" wrote in message
news:41e9461f$1@darkstar...
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

For those of you that wish to have some statistics pertaining to ELT
reliability go to this page:
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/regulatory/elt.html

As with most arguements on this group there has been hyperbole on the part
of both sides. While I would agree that another $2000 instrument will not
keep me from entering a contest I do feel that it could keep a newcomer from
entering their first contest. There have been multiple threads on this
group re how the average age of sailplane pilots is steadily growing and
wishing to know how we might interest new folks in joining our sport.
Making the cost of entering a contest higher does not help that goal. We
should at least be honest with ourselves about that.

In my opinion transponders go much farther in at least potentially
furthering the greater good than an ELT. Pretty much each of us has a story
of being closer to power traffic than we would have liked to be. If there
is a midair and lives lost you can bet that there will be immediate steps
made to regulate our flying. Admittedly it has a different function than an
ELT and would also be cost prohibitive but does have the potential for
locating a downed aircraft based upon the last known position.

Casey Lenox
Phoenix

Talk about cost!!!!!!!
Transponders in gliders are expensive.......!
Initial cost to install a transponder is +/- $2000, semi-annual cost, +
additional batteries + upkeep = more $
My biggest fear is that transponders could eventually be required for
everything that fly's...that means every homebuilt, every 126, 222, k6 or k8
and so on and every club glider will have this additional expense.... now
you won't only have problems with a newbie trying to get into a contest, but
with every potential glider owner, every club member all having to pay more
or.......have less
As for " Pretty much each of us has a story of being closer to power traffic
than we would have liked to be". "IF you have stories about close
encounters then it's likely because you're flying in heavily congested
airspace.....Don't fly there!......you are absolutely correct "If there is a
midair and lives lost you can bet that there will be immediate steps made to
regulate our flying." and that will be the end of soaring as we know it!
I do sell transponders.....but I try also to explain as best I can what
their limitations are to buyers as well......these are not a simply, flip it
on when YOU want it and go on flying down the approach corridor.....if
you're not talking with ATC in these highly congested areas you are still
putting yourself and others at risk.........not every other plane in this
area will be talking with ATC or have a TCAS system on board ...... if you
want simple and inexpensive traffic avoidance look beyond simply squawking
in the blind but look also at the TPAS systems....far better than having the
Fed's tell us we all need to have transponders installed to fly "anywhere"
tim
www.wingsandwheels.com


"Kilo Charlie" wrote in message
news:1GwGd.2637$0B.729@fed1read02...
For those of you that wish to have some statistics pertaining to ELT
reliability go to this page:
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/regulatory/elt.html

As with most arguements on this group there has been hyperbole on the part
of both sides. While I would agree that another $2000 instrument will
notPretty much each of us has a story
of being closer to power traffic than we would have liked to be. If there
is a midair and lives lost you can bet that there will be immediate steps
made to regulate our flying.
keep me from entering a contest I do feel that it could keep a newcomer
from
entering their first contest. There have been multiple threads on this
group re how the average age of sailplane pilots is steadily growing and
wishing to know how we might interest new folks in joining our sport.
Making the cost of entering a contest higher does not help that goal. We
should at least be honest with ourselves about that.

In my opinion transponders go much farther in at least potentially
furthering the greater good than an ELT. Admittedly it has a different
function than an
ELT and would also be cost prohibitive but does have the potential for
locating a downed aircraft based upon the last known position.

Casey Lenox
Phoenix

This is the relevant paragraph from the link Casey offered:

When ELTs were mandated in 1973, most GA aircraft were equipped with an
ELT that transmits on the 121.5 MHz frequency, the designated
international distress frequency. The original ELTs were manufactured
to the specifications of an FAA technical standard order (TSO-C91A) and
have an activation rate of less than 25 percent in actual crashes and a
97 percent false-alarm rate. In 1985, a new TSO-C91A ELT was developed,
which substantially reduces or eliminates many problems with the
earlier model. The TSO-C91A provides improved performance and
reliability (with an activation rate of 73 percent in actual crashes)
at a reasonable cost to users ($200-$500 including installation). Since
then, an even more advanced model of ELT has been developed - the
C126 ELT (406 MHz). This newest model activates 81-83 percent of the
time, but the current cost is $1,500 or more per unit, not including
installation.

Please note that these are AOPA rendered statistics. AOPA has a very
strong position against mandatory use of the 406 MHz units based on
member financial impact. (In fact, little of AOPA writes should be
accepted at face value. They are an advocacy group, and not always in
the best interests of the majority of pilots.) Therefore, they have
painted a picture that shows little value in moving from the older
technology to the new and have omitted some important facts regarding
time to acquisiton of signal, ability to verify whether the signal is
an actual emergency, accuracy of first pass position resolution,
reduction in false alerts, and time to arrival of emergency personnel
on scene. They do, however, acknowledge that as of 2009, satellites
will no longer monitor the old bandwidths. This means no repsonse
unless someone watched you go in.

The rhetoric used by the AOPA is interesting. Note the lack of
parallelism between the first two examples. A false alarm rate in C91A
models is not cited. This is always a sign of a potentially flawed
argument, typically presented intentionally to drive the reader to
specific conclusion.

In response to Casey's point, I'll repeat my earlier concerns that put
me on the unpopular side of this discussion: the units aren't for our
safety but for the safety of those who might one day have to come
looking for us. Search and rescue is a dangerous business. Consider
Utah skiers killed in avalanches this past weekend. NONE wore beacons
while skiing off piste. That has put many dozens of searchers in harms
way for much longer than was necessary. Finally, recognize that we are
talking about racing. Pilots typically fly more aggressively, cover
larger distances at high speeds, often traversing unlandable terrain.
Organizers are asking racers to make their jobs a little easier. For
the cost-conscious, they can satisfy the requrest for under $300. For
the value-concscious, $1K will provide an even greater degree of
assurance.

Tim,

this is the problem with depending on personal experience rather than
statistics. Unfortunately, sailplane ELT activation appears not to be
reported in accident investigations. Therefore, we have to depend on GA
statistics (and their tortuous path into being). At best, activation is
75%. At worst, about 25%. Let's split the difference and call it a coin
toss. The real problem with the 121.5 units is the false alarm rate.
This costs resources. Imagine how many fire houses we'd need if the
false alarm rate was 97%, or more accurately, how many houses would
burn down. If you can't think of a single non-activation, how many
times have you seen the CAP looking for an ELT in a hangar, trailer, or
tie-down?

BTW, I'm searching for two 406 units for our gliders. I can either
continue my own research and buy them direct from the manufacturer...
or buy them from a soaring supplier. I know there are a large number
of pilots who share my preference, both in equipment and source. But it
doesn't seem like any vendor is making an effort to satisfy the need.
Am I missing something?