Proposed 2005 Rules On SRA Site

I have a portable personal ELT. I have taken it with me on
thousands of flights, some in gliders. When I flew a glider, I
attached it across my chest with the parachute. I've activated it four
times, when coming in for landing at unobserved (outlanding) strips.
I shut it off in each case after landing, except once when I was able to
avoid landout and instead climbed 10,000 feet. I then shut it off, and
called FSS and told them I was the false alarm.

I don't know why pilots assume they have to crash to activate the
ELT. I agree with Carl Herold that every outlanding is an
emergency landing, and I treat it as such.

I have never flown a glider with an installed ELT. I have found
my particular use of a personal ELT suits me and my needs better.
And my ELT is on ME, not the glider. I don't care if anyone finds
the glider...

In article IZ0Hd.4920$0B.1542@fed1read02,
Kilo Charlie NOSPAMkilocharlie.cox.net wrote:
Chris, Chris, Chris......I love it when you stoop to arguing with statistics
by not only dissing the ones presented but not offering any of your own to
support another viewpoint! The old "I just know those aren't correct" idea.
Hey I'm here to learn so show me the money and I'll be glad to see it
another way. Honestly I thought that those nasty old AOPA stats with all of
their bias supported the point that Tim (and you) were making.

And Tim.....the reason that I bought and installed a transponder (which with
an encoder was less than $2000 BTW) was that when I was flying back from the
Grand Canyon towards Phoenix on those very long flat glides, I could not
even see the gliders in front of me but could see the occasional 737 heading
in to PHX. Now I'm not thinkin' that you fly in a place more remote than
northern Arizona but I suppose I may have missed that spot while I was
flying on the east coast. With that 37 and I heading the same direction I
figured that I would get a loud noise followed by crunching as the first
sign I may be too close.

As you point out and as I said already, transponders are a lot of money but
you chose to overlook that part about the newer ELT's (and soon to be only
effective models) currently being the same price. Maybe they'll come down
in price, maybe so will transponders, maybe neither will.

I'll make the point again.....ANY $2000 required piece of equipment for
contest entry will be prohibitive to some pilots, esp newer ones. Point
number 2 is that if we are forced to choose which is a more effective
instrument in preventing human loss of life and therefore psychological
trauma to the greater number of people I say that the stats would support
the transponder.

I used OC logic with that last statement since I have nothing to support
it!!! But darn it I know I'm right!

KC





--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

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?

Well said Tim.......refer all people like this to 2004 15M
nationals.......the ELT was invaluable there!!!

Brian


"Tim Mara" wrote in message
...
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

You are such a short sighted man, and thinking of no one but yourself no
less!!!!! i will only say one thing more......you have never been involved
with the search and rescue side, and have never seen how much an ELT can do
when it goes off correctly. I have.......and i hope I never have to see it
again!!!! It was invaluable in a recent wooded contest crash!!!!



"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