ELT's Personal vs Installed

Mark is absolutely correct that the two together is the BEST possible
scenario.

With that said, I think it would be nice if the RC simply stated that an
ELT of any kind is required. If a mounted ELT gets pulverized in the
crash then that's no good and if someone bails out, but becomes
incapacitated then a portable is no good and even if you have both you
are not guaranteed one will work.

Sure would be nice if the RC would allow the individual to make the
decision as to what he/she thinks is best. If the RC makes a
recommendation, that is certainly understandable.

Mark

MKEENE221 wrote:
Glider pilots in contest carry parachutes so in most cases I can think
of it would be better to have the ELT with the pilot. Is there a reason
this is not allowed in contest flying?



It's probably because the ELT that's carried in a parachute won't activate on
impact like the one mounted in the aircraft. If an aircraft crashes and the
pilot is incapacitated, can't reach to activate it or worse yet, dead, he might
as well not even have one. The ideal situation would be to have one mounted in
the glider and one carried in the parachute.

Mark

How about setting up a rescue fund? Require pilots without
ELTs to donate $300 each year in order to fly in a contest.

What, maybe a few hundred contest pilots. If half
don't use ELTs, then $60,000 would go a long way towards
a rescue search.

And you read Colin's post about 2 aircraft found that
had ELTs and transponders, to no avail.

With 6 fatalities a year on average in all glider
flying, it looks like 1 or 2 per year at most are
during a contest. And of these, 0 or 1 require a search.

If I were a contest pilot, I would certainly like the option
of shelling the $300 instead of just not flying at all.
At least $300 towards a "search and rescue fund" would go
towards a good cause. I'd prefer this to the requirement of
installing a nuisance maker in my glider.

Yes, I've had one accidental activation and been hunted down
("impact" of a backpack nudging an ELT in a 172).
And I've had a CAP guy hunt down an inadvertently activated
personal ELT on an ALSE (aviation life support equipment)
vest.

Also, how long do you think it will be before the FAA requires
EVERY installed ELT to be the expensive kind? 2010? That's
my guess...

Suggesting, prodding, and encouraging contest pilots to
have some kind of ELT sounds great. Requiring it is another matter.
It sure adds to safety, in the same way as sawing off a potential
contestant's wings right before flight. If they don't fly, they won't
be injured or killed in flight. Say, why not just have the BBQ and
forego the whole flying business anyway? $300 from each
contestant buys a LOT of beans and weenies...

The statistic I'm most interested in is:

How many times would an ELT installation in a glider have
resulted in life instead of death for a pilot? If the answer
is "once" and the cost is $4,000,000 then I will go with the findings
of the NTSB about requiring child car seats in airliners.

They found that the estimated cost would be so great that
it was virtually pointless. They actually recommended that the
same amount of money would save hundreds of times as
many childrens lives if it was used to publicize the dangers of
venetian blind cords as a household strangulation
hazard.

Perhaps instead of an ELT, or even a "rescue fund," we should
all take $300 and mail it to J.R. for nicoderm patches and
encourage her to stop smoking

Just kidding, J.R.! We love you and hope you live a long, long time


P.S. By the way, what does "reducio ad absurdum" mean? My wife said it
to me, but I don't speak Italian...can someone translate?

Sure would be nice if the RC would allow the individual to make the
decision as to what he/she thinks is best. If the RC makes a
recommendation, that is certainly understandable.

Mark Keene

--

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

Mark James Boyd wrote:
...
P.S. By the way, what does "reducio ad absurdum" mean? My wife said it
to me, but I don't speak Italian...can someone translate?
...

This is not Italian, this is Latin and should be spelled "reductio ad absurdum"
(with a "t"). The litteral translation, as you can guess is "reducing to nonsense",
a method often used in mathematical proofs which consist in assuming that the
opposite of what you want to prove is true and deducing from that some contradiction
(absurdity or "absurdum" in Latin).

Coulda been raddichio ad absurdum--the grocers' practice of charging a
ridiculous price for cabbage of a different color.

"root" wrote in message
...
Mark James Boyd wrote:
...
P.S. By the way, what does "reducio ad absurdum" mean? My wife said it
to me, but I don't speak Italian...can someone translate?
...

This is not Italian, this is Latin and should be spelled "reductio ad
absurdum"
(with a "t"). The litteral translation, as you can guess is "reducing to
nonsense",
a method often used in mathematical proofs which consist in assuming that
the
opposite of what you want to prove is true and deducing from that some
contradiction
(absurdity or "absurdum" in Latin).