Carrying Skis in a Single...

Don't forget some space blankets in your pockets.

Before I bought an airplane, try a rental of a similar
model, to know what it will do. Renting a 6 place cargo
hauler for one or two trips a year and owning an Cardinal
for the other 50 weeks is probably less cash out of pocket.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"EridanMan" wrote in message
oups.com...
| Thank you everyone - a lot of great responses-
|
| I'm already scheduled to spend two weekends at the end of
the month
| with a very experienced mountain instructor. I'm also
obsessive about
| safety (and a rather avid outdoorsman), so I would not
dream of flying
| outside of the bay area (if not above a major interstate)
without an
| 'unexpected camping trip' pack that I'm currently putting
together
| (half dozen MRE's, tent, blankets, GPS, ELT, handheld
radios, butane
| stove+pot, etc, all in a single bag secured with
heavy-duty velcro.)
|
| As for planes... The Cardinal is still tempting, as is the
Navion (with
| the Cherokee-6 being my dream)... unfortunately, my
current budget
| doesn't allow for examples of either of those that I would
be willing
| to fly. Fortunately I'm patient, I'll wait until I have
the money and
| spring for a ship that will suit my needs.
|
| Thanks again
|
| -Scott
|

On 2006-05-08, Peter Duniho wrote:
"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
How about a handheld aviation radio? It's likely you are going to be in
reasonably frequent line-of-sight from an airliner.

As a substitute for carrying survival gear? I don't think that's a
reasonable exchange.

No, of course not. As an addition to carry survival gear. A modern
handheld aviation radio is not big enough to displace survival gear.
However, it may get you in contact with someone much faster if you
happen to crash outside of mobile phone service.

IMHO, one of the best things a person can do, beyond having a good, reliable
ELT with them is to have filed an accurate flight plan with someone who will
come looking for you if you don't arrive on time. There are few forms of
communications that are highly reliable when you're in a remote location.
Expecting to be able to contact someone after the crash seems optimistic to
me.

That's why no one is suggesting that it's expected. However, I think the
more options you have the better, and if you can carry a portable radio
- why not? It's another option.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
[...]
Expecting to be able to contact someone after the crash seems optimistic
to
me.

That's why no one is suggesting that it's expected.

By posting your message in reply to my post, and in reply to this tangent of
the thread, YOU suggested that it's expected.

You might think about being more clear about your point. This tangent in
this thread started out about whether to carry survival gear or not. All of
my replies have been on that topic. You replied to one of my replies, with
the implication that you were asking about how a handheld aviation radio
relates to the question of carrying survival gear.

However, I think the
more options you have the better, and if you can carry a portable radio
- why not? It's another option.

If all you're asking is whether a handheld radio is a useful tool, you might
want to start a different thread. Though, the answer is obviously "yes".
Even if you don't wind up crashing, you could still have an electrical or
radio failure (a more likely reason to need a handheld, IMHO). Just as
having modern avionics, seatbelts, fuel, wings, and a host of other things
is useful. But the question of whether any of those things is useful
doesn't really fit in here. We're talking about whether some form of
communications is sufficient for negating the need for survival equipment.

When you depart the topic, it's pretty hard for people to figure out what
you're really asking.

Pete

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
On 2006-05-08, Peter Duniho wrote:
"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
How about a handheld aviation radio? It's likely you are going to be in
reasonably frequent line-of-sight from an airliner.

As a substitute for carrying survival gear? I don't think that's a
reasonable exchange.

No, of course not. As an addition to carry survival gear. A modern
handheld aviation radio is not big enough to displace survival gear.
However, it may get you in contact with someone much faster if you
happen to crash outside of mobile phone service.

According to all the experts I've talked to, including members of the CAP
here in the Rockies, a radio is a good option. A plane equipped with one of
the new 406 ELTs is also a good option. They also say that the survival
rate of the plane-mount ELTs in a big crash is not high. The best thing,
I'm told, is a personal locator beacon (or ELT) with GPS. There aren't many
of these with GPS but the ACR one is supposed to be top of the line.
They'll cut down the search pattern to just a few miles rather than hundreds
of miles... Barring nasty weather, we're talking recovery in 20 hours or so
versus many days... I've given my family hints along this line for ideas
for Christmas and/or birthdays for me... ;-)

On 6-May-2006, "Peter Duniho" wrote:

Airplanes are very good at getting a person away from cell phone service.
You may not be able to contact anyone with your cell phone. This is
probably the biggest hole in your idea; cell phone coverage is still quite
limited away from urban areas in the US.


Depends heavily upon the technology (and the frequency band). For best
coverage, be sure you get a CDMA phone (NOT GSM or iDEN!!). Your phone
should also be analog compatible, as there is still a lot of analog service
in areas without digital.

Major CDMA carriers: Verizon Wireless, Sprint (but be sure you get a
dual-band phone), Alltel, US Cellular
Major GSM carriers: Cingular, T-Mobile
Major iDEN carrier: Nextel


If they survive, your com radios, both in the panel and handheld, can be
useful for summoning help from other aircraft on 121.5. Don't we all
monitor 121.5 while XC when we have a "spare" com?


As to the issue of carrying skis, there are a very few models that had ski
tube factory options. One that comes to mind is the Bellanca Viking. There
are probably STCs for some of the more popular models. The good news is
that the new "shaped" skis tend to be quite a bit shorter that the old
"straight" skis.


-Elliott Drucker

On 11-May-2006, wrote:

If they survive, your com radios, both in the panel and handheld, can be
useful for summoning help from other aircraft on 121.5. Don't we all
monitor 121.5 while XC when we have a "spare" com?


I should have also mentioned that you should try on the local center or
approach control frequency, since any turbine aircraft in the vicinity will
certainly be tuned to that one

-Elliott Drucker

Dual band phones are an absolute must if you want to get service
outside of any major metro area, just understand that in analog mode,
the phone will run out of juice VERY quickly, and in the western
wilderness, your chance of getting a signal is still relatively low...
So make sure not to leave the phone on for very long.

Also-

All nextel Iden Phones made in the past four years (starting with the
i88s and i730) have built in SiRF GPS chips that are capable of making
a stand-alone GPS fix... Something to remember if you or your
passengers happen to have one on you (and no other GPS equipment).
Granted, you'll still need some form of communication to transmit that
fix... but it is an option for _getting_ a fix.

I think the point everyone here is trying to make is that no one
strategy in an emergency is sacred- being prepared is making sure you
always have a good option... Thank you everyone for the feedback.

EridanMan wrote:

Dual band phones are an absolute must if you want to get service
outside of any major metro area,


Bull****. We don't allow metro areas in this state and I have to get
between mountain ranges to lose digital coverage.

"Newps" wrote in message
...


EridanMan wrote:

Dual band phones are an absolute must if you want to get service
outside of any major metro area,


Bull****. We don't allow metro areas in this state and I have to get
between mountain ranges to lose digital coverage.

From my viewpoint, Billings is indeed a metro area. Heck, it's a "Big City".


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

I'm not even sure how to respond to this... I certainly didn't mean to
be confrontational.

I worked for a major mobile provider for 4 years in the
subscriber/network group...

The _SIMPLE FACT_ is that analog still covers approxomately 2X the land
area of digital coverage in the US (This mostly has to do with the fact
that Analog tends to run at far higher broadcast power, but far lower
density than the equivolent digital... which is why a dual-mode phone
in analog drains quickly). Putting better digital coverage in
wilderness areas requires establishing new towers, while better analog
coverage is generally a simple matter of turning up the
transmit/recieve gain (assuming Line of sight). Since all major
digital providers already cover all regions they consider 'economically
viable' (not to mention they're locked in a price war at the moment),
expansion and establishment of new towers in rural areas is _not_ high
on their priority at the moment.

Either way, you can hardly argue that dual mode phones at least give
you more options than digital only...

But if you're _that_ passionate about not wanting a dual mode phone,
its your perogotive, I'm not going to argue.