ELT Required for all SSA sanctioned contests starting 2006

Sarbe make a range of beacons, easily confused. Some
are activated by immersion [and are buoy packs for
marine use] and some are 'personal' items stowed on
the pilot or in an ejection seat cushion. Their brochure
states that the operation is 'compatible' with automatic
activation. Translated, that means it is operated
by pulling a pin; the pin can be pulled manually, or
by a static line attached between the ejection seat
and the aircraft, or by some unspecified G-sensitive
device not part of the unit.

G-sensitive devices are not too reliable - it depends
on the direction as well as the energy of the force
at impact. Flying into a brick wall or hitting the
ground in a vertical dive will certainly trigger it;
a hard landing may or may not; a low speed mush into
treetops or a BRS-assisted landing may or may not.


To think that either a PLB or an ELT will always operate
in a glider crash is wishful thinking. However, if
a PLB [the manufacturer's term] such as the Sarbe
series is good enough for NATO military use, it's certainly
good enough for me. Unfortunately, not cheap enough
!

In terms of value, a PLB with 406 capability and built-in
GPS is available now for around $600 from several sources.
An ELT with only 121.5 can be had for less than $200.
I'd pay the extra for the much greater PLB effectiveness.

As for the peace of mind issue, if someone goes missing
and an ELT is activated, his condition and whereabouts
are still unknown until the searches [for glider and
then for pilot] are completed. If he carries a PLB
and activates it manually, his condition and whereabouts
are quickly [a matter of minutes] known. If he carries
a PLB but is unable to activate it, then his condition
is also known and knowledge of his whereabouts is secondary.

As an aside, JJ might have an opinion about whether
the peace of mind issue might be more pertinent to
finish gates and procedures...

Ian




At 19:54 08 September 2005, Don Johnstone wrote:
At 18:06 08 September 2005, Eric Greenwell wrote:
Don Johnstone wrote:

There is no mix up of terms. The Sarbe GR2 series
of
Personal Locator Beacons, that is the ones you carry
do have a G switch to trigger the unit in the event
of a crash (or ejection). Details at http://www.sarbe.com/g2r.ht

m.
From the menu on that page you can select Datasheet
which gives details.

Are you sure it is crash activated? Or is it activated
by the G loads
when the pilot ejects? I couldn't determine that from
the brochure.

Both, and immersion in water and pulling the pin.

I consider myself a "lower-income" pilot. I installed an Ameri-King model
AK-450 ELT in my HP-14 early this summer. I don't have any false ideas that
this device will "save my life." I installed it, not because of future
contest rules, but simply to help SAR in case something happened while
flying in the mountains. (See:
http://www.soaridaho.com/photogallery/index.htm)

My unit is actuated by excessive "G" loading along the longitudinatal axis.
(Ameri-King also makes a model for helicopters that is actuated by both
longitudinal and vertical "G" forces.) The installation instructions are
complete and simple to follow.

I arm the system when I assemble the glider and turn it off during
de-assembly. (These actions are part of my check lists.) There isn't
anything fancy about my trailer. That is unless you consider spring on the
axle "fancy." Even if I didn't turn the unit off before trailering the '14,
I don't think normal or emergency braking would actuate the unit.

My unit was purchased from Tim Mara (http://www.wingsandwheels.com). A
couple hundred "bucks" isn't excessive amount to invest assist in a SAR
effort, even for a HP-14 driver.

Wayne
http://www.soaridaho.com



"M B" wrote in message
...
Eric, first of all, your participation here, as always,
is welcome, and I am glad you have responded. As usual,
I respect your adding your (very well thought out voice)
to this. I'm going to make some points here that are
subtle.

First of all, you are right, I was probably using hyperbole
to make a point. There may not be hundreds of ELT
accidental activations caused by this rule. It may
be less, or even none. I don't know for sure, but
I am going to write about reasons why accidental activations
may be more common than your experience.

Hmmm...making some guesses he

Is your trailer very well padded so the fuselage isn't
damaged during trailering?

Do you have the kind of ELT that required a bit more
sophistication to install, and has a remote activation
button with a small LED light that tells you if it
accidentally activates?

Did you install this ELT voluntarily, and carefully
read the documentation with it about how to install
it correctly and how to dial in 121.5 on the radio
to listen for false activations?

You land real gentle in your nice glider don't you?
Thats why you have so many flights and trailerings,
instead of having it in the repair shop, right?

I'm guessing that for you, and most of your friends,
the answer to all of these will be 'yes.'

For the folks at the 'margin' for whom the added ELT
cost is almost too much to ask to enter a contest,
the answer to these questions may be 'no.' Their trailers
may not be the
$5000-$10,000 cobra with super suspension. The ELT
may be the old non-remote kind bought secondhand with
no documents, and installed themselves non-perfectly.
Their landiing may not be pretty.

These same folks, at the margin, may highly respect
the volunteer efforts of the contest organizers and
want to install the ELT to accomodate their wishes.
But this may not change the economics that they can't
afford a brand new ELT with remote LED professionally
installed, much less a 406MHz GPS unit...

You and I are talking about different things. I don't
think you or most of the other experienced, devoted,
contest pilots with moderate incomes will have that
much of a problem complying with this 'minor change'
to the rules.

But others, including Marc Ramsey, and me, and some
others see this as another brick stacked up in a wall
that creates a slightly larger barrier to entry into
this sport. This barrier affects lower-income, entering
pilots more than those who are already contest fliers.
And at some point too many bricks makes the wall too
high.

There will be some who overcome this, and there will
be some who don't. I think the contest numbers next(?)
year of #s of entrants who have installed ELTs, and
numbers of 'new' entrants compared to prior years,
will speak to this.

I hope I am wrong. I honestly do. In the meantime
I will bang the drum loudly about barriers to entry,
especially for lower-income pilots. And I hope this
will strike a balance opposite those who are willing
to require $$$$s for marginal improvements in the name
of 'safety.'

On the subject of ELTs, I have had one go off accidentally
(the cheapo non-LED kind) when the switch was flicked
by putting in a backpack in the backseat. After engine
shutdown I caught it by the bleedover on the radio
(ASEL).

Three weeks ago a fellow pilot (low timer) had the
police break into his hangar, and subsequently call
him, after a hard landing (ASEL).

Low-timers are more likely to fly lower-quality equipment,
land harder, and have less sophisticated senses about
how to detect accidental activation. And they won't
as commonly have the LED on to warn them of accidental
activations.

Anyway, I enjoy further discussion on this, if you
think it is productive, and appreciate your thoughts
and counterpoints.

M B wrote:

For the folks at the 'margin' for whom the added ELT
cost is almost too much to ask to enter a contest,
the answer to these questions may be 'no.'

A simple solution: the SSA, or a local club, finds some ELT units (on
the 2nd hand market, or borrowed from members), and makes them
available for a small fee (15USD ?) to the low-income competition
pilot. At the end of the contest, the units are returned to the
owners, or sent to another contest location...

Aldo Cernezzi

Hi Tim,

I'm aware of the situation. It is my understanding that they are on hold
and will be available again soon. I have some on order.

Paul Remde

"Tim Mara" wrote in message
...
Not so fast.................Artex has re-called these already....
tim
Wings & Wheels
www.wingsandwheels.com

"Paul Remde" wrote in message
news:mLITe.316115$_o.53729@attbi_s71...
Hi,

I will soon have "low cost" 406 ELTs from Artex for $995. They are
listed on my web site. I don't have them in stock yet but they should be
available in a few weeks.
http://www.soarmn.com/cumulus/elts.htm

Good Soaring,

Paul Remde
Cumulus Soaring, Inc.
http://www.cumulus-soaring.com

"bumper" wrote in message
news

"Martin Eiler" wrote in message
...
Most people consider pilot safety as everything needed until that pilot
is
safe and sound at his intended destination. Pilots spend thousands of
dollars per year on auto, glider and life insurance. Yet there is this
whine about spending a few hundred dollars one time on a piece of
equipment
that could mean the difference between life and death, in the event of
a
crash.

As we are all aware, the old 121.5 MHz ELTs are on their way out, with
only 3 more years of promised satallite coverage. The few 406 MHz ELTs
that I've seen have yet to see much of a price drop.

From Chief Aircraft:

Ameri-King AK-450, a popular 121.5 ELT: $183.75 USD

Artex G406, a 406 MHz ELT: $1589.00

Handheld radios, cell and satellite phones are all excellent items
for your land out kits, but none of them are automatically activated
during
a crash; nor will phones or radios be of any use if you become
unconscious.


One of the many problems with the real world experience of the older
ELTs, is that in most cases they have not activated automatically in a
crash. They do, however, seem to activate for a myrid number of
non-crash reasons such as hard landings and whatever. And almost all
activations have been false.

Pilots who fly in remote, mountainous and wilderness areas should
reconsider
installing an ELT, if not for themselves, then maybe for their families
who
may lose a loved one simply because they weren't found in time.



M Eiler


The argument I've seen most often against the US contest requirement for
an installed ELT, is not that there isn't a need for this sort of thing
at all, but rather that a PLB (personal locator beacon) is a more viable
solution. PLBs can be small enough to attach to a parachute harness,
operate on 406 MHz (so won't become obsolete in 3 years), can be had
with built in GPS to send a precise location, and will direct search
personnel to the pilot as opposed to the wreckage. Further, they are
registered to the pilot so searcher know who they are looking for, and
obviously will work in more than just one vehicle or activity. Prices
have come down to the $500 -$700 range (w/ GPS built in).

bumper

The Ameri-King AK-450 ELT w/voice, was also installed in the new Husky I
bought 3 months back. I was disappointed as I wasn't given the option of
spending a bit more to get a newer 406 unit . . . and I didn't think to ask.

Bad news is the 121.5/243 MHz frequency is scheduled for no satellite
monitoring response in 3 years. I'm sure the price on the new 406 MHz ELTs
will drop to a more reasonable level by then.

For now,I think a $400 to $500 dollar PLB represents a better buy than an
121.5 built-in with 3 more years to go. At least the 406 MHz PLB will be
useful for other activities, hiking, boating etc. and will work into the
foreseeable future.

bumper


"Wayne Paul" wrote in message
...
I consider myself a "lower-income" pilot. I installed an Ameri-King model
AK-450 ELT in my HP-14 early this summer. I don't have any false ideas
that
this device will "save my life." I installed it, not because of future
contest rules, but simply to help SAR in case something happened while
flying in the mountains. (See:
http://www.soaridaho.com/photogallery/index.htm)

My unit is actuated by excessive "G" loading along the longitudinatal
axis.
(Ameri-King also makes a model for helicopters that is actuated by both
longitudinal and vertical "G" forces.) The installation instructions are
complete and simple to follow.

I arm the system when I assemble the glider and turn it off during
de-assembly. (These actions are part of my check lists.) There isn't
anything fancy about my trailer. That is unless you consider spring on
the
axle "fancy." Even if I didn't turn the unit off before trailering the
'14,
I don't think normal or emergency braking would actuate the unit.

My unit was purchased from Tim Mara (http://www.wingsandwheels.com). A
couple hundred "bucks" isn't excessive amount to invest assist in a SAR
effort, even for a HP-14 driver.

Wayne
http://www.soaridaho.com



"M B" wrote in message
...
Eric, first of all, your participation here, as always,
is welcome, and I am glad you have responded. As usual,
I respect your adding your (very well thought out voice)
to this. I'm going to make some points here that are
subtle.

First of all, you are right, I was probably using hyperbole
to make a point. There may not be hundreds of ELT
accidental activations caused by this rule. It may
be less, or even none. I don't know for sure, but
I am going to write about reasons why accidental activations
may be more common than your experience.

Hmmm...making some guesses he

Is your trailer very well padded so the fuselage isn't
damaged during trailering?

Do you have the kind of ELT that required a bit more
sophistication to install, and has a remote activation
button with a small LED light that tells you if it
accidentally activates?

Did you install this ELT voluntarily, and carefully
read the documentation with it about how to install
it correctly and how to dial in 121.5 on the radio
to listen for false activations?

You land real gentle in your nice glider don't you?
Thats why you have so many flights and trailerings,
instead of having it in the repair shop, right?

I'm guessing that for you, and most of your friends,
the answer to all of these will be 'yes.'

For the folks at the 'margin' for whom the added ELT
cost is almost too much to ask to enter a contest,
the answer to these questions may be 'no.' Their trailers
may not be the
$5000-$10,000 cobra with super suspension. The ELT
may be the old non-remote kind bought secondhand with
no documents, and installed themselves non-perfectly.
Their landiing may not be pretty.

These same folks, at the margin, may highly respect
the volunteer efforts of the contest organizers and
want to install the ELT to accomodate their wishes.
But this may not change the economics that they can't
afford a brand new ELT with remote LED professionally
installed, much less a 406MHz GPS unit...

You and I are talking about different things. I don't
think you or most of the other experienced, devoted,
contest pilots with moderate incomes will have that
much of a problem complying with this 'minor change'
to the rules.

But others, including Marc Ramsey, and me, and some
others see this as another brick stacked up in a wall
that creates a slightly larger barrier to entry into
this sport. This barrier affects lower-income, entering
pilots more than those who are already contest fliers.
And at some point too many bricks makes the wall too
high.

There will be some who overcome this, and there will
be some who don't. I think the contest numbers next(?)
year of #s of entrants who have installed ELTs, and
numbers of 'new' entrants compared to prior years,
will speak to this.

I hope I am wrong. I honestly do. In the meantime
I will bang the drum loudly about barriers to entry,
especially for lower-income pilots. And I hope this
will strike a balance opposite those who are willing
to require $$$$s for marginal improvements in the name
of 'safety.'

On the subject of ELTs, I have had one go off accidentally
(the cheapo non-LED kind) when the switch was flicked
by putting in a backpack in the backseat. After engine
shutdown I caught it by the bleedover on the radio
(ASEL).

Three weeks ago a fellow pilot (low timer) had the
police break into his hangar, and subsequently call
him, after a hard landing (ASEL).

Low-timers are more likely to fly lower-quality equipment,
land harder, and have less sophisticated senses about
how to detect accidental activation. And they won't
as commonly have the LED on to warn them of accidental
activations.

Anyway, I enjoy further discussion on this, if you
think it is productive, and appreciate your thoughts
and counterpoints.

M B wrote:
Eric, first of all, your participation here, as always,
is welcome, and I am glad you have responded. As usual,
I respect your adding your (very well thought out voice)
to this. I'm going to make some points here that are
subtle.

Thanks for the kind words.

First of all, you are right, I was probably using hyperbole
to make a point. There may not be hundreds of ELT
accidental activations caused by this rule. It may
be less, or even none. I don't know for sure, but
I am going to write about reasons why accidental activations
may be more common than your experience.

Accidental activations are not really an issue for glider pilots, based
on my experience and those of several others that have commented on RAS
and directly to me. Even if they were, we shouldn't be worried about the
effect of a few hundred additional glider ELTs (out hundreds of
thousands in airplanes) on a system (FAA and SAR folks) that wants us to
use them. We don't use them because the FAA gave us a waiver, not
because we cause problems.


But others, including Marc Ramsey, and me, and some
others see this as another brick stacked up in a wall
that creates a slightly larger barrier to entry into
this sport. This barrier affects lower-income, entering
pilots more than those who are already contest fliers.
And at some point too many bricks makes the wall too
high.

Exactly: the real issue is cost. Pilots that already have them or are
already dedicated contest pilots will still come to contests, but the
new or occasional contest pilot may decide the travel, vacation time,
GPS logger, entry fee, ELT, and so on, just adds up to too much money.

My preference is to allow the contest organizers to decide whether an
ELT is required. That way, they can balance the peace of mind it gives
them against the potential loss of entrants. In our region, I suspect we
would not require an ELT, but obviously, some places would. Still, we
should remember the people that want this rule ARE glider pilots, and
treat their views with respect.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

I usually agree with you Eric, and do this time as well, but with one
"amendment". Given the limited 3 year lifetime of the more common and less
expensive 121.5 ELT, I think they should allow the portable 406 PLB to
satisfy the contest requirement for a locator beacon.

bumper

"Eric Greenwell" wrote in message
...
M B wrote:
Eric, first of all, your participation here, as always,
is welcome, and I am glad you have responded. As usual,
I respect your adding your (very well thought out voice)
to this. I'm going to make some points here that are
subtle.

Thanks for the kind words.

First of all, you are right, I was probably using hyperbole
to make a point. There may not be hundreds of ELT
accidental activations caused by this rule. It may
be less, or even none. I don't know for sure, but
I am going to write about reasons why accidental activations
may be more common than your experience.

Accidental activations are not really an issue for glider pilots, based on
my experience and those of several others that have commented on RAS and
directly to me. Even if they were, we shouldn't be worried about the
effect of a few hundred additional glider ELTs (out hundreds of thousands
in airplanes) on a system (FAA and SAR folks) that wants us to use them.
We don't use them because the FAA gave us a waiver, not because we cause
problems.


But others, including Marc Ramsey, and me, and some
others see this as another brick stacked up in a wall
that creates a slightly larger barrier to entry into
this sport. This barrier affects lower-income, entering
pilots more than those who are already contest fliers.
And at some point too many bricks makes the wall too
high.

Exactly: the real issue is cost. Pilots that already have them or are
already dedicated contest pilots will still come to contests, but the new
or occasional contest pilot may decide the travel, vacation time, GPS
logger, entry fee, ELT, and so on, just adds up to too much money.

My preference is to allow the contest organizers to decide whether an ELT
is required. That way, they can balance the peace of mind it gives them
against the potential loss of entrants. In our region, I suspect we would
not require an ELT, but obviously, some places would. Still, we should
remember the people that want this rule ARE glider pilots, and treat their
views with respect.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Ditto EVERYTHING Wayne Paul wrote, 'cept on my 1-26 and I got the unit
from Aircraft Spruce.

Turn it OFF during disassembly (it's on the CHECKLIST), and turn it to
ARM during assembly (CHECKLIST). Also, check the function at annual
time, change the batteries per the schedule (or ahead, at annual time),
and this includes the fancy panel remote with those sexy LED's (part of
the CHECKLIST, too!).

No false activations (despite the "soft" 1-26 gear arrangement).
Hopefully don't need it to activate anytime soon.

Cheap insurance, peace of mind, and airborne SAR will still "hear"
121.5 for years to come (hopefully when 406 units are as inexpensive as
hiking GPS units). I have heard 121.5 ELT's while flying ASEL, relayed
info to ATC (though I never heard if they found the source).

I wonder if I could get an insurance discount to really convince
everybody that it is "cost effective" to have one!

-Pete

Wayne Paul wrote:
I consider myself a "lower-income" pilot. I installed an Ameri-King model
AK-450 ELT in my HP-14 early this summer. I don't have any false ideas that
this device will "save my life." I installed it, not because of future
contest rules, but simply to help SAR in case something happened while
flying in the mountains. (See:
http://www.soaridaho.com/photogallery/index.htm)

My unit is actuated by excessive "G" loading along the longitudinatal axis.
(Ameri-King also makes a model for helicopters that is actuated by both
longitudinal and vertical "G" forces.) The installation instructions are
complete and simple to follow.

I arm the system when I assemble the glider and turn it off during
de-assembly. (These actions are part of my check lists.) There isn't
anything fancy about my trailer. That is unless you consider spring on the
axle "fancy." Even if I didn't turn the unit off before trailering the '14,
I don't think normal or emergency braking would actuate the unit.

My unit was purchased from Tim Mara (http://www.wingsandwheels.com). A
couple hundred "bucks" isn't excessive amount to invest assist in a SAR
effort, even for a HP-14 driver.

Wayne
http://www.soaridaho.com



"M B" wrote in message
...
Eric, first of all, your participation here, as always,
is welcome, and I am glad you have responded. As usual,
I respect your adding your (very well thought out voice)
to this. I'm going to make some points here that are
subtle.

First of all, you are right, I was probably using hyperbole
to make a point. There may not be hundreds of ELT
accidental activations caused by this rule. It may
be less, or even none. I don't know for sure, but
I am going to write about reasons why accidental activations
may be more common than your experience.

Hmmm...making some guesses he

Is your trailer very well padded so the fuselage isn't
damaged during trailering?

Do you have the kind of ELT that required a bit more
sophistication to install, and has a remote activation
button with a small LED light that tells you if it
accidentally activates?

Did you install this ELT voluntarily, and carefully
read the documentation with it about how to install
it correctly and how to dial in 121.5 on the radio
to listen for false activations?

You land real gentle in your nice glider don't you?
Thats why you have so many flights and trailerings,
instead of having it in the repair shop, right?

I'm guessing that for you, and most of your friends,
the answer to all of these will be 'yes.'

For the folks at the 'margin' for whom the added ELT
cost is almost too much to ask to enter a contest,
the answer to these questions may be 'no.' Their trailers
may not be the
$5000-$10,000 cobra with super suspension. The ELT
may be the old non-remote kind bought secondhand with
no documents, and installed themselves non-perfectly.
Their landiing may not be pretty.

These same folks, at the margin, may highly respect
the volunteer efforts of the contest organizers and
want to install the ELT to accomodate their wishes.
But this may not change the economics that they can't
afford a brand new ELT with remote LED professionally
installed, much less a 406MHz GPS unit...

You and I are talking about different things. I don't
think you or most of the other experienced, devoted,
contest pilots with moderate incomes will have that
much of a problem complying with this 'minor change'
to the rules.

But others, including Marc Ramsey, and me, and some
others see this as another brick stacked up in a wall
that creates a slightly larger barrier to entry into
this sport. This barrier affects lower-income, entering
pilots more than those who are already contest fliers.
And at some point too many bricks makes the wall too
high.

There will be some who overcome this, and there will
be some who don't. I think the contest numbers next(?)
year of #s of entrants who have installed ELTs, and
numbers of 'new' entrants compared to prior years,
will speak to this.

I hope I am wrong. I honestly do. In the meantime
I will bang the drum loudly about barriers to entry,
especially for lower-income pilots. And I hope this
will strike a balance opposite those who are willing
to require $$$$s for marginal improvements in the name
of 'safety.'

On the subject of ELTs, I have had one go off accidentally
(the cheapo non-LED kind) when the switch was flicked
by putting in a backpack in the backseat. After engine
shutdown I caught it by the bleedover on the radio
(ASEL).

Three weeks ago a fellow pilot (low timer) had the
police break into his hangar, and subsequently call
him, after a hard landing (ASEL).

Low-timers are more likely to fly lower-quality equipment,
land harder, and have less sophisticated senses about
how to detect accidental activation. And they won't
as commonly have the LED on to warn them of accidental
activations.

Anyway, I enjoy further discussion on this, if you
think it is productive, and appreciate your thoughts
and counterpoints.

As a reality check, has there EVER been a case where
a glider pilot was unconscious at the accident scene
[the place where the glider and its ELT ended up] for
more than an hour or so [the minimum time for any response
to an ELT signal] but ultimately survived ? Being
knocked out for a short time may delay PLB activation;
but the more precise position and quicker detection
of the 406/GPS more than compensates for this.

The real world is full of compromises. But the mandatory
ELT arguments seem to be relying on marginal situations.

Ian




At 14:06 09 September 2005, T O D D P A T T I S T wrote:
Ian Cant wrote:

In terms of value, a PLB with 406 capability and built-in
GPS is available now for around $600 from several sources.
An ELT with only 121.5 can be had for less than $200.
I'd pay the extra for the much greater PLB effectiveness.

It's not any more effective if it won't activate when
the
pilot is unconscious at the accident scene. The PLB
and ELT
serve distinctly different functions. Automatic activation
is the key to that difference.

If he carries
a PLB but is unable to activate it, then his condition
is also known and knowledge of his whereabouts is secondary.

But isn't that the point - that knowledge of his condition
is not known? He can be unconscious. I'm not against
PLBs,
and certainly not against 406 ELTs. I'd love to have
both,
but I would never choose a PLB over either type of
ELT.
Battery size/weight/power/duration and antenna size
alone
are factors strong enough to make me choose the fixed
mount
ELT, even if automatic activation were not as important
as
it is.




T o d d P a t t i s t - 'WH' Ventus C
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)

Yes, body recovery, not rescue, seems the primary (only?)
benefit of this rule. $100,000 cost of mandated installed
ELTs to recover one dead body 24 hours faster every
four years? Somebody check my math, please...

If fatalities were the concern, a mandatory $80 cholesterol
blood screening and 5 minute checkup by an MD on the
first day of each contest would most certainly better
reduce overall morbidity of the contest pilots, and
for far less money.

At 15:24 09 September 2005, T O D D P A T T I S T wrote:
Ian Cant wrote:

The real world is full of compromises. But the mandatory
ELT arguments seem to be relying on marginal situations.

I express no opinion on the mandatory contest rule,
but they
don't seem to be totally relying on what you call the
'marginal situation' (even if that's important to me
personally). It's reasonable for the rescuers to want
to
know even if the pilot is dead to minimize risk to
the
rescuers.

T o d d P a t t i s t - 'WH' Ventus C
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)

Mark J. Boyd