New Castle ELT Requirement

I'm glad to see the healthy discussion on ELTs. It's long overdue. New
Castle. I conferred at length with Lanier (my long time friend and
confidant) and urged him to make the ELT rule. I hope I was influential. I
urged him to act dictatorially as owner of the airport. He has no authority
to change contest rules, so he has made the rule independent of SSA etc. I
feel strongly that he has not completed his "due diligence" liability wise
without such a rule in place. I think his lawyer will agree. The fact that
we have neglected such a rule for so long in the past is not relevant.
I think the discussion about different models and specs is excellent and
may/should lead to a tweaking of the rules in the future. This does not
change the need for the immediate general rule.
Of course such a rule may not be needed for all sites. Each site (owner,
club, organization) must determine it's need. For sites such as Mifflin and
New Castle where tasking is over rough terrain with thick forest cover the
need is obvious.
The real purpose of this post is to ask for some discussion on ELT
installations in various gliders and especially the antennas and their
design and installation, especially in carbon fiber fuselages. My last four
or five gliders, in which I installed ELTs were ASW-28, LS-8, Discus B,
DiscusA, LS-7. They were all experimental. I shudder to think of the
previous 30+ years I flew cross country out of New Castle without one.
Ignorance is bliss!
I "crashed" the Discus A and the ASW-28 and the ELTs worked perfectly.
Fortunately (I think) I had witnesses and did not need a site locator.
Installations are generally easy structurally. The main criterion is to
prevent the ELT from hitting the pilot in the head. I've mounted several
against the back of the front carry through tube. Here you must prevent the
unit from rising vertically due to any initial impact and then be in
position for free movement into the head upon the next major impact. It's
mostly common sense.
I'll save for next time my ideas on making homemade antennas and their
installation.
Ed Byars

Dear Mr. Byars:

Please explain to me an airport owner's liability concern(s) by
allowing non-ELT equipped aircraft to/from their airport.

Is the airport owner concerned that he somehow would be held liable if
an aircraft (without an ELT) would crash offsite while operating from
his airport? Quite a stretch to what is considered reasonable
"due-diligence" in my opinion. This [non]event happens every day at
every uncontrolled G.A. airport in this country.

Let us not confuse what is "required" with what is convenient or
[WRT to individual opinion] what "should be".

The safety of flight is ultimately the responsibility of the P.I.C.
(so says the FARs)--this includes ensuring the operational condition
of any *required* onboard instrumentation and equipment. Non required
equipment is a moot point, and to consider an airport owner liable for
a mishap pilot's decision not to have optional equipment installed is,
as a legal argument, laughable.

Forgive my assumption, but I think your opinion WRT this matter is
unquestionably jaded by your personal experiences. Obviously you feel
strongly about the benefit of equipping your aircraft with an ELT.
But ask yourself this: if because someone lands gear-up twice should
the airport owner [for liability concerns] demand that all similar
aircraft be installed with a gear warning system as a condition to
operate at his airport?

What I see is a knee-jerk policy unilaterally instituted under the
color of an exagerated concern of liability in the rare case of an off
site aircraft accident during a glider contest. Such a policy
instituted at a public airport could rightly be contrued as
discriminatory in nature an thus in vilotion of federal assurances.
At the very least it sets a questionable precedence to now be
considered by other airport owners.

The proper protocol in this matter would be to defer such decisions to
the sanctioning body (SSA). I urge your friend to consult his insurer
and his lawyer on this matter in an attempt to better define what
exactly his "due diligence" as an airport owner is when hosting a
glider competition.

RD

"Romeo Delta" wrote in message
om...
Dear Mr. Byars:

Large snip

The proper protocol in this matter would be to defer such decisions to
the sanctioning body (SSA). I urge your friend to consult his insurer
and his lawyer on this matter in an attempt to better define what
exactly his "due diligence" as an airport owner is when hosting a
glider competition.

RD

I think you are putting far to much faith in the letter of the law here
and forgetting what American juries are capable of. In the recent Carnahan
trial, an award of some $25 + million was made against the manufacturer of
the vacuum pump's. Units by the way, that the NSTB said were working before
and after the crash. Carnahan had asked for $100 million, awarded 25 +, and
the judge cut it down to $2.1 million. Still quite a bit to pay for
something that was working as advertised.

Lanier has a nice piece of property there, and while I agree with you, in
that I do not think he could loose it, the time and cost of a trial would be
hard to bear.

Having met both Lanier and Ed, I am sure that legal matters were not the
prominent part of this decision. Finding a downed pilot in very rough,
heavily forested area, in a timely manner, was most likely the main reason.

John

I wonder if we aren't jumping the gun here.

ELT's are good devices, but Vpos-like devices would accomplish the same
purpose by recording the flight track up to the point of a crash while
providing other benefits.

Bill Daniels

J.M. Farrington wrote:

"Romeo Delta" wrote in message
om...

Dear Mr. Byars:


Large snip

The proper protocol in this matter would be to defer such decisions to
the sanctioning body (SSA). I urge your friend to consult his insurer
and his lawyer on this matter in an attempt to better define what
exactly his "due diligence" as an airport owner is when hosting a
glider competition.

RD


I think you are putting far to much faith in the letter of the law here
and forgetting what American juries are capable of. In the recent Carnahan
trial, an award of some $25 + million was made against the manufacturer of
the vacuum pump's. Units by the way, that the NSTB said were working before
and after the crash. Carnahan had asked for $100 million, awarded 25 +, and
the judge cut it down to $2.1 million. Still quite a bit to pay for
something that was working as advertised.

Lanier has a nice piece of property there, and while I agree with you, in
that I do not think he could loose it, the time and cost of a trial would be
hard to bear.

The liklihood of being sued because the airport owner did not require a
pilot to carry equipment that sailplanes are specifically exempted from
carrying, and that doesn't even involve flight safety, seems extremely
remote. No airport, anywhere, has been sued because a glider crashed
without an ELT. His potential liabilities for other reasons connected
directly to the use of the airport and his towplanes far exceed this
one. In the example given, note that the airport was not sued for
allowing the aircraft to use "defective" vacuum pumps.

Still, if he thinks this is an important issue, and wishes to make it a
condition of access to his airport, I think he is within his rights to
do so.



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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Lost this piece in the reply:

J.M. Farrington says:
Having met both Lanier and Ed, I am sure that legal matters were not the
prominent part of this decision. Finding a downed pilot in very rough,
heavily forested area, in a timely manner, was most likely the main reason.

This is a legitimate issue, and I hope we won't obscure it with
discussions of improbable legal liability.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Dear Mr. Romeo Delta:
Thanks for your thoughtful comments. Your specific question to me is pretty
much answered by my friend John Farmington and others in this string.
It seems that you have more faith in the legal system and it's integrity
than I do. Like my friend Eric G. says "This is a legitimate issue and I
hope we won't obscure it with discussions of improbable legal liability".
I hope this does not imply that I have not taken your question seriously.
Such is not the case and I appreciate your input.
ED


"Romeo Delta" wrote in message
om...
Dear Mr. Byars:

Please explain to me an airport owner's liability concern(s) by
allowing non-ELT equipped aircraft to/from their airport.

Is the airport owner concerned that he somehow would be held liable if
an aircraft (without an ELT) would crash offsite while operating from
his airport? Quite a stretch to what is considered reasonable
"due-diligence" in my opinion. This [non]event happens every day at
every uncontrolled G.A. airport in this country.

Let us not confuse what is "required" with what is convenient or
[WRT to individual opinion] what "should be".

The safety of flight is ultimately the responsibility of the P.I.C.
(so says the FARs)--this includes ensuring the operational condition
of any *required* onboard instrumentation and equipment. Non required
equipment is a moot point, and to consider an airport owner liable for
a mishap pilot's decision not to have optional equipment installed is,
as a legal argument, laughable.

Forgive my assumption, but I think your opinion WRT this matter is
unquestionably jaded by your personal experiences. Obviously you feel
strongly about the benefit of equipping your aircraft with an ELT.
But ask yourself this: if because someone lands gear-up twice should
the airport owner [for liability concerns] demand that all similar
aircraft be installed with a gear warning system as a condition to
operate at his airport?

What I see is a knee-jerk policy unilaterally instituted under the
color of an exagerated concern of liability in the rare case of an off
site aircraft accident during a glider contest. Such a policy
instituted at a public airport could rightly be contrued as
discriminatory in nature an thus in vilotion of federal assurances.
At the very least it sets a questionable precedence to now be
considered by other airport owners.

The proper protocol in this matter would be to defer such decisions to
the sanctioning body (SSA). I urge your friend to consult his insurer
and his lawyer on this matter in an attempt to better define what
exactly his "due diligence" as an airport owner is when hosting a
glider competition.

RD

Dear Mr. Byars:
....

Is the airport owner concerned that he somehow would be held liable if
an aircraft (without an ELT) would crash offsite while operating from
his airport?



A much more likely liability issue would be if a volunteer participating in
a search party looking for the lost pilot were to have an accident or
injury. Then the organizer of the search party, most likely the contest
organizers, would have a very real liabiliy exposure. An ELT could reduce
the search time and thus the risk exposure for the searchers.

While I am at it, the following point was never clearly stated in this
discussion:

** ELT's are of very little use to the pilot, but they are a big help for
the searchers, organizers and loved ones. **

Best Regards

Mr Byars

Dear Mr. Ray Cornay,
Since you are posting a very personal letter attacking Ed Byars, you
won't mind receiving a similar reply.
First, personal attacks should at least be signed in name and not
posted in anonymously. I had to look up your name in the SSA
database. Looking further, I found no entry with your name in the SSA
seeding list indicating that you are not flying in contests. While
you are entitled to your opinion, this pretty much disqualifies you
from making statements judging an obviously wide ranging and difficult
decision as the one made by the Region 4S Contest Manager. Having
flown the New Castle contest at least 12 times, let me give you some
facts:
• Lanier Frantz is the private owner of NCI
• SSA contest rules allow him to put requirements out towards contest
participants as he sees fit (e.g. this is a no-ballast contest)
• Without resorting to legal questions regarding liability, flying
with an ELT – even with the 121.5 only dumb transmit – is prudent as
we have found out over the years.
• Only if you have personally been on site can you relate to the
anguish and concerns felt by everyone for the well-being of a missing
pilot. Those posting in this and other threads who are making this a
libertarian issue (Live free or die) are sadly mistaken. This includes
you, Mr. Cornay.
• The rule offered by Lanier is well understandable and supported by I
dare say 90% of the pilots with experience at New Castle – especially
after the recent accident.
• ELT's are cheap and easy to install, see Tim Mara's posts, and they
do work. They will improve the chances of finding a downed glider in
any terrain although they are not perfect.
I support Lanier's decision and ask those who don't to go and enter
other contests. He has my application and $100 and I look forward to
September.

Herbert Kilian, J7


(Romeo Delta) wrote in message . com...
Dear Mr. Byars:

Please explain to me an airport owner's liability concern(s) by
allowing non-ELT equipped aircraft to/from their airport.

Is the airport owner concerned that he somehow would be held liable if
an aircraft (without an ELT) would crash offsite while operating from
his airport? Quite a stretch to what is considered reasonable
"due-diligence" in my opinion. This [non]event happens every day at
every uncontrolled G.A. airport in this country.

Let us not confuse what is "required" with what is convenient or
[WRT to individual opinion] what "should be".

The safety of flight is ultimately the responsibility of the P.I.C.
(so says the FARs)--this includes ensuring the operational condition
of any *required* onboard instrumentation and equipment. Non required
equipment is a moot point, and to consider an airport owner liable for
a mishap pilot's decision not to have optional equipment installed is,
as a legal argument, laughable.

Forgive my assumption, but I think your opinion WRT this matter is
unquestionably jaded by your personal experiences. Obviously you feel
strongly about the benefit of equipping your aircraft with an ELT.
But ask yourself this: if because someone lands gear-up twice should
the airport owner [for liability concerns] demand that all similar
aircraft be installed with a gear warning system as a condition to
operate at his airport?

What I see is a knee-jerk policy unilaterally instituted under the
color of an exagerated concern of liability in the rare case of an off
site aircraft accident during a glider contest. Such a policy
instituted at a public airport could rightly be contrued as
discriminatory in nature an thus in vilotion of federal assurances.
At the very least it sets a questionable precedence to now be
considered by other airport owners.

The proper protocol in this matter would be to defer such decisions to
the sanctioning body (SSA). I urge your friend to consult his insurer
and his lawyer on this matter in an attempt to better define what
exactly his "due diligence" as an airport owner is when hosting a
glider competition.

RD

The safety of flight is ultimately the responsibility of the P.I.C.
(so says the FARs)--this includes ensuring the operational condition
of any *required* onboard instrumentation and equipment.

The safety of a single flight is the responsibility of the pilot. However,
the safety of a soaring contest falls in the lap of the contest organizer.
His decisions regarding the safe operation of a contest at a his site should
be respected, and not 2nd guessed.


But ask yourself this: if because someone lands gear-up twice should
the airport owner [for liability concerns] demand that all similar
aircraft be installed with a gear warning system as a condition to
operate at his airport?

Invalid analogy. Landing gear up will not cause a ground and air search
involving time, effort and risk of numerous individuals and agencies.

What I see is a knee-jerk policy unilaterally instituted under the
color of an exagerated concern of liability in the rare case of an off
site aircraft accident during a glider contest. Such a policy
instituted at a public airport could rightly be contrued as

New Castle is a private airport. Check your facts before posting.

http://www.airnav.com/airport/VA85


The proper protocol in this matter would be to defer such decisions to
the sanctioning body (SSA).

Please post a reference to this protocol. Is this published somewhere, or
is it just your personal opinion?


Guy Byars