Request: Technical Proofreading EAA Sport Aviation

In the July 2004 issue of Sport Aviation, there was an article published on the
installation of ELTs. I have taken issue with the article with Tom Poberezny
and Scott Spangler, and before I go off half-cocked (how unusual for me) I'd
like some confirmation from this group. Understand that I may quote you
directly if you respond, so if you don't want your name mentioned, just say so.

Here's the deal: My contention is that EAA should have an editorial board that
reviews technical articles like this for theoretical as well as practical errors
of fact or judgement. Every ethical magazine in the world has a competent
review team that looks at an author's work and at LEAST asks the questions as to
where the data came from.

Now I'm not looking to pick the nits. They say that the CORPASS-SARSAT
satellites are flying at 528 miles. If the actual altitude happens to be 527.4,
that's a nit.

On the other hand, in the next paragraph (page 108, column 2, first paragraph)
they say that the analog ELTs operate on 121.5 MHz. and the digital ELTs operate
on 406 MHz.. There are two errors of fact he The VHF ELTs operate on 12.15
MHz. AND 243.0 Mhz. The UHF 406 MHz. ELT is NOT totally digital technology.

Now here's the challenge...

Find errors of technical fact AND practical installation (so far I've found ten
of them) and post them here (please do not send to me by private email). I'll
collate them and send them off to TomP. Perhaps we can get the folks back in
Oshkosh to listen and publish something that resembles the truth.

And yes, in case of an unfortunate incident, it CAN make the difference between
YOUR life and death.

Jim


Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

Jim Weir wrote:

In the July 2004 issue of Sport Aviation, there was an article published
on the
installation of ELTs. I have taken issue with the article with Tom
Poberezny and Scott Spangler, and before I go off half-cocked (how unusual
for me) I'd
like some confirmation from this group. Understand that I may quote you
directly if you respond, so if you don't want your name mentioned, just
say so.

Here's the deal: My contention is that EAA should have an editorial board
that reviews technical articles like this for theoretical as well as
practical errors
of fact or judgement. Every ethical magazine in the world has a competent
review team that looks at an author's work and at LEAST asks the questions
as to where the data came from.

Now I'm not looking to pick the nits. They say that the CORPASS-SARSAT
satellites are flying at 528 miles. If the actual altitude happens to be
527.4, that's a nit.

On the other hand, in the next paragraph (page 108, column 2, first
paragraph) they say that the analog ELTs operate on 121.5 MHz. and the
digital ELTs operate
on 406 MHz.. There are two errors of fact he The VHF ELTs operate on
12.15
MHz. AND 243.0 Mhz. The UHF 406 MHz. ELT is NOT totally digital
technology.

Now here's the challenge...

Find errors of technical fact AND practical installation (so far I've
found ten
of them) and post them here (please do not send to me by private email).
I'll
collate them and send them off to TomP. Perhaps we can get the folks back
in Oshkosh to listen and publish something that resembles the truth.

And yes, in case of an unfortunate incident, it CAN make the difference
between YOUR life and death.

Jim


Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com


Do Typo's count ?
You just stated VHF 12.15 Mhz it should be 121.5 mhz and 243 mhz.
If your getting ready to slam them you might well get someone to proof read
your own posts ;-)
John

John wrote:
Jim Weir wrote:


In the July 2004 issue of Sport Aviation, there was an article published
on the
installation of ELTs. I have taken issue with the article with Tom
Poberezny and Scott Spangler, and before I go off half-cocked (how unusual
for me) I'd
like some confirmation from this group. Understand that I may quote you
directly if you respond, so if you don't want your name mentioned, just
say so.

Here's the deal: My contention is that EAA should have an editorial board
that reviews technical articles like this for theoretical as well as
practical errors
of fact or judgement. Every ethical magazine in the world has a competent
review team that looks at an author's work and at LEAST asks the questions
as to where the data came from.

Now I'm not looking to pick the nits. They say that the CORPASS-SARSAT
satellites are flying at 528 miles. If the actual altitude happens to be
527.4, that's a nit.

On the other hand, in the next paragraph (page 108, column 2, first
paragraph) they say that the analog ELTs operate on 121.5 MHz. and the
digital ELTs operate
on 406 MHz.. There are two errors of fact he The VHF ELTs operate on
12.15
MHz. AND 243.0 Mhz. The UHF 406 MHz. ELT is NOT totally digital
technology.

Now here's the challenge...

Find errors of technical fact AND practical installation (so far I've
found ten
of them) and post them here (please do not send to me by private email).
I'll
collate them and send them off to TomP. Perhaps we can get the folks back
in Oshkosh to listen and publish something that resembles the truth.

And yes, in case of an unfortunate incident, it CAN make the difference
between YOUR life and death.

Jim


Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com



Do Typo's count ?
You just stated VHF 12.15 Mhz it should be 121.5 mhz and 243 mhz.
If your getting ready to slam them you might well get someone to proof read
your own posts ;-)
John

I think you missed the point of his article John. He was pointing out their
mistakes.

Jerry

John wrote:

Jim Weir wrote:


In the July 2004 issue of Sport Aviation, there was an article published
on the
installation of ELTs. I have taken issue with the article with Tom
Poberezny and Scott Spangler, and before I go off half-cocked (how unusual
for me) I'd
like some confirmation from this group. Understand that I may quote you
directly if you respond, so if you don't want your name mentioned, just
say so.

Here's the deal: My contention is that EAA should have an editorial board
that reviews technical articles like this for theoretical as well as
practical errors
of fact or judgement. Every ethical magazine in the world has a competent
review team that looks at an author's work and at LEAST asks the questions
as to where the data came from.

Now I'm not looking to pick the nits. They say that the CORPASS-SARSAT
satellites are flying at 528 miles. If the actual altitude happens to be
527.4, that's a nit.

On the other hand, in the next paragraph (page 108, column 2, first
paragraph) they say that the analog ELTs operate on 121.5 MHz. and the
digital ELTs operate
on 406 MHz.. There are two errors of fact he The VHF ELTs operate on
12.15
MHz. AND 243.0 Mhz. The UHF 406 MHz. ELT is NOT totally digital
technology.

Now here's the challenge...

Find errors of technical fact AND practical installation (so far I've
found ten
of them) and post them here (please do not send to me by private email).
I'll
collate them and send them off to TomP. Perhaps we can get the folks back
in Oshkosh to listen and publish something that resembles the truth.

And yes, in case of an unfortunate incident, it CAN make the difference
between YOUR life and death.

Jim


Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com



Do Typo's count ?
You just stated VHF 12.15 Mhz it should be 121.5 mhz and 243 mhz.
If your getting ready to slam them you might well get someone to proof read
your own posts ;-)
John


True, John, and MegaHertz is MHz, not mhz. M is for mega and m is for
milli. Hz is short for Hertz which is a proper name and thus should be
capitalized even when abbreviated.


Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:
John wrote:
Do Typo's count ?
You just stated VHF 12.15 Mhz it should be 121.5 mhz and 243 mhz.
If your getting ready to slam them you might well get someone to proof
read
your own posts ;-)
John


True, John, and MegaHertz is MHz, not mhz. M is for mega and m is for
milli. Hz is short for Hertz which is a proper name and thus should be
capitalized even when abbreviated.

Oooh, you need a thick skin around here...

I'll take a preemptive shot, at no one in particular, with my pet
peeve: "kph" is wrong, it's km/h!

(I had to look up preemptive to make sure it is not hyphenated.)
Obligatory smiley face to keep it light

Jim Carriere wrote:

Obligatory smiley face to keep it light

Smiley faces should have noses. ;-)

Mark Hickey

Mark Hickey wrote:

Jim Carriere wrote:


Obligatory smiley face to keep it light


Smiley faces should have noses. ;-)

Mark Hickey

But then we'd all be inclined to cut off our noses to spite our smiley
faces! :-)


Matt

Are you kidding? The people around here lay awake at night worrying about
whether anal-retentive should be hyphenated.

{;-) (And smileys should have curly hair)

Jim


Jim Carriere
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:


-Oooh, you need a thick skin around here...




Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

For all intensive porpoises this thread will manifest itself for the
doggy-dog world we live in and make all points mute.

BillC


"Jim Weir" wrote in message
news
Are you kidding? The people around here lay awake at night worrying about
whether anal-retentive should be hyphenated.

{;-) (And smileys should have curly hair)

Jim


Jim Carriere
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:


-Oooh, you need a thick skin around here...




Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

In article ,
Jim Weir wrote:
Are you kidding? The people around here lay awake at night worrying about
whether anal-retentive should be hyphenated.

Bah! *Everybody* knows that the mark-up is a full colon. Or, as our
Brit friends would say, "Full colon, full stop."