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

"Jim Weir" wrote in message
...
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.

Yeah, when reading in the mag I try to overlook the errors in diction,
grammar, and spelling. Some of them are glaring. You would think that
after so many years of publication, _Sport Aviation_ would become serious
and get a handle on it. What's a "Kerney" swager? I thought it was a
"Kearney." At more than five grand the damn thing costs so much you would
think it knew how to spell itself, even in an amateur publication like
_Sport Aviation._

As for technical data, well, you had better verify that for yourself by
relying on a more scholarly publication.

Dear Jim,

The coffee-table format of 'Sport Aviation' and the infomercial nature of its
articles makes it pretty clear the EAA is more interested in putting out a
pretty magazine rather than a good one. Indeed, the question of peer review is
not new, dating back to Pope Paul, Jack Cox, et al. Such reveiws do no lend
themselves to the air show mentality that appears to be in charge of the EAA
then and now.

I'm sure many of the faithful will find that a bit harsh when in fact it merely
reflects the one-sided nature of an organization that does not allow the airing
of opinions other than its own.

-R.S.Hoover
(EAA 58400 - Life Member)

Veeduber wrote:

Dear Jim,

The coffee-table format of 'Sport Aviation' and the infomercial nature of its
articles makes it pretty clear the EAA is more interested in putting out a
pretty magazine rather than a good one. Indeed, the question of peer review is
not new, dating back to Pope Paul, Jack Cox, et al. Such reveiws do no lend
themselves to the air show mentality that appears to be in charge of the EAA
then and now.

I'm sure many of the faithful will find that a bit harsh when in fact it merely
reflects the one-sided nature of an organization that does not allow the airing
of opinions other than its own.

-R.S.Hoover
(EAA 58400 - Life Member)


I wasn't going to make a public fuss about it, but since the issue
came up, I didn't renew...

Richard

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

Jim,

I have to agree with you. A friend of mine and I wrote an article for SA about
6 months ago. We proofread it ourselves for technical accuracy grammar etc. and
had others do the same. We wanted it to be "perfect". We even had Bob K. at
AeroElectric Connection read it first. His only comment was the need to make it
less technical for the average SA reader which we did. I should have asked them
to let us proofread it after the SA editors got done. Hindsight is 20/20. The
editors made a mess of it technically speaking. They took an article which was
technically correct and said things which were just plain wrong and disagreed
with the original. I did not have a problem with their intent, just the fact
that neither we nor they corrected the introduced inaccuracies prior to
printing. If the editor had a technical background these errors would not have
been made. I was embarrassed by the errors and we got ALL the credit for
content. Fortunately, most people probably did not even notice the errors.

"Jim Weir" wrote in message
...
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.


Hi Jim,

As a writer, I agree that the final responsibility is on the magazine's
editor's shoulders for accuracy. Bu the fault lies with the writer. In this
case the writer(s) appear to be insiders.
Huge mags, like National Geographic and others, have dozens of people
who do nothing but 'fact checking,' name spelling, placement of decimal
points (like the one you blooped in your message above. Smaller magazines,
like Sport Aviation and Flying don't do as good a job because of the staff
costs. As an entrepreneur, you know the largest costs in any business are
labor+overhead and overhead (G&A) exceeds labor by multiple factors.
That doesn't excuse allowing errors to reach print, but it does explain
why editors rely more and more on us writers to get it right. Go for it,
Jim, but I don't think you will make much headway. I'll bet the magazine
just won't increase the staffing to include a technical review board. I'd
also bet that a person with the CVs for doing the review job won't work for
the pitiful wages the mag would pay. It is a universal problem in the
industry.
Now for a fine point in your discussion of frequencies. The guard
frequency 243.0 Mhz is within the military band 225.0 to 399.9. For as long
as I can remember, and that goes back at least to the fifties as an
electronics tech in the USMC, the military band has been considered UHF
despite the delineation of 30 to 300 attached to the definition of VHF. I
won't give you points for that one.
As to the rest.... I don't subscribe to the magazine.

Regards,

Casey

-
-Hi Jim,
-
- As a writer, I agree that the final responsibility is on the magazine's
-editor's shoulders for accuracy. Bu the fault lies with the writer. In this
-case the writer(s) appear to be insiders.

Yes, as a writer I agree. But to make as many errors of fact as were made in
this article, the writer must shoulder some responsibility. Just as an example,
look at the picture on page 108, and remember that this is an article about the
proper INSTALLATION of an ELT. See the pretty antenna coax draped across the
sharp edge of the aluminum former? With no cable ties anywhere? Ain't THAT a
proper way to show installation.

And the admonition to use an Adel clamp on the tip of the antenna to keep it
from whipping about? Can you say "DETUNE" from the metal in the clamp?



- Huge mags, like National Geographic and others, have dozens of people
-who do nothing but 'fact checking,' name spelling, placement of decimal
-points (like the one you blooped in your message above.

And the failure to close (parentheses)? {;-)



Smaller magazines,
-like Sport Aviation and Flying don't do as good a job because of the staff
-costs. As an entrepreneur, you know the largest costs in any business are
-labor+overhead and overhead (G&A) exceeds labor by multiple factors.
- That doesn't excuse allowing errors to reach print, but it does explain
-why editors rely more and more on us writers to get it right. Go for it,
-Jim, but I don't think you will make much headway. I'll bet the magazine
-just won't increase the staffing to include a technical review board.

Most of us would gladly volunteer to keep crap like this from making its way
into print.



I'd
-also bet that a person with the CVs for doing the review job won't work for
-the pitiful wages the mag would pay. It is a universal problem in the
-industry.
- Now for a fine point in your discussion of frequencies. The guard
-frequency 243.0 Mhz is within the military band 225.0 to 399.9. For as long
-as I can remember, and that goes back at least to the fifties as an
-electronics tech in the USMC, the military band has been considered UHF
-despite the delineation of 30 to 300 attached to the definition of VHF. I
-won't give you points for that one.

And I agree with you. I've called it the Mil UHF band for years. However, this
is just another point that you've found without even having the magazine in your
hands. The POINT was that they didn't mention 243.0, just 121.5. Anybody with
a lick of avionics sense understands what a crystal bitch it is to design
antennas that will radiate efficiently on both the fundamental and second
harmonic.

And the final kicker? The admonition to "replace the battery if there are any
signs of corrosion". Me? I was taught to clean up the corrosion and THEN
replace the battery.

Sigh.


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 message
...


Yes, as a writer I agree. But to make as many errors of fact as were made
in
this article, the writer must shoulder some responsibility. Just as an
example,
look at the picture on page 108, and remember that this is an article
about the
proper INSTALLATION of an ELT. See the pretty antenna coax draped across
the
sharp edge of the aluminum former? With no cable ties anywhere? Ain't
THAT a
proper way to show installation.

-but 'fact checking,' name spelling, placement of decimal
-points (like the one you blooped in your message above.

And the failure to close (parentheses)? {;-)

Got me!

-Jim, but I don't think you will make much headway. I'll bet the magazine
-just won't increase the staffing to include a technical review board.

Most of us would gladly volunteer to keep crap like this from making its
way
into print.

Give it try, all you've got to lose is your time. I'm presuming you're
going to make that suggestion in the letter you write.

When I was digging for information about the Sport license, I emailed a
query to an EAA 'expert.' Shortly after, one of the editors sent me a box of
magazines, samples from all the different publications. It came with a nice
note saying they'd like the first look at whatever I wrote. What surprised
me was the number of different titles they put out. At the time I think
there were seven or so.

I'm not a homebuilder nor a member of EAA and can't find much in any of
their pubs to relate to -- so I've never subscribed.

If I ever get nearby your neck of the woods, I'll call first and see if
we can get together for lunch.

Good luck,

Casey