ELT Mandatory ?

[Jim Culp]

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen of gliding,

Please consider carefully. What is our nature? Individual;
or care from cradle to the grave?

Equipment should be pilot's choice, with pilot weighing
risks and outcome potentials.

Further, if pilot does not return from a gliding flight
let the contest management rest at ease knowing the
pilot has made the choice;
and it is not management's responsibility for search
and rescue or body recovery.

Yes, it is ok. Just say that up front and openly and
act accordingly.

Personal Responsibility/Personal Choice -

Let us affirm and uphold personal responsibility and
personal choice in gliding flight, and in our other
choices in life or death or risk or adventures.

Is this concept too individual now?

Is this the day of cradle-to-the-grave governance?

Is this the day when it seems your interests are other-folk's-resp
onsibilities
because they can manage your choices with
more right than you?

Is this the day when others can care for you and control
you and manage for you and decide for you and regulate
for you ?

Do you join that Careful Attention and Governance by
others for you?

Live free or die. Dont tread on me. These were and
are founding concepts of this land.

This is a land of individual right and opportunity.

Kindly, keep it that way.

Dont matter if they find my body sooner
or very very
very much later, or never. My body be dead.

If my body be alive, I will take my chances in survival
if any.
My choice. My outcomes. I live or die by that.

Kindly considered.

Dancing on clouds,

Keep it up!

Jim

[Mal]

Purchased my own ELT after I was skiing in on a resort I came out on to the
main ski runs at night I took the wrong turn.

I fly with it through my parachute.

When 4 wheel driving I take it.

Cost me $279 AU with postage.

Mal



"Jim Culp" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Dear Ladies and Gentlemen of gliding,
>
> Please consider carefully. What is our nature? Individual;
> or care from cradle to the grave?
>
> Equipment should be pilot's choice, with pilot weighing
> risks and outcome potentials.
>
> Further, if pilot does not return from a gliding flight
> let the contest management rest at ease knowing the
> pilot has made the choice;
> and it is not management's responsibility for search
> and rescue or body recovery.
>
> Yes, it is ok. Just say that up front and openly and
> act accordingly.
>
> Personal Responsibility/Personal Choice -
>
> Let us affirm and uphold personal responsibility and
> personal choice in gliding flight, and in our other
> choices in life or death or risk or adventures.
>
> Is this concept too individual now?
>
> Is this the day of cradle-to-the-grave governance?
>
> Is this the day when it seems your interests are other-folk's-resp
> onsibilities
> because they can manage your choices with
> more right than you?
>
> Is this the day when others can care for you and control
> you and manage for you and decide for you and regulate
> for you ?
>
> Do you join that Careful Attention and Governance by
> others for you?
>
> Live free or die. Dont tread on me. These were and
> are founding concepts of this land.
>
> This is a land of individual right and opportunity.
>
> Kindly, keep it that way.
>
> Dont matter if they find my body sooner
> or very very
> very much later, or never. My body be dead.
>
> If my body be alive, I will take my chances in survival
> if any.
> My choice. My outcomes. I live or die by that.
>
> Kindly considered.
>
> Dancing on clouds,
>
> Keep it up!
>
> Jim
>
>
>

[Pete Reinhart]

Right on!!!!!
Cheers!, Pete
"Jim Culp" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Dear Ladies and Gentlemen of gliding,
>
> Please consider carefully. What is our nature? Individual;
> or care from cradle to the grave?
>
> Equipment should be pilot's choice, with pilot weighing
> risks and outcome potentials.
>
> Further, if pilot does not return from a gliding flight
> let the contest management rest at ease knowing the
> pilot has made the choice;
> and it is not management's responsibility for search
> and rescue or body recovery.
>
> Yes, it is ok. Just say that up front and openly and
> act accordingly.
>
> Personal Responsibility/Personal Choice -
>
> Let us affirm and uphold personal responsibility and
> personal choice in gliding flight, and in our other
> choices in life or death or risk or adventures.
>
> Is this concept too individual now?
>
> Is this the day of cradle-to-the-grave governance?
>
> Is this the day when it seems your interests are other-folk's-resp
> onsibilities
> because they can manage your choices with
> more right than you?
>
> Is this the day when others can care for you and control
> you and manage for you and decide for you and regulate
> for you ?
>
> Do you join that Careful Attention and Governance by
> others for you?
>
> Live free or die. Dont tread on me. These were and
> are founding concepts of this land.
>
> This is a land of individual right and opportunity.
>
> Kindly, keep it that way.
>
> Dont matter if they find my body sooner
> or very very
> very much later, or never. My body be dead.
>
> If my body be alive, I will take my chances in survival
> if any.
> My choice. My outcomes. I live or die by that.
>
> Kindly considered.
>
> Dancing on clouds,
>
> Keep it up!
>
> Jim
>
>
>

[Chris OCallaghan]

This morning CNN reported the drownings of 4 people. A small child
fell into a fountain. A rescuer followed her immediately. As did
another. And another. All were killed by a circulation pump that
pinned them to the bottom.

This is a cautionary tale. Some, like the previous poster, would say
the moral is "Look before your leap." Others might recognize that it
is in our primal nature to risk our lives to save others.

The lesson I've learned is that while I may be harwired to demonstrate
bravado through lack of concern for my own welfare, I should at the
very least consider those who are hardwired to respond to any call for
help. And a glider which doesn't return home carries with it an
implied call for help.

Joseph Campbell discussed this "need to help," even at risk to one's
own well-being, in The Hero with a Thousand Faces and The Power of
Myth. Both are interesting reads -- and emphasize just how dear such
people really are.

To sum up, since this is only a brief return to the group, if you
believe it is important to consider the safety of others, install the
best ELT (406) you can find. If you want to enhance your own safety,
consider a GPS PLB. But recognize the limitations of each, and
especially the 121.5 MHz units.

[Thomas Knauff]

I carry a personal ELT with me because I consider my greatest risk while
flying competitions is a mid-air collision.

If I bail out, the glider will be some distance from my location -
especially when flying at higher altitudes.

The glider ELT will only trigger if it crashes in a manner that will set off
the automatic feature of the ELT.

Cell phones are not reliable in many parts of the country.

Better locating devices are on the way, including cell phone locating
technology, but for about $500 dollars, I have an ELT in my glider and with
me.

I have been on several searches for ELT signals, and in every case, the
aircraft location was found in a couple of hours. I am equally sure there
are situations where the signal may be very difficult to track down.

A locating device gives a possibility of being located. Having none at all
may result in several days of being found if ever.

Tom Knauff


"Todd Pattist" > wrote in message
...
> "Mal" > wrote:
>
> >Purchased my own ELT
> >I fly with it through my parachute.
>
> I'd like to know why anyone would buy one of these personal
> units. I want mine to activate in the crash. If I'm still
> conscious, I'll use the cell phone or radio. Or I can
> trigger the mounted ELT manually, and even remove and carry
> it. If I parachute, I'll be within the search area of even
> the best ELT units. I'm really interested in the thought
> process behind buying a low-power portable ELT that won't
> trigger automatically. Am I missing something?
> Todd Pattist - "WH" Ventus C
> (Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)

[Wallace Berry]

Absolutely! Well said Jim.

In article >, Jim Culp >
wrote:

>
> Dear Ladies and Gentlemen of gliding,
>
> Please consider carefully. What is our nature? Individual;
> or care from cradle to the grave?
>
> Equipment should be pilot's choice, with pilot weighing
> risks and outcome potentials.
>

[Vorsanger1]

Jim indicated that it is his choice whether or not to carry an ELT, and it is
NOT the contest manager's responsibility to search and rescue, or body
recovery. The fact is that when a plane or boat goes missing, a whole lot of
assets and efforts go into trying to help / rescue the crew. That being said,
and since it is the individual pilot's responsibility to deny or accept
assistance, let all those pilots who opt NOT to be helped to have this
preference down in writing, notarized, etc...This in order to absolve everybody
else in the case of a mishap. We are a litigious society, and you can bet that
failing that, the grieving widow and children will sue the CAP, the local
sheriff, fire department, the contest organizers and manager and anyone else
within reach for noth having found the body sooner when there was still a
chance that the pilot might have been alive at the time of the accident.

Cheers anyhow,

Charles

[Dirk Elber]

Jim you have a good point that it is the pilot's choice. But at a
contest the Organizers are required to make every effort to locate you,
so they should be given the best chance of doing so. It may not be your
problem when all is said and done, but a lot of people, including family
members and those soaring friends that might want to spend hours/days
searching the ridges of the appalachians (or swamps of Florida), would
definitely appreciate you investing in one more piece of equipment.
Compared to the hardships that could be endured, an ELT is a simple
investment. Just re-read John Good's reports from Mifflin and consider
what those searchers would still be going through had they not known
where to look for Peter.
And even for non-contest pilots this is an important consideration. If
you are out by yourself on a x-country flight, who is going to know
where to look in case something goes wrong. Those of us that fly in
terrain such as the appalachians have definitely had the reason for
flying with ELTs brought to our attention over and over. But its also a
good thing to have installed for those that fly in any terrain.

Thank you KG, UH and others for making those many safety talks about the
advantages of having an ELT installed and how best to install them in
the various types of gliders.

Dirk

Asw-20 "E" - yes ELT equipped



Wallace Berry wrote:

>Absolutely! Well said Jim.
>
>In article >, Jim Culp >
>wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>>Dear Ladies and Gentlemen of gliding,
>>
>>Please consider carefully. What is our nature? Individual;
>>or care from cradle to the grave?
>>
>>Equipment should be pilot's choice, with pilot weighing
>>risks and outcome potentials.
>>
>>
>>

[Eric Greenwell]

Vorsanger1 wrote:
> Jim indicated that it is his choice whether or not to carry an ELT, and it is
> NOT the contest manager's responsibility to search and rescue, or body
> recovery. The fact is that when a plane or boat goes missing, a whole lot of
> assets and efforts go into trying to help / rescue the crew. That being said,
> and since it is the individual pilot's responsibility to deny or accept
> assistance, let all those pilots who opt NOT to be helped to have this
> preference down in writing, notarized, etc...This in order to absolve everybody
> else in the case of a mishap.

I"m trying to imagine the publicity the sport might receive if a glider
crashed, and the organizers did nothing. Would that seem bizarre to the
public?

"The pilot requested we do nothing if he did not return", stated the
contest official, "and particularly not alert search and rescue people
or the police". "Of course, we hope he is enjoying himself, whereever he
might be", continued the contest official, who asked to remain
anonymouus, as requested by the missing pilot on his entry form.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Romeo Delta]

Dirk Elber > wrote in message >

> Thank you KG, UH and others for making those many safety talks about the
> advantages of having an ELT installed and how best to install them in
> the various types of gliders.

I'm sure that the fact that KG and UH sell these things has no bearing
on the matter at all, eh?

RD

[Ian Cant]

While I have some sympathy for Jim Culp's position
as an abstract philosophical position, and would not
want to hinder him from practicing it as he sees fit,
it applies in both directions. If contest organizers
feel an ELT is important enough to be mandatory, they
can demand it as an exercise of their individual and
collective responsibility; Jim can then choose to ignore
the contest, but should not whine about the rules.

Ian



At 06:12 18 June 2004, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>Vorsanger1 wrote:
>> Jim indicated that it is his choice whether or not
>>to carry an ELT, and it is
>> NOT the contest manager's responsibility to search
>>and rescue, or body
>> recovery. The fact is that when a plane or boat goes
>>missing, a whole lot of
>> assets and efforts go into trying to help / rescue
>>the crew. That being said,
>> and since it is the individual pilot's responsibility
>>to deny or accept
>> assistance, let all those pilots who opt NOT to be
>>helped to have this
>> preference down in writing, notarized, etc...This
>>in order to absolve everybody
>> else in the case of a mishap.
>
>I'm trying to imagine the publicity the sport might
>receive if a glider
>crashed, and the organizers did nothing. Would that
>seem bizarre to the
>public?
>
> 'The pilot requested we do nothing if he did not
>return', stated the
>contest official, 'and particularly not alert search
>and rescue people
>or the police'. 'Of course, we hope he is enjoying
>himself, whereever he
>might be', continued the contest official, who asked
>to remain
>anonymouus, as requested by the missing pilot on his
>entry form.
>
>--
>Change 'netto' to 'net' to email me directly
>
>Eric Greenwell
>Washington State
>USA
>
>

[Eric Greenwell]

Romeo Delta wrote:
> Dirk Elber > wrote in message >
>
>
>>Thank you KG, UH and others for making those many safety talks about the
>>advantages of having an ELT installed and how best to install them in
>>the various types of gliders.
>
>
> I'm sure that the fact that KG and UH sell these things has no bearing
> on the matter at all, eh?

If you think their claims are false, please say so and indicate why.
Insinuating that greed drives their efforts is gratuitous; besides, I'm
not aware that UH (Hank Nixon) sells soaring equipment.

If they believe these things are useful to the soaring community, it
makes sense to offer them. Or should they refuse to sell safety related
items, so suspicious pilots will be inclined to think they mean it when
they say the items are useful?

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Mike Lindsay]

In article >, Jim Culp >
writes
>
>
>Dear Ladies and Gentlemen of gliding,
>
>Please consider carefully. What is our nature? Individual;
>or care from cradle to the grave?
>
>Equipment should be pilot's choice, with pilot weighing
>risks and outcome potentials.
>
>Further, if pilot does not return from a gliding flight
>let the contest management rest at ease knowing the
>pilot has made the choice;
>and it is not management's responsibility for search
>and rescue or body recovery.
>
>Yes, it is ok. Just say that up front and openly and
>act accordingly.
>
>Personal Responsibility/Personal Choice -
>
>Let us affirm and uphold personal responsibility and
>personal choice in gliding flight, and in our other
>choices in life or death or risk or adventures.
>
>Is this concept too individual now?
>
>Is this the day of cradle-to-the-grave governance?
>
>Is this the day when it seems your interests are other-folk's-resp
>onsibilities
>because they can manage your choices with
>more right than you?
>
>Is this the day when others can care for you and control
>you and manage for you and decide for you and regulate
>for you ?
>
>Do you join that Careful Attention and Governance by
>others for you?
>
>Live free or die. Dont tread on me. These were and
>are founding concepts of this land.
>
>This is a land of individual right and opportunity.
>
>Kindly, keep it that way.
>
>Dont matter if they find my body sooner
>or very very
>very much later, or never. My body be dead.
>
>If my body be alive, I will take my chances in survival
>if any.
>My choice. My outcomes. I live or die by that.
>
>Kindly considered.
>
>Dancing on clouds,
>
>Keep it up!
>
>Jim
>
>
>
What a lovely post! But do you really not want your friends to worry if
you land out somewhere inhospitable?

Or, to put it another way, if one of your friends went soaring in the
mountains, and wasn't back by dark, would you just say 'Tough. He should
have thought of that. He can take care of himself'?

Bet you wouldn't.
--
Mike Lindsay

[Mike Lindsay]

In article >, Todd Pattist
> writes
>"Mal" > wrote:
>
>>Purchased my own ELT
>>I fly with it through my parachute.
>
>I'd like to know why anyone would buy one of these personal
>units. I want mine to activate in the crash. If I'm still
>conscious, I'll use the cell phone or radio. Or I can
>trigger the mounted ELT manually, and even remove and carry
>it. If I parachute, I'll be within the search area of even
>the best ELT units. I'm really interested in the thought
>process behind buying a low-power portable ELT that won't
>trigger automatically. Am I missing something?
>Todd Pattist - "WH" Ventus C
>(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)

There are some places where cell-phones wont work. And if you are down
on the deck, your radio might not reach very far.

--
Mike Lindsay

[Romeo Delta]

Mr. Greenwell:

Please be advised that I just used the ammo provided by the previous
poster. Certainly you must agree that it's only human nature to turn
up the sales pitch just a notch when justifying the need for something
that you just so happen to sell--hence, my voiced scepticism. I'm sure
KG is a big boy and can handle it. UH was unfortunately fragged by
association--a thousand pardons.

To say it another way, I, for one, am not otherwise convinced that
anyone who sells such "stuff" for a living preaches about it solely
out of the goodness of his heart (which was my take of the post
previous to my former). To place someone up on a pedistal for doing
so is professing naivity.

Regardless, the bottom line is an ELT, from an operational
perspective, is OPTIONAL equipment. If some private airport owner
feels justified in his mind for whatever reason to require ELTs as a
condition to fly from his airfield--then that's his business (as well
the business of any pilots accepting of such dictation), except that
such nonsense is capable of permeating out to affect the soaring
community as a whole at which time it is past the point of becoming
everyone's business.

So pardon me if I voice my concern at this potential eventuality.
Soaring is expensive enough without some yea-hoo in VA starting a
costly trend on a whim. What's the next mandate to enjoy the
SIMPLICITY of soaring? Transponders, weather radar, radar altimeters?

If this pilot makes the conscience choice to fly without an ELT, it is
done so at MY accepted peril. Matter of fact, every time I have ever
made the decision to takeoff [solo] it has always been and will
continue to be at MY own personal peril. And I don't take lightly
anyone's attempt to usurp the experience, ability, and authority I
have to make such a decision.

I'm sorry that someone crashed while flying a contest (BTW having an
ELT apparently didn't stop that from happening). But should that
necessarily result in mandating we all should now run out and buy ELTs
[as a condition to compete in a soaring contest]? Maybe we should
just not task flying near mountains. Heck, let's just stop flying
altogether 'cause it's inherently dangerous. No thousand dollar piece
of equipment can change that fact.

RD

[Eric Greenwell]

Romeo Delta wrote:
> Mr. Greenwell:
>
> Please be advised that I just used the ammo provided by the previous
> poster. Certainly you must agree that it's only human nature to turn
> up the sales pitch just a notch when justifying the need for something
> that you just so happen to sell

Yes, but it's just speculation on your part, as is my suggestion he
sells them BECAUSE he believes in them.

> --hence, my voiced scepticism.

It is still an unnecessary insinuation: we should argue the facts of the
situation, not speculate about someone's motives.

> I'm sure
> KG is a big boy and can handle it. UH was unfortunately fragged by
> association--a thousand pardons.
>
> To say it another way, I, for one, am not otherwise convinced that
> anyone who sells such "stuff" for a living preaches about it solely
> out of the goodness of his heart (which was my take of the post
> previous to my former). To place someone up on a pedistal for doing
> so is professing naivity.

All irrelevant to the value of ELTs, true or not.

>
> Regardless, the bottom line is an ELT, from an operational
> perspective, is OPTIONAL equipment.

So is a parachute, but contests require them, and we wear them.

> If some private airport owner
> feels justified in his mind for whatever reason to require ELTs as a
> condition to fly from his airfield--then that's his business (as well
> the business of any pilots accepting of such dictation), except that
> such nonsense is capable of permeating out to affect the soaring
> community as a whole at which time it is past the point of becoming
> everyone's business.
>
> So pardon me if I voice my concern at this potential eventuality.
> Soaring is expensive enough without some yea-hoo in VA starting a
> costly trend on a whim.

Would you consider the situation in a different light if you knew the
"yea-hoo" has supported soaring in the most substantial way for decades,
by providing an airfield, towplanes, hangars, and clubhouses? Take a
look at this link:

http://www.airnav.com/airport/VA85
AirNav: New Castle International Airport

Does that look like a facility provided by a "yea-hoo"? It exists to
serve soaring!

My point: I can't believe a man like Lanier Frantz is doing this on a
whim. Whether we like the idea or not, it comes from someone who
deserves to be taken seriously.

> What's the next mandate to enjoy the
> SIMPLICITY of soaring? Transponders, weather radar, radar altimeters?
>
> If this pilot makes the conscience choice to fly without an ELT, it is
> done so at MY accepted peril. Matter of fact, every time I have ever
> made the decision to takeoff [solo] it has always been and will
> continue to be at MY own personal peril.

Of course, at a contest, you only have veto authority - you don't get to
pick just any time.

And I don't take lightly
> anyone's attempt to usurp the experience, ability, and authority I
> have to make such a decision.

They aren't exactly telling you how to fly your glider. The ELT is just
a lump that sits in the back and doesn't do anything until you crash.

>
> I'm sorry that someone crashed while flying a contest (BTW having an
> ELT apparently didn't stop that from happening). But should that
> necessarily result in mandating we all should now run out and buy ELTs
> [as a condition to compete in a soaring contest]?

Keep some perspective: it's just for New Castle, not all contests.

Maybe we should
> just not task flying near mountains.

There are World champions that have argued that.

> Heck, let's just stop flying
> altogether 'cause it's inherently dangerous. No thousand dollar piece
> of equipment can change that fact.

And none of the folks involved have claimed it will, but they'd sure
like to mitigate the results when the "experience, ability, and
authority" of the pilot aren't equal to the danger.

Did I mention ELTs are only $200-$300?

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[COLIN LAMB]

While we are condemming the irresponsible ELT requirement, let us also
attack the requirement for parachutes. After all, it should be a matter of
choice whether a pilot wishes to go down with the ship. Peter Marske was
wearing a parachute and it did not save him. Whether this dictatorial act
is required by the SSA or the local organizer is irrelevant.

There are other issues which can be brought up too. Seat belts should not
be mandatory, since they only affect the pilot. And compass, airspeed
indicators and altimeters - who needs them. Even the requirement for a
license from the FAA infringes my guaranteed right to fly. Power pilots are
thrust into these irresponsible requirements too, such as radios,
transponders, ELTs and collision avoidance beacons. I could see the entire
matter going downhill when the FAA grounded one of the flyers in the
California to Hawaii (Dole) races about 75 years ago, because the pilot only
had enough fuel to make it 1/2 way across. Maybe that was the point we lost
our freedom as pilots.

Suppose the owners of Kitty Hawk had mandated an ELT be used by the Wright
Brothers. The radio in those days would have weighed about 400 pounds and
required spark gaps, motors, and heavy batteries. Flying would not have
been invented until about 1916.

Colin


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.706 / Virus Database: 462 - Release Date: 6/14/04

[Ed Byars]

STOP THE PRESS: LATE BREAKING NEWS:......LANIER FRANTZ DECLARED "YEA-HOO IN
VA"
Hot Dog! I can't wait to post this news on the bulletin board at the Tow
Plane Tavern at NCI.
Thank you Romeo Delta for this delicious quote!!
(it would be even funnier if the subject matter were not so serious).
Ed Byars
PS...when flaming a Byars be sure to specify. My head's bloody enough and I
don't need more hits meant for my son Guy. And I'm sure vicey-versy.

"Romeo Delta" > wrote in message
om...
> Mr. Greenwell:
>
> Please be advised that I just used the ammo provided by the previous
> poster. Certainly you must agree that it's only human nature to turn
> up the sales pitch just a notch when justifying the need for something
> that you just so happen to sell--hence, my voiced scepticism. I'm sure
> KG is a big boy and can handle it. UH was unfortunately fragged by
> association--a thousand pardons.
>
> To say it another way, I, for one, am not otherwise convinced that
> anyone who sells such "stuff" for a living preaches about it solely
> out of the goodness of his heart (which was my take of the post
> previous to my former). To place someone up on a pedistal for doing
> so is professing naivity.
>
> Regardless, the bottom line is an ELT, from an operational
> perspective, is OPTIONAL equipment. If some private airport owner
> feels justified in his mind for whatever reason to require ELTs as a
> condition to fly from his airfield--then that's his business (as well
> the business of any pilots accepting of such dictation), except that
> such nonsense is capable of permeating out to affect the soaring
> community as a whole at which time it is past the point of becoming
> everyone's business.
>
> So pardon me if I voice my concern at this potential eventuality.
> Soaring is expensive enough without some yea-hoo in VA starting a
> costly trend on a whim. What's the next mandate to enjoy the
> SIMPLICITY of soaring? Transponders, weather radar, radar altimeters?
>
> If this pilot makes the conscience choice to fly without an ELT, it is
> done so at MY accepted peril. Matter of fact, every time I have ever
> made the decision to takeoff [solo] it has always been and will
> continue to be at MY own personal peril. And I don't take lightly
> anyone's attempt to usurp the experience, ability, and authority I
> have to make such a decision.
>
> I'm sorry that someone crashed while flying a contest (BTW having an
> ELT apparently didn't stop that from happening). But should that
> necessarily result in mandating we all should now run out and buy ELTs
> [as a condition to compete in a soaring contest]? Maybe we should
> just not task flying near mountains. Heck, let's just stop flying
> altogether 'cause it's inherently dangerous. No thousand dollar piece
> of equipment can change that fact.
>
> RD

[Bill Daniels]

We need to keep in mind that an ELT mainly helps the searchers after an
aircraft goes missing. Searching for a missing aircraft is dangerous, hard
work. If we respect those who must do this, (and we should) then carrying
an ELT seems a modest gesture of appreciation.

However, I think it is pretty rare that a pilot has been found alive after a
successful search based solely on an ELT signal. If the pilot is alive,
there will likely be a radio or cell phone call letting people know the
situation.

With the above in mind, the benefits of an ELT apply in a fairly narrow set
of conditions. (Fatal crash, ELT activates, search ensues.) Perhaps then,
another electronic safety aid would better serve us. For example, how about
a GPS tracker that broadcasts the glider's location and altitude at short
intervals to a ground based network that allows it to be recorded at the
contest site. This way the contest organizers can watch over the fleet in
real-time. If a track stops the who, what, where and when of the situation
will be obvious.

Consider the more likely situation where a glider makes a safe landing in a
remote area and the pilot for whatever reason does not manually activate the
ELT. The tracker would only alert the people who need to know without
initiating a formal downed aircraft search. If we are going to mandate
something, a tracker seems a better idea.

It would also make glider contests more of a spectator sport.

Bill Daniels

[Romeo Delta]

Eric:

The man may be a benevolent yea-hoo, but if the yackity-yack airport
authority at my public airport gets wind of this and makes having an
ELT a condition to operate glider citing precedence, then he's back to
plain old yea-hoo status.

Yes, $200-300 now. But how about when the FAA gets tired of all the
cheap ELTs going off from hard landings, or changes the rules (never
happens), or a manufacturer goes ot of business, or...
and were eventually stuck with the $1000+ a pop deal.

And what then is next? TCAS?

Ed cited liability concerns in his first sentence. But all of a
sudden discussing that aspect obscurates the matter. GMAFB!

Your stance on the matter referencing your previous posts seems to
question the necessity of this ELT mandate. But this last post of
your's seems to have you flip-flopping on the matter. What is your
definitive position (or do you just relish the opportunity to change
sides as a chance to argue)?

Regards,

Ray

[Eric Greenwell]

Romeo Delta wrote:

> Eric:
>
> The man may be a benevolent yea-hoo,

My point is that he is not a yea-hoo.

> but if the yackity-yack airport
> authority at my public airport gets wind of this and makes having an
> ELT a condition to operate glider citing precedence, then he's back to
> plain old yea-hoo status.

Get real, please. Your public airport authority doesn't want to get into
the business of policing aircraft for equipment the Feds don't even
require. If they want to worry about things, there are much larger
concerns, starting with a towing operation.

>
> Yes, $200-300 now. But how about when the FAA gets tired of all the
> cheap ELTs going off from hard landings, or changes the rules (never
> happens)

This part has already happened and the rules are in place for 2009.

> , or a manufacturer goes ot of business, or...

If this happens, your ELT will continue to work. If it needs repairs
(unlikely - these things are supposed withstand crashes), buy one from
another manufacturer.

> and were eventually stuck with the $1000+ a pop deal.

Who knows what the price will be 5 years from now? A guess is the
requirement for them will lead to expanded production and lower prices.
In any case, the old ones are currently allowed after that, but won't be
routinely monitored.

>
> And what then is next? TCAS?

No.

>
> Ed cited liability concerns in his first sentence. But all of a
> sudden discussing that aspect obscurates the matter. GMAFB!
>
> Your stance on the matter referencing your previous posts seems to
> question the necessity of this ELT mandate. But this last post of
> your's seems to have you flip-flopping on the matter. What is your
> definitive position (or do you just relish the opportunity to change
> sides as a chance to argue)?
>

My position:

- the airport owner is within his rights to require an ELT as a
condition of use
- There is no additional liability to the airport owner or organizers if
gliders are NOT required to have them
- ELTs are effective in gliders
- Requiring them at New Castle contests will not lead to their
requirement at other airports around the country
- it is very unlikely other contests will require them, as the New
Castle situation is unique

I have no opinion on whether ELTs should be required at New Castle,
because I am not familiar with the situation there.
--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA