Proposed 2005 Rules On SRA Site

[Ken Kochanski (KK)]

http://sailplane-racing.org/

Ken Kochanski
SRA Secretary

[[email protected]]

Would someone please tell me - without rancor and name calling - how
the rule requiring ELT's for all SSA events in 2006 came to be. If I
read the 2004 poll correctly, 58% of the respondents did not want ELT's
required at all and only about 22% wanted them by 2006. If the polls
are not going to have a bearing in the rules then why do them?

Tom
Idaho
Ken Kochanski (KK) wrote:
> http://sailplane-racing.org/
>
> Ken Kochanski
> SRA Secretary

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> Would someone please tell me - without rancor and name calling - how
> the rule requiring ELT's for all SSA events in 2006 came to be. If I
> read the 2004 poll correctly, 58% of the respondents did not want
ELT's
> required at all and only about 22% wanted them by 2006. If the polls
> are not going to have a bearing in the rules then why do them?
>
> Tom
> Idaho
> Ken Kochanski (KK) wrote:
> > http://sailplane-racing.org/
> >
> > Ken Kochanski
> > SRA Secretary


Reply
Mandatory use of ELT's is a major change which must be proposed a year
in advance in accordance with the SSA Contest Rules process. This is
done, in part to avoid surprise rules and permit pilots to plan
accordingly.
It also permits a comment period.
The reason the proposed rules are published in advance is so that
comments and exchanges like this can occur.
It is also understood that some decisions may,at times, not reflect
majority positions, This is rare and not done without considerable
thought.
Please feel free to have your director aware of your position. If
enough pilots oppose, and directors agree, this will not go into effect
next year.
Please understand, no voting on this rule occurs this year. The only
change related to this is to formally permit organizers to require
ELT's without getting the waiver previously required.
As to the reasoning behind the proposed '06 rule: Having been involved
in the search for one live pilot lost in the trees and onother killed
on a mountain, it is easy to see why they are needed. If your wife,
significant other, or whoever was the one that had to wait for you to
be found, possibly for months if you are dead , how do you think they
would feel?
Thanks for your input and for not calling anybody and idiot!
Hank Nixon UH
SSA Contest Rules Committee Chair

[Wayne Paul]

Cost of entering the "Competition Ranks" is a major consideration to those
of us who are relativity new to the sport. To some the cost of an
"inexpensive" $300 ELT is of no consequence. To others it is an additional
investment, not required by the FAA, that stands in the way of entering
their first "Sports Class" competition. The requirement also establishes,
with the FAA, the precedence that the soaring community considers the ELT as
an essential piece of safety equipment.

The cost will jump to around $2,000 with the ELT move to the 406 MHz. At
that point it will be a definite roadblock to entering into the competition
ranks.

My personal resources which I can dedicate to the sport are somewhat
limited. ($300 can buy quite a few tows - $2,000 even more.)

Respectfully,
Wayne
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder


> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> wrote:
> > Would someone please tell me - without rancor and name calling - how
> > the rule requiring ELT's for all SSA events in 2006 came to be. If I
> > read the 2004 poll correctly, 58% of the respondents did not want
> ELT's
> > required at all and only about 22% wanted them by 2006. If the polls
> > are not going to have a bearing in the rules then why do them?
> >
> > Tom
> > Idaho
> > Ken Kochanski (KK) wrote:
> > > http://sailplane-racing.org/
> > >
> > > Ken Kochanski
> > > SRA Secretary
>
>
> Reply
> Mandatory use of ELT's is a major change which must be proposed a year
> in advance in accordance with the SSA Contest Rules process. This is
> done, in part to avoid surprise rules and permit pilots to plan
> accordingly.
> It also permits a comment period.
> The reason the proposed rules are published in advance is so that
> comments and exchanges like this can occur.
> It is also understood that some decisions may,at times, not reflect
> majority positions, This is rare and not done without considerable
> thought.
> Please feel free to have your director aware of your position. If
> enough pilots oppose, and directors agree, this will not go into effect
> next year.
> Please understand, no voting on this rule occurs this year. The only
> change related to this is to formally permit organizers to require
> ELT's without getting the waiver previously required.
> As to the reasoning behind the proposed '06 rule: Having been involved
> in the search for one live pilot lost in the trees and onother killed
> on a mountain, it is easy to see why they are needed. If your wife,
> significant other, or whoever was the one that had to wait for you to
> be found, possibly for months if you are dead , how do you think they
> would feel?
> Thanks for your input and for not calling anybody and idiot!
> Hank Nixon UH
> SSA Contest Rules Committee Chair
>

[Eric Greenwell]

wrote:

> Reply
> Mandatory use of ELT's is a major change which must be proposed a year
> in advance in accordance with the SSA Contest Rules process. This is
> done, in part to avoid surprise rules and permit pilots to plan
> accordingly.

I've had an ELT (EBC-102a) installed for about 5 years now, including
several contests. I got one because it's small size and self-contained
antenna made it much easier to mount. I know several other pilots that
use these, also.

It's TSO C91, not C91a as the proposed rules require, and I'm not keen
on paying another $200-$300 to replace a fairly new, working unit.

Can you tell me why C91 isn't adequate for contest purposes, or if these
units can be accepted specifically? It's not like pilots will rush out
to buy these to save a few bucks, because they cost about $200 more than
a number of C91a units.


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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[jphoenix]

The rule should be amended (in my opinion) to allow continued use of
TSO C91 units that are currently installed. Granted they are not as
accurrate as the C91a units, but at least they are installed. A C91 ELT
may be adequate for contest purposes in someone's estimation, but in no
case may they be used for a new installation (FAR), so there's no
chance of installing the C91 units if you don't already have it
installed.

A 406 mHz unit would be best, but I'd MUCH prefer to spend the money on
a transponder - if I had to spend the money. At least with a
transponder I could get a FL 180 waiver.

My portable, parachute-mounted ELT does not comply with the proposed
contest rule.

This new contest rule means that all 1-26's participating in the
Nationals in 2006 shall require an approved ELT installation. I'm
thinking lead balloon on this one.

Jim

[Eric Greenwell]

jphoenix wrote:
> The rule should be amended (in my opinion) to allow continued use of
> TSO C91 units that are currently installed. Granted they are not as
> accurrate as the C91a units, but at least they are installed. A C91 ELT
> may be adequate for contest purposes in someone's estimation, but in no
> case may they be used for a new installation (FAR), so there's no
> chance of installing the C91 units if you don't already have it
> installed.

Can experimentally licensed aircraft (like my glider) legally install
C91 units? I'm not clear on that, but there are plenty of places selling
EBC-102a ELTs, so somebody must be able to use them.

I'd certainly like to stick with my current C91 unit until the new,
improved ELTs are cheaper!

> This new contest rule means that all 1-26's participating in the
> Nationals in 2006 shall require an approved ELT installation. I'm
> thinking lead balloon on this one.

Don't they use their own rules, not the SSA rules? I'm assuming you mean
the 1-26 Nationals. Or did you mean the Sports Class Nationals?


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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[[email protected]]

Tom,

without rancor or name calling, I think the committee probably decided
that ELTs mitigate the potential strain put on race organizers in the
event a pilot does not return at the end of the day. In this case, the
opinions of pilots are less sound than the experiences of contest staff
who have been left with the task of organizing search efforts. The loss
of Peter Masak this past summer further highlighted this. Peter was ELT
equipped. Thus, the search was completed in about 18 hours. It might
have been much, much longer.

[[email protected]]

Ken,

the site looks great and I appreciate the way you presented the rules
changes. thanks!

OC

[comcast webnews]

I looked over the 2004 opinion poll again because I remembered that there
was a fairly strong mandate to change our Scoring formulas.

quote:
8.0 WGC-style Scoring

8.1 Should SSA contests adopt the scoring and devaluation formulas used
at the World Gliding Championships?
Yes 104 61%
No 54 32%


Twice as many people agreed as disagreed, so why was no action taken on
this?

I personally feel that we should move in the direction of the WGC scoring
formulas. Possibly adopt the WGC formulas 100%, or possibly a blend of our
current system and the WGC system.

I think adopting it will help us select and breed pilots so the US be more
competitive in the world championships.

As a negative side effect of the WGC system there seems to be such a
stronger bias toward speed that middle of the score sheet pilots such as
myself used to scoring 750-900 points per day would likely be discouraged by
scoring much lower [300-600points?]. This could cause frustration and
pilots more likely to drop out of competition flying. However I'm in favor
of moving toward the WGC formulas at least partially.

Chris

[Ken Kochanski (KK)]

gracias'

KK


wrote:
> Ken,
>
> the site looks great and I appreciate the way you presented the rules
> changes. thanks!
>
> OC

[Jim Phoenix]

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote
> Can experimentally licensed aircraft (like my glider) legally install C91
> units? I'm not clear on that, but there are plenty of places selling
> EBC-102a ELTs, so somebody must be able to use them.

I re-read the rule and since ELT's are not required for gliders (only
airplanes as previously discussed here ad infinitum), I will change my
opinion to say that none of the other requirements of the rule applies to
gliders. I say this because the sentence that states no new installations
may use c91 ELT's says "those required by paragraph (a) - and the ELT is not
required by paragraph (a) for gliders, so I could argue that none of the FAR
requirements are applicable to a non-airplane.

But this view may not be shared by all FSDO's or IA's should you choose to
make a new installation in your glider certificated in any category. I would
also infer that the annual test and logbook entry would not be required, but
I may be out on a limb here tilting a windmill or something like that.

> I'd certainly like to stick with my current C91 unit until the new,
> improved ELTs are cheaper!

Amen - the FAA would allow you to do that - if they required an ELT in your
aircraft.

> Don't they use their own rules, not the SSA rules? I'm assuming you mean
> the 1-26 Nationals. Or did you mean the Sports Class Nationals?
>
The 1-26 Nationals are an SSA sanctioned contest, right? I'll need an SSA
membership to fly in the contest, so I believe it qualifies under the
proposed rule as an "SSA Competition". If not, I'd be interested to hear
that from someone with the real scoop.

Jim

[[email protected]]

jphoenix wrote:
> The rule should be amended (in my opinion) to allow continued use of
> TSO C91 units that are currently installed. Granted they are not as
> accurrate as the C91a units, but at least they are installed. A C91
ELT
> may be adequate for contest purposes in someone's estimation, but in
no
> case may they be used for a new installation (FAR), so there's no
> chance of installing the C91 units if you don't already have it
> installed.
>
> A 406 mHz unit would be best, but I'd MUCH prefer to spend the money
on
> a transponder - if I had to spend the money. At least with a
> transponder I could get a FL 180 waiver.
>
> My portable, parachute-mounted ELT does not comply with the proposed
> contest rule.
>
> This new contest rule means that all 1-26's participating in the
> Nationals in 2006 shall require an approved ELT installation. I'm
> thinking lead balloon on this one.
>
> Jim

Reply and update on thinking.
RC is reviewing and most likely will revise text to reflect C91 or C91a
units.
As to 1-26'rs, they are sanctioned by SSA but have their own rules
system and do not fall under these rules.
Thanks for input from all>
H Nixon RC Chair

[jphoenix]

>
> Reply and update on thinking.
> RC is reviewing and most likely will revise text to reflect C91 or
C91a
> units.
> As to 1-26'rs, they are sanctioned by SSA but have their own rules
> system and do not fall under these rules.
> Thanks for input from all>
> H Nixon RC Chair

That sounds good. Thanks Hank.

[BB]

comcast webnews wrote:
>
> I personally feel that we should move in the direction of the WGC
scoring
> formulas. Possibly adopt the WGC formulas 100%, or possibly a blend
of our
> current system and the WGC system.

I wonder how many pilots in favor of moving to WGC scoring formulas
have actually read them? (Actually, how many poll respondents have
actually read the US scoring formulas?!)

The idea sounds nice, "let's score the way the worlds are, so our guys
get used to that and do better." But when you actually look at the mess
in the world scoring formulas, you realize "why should we screw up
every contest in the US just because the world rules are screwed up?"

Two small examples, second-hand from the last worlds.

1) Start gate with limited height but not limited speed or the US
two-minute rule. Back to dive-bombing. Do you really want that?

2) MAT style task is distance in a set time. It allows the strategy of
timing-out low, way downwind, then trying to scratch back to the
airport to see if you can get the bonus for finishing at home. Do you
really want to do this at US contests?

And of course, world and European devaluation rules give a huge benefit
to gaggling. I hear there was a day in an Australian worlds where
pilots simply refused to go out on course since nobody wanted to be
first. Again, do we really want that?

Are US contests places for US pilots to have fun, compete, learn to do
better in a safe environment, or are they just a training camp for the
top 5 or so who want to go to the worlds? The poll question on "goals"
suggested a lot more pilots in favor of the former, not the latter.

If you move to WGC scoring, what do you do when you see obvious safety
or procedural problems? Here, you call up UH or the current rules
committee chairman, and it gets fixed. If you're committed to WGC
scoring, fixing the simplest problem has to wait for the IGC to move on
it. This is like having the UN in charge of parking regulations.
John Cochrane (BB)

[Brian]

So let me think through the logic here for a minute.

1. We would like to promote contests and ideally get as many if not all
sailplanes and pilots participating. This has many good benefits by
promoting soaring, public image, and pilot profecency.

2. We want to require ELT's in (nearly) all gliders participating in
contests due to the additional safety they provide.

Does not 1+2 equal we would like nearly all gliders to have ELT's?

If this is such a saftey issue, Why don't we offer credit to all
gliders entered into an SSA Sanctioned Contest (reduced entry fee) for
a few years. Basically I am thinking that we offer a maximum of a $200
credit per glider entered spread out over a few years. In this way a
contestant can basically get their money back for installing an ELT.
Sure this would reduce the already limited income to the SSA but as has
been quoted here before "what is the price of safety?" especially when
someone else is paying for it.

Brian





wrote:
> Would someone please tell me - without rancor and name calling - how
> the rule requiring ELT's for all SSA events in 2006 came to be. If I
> read the 2004 poll correctly, 58% of the respondents did not want
ELT's
> required at all and only about 22% wanted them by 2006. If the polls
> are not going to have a bearing in the rules then why do them?
>
> Tom
> Idaho
> Ken Kochanski (KK) wrote:
> > http://sailplane-racing.org/
> >
> > Ken Kochanski
> > SRA Secretary

[Wayne Paul]

I feel strongly ELT contest requirement will lead to the removal of glider
ELT exception. The exemption loss will cost us $2,000+ with transition to
406 MHz units.

It will be hard for the SSA to argue that ELTs are not essential for all
gliders when the SSA states they are essential for contest rescue efforts.

Why would anyone accept the argument that the whereabouts of a downed
contest pilot is more important then the whereabouts of a casual weekend
pilot.

Wayne


"Brian" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> So let me think through the logic here for a minute.
>
> 1. We would like to promote contests and ideally get as many if not all
> sailplanes and pilots participating. This has many good benefits by
> promoting soaring, public image, and pilot profecency.
>
> 2. We want to require ELT's in (nearly) all gliders participating in
> contests due to the additional safety they provide.
>
> Does not 1+2 equal we would like nearly all gliders to have ELT's?
>
> If this is such a saftey issue, Why don't we offer credit to all
> gliders entered into an SSA Sanctioned Contest (reduced entry fee) for
> a few years. Basically I am thinking that we offer a maximum of a $200
> credit per glider entered spread out over a few years. In this way a
> contestant can basically get their money back for installing an ELT.
> Sure this would reduce the already limited income to the SSA but as has
> been quoted here before "what is the price of safety?" especially when
> someone else is paying for it.
>
> Brian
>
>
>
>
>
> wrote:
> > Would someone please tell me - without rancor and name calling - how
> > the rule requiring ELT's for all SSA events in 2006 came to be. If I
> > read the 2004 poll correctly, 58% of the respondents did not want
> ELT's
> > required at all and only about 22% wanted them by 2006. If the polls
> > are not going to have a bearing in the rules then why do them?
> >
> > Tom
> > Idaho
> > Ken Kochanski (KK) wrote:
> > > http://sailplane-racing.org/
> > >
> > > Ken Kochanski
> > > SRA Secretary
>

[[email protected]]

comcast webnews wrote:
> I looked over the 2004 opinion poll again because I remembered that
there
> was a fairly strong mandate to change our Scoring formulas.
>
> quote:
> 8.0 WGC-style Scoring
>
> 8.1 Should SSA contests adopt the scoring and devaluation formulas
used
> at the World Gliding Championships?
> Yes 104 61%
> No 54 32%
>
>
> Twice as many people agreed as disagreed, so why was no action taken
on
> this?
>
> I personally feel that we should move in the direction of the WGC
scoring
> formulas. Possibly adopt the WGC formulas 100%, or possibly a blend
of our
> current system and the WGC system.
>
> I think adopting it will help us select and breed pilots so the US be
more
> competitive in the world championships.
>
> As a negative side effect of the WGC system there seems to be such a
> stronger bias toward speed that middle of the score sheet pilots such
as
> myself used to scoring 750-900 points per day would likely be
discouraged by
> scoring much lower [300-600points?]. This could cause frustration
and
> pilots more likely to drop out of competition flying. However I'm in
favor
> of moving toward the WGC formulas at least partially.
>
> Chris

Reply:
Chris Who? Always nice to know who we are sharing with.
Change to WGC scoring , or somehting similar, is a major change that
requires significant study, testing, and feedback before adoption.
There are many attributes of scoring and tasking at the World level
which may well not fit how we race here.
In any case- minutes of RC meeting, which are also available to you at
the same site say:
40 Use IGC scoring system Comments

Discuss later. Under study. No change for 2005. Possibly try on a dual
scoring basis once we work out the details. 2xx agreed to chair a sub
sub committee to study this.

Thanks for sharing
UH RC Chair

[[email protected]]

wrote:
snip
> > Chris
>
> Reply:
> Chris Who? Always nice to know who we are sharing with.


"Chris Who", well let me reply by asking "UH Who?"
- hey just playing games here.

Chris Ruf - a name you will find on the lower half of the score sheets.



> Change to WGC scoring , or somehting similar, is a major change that
> requires significant study, testing, and feedback before adoption.
> There are many attributes of scoring and tasking at the World level
> which may well not fit how we race here.
> In any case- minutes of RC meeting, which are also available to you
at
> the same site say:
> 40 Use IGC scoring system Comments
>
> Discuss later. Under study. No change for 2005. Possibly try on a
dual
> scoring basis once we work out the details. 2xx agreed to chair a sub
> sub committee to study this.
>
> Thanks for sharing
> UH RC Chair

So long as it is not forgotten that is fine. I am not proposing that
we adopt all the WGC rules instead of US rules. High speed dangerous
start gates and forced downwind landouts are not what I would seek to
adopt. My goal would be to look at how cross-country and speed skills
are rewarded in the WGC scoring system, then compare it to the US
scoring formulas. There may be some adjustments we can make that would
help us better pick and breed US pilots to be competitive in Worlds.
Hopefully a compromise could be found that does not require a massive
overhaul, but would bring us more in alignment.

I think it is a topic worthy of more study and discussion. I don't
have a fixed opinion on the matter.

Chris Ruf

[Marc Ramsey]

Did anyone even bother to contemplate the effect the 2006 mandatory ELT
rule would have on US contest participation? I am a casual contest
pilot, normally flying in only one or two a year. If the rule comes
down, I won't be happy about it, but I probably will scrape together the
money. But, it isn't someone like me you have to worry about.

What it's going to do is kill off a lot of the regional contests out
here are the west coast (and probably elsewhere). The pilots who are
already hooked on contests will pay the price. Those who participate
even less frequently than I, or who just want to try it out (and may
eventually get hooked) will hem and haw about getting an ELT, and then
simply won't show up. You'll also lose most of the entrants that fly
club ships in Sports Class. I'd guess that at least half of the
entrants in the 2004 Region 11 FAI contest would not have participated
if ELTs had been required. I'd also guess that the Region 11 Sports
Class contest would cease to exist if the ELT rule was in place.

I, too, have sat around in a gliderport office late into the evening
waiting (in vain) for a missing pilot to show up alive. I understand
the desire to reduce this burden on contest officials in the future.
But, if the result of this seemingly sensible rule is a significant
reduction in the number of people participating in US contests, is it
really worth the cost?

Marc

[Bob Salvo]

ELT's have nothing to do with safety. If safety is a concern, consider
making BRS's mandatory; then imagine what would happen to contest
participation..........I'd have less competitors to worry about.:)

"Marc Ramsey" > wrote in message
om...
> Did anyone even bother to contemplate the effect the 2006 mandatory ELT
> rule would have on US contest participation? I am a casual contest
> pilot, normally flying in only one or two a year. If the rule comes
> down, I won't be happy about it, but I probably will scrape together the
> money. But, it isn't someone like me you have to worry about.
>
> What it's going to do is kill off a lot of the regional contests out
> here are the west coast (and probably elsewhere). The pilots who are
> already hooked on contests will pay the price. Those who participate
> even less frequently than I, or who just want to try it out (and may
> eventually get hooked) will hem and haw about getting an ELT, and then
> simply won't show up. You'll also lose most of the entrants that fly
> club ships in Sports Class. I'd guess that at least half of the
> entrants in the 2004 Region 11 FAI contest would not have participated
> if ELTs had been required. I'd also guess that the Region 11 Sports
> Class contest would cease to exist if the ELT rule was in place.
>
> I, too, have sat around in a gliderport office late into the evening
> waiting (in vain) for a missing pilot to show up alive. I understand
> the desire to reduce this burden on contest officials in the future.
> But, if the result of this seemingly sensible rule is a significant
> reduction in the number of people participating in US contests, is it
> really worth the cost?
>
> Marc
>
>

[HL Falbaum]

A quick (and not exhaustive) search on Google turned up the WGC rules for
1999. I could not find rules for anything later, though I am sure they
exist. Would someone please direct me to the site for the most current
rules?
Thanks
--
Hartley Falbaum
ASW27B "KF" USA

"BB" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> comcast webnews wrote:
>>
>> I personally feel that we should move in the direction of the WGC
> scoring
>> formulas. Possibly adopt the WGC formulas 100%, or possibly a blend
> of our
>> current system and the WGC system.
>
> I wonder how many pilots in favor of moving to WGC scoring formulas
> have actually read them? (Actually, how many poll respondents have
> actually read the US scoring formulas?!)
>
> The idea sounds nice, "let's score the way the worlds are, so our guys
> get used to that and do better." But when you actually look at the mess
> in the world scoring formulas, you realize "why should we screw up
> every contest in the US just because the world rules are screwed up?"
>
> Two small examples, second-hand from the last worlds.
>
> 1) Start gate with limited height but not limited speed or the US
> two-minute rule. Back to dive-bombing. Do you really want that?
>
> 2) MAT style task is distance in a set time. It allows the strategy of
> timing-out low, way downwind, then trying to scratch back to the
> airport to see if you can get the bonus for finishing at home. Do you
> really want to do this at US contests?
>
> And of course, world and European devaluation rules give a huge benefit
> to gaggling. I hear there was a day in an Australian worlds where
> pilots simply refused to go out on course since nobody wanted to be
> first. Again, do we really want that?
>
> Are US contests places for US pilots to have fun, compete, learn to do
> better in a safe environment, or are they just a training camp for the
> top 5 or so who want to go to the worlds? The poll question on "goals"
> suggested a lot more pilots in favor of the former, not the latter.
>
> If you move to WGC scoring, what do you do when you see obvious safety
> or procedural problems? Here, you call up UH or the current rules
> committee chairman, and it gets fixed. If you're committed to WGC
> scoring, fixing the simplest problem has to wait for the IGC to move on
> it. This is like having the UN in charge of parking regulations.
> John Cochrane (BB)
>

[5Z]

HL Falbaum wrote:
> A quick (and not exhaustive) search on Google turned up the WGC rules
for
> 1999. I could not find rules for anything later, though I am sure
they
> exist. Would someone please direct me to the site for the most
current
> rules?

All international rules are at the FAI website. What you're looking is
at:

http://www.fai.org/sporting_code/sc3.asp#sc3a

-Tom

[[email protected]]

Another incentive might be to charge lost pilots a finder's fee equal
to the effort required to find them. Tow plane hours, search crews,
office staff spending the night on site by the phone, CAP, local polie,
etc. Demonstrating a willingness to invest in your own search and
rescue by purchasing and installing an ELT would exempt you from these
charges.

If, however, we're looking for a handout, can I have my parachute
subsidized as well?

I guess I'm jaded. The other day I was considering the cost/value of a
suit at Nordstrom. It suddenly occurred to me that I don't bat an eye
when purchasing glider equiptment at three times the price. $1K for a
406 MHz ELT is peanuts in competitive gliding. Of course, no one is
asking you to purchase a reliable ELT... just an apporved on. If you're
whining about $300 then you're whining just for the sake of hearing
your own voice.

I've flown for almost three decades WITHOUT an ELT (regardless of
price) because I know that the economically-priced 121.5 units had
serious flaws. But the new 406 units have demonstrated themselves worth
the money, and with a GPS interface might even provide for resuce. We
have an obligation to those who come looking for us to reduce their
exposure to mishap by providing the best possible tracking available at
reasonable cost.

That some pilots don't care what becomes of their bones is their
business. That they don't care about those who'll come looking for them
is unacceptable. Such pilots have no place in organized comptetition. I
think that's the message.

[[email protected]]

Very selfish, Bob. It has plenty to do with safety. Just not yours.
Have you ever been involved in a search and rescue? See my previous
posts.

[Mark James Boyd]

I'd be interested in an aircraft installed ELT requirement if I
thought it was really useful.

I think installing ELTs in aircraft is great. Just like
installing a Garmin 430 in the panel. If the individual
pilot thinks it fits his/her situation and has the money,
then go for it!

I'm completely against the requirement for ELTs beyond what
14 CFR 91 (in the USA) requires.

ELTs don't even activate in 75% of serious (reportable) accidents.
In the 2-33 I'd be using for a Sports class competition
in Avenal, an ELT would contribute nothing (zero, nada)
to safety, search and rescue, etc. The only thing it might
contribute to is nuisance if it was accidentally activated.

And a requirement for it would do absolutely nothing
except keep this aircraft from participating in a contest.

Too bad. Flying a short course close to the airport on
a nice day with tons of landouts in a glider that hasn't
had a US fatality in 25 years, with a handheld radio and
handheld ELT and cell phone would have been a lot of fun.

"Only" $300 indeed...perhaps the poster of that one is offering up
HIS $300...

Perhaps you should require me to carry IFR charts and be IFR
trained in the 2-33 also, to ensure I don't get confused in the
clouds and crash into a 4000 foot hill? I'm sure the
forecast that says CAVU could possibly be wrong too...

Requirements come about because you think the pilots are stupid.
If you think the pilots are stupid, you have a bigger problem
than whether you can find them when they crash.

Mark J. Boyd
<not a fan of pointless blanket requirements>

In article >,
Eric Greenwell > wrote:
>jphoenix wrote:
>> The rule should be amended (in my opinion) to allow continued use of
>> TSO C91 units that are currently installed. Granted they are not as
>> accurrate as the C91a units, but at least they are installed. A C91 ELT
>> may be adequate for contest purposes in someone's estimation, but in no
>> case may they be used for a new installation (FAR), so there's no
>> chance of installing the C91 units if you don't already have it
>> installed.
>
>Can experimentally licensed aircraft (like my glider) legally install
>C91 units? I'm not clear on that, but there are plenty of places selling
>EBC-102a ELTs, so somebody must be able to use them.
>
>I'd certainly like to stick with my current C91 unit until the new,
>improved ELTs are cheaper!
>
>> This new contest rule means that all 1-26's participating in the
>> Nationals in 2006 shall require an approved ELT installation. I'm
>> thinking lead balloon on this one.
>
>Don't they use their own rules, not the SSA rules? I'm assuming you mean
>the 1-26 Nationals. Or did you mean the Sports Class Nationals?
>
>
>--
>Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
>Eric Greenwell
>Washington State
>USA


--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[Stewart Kissel]

Well perhaps if most contestants were racing in 2-33's,
this might not be such a hot idea...

Somewhere in this thread the idea of being responsible
to others, surfaces here and there. And what sort
of monetary value to attach to that. In some states,
such as Colorado...a hunting or fishing license absolves
one from paying for the search to find him out in the
woods if something goes wrong. This is cheap insurance
for that unlikely occurance.

When I look at what guys pay to go race...in time,
effort and dineros...is this an onerous requirement?

Hard to say, $2k is a lot of money. $300 seems to
be below the pain threshold for most. But I suspect
the ELT discussion is actually more then just talking
about putting something in the glider to help with
body recovery....

[[email protected]]

Bob,

here's a snip from a thread back in June of last year:

A couple of years ago I agreed with your position without reservation.
However, I've had a change of heart... and so with it the ex-smoker's
compulsion to overreact to those that still fume. My rationalizations
were not about choice, rather practicality. The 406 units have rendered
that arguments empty.

We had an accident at our club in the mid 90s. The good news is, the
pilot survived, but with very serious injuries. But for the people who
ran through literally a mile of thickets and brambles, shredding their
own skin, he might have died of his injuries. That one had nothing to
do with ELTs. But it demonstrated to me just how motivated some people
become when lives are at stake. I would hate that my negligence led to
someone's injury or death whose only concern was to save me.

Chris OCallaghan Jun 17 2004, 11:19 am show options
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.soaring
From: (Chris OCallaghan) - Find messages by
this author
Date: 17 Jun 2004 11:19:50 -0700
Local: Thurs, Jun 17 2004 11:19 am
Subject: Re: ELT Mandatory ?
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Remove | Report Abuse

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.

[Tim Mara]

I don't know where your statics come from but I know of NO glider with an
installed ELT that did not go off in a serious accident....
Can you give me just one incident where a glider crashed that had an ELT
that did not go off??? Please, just name ONE time......
and still ELT's can be had for well under $200.I sell them and have them on
the shelf.....there are a very large number of gliders already flying with
these.......I know, I've sold them!
And honestly.if a contest orgainizer requires you to have one I think it is
their decision and they are the ones hosting the contest....if you don't
want to compete in their contest or follow their rules then that is going to
be your decision...they may also require you to wear a parachute, carry some
kind of data-logger and even have some form of badge required.that's their
rules for having you as their guest.....if you don't want to follow their
rules for entry I'm sure you'll be missed but then again, forgotten....
tim
www.wingsandwheels.com


"Mark James Boyd" > wrote in message
news:41e9461f$1@darkstar...
> I'd be interested in an aircraft installed ELT requirement if I
> thought it was really useful.
>
> I think installing ELTs in aircraft is great. Just like
> installing a Garmin 430 in the panel. If the individual
> pilot thinks it fits his/her situation and has the money,
> then go for it!
>
> I'm completely against the requirement for ELTs beyond what
> 14 CFR 91 (in the USA) requires.
>
> ELTs don't even activate in 75% of serious (reportable) accidents.
> In the 2-33 I'd be using for a Sports class competition
> in Avenal, an ELT would contribute nothing (zero, nada)
> to safety, search and rescue, etc. The only thing it might
> contribute to is nuisance if it was accidentally activated.
>
> And a requirement for it would do absolutely nothing
> except keep this aircraft from participating in a contest.
>
> Too bad. Flying a short course close to the airport on
> a nice day with tons of landouts in a glider that hasn't
> had a US fatality in 25 years, with a handheld radio and
> handheld ELT and cell phone would have been a lot of fun.
>
> "Only" $300 indeed...perhaps the poster of that one is offering up
> HIS $300...
>
> Perhaps you should require me to carry IFR charts and be IFR
> trained in the 2-33 also, to ensure I don't get confused in the
> clouds and crash into a 4000 foot hill? I'm sure the
> forecast that says CAVU could possibly be wrong too...
>
> Requirements come about because you think the pilots are stupid.
> If you think the pilots are stupid, you have a bigger problem
> than whether you can find them when they crash.
>
> Mark J. Boyd
> <not a fan of pointless blanket requirements>
>
> In article >,
> Eric Greenwell > wrote:
> >jphoenix wrote:
> >> The rule should be amended (in my opinion) to allow continued use of
> >> TSO C91 units that are currently installed. Granted they are not as
> >> accurrate as the C91a units, but at least they are installed. A C91 ELT
> >> may be adequate for contest purposes in someone's estimation, but in no
> >> case may they be used for a new installation (FAR), so there's no
> >> chance of installing the C91 units if you don't already have it
> >> installed.
> >
> >Can experimentally licensed aircraft (like my glider) legally install
> >C91 units? I'm not clear on that, but there are plenty of places selling
> >EBC-102a ELTs, so somebody must be able to use them.
> >
> >I'd certainly like to stick with my current C91 unit until the new,
> >improved ELTs are cheaper!
> >
> >> This new contest rule means that all 1-26's participating in the
> >> Nationals in 2006 shall require an approved ELT installation. I'm
> >> thinking lead balloon on this one.
> >
> >Don't they use their own rules, not the SSA rules? I'm assuming you mean
> >the 1-26 Nationals. Or did you mean the Sports Class Nationals?
> >
> >
> >--
> >Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
> >
> >Eric Greenwell
> >Washington State
> >USA
>
>
> --
>
> ------------+
> Mark J. Boyd

[Kilo Charlie]

For those of you that wish to have some statistics pertaining to ELT
reliability go to this page:
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/regulatory/elt.html

As with most arguements on this group there has been hyperbole on the part
of both sides. While I would agree that another $2000 instrument will not
keep me from entering a contest I do feel that it could keep a newcomer from
entering their first contest. There have been multiple threads on this
group re how the average age of sailplane pilots is steadily growing and
wishing to know how we might interest new folks in joining our sport.
Making the cost of entering a contest higher does not help that goal. We
should at least be honest with ourselves about that.

In my opinion transponders go much farther in at least potentially
furthering the greater good than an ELT. Pretty much each of us has a story
of being closer to power traffic than we would have liked to be. If there
is a midair and lives lost you can bet that there will be immediate steps
made to regulate our flying. Admittedly it has a different function than an
ELT and would also be cost prohibitive but does have the potential for
locating a downed aircraft based upon the last known position.

Casey Lenox
Phoenix

[Steve Bralla]

In article om>,
writes:

> $1K for a
>406 MHz ELT is peanuts in competitive gliding. Of course, no one is
>asking you to purchase a reliable ELT... just an apporved on. If you're
>whining about $300 then you're whining just for the sake of hearing
>your own voice.


This statment jumped out at me.
Steve

[Andy Blackburn]

At 16:30 14 January 2005, Wayne Paul wrote:
>
>I feel strongly ELT contest requirement will lead to
>the removal of glider
>ELT exception. The exemption loss will cost us $2,000+
>with transition to
>406 MHz units.

Cheaper 406 MHz models are on the way.

http://www.artex.net/me406.html

I can't seem to find any G-activated 406 MHz units
with a GPS input, except for ones that require 28 volts
for the interface unit.

Any leads?

9B

[Brian]

Perhaps you don't bat an eye for $1K peice of Glider Equipment.

I however won't even walk in to Nordstrom. I have yet to spend more
$400 for a peice of glider equipment other than the inital cost of the
glider. 7 Years ago I flew my 1st contest in a Glider I paid $6500 for
with a $200 used Parachute and a $35 35mm Camera.

Today I am flying a $11,000 glider with 15 year old Flight Computer,
$150 GPS and a $400 flight Recorder. My $800 parachute came with the
glider, otherwise I would still be using the $200 one.

I really don't have an issue putting a $300 ELT into my glider ,I do
think it is a worthwhile peice of equipment. I have been looking at
them for some time even before the proposed rule, I would also like a
better Radio, and a Transponder and a 406 ELT. So what is my priority.
as of 2006 it is the ELT per the rules. Probably the $300 dollar one. I
guess you can put up with my scratchy radio calls for another year and
I can continue to see and avoid 737's while they never see me.


Brian

[Tim Mara]

Talk about cost!!!!!!!
Transponders in gliders are expensive.......!
Initial cost to install a transponder is +/- $2000, semi-annual cost, +
additional batteries + upkeep = more $
My biggest fear is that transponders could eventually be required for
everything that fly's...that means every homebuilt, every 126, 222, k6 or k8
and so on and every club glider will have this additional expense.... now
you won't only have problems with a newbie trying to get into a contest, but
with every potential glider owner, every club member all having to pay more
or.......have less
As for " Pretty much each of us has a story of being closer to power traffic
than we would have liked to be". "IF you have stories about close
encounters then it's likely because you're flying in heavily congested
airspace.....Don't fly there!......you are absolutely correct "If there is a
midair and lives lost you can bet that there will be immediate steps made to
regulate our flying." and that will be the end of soaring as we know it!
I do sell transponders.....but I try also to explain as best I can what
their limitations are to buyers as well......these are not a simply, flip it
on when YOU want it and go on flying down the approach corridor.....if
you're not talking with ATC in these highly congested areas you are still
putting yourself and others at risk.........not every other plane in this
area will be talking with ATC or have a TCAS system on board ...... if you
want simple and inexpensive traffic avoidance look beyond simply squawking
in the blind but look also at the TPAS systems....far better than having the
Fed's tell us we all need to have transponders installed to fly "anywhere"
tim
www.wingsandwheels.com


"Kilo Charlie" > wrote in message
news:1GwGd.2637$0B.729@fed1read02...
> For those of you that wish to have some statistics pertaining to ELT
> reliability go to this page:
> http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/regulatory/elt.html
>
> As with most arguements on this group there has been hyperbole on the part
> of both sides. While I would agree that another $2000 instrument will
notPretty much each of us has a story
> of being closer to power traffic than we would have liked to be. If there
> is a midair and lives lost you can bet that there will be immediate steps
> made to regulate our flying.
> keep me from entering a contest I do feel that it could keep a newcomer
from
> entering their first contest. There have been multiple threads on this
> group re how the average age of sailplane pilots is steadily growing and
> wishing to know how we might interest new folks in joining our sport.
> Making the cost of entering a contest higher does not help that goal. We
> should at least be honest with ourselves about that.
>
> In my opinion transponders go much farther in at least potentially
> furthering the greater good than an ELT. Admittedly it has a different
function than an
> ELT and would also be cost prohibitive but does have the potential for
> locating a downed aircraft based upon the last known position.
>
> Casey Lenox
> Phoenix
>
>
>
>
>

[[email protected]]

This is the relevant paragraph from the link Casey offered:

When ELTs were mandated in 1973, most GA aircraft were equipped with an
ELT that transmits on the 121.5 MHz frequency, the designated
international distress frequency. The original ELTs were manufactured
to the specifications of an FAA technical standard order (TSO-C91A) and
have an activation rate of less than 25 percent in actual crashes and a
97 percent false-alarm rate. In 1985, a new TSO-C91A ELT was developed,
which substantially reduces or eliminates many problems with the
earlier model. The TSO-C91A provides improved performance and
reliability (with an activation rate of 73 percent in actual crashes)
at a reasonable cost to users ($200-$500 including installation). Since
then, an even more advanced model of ELT has been developed - the
C126 ELT (406 MHz). This newest model activates 81-83 percent of the
time, but the current cost is $1,500 or more per unit, not including
installation.

Please note that these are AOPA rendered statistics. AOPA has a very
strong position against mandatory use of the 406 MHz units based on
member financial impact. (In fact, little of AOPA writes should be
accepted at face value. They are an advocacy group, and not always in
the best interests of the majority of pilots.) Therefore, they have
painted a picture that shows little value in moving from the older
technology to the new and have omitted some important facts regarding
time to acquisiton of signal, ability to verify whether the signal is
an actual emergency, accuracy of first pass position resolution,
reduction in false alerts, and time to arrival of emergency personnel
on scene. They do, however, acknowledge that as of 2009, satellites
will no longer monitor the old bandwidths. This means no repsonse
unless someone watched you go in.

The rhetoric used by the AOPA is interesting. Note the lack of
parallelism between the first two examples. A false alarm rate in C91A
models is not cited. This is always a sign of a potentially flawed
argument, typically presented intentionally to drive the reader to
specific conclusion.

In response to Casey's point, I'll repeat my earlier concerns that put
me on the unpopular side of this discussion: the units aren't for our
safety but for the safety of those who might one day have to come
looking for us. Search and rescue is a dangerous business. Consider
Utah skiers killed in avalanches this past weekend. NONE wore beacons
while skiing off piste. That has put many dozens of searchers in harms
way for much longer than was necessary. Finally, recognize that we are
talking about racing. Pilots typically fly more aggressively, cover
larger distances at high speeds, often traversing unlandable terrain.
Organizers are asking racers to make their jobs a little easier. For
the cost-conscious, they can satisfy the requrest for under $300. For
the value-concscious, $1K will provide an even greater degree of
assurance.

[[email protected]]

Tim,

this is the problem with depending on personal experience rather than
statistics. Unfortunately, sailplane ELT activation appears not to be
reported in accident investigations. Therefore, we have to depend on GA
statistics (and their tortuous path into being). At best, activation is
75%. At worst, about 25%. Let's split the difference and call it a coin
toss. The real problem with the 121.5 units is the false alarm rate.
This costs resources. Imagine how many fire houses we'd need if the
false alarm rate was 97%, or more accurately, how many houses would
burn down. If you can't think of a single non-activation, how many
times have you seen the CAP looking for an ELT in a hangar, trailer, or
tie-down?

BTW, I'm searching for two 406 units for our gliders. I can either
continue my own research and buy them direct from the manufacturer...
or buy them from a soaring supplier. I know there are a large number
of pilots who share my preference, both in equipment and source. But it
doesn't seem like any vendor is making an effort to satisfy the need.
Am I missing something?

[Kilo Charlie]

Chris, Chris, Chris......I love it when you stoop to arguing with statistics
by not only dissing the ones presented but not offering any of your own to
support another viewpoint! The old "I just know those aren't correct" idea.
Hey I'm here to learn so show me the money and I'll be glad to see it
another way. Honestly I thought that those nasty old AOPA stats with all of
their bias supported the point that Tim (and you) were making.

And Tim.....the reason that I bought and installed a transponder (which with
an encoder was less than $2000 BTW) was that when I was flying back from the
Grand Canyon towards Phoenix on those very long flat glides, I could not
even see the gliders in front of me but could see the occasional 737 heading
in to PHX. Now I'm not thinkin' that you fly in a place more remote than
northern Arizona but I suppose I may have missed that spot while I was
flying on the east coast. With that 37 and I heading the same direction I
figured that I would get a loud noise followed by crunching as the first
sign I may be too close.

As you point out and as I said already, transponders are a lot of money but
you chose to overlook that part about the newer ELT's (and soon to be only
effective models) currently being the same price. Maybe they'll come down
in price, maybe so will transponders, maybe neither will.

I'll make the point again.....ANY $2000 required piece of equipment for
contest entry will be prohibitive to some pilots, esp newer ones. Point
number 2 is that if we are forced to choose which is a more effective
instrument in preventing human loss of life and therefore psychological
trauma to the greater number of people I say that the stats would support
the transponder.

I used OC logic with that last statement since I have nothing to support
it!!! But darn it I know I'm right!

KC

[[email protected]]

Rats, it doesn't look like my knee jerk response posted. Ah well,
nothing particularly interesting. Just some poking at Casey...
sometimes a Jeanne d'Arc is the most powerful appeal. Besides, if you
can lead with pathos, then counter the criticism with logic, you have a
much more powerful argument. But alas, that wasn't the intent (this
time).

I don't dispute the AOPA's numbers, just the sophistry of their
presentation. I've cited sources of such statistics in past in related
threads. Probably the most relevant is
http://www.cospas-sarsat.org/Beacons/typeApprovedList.htm which gives
the background and mission of SARSAT as well as a list of current 406
manufacturers. (I'm reviewing and pricing avaiation units now.) The
important message to take away from this site is that 121.5/243 MHz
ELTs were not designed to operate with satellites. Improvements have
been made, but the 406 MHz ELT is specifically designed to be
instantaneously detected by satellite and provide sufficient accuracy
(first pass doppler shift) to allow a manageable search effort.

Another general information page is
http://www.sarsat.noaa.gov/emerbcns.html.

You can find the statistics quoted (in part) by AOPA at
http://www.sarsat.noaa.gov/406vs121.pdf.

I've lost the link for failure rates of the first and second generation
inertial switches used in aviation ELTs. Maybe someone else recalls....

As for Casey's belief that transponders would provide a better
investment with respect to safety, it's hard to argue the value. Once
again, though, this seems to be a rule responding to the concerns of
contest organizers. All things measured, the transponder may be more
valuable to the pilot, but not to contest staff.

In fact, my guess would be that the best invesment we could make as
pilots would be annual recurrency training. It seems that even the best
of us are apt to pick up bad habits. If only there were experienced
coaches who could inspire enough respect to overcome our egos and do us
some real good. Barring that, impersonal, nonjudgemental gadgets seem
the next best bet.

[Marc Ramsey]

wrote:
> As for Casey's belief that transponders would provide a better
> investment with respect to safety, it's hard to argue the value. Once
> again, though, this seems to be a rule responding to the concerns of
> contest organizers. All things measured, the transponder may be more
> valuable to the pilot, but not to contest staff.

Frankly, it doesn't appear to me to be due to the concerns of "contest
organizers" in general, it is the concerns of some members of the Rules
Committee, and perhaps a few contest organizers on the east coast, that
are driving this. No contest official I've had contact with out here
has ever expressed reservations about the lack of ELTs, and as president
of a regional/national contest sponsoring organization (Pacific Soaring
Council), I can't say that I've ever much thought about it, until now.
Strangely enough, we do actively encourage local pilots to get
transponders, due to traffic concerns in the Reno area.

Marc

[Kilo Charlie]

Now that's more like it Chris! Those are some nice reference
sites....thanks!

If you find a good source for ELT's at a reasonable price please post it
here.

BTW I assume that these are useful anywhere in the world. Are any other
countries requiring them for contests?

Casey
KC

[tango4]

Nope!

[Mark James Boyd]

Brian,

You are my hero for posting this...but I must ask, why
do you have a radio at all?

Aha! I bet it came with the glider, right? :)

I too am a pilot on a budget. Apparently there are just
the two of us on this newsgroup...

In article . com>,
Brian > wrote:
>Perhaps you don't bat an eye for $1K peice of Glider Equipment.
>
>I however won't even walk in to Nordstrom. I have yet to spend more
>$400 for a peice of glider equipment other than the inital cost of the
>glider. 7 Years ago I flew my 1st contest in a Glider I paid $6500 for
>with a $200 used Parachute and a $35 35mm Camera.
>
>Today I am flying a $11,000 glider with 15 year old Flight Computer,
>$150 GPS and a $400 flight Recorder. My $800 parachute came with the
>glider, otherwise I would still be using the $200 one.
>
>I really don't have an issue putting a $300 ELT into my glider ,I do
>think it is a worthwhile peice of equipment. I have been looking at
>them for some time even before the proposed rule, I would also like a
>better Radio, and a Transponder and a 406 ELT. So what is my priority.
>as of 2006 it is the ELT per the rules. Probably the $300 dollar one. I
>guess you can put up with my scratchy radio calls for another year and
>I can continue to see and avoid 737's while they never see me.
>
>
>Brian
>


--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[Mark James Boyd]

Well, at some point I fully expect mode S transponders
required in every aircraft. Maybe 5-10 years from now.

So the FAA will know your exact location by tail number at all times.
Sure will save on Volkloggers and on crew radios, eh? Just
link into the scope, and POOF! Real time data...



In article >,
Tim Mara > wrote:
>Talk about cost!!!!!!!
>Transponders in gliders are expensive.......!
>Initial cost to install a transponder is +/- $2000, semi-annual cost, +
>additional batteries + upkeep = more $
>My biggest fear is that transponders could eventually be required for
>everything that fly's...that means every homebuilt, every 126, 222, k6 or k8
>and so on and every club glider will have this additional expense.... now
>you won't only have problems with a newbie trying to get into a contest, but
>with every potential glider owner, every club member all having to pay more
>or.......have less
>As for " Pretty much each of us has a story of being closer to power traffic
>than we would have liked to be". "IF you have stories about close
>encounters then it's likely because you're flying in heavily congested
>airspace.....Don't fly there!......you are absolutely correct "If there is a
>midair and lives lost you can bet that there will be immediate steps made to
>regulate our flying." and that will be the end of soaring as we know it!
>I do sell transponders.....but I try also to explain as best I can what
>their limitations are to buyers as well......these are not a simply, flip it
>on when YOU want it and go on flying down the approach corridor.....if
>you're not talking with ATC in these highly congested areas you are still
>putting yourself and others at risk.........not every other plane in this
>area will be talking with ATC or have a TCAS system on board ...... if you
>want simple and inexpensive traffic avoidance look beyond simply squawking
>in the blind but look also at the TPAS systems....far better than having the
>Fed's tell us we all need to have transponders installed to fly "anywhere"
>tim
>www.wingsandwheels.com
>
>
>"Kilo Charlie" > wrote in message
>news:1GwGd.2637$0B.729@fed1read02...
>> For those of you that wish to have some statistics pertaining to ELT
>> reliability go to this page:
>> http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/regulatory/elt.html
>>
>> As with most arguements on this group there has been hyperbole on the part
>> of both sides. While I would agree that another $2000 instrument will
>notPretty much each of us has a story
>> of being closer to power traffic than we would have liked to be. If there
>> is a midair and lives lost you can bet that there will be immediate steps
>> made to regulate our flying.
>> keep me from entering a contest I do feel that it could keep a newcomer
>from
>> entering their first contest. There have been multiple threads on this
>> group re how the average age of sailplane pilots is steadily growing and
>> wishing to know how we might interest new folks in joining our sport.
>> Making the cost of entering a contest higher does not help that goal. We
>> should at least be honest with ourselves about that.
>>
>> In my opinion transponders go much farther in at least potentially
>> furthering the greater good than an ELT. Admittedly it has a different
>function than an
>> ELT and would also be cost prohibitive but does have the potential for
>> locating a downed aircraft based upon the last known position.
>>
>> Casey Lenox
>> Phoenix
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>


--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[Mark James Boyd]

I have a portable personal ELT. I have taken it with me on
thousands of flights, some in gliders. When I flew a glider, I
attached it across my chest with the parachute. I've activated it four
times, when coming in for landing at unobserved (outlanding) strips.
I shut it off in each case after landing, except once when I was able to
avoid landout and instead climbed 10,000 feet. I then shut it off, and
called FSS and told them I was the false alarm.

I don't know why pilots assume they have to crash to activate the
ELT. I agree with Carl Herold that every outlanding is an
emergency landing, and I treat it as such.

I have never flown a glider with an installed ELT. I have found
my particular use of a personal ELT suits me and my needs better.
And my ELT is on ME, not the glider. I don't care if anyone finds
the glider...

In article <IZ0Hd.4920$0B.1542@fed1read02>,
Kilo Charlie <NOSPAMkilocharlie.cox.net> wrote:
>Chris, Chris, Chris......I love it when you stoop to arguing with statistics
>by not only dissing the ones presented but not offering any of your own to
>support another viewpoint! The old "I just know those aren't correct" idea.
>Hey I'm here to learn so show me the money and I'll be glad to see it
>another way. Honestly I thought that those nasty old AOPA stats with all of
>their bias supported the point that Tim (and you) were making.
>
>And Tim.....the reason that I bought and installed a transponder (which with
>an encoder was less than $2000 BTW) was that when I was flying back from the
>Grand Canyon towards Phoenix on those very long flat glides, I could not
>even see the gliders in front of me but could see the occasional 737 heading
>in to PHX. Now I'm not thinkin' that you fly in a place more remote than
>northern Arizona but I suppose I may have missed that spot while I was
>flying on the east coast. With that 37 and I heading the same direction I
>figured that I would get a loud noise followed by crunching as the first
>sign I may be too close.
>
>As you point out and as I said already, transponders are a lot of money but
>you chose to overlook that part about the newer ELT's (and soon to be only
>effective models) currently being the same price. Maybe they'll come down
>in price, maybe so will transponders, maybe neither will.
>
>I'll make the point again.....ANY $2000 required piece of equipment for
>contest entry will be prohibitive to some pilots, esp newer ones. Point
>number 2 is that if we are forced to choose which is a more effective
>instrument in preventing human loss of life and therefore psychological
>trauma to the greater number of people I say that the stats would support
>the transponder.
>
>I used OC logic with that last statement since I have nothing to support
>it!!! But darn it I know I'm right!
>
>KC
>
>
>


--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[Philip Plane]

In article <hViHd.5695$0B.2411@fed1read02>, Kilo Charlie wrote:
>
> BTW I assume that these are useful anywhere in the world. Are any other
> countries requiring them for contests?
>

ELTs are required in gliders in NZ. Exemptions are only for local flying,
my memory says within 10km of the field.

We are allowed to carry portable units though.

--
Philip Plane _____
|
---------------( )---------------
Glider pilots have no visible means of support

[Mark James Boyd]

In article >,
T o d d P a t t i s t > wrote:
>
>1) The installed ELT has more power and a better antenna.

Unless the coax is severed or the fragile battery box is broken.

>2) The installed ELT has a button on the panel to turn it on
>quickly before landing. I'll bet hitting a button mounted
>at a fixed location can be done faster than finding a button
>on a portable.

Tightly belted in, I couldn't reach anything on the panel in the
PW-5. Arms were too short, even with lots of cushions. The
button on the EPIRB was easy to find and switch on.

>3) The installed ELT has the "failsafe" of crash activation.

Not reliable, and the crash may destroy it. Not likely
for the EPIRB. It's been tested to 20Gs and drop tested
on cement at it's terminal velocity.

>4) The installed ELT can be carried portably after landing
>and will transmit voice on 121.5.

Yep. So does my handheld radio and my cell phone.
And I don't even have to search for and install a whip antenna
after disconnecting the coax behind my head. If I'm bleeding
out of my femur and conscious, I'm probably going to
go with the cell phone in my jacket or the handheld radio.
Probably easier to reach.

But then again, I've never even flown a sailplane with an installed
ELT. So this is speculation on my part.

Downside: I would have paid over $8,000 to install even the
cheapest ELT in each of the 20 sailplanes I've flown in the past
2 years. If I owned my own sailplane, that would be different.
If the contest organizers want to restrict entrants to
those who own their own sailplanes, then that is another matter.
--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[Tim Mara]

MOST of the mounted ELT's will still function, though at a reduced TX range
without the antenna should it be severed in a crash...

Personal ELT's and EPIRB units require you to activate them manually....if
you're still, after you crash.... able to!
tim


"Mark James Boyd" > wrote in message
news:41eed942$1@darkstar...
> In article >,
> T o d d P a t t i s t > wrote:
> >
> >1) The installed ELT has more power and a better antenna.
>
> Unless the coax is severed or the fragile battery box is broken.
>
> >2) The installed ELT has a button on the panel to turn it on
> >quickly before landing. I'll bet hitting a button mounted
> >at a fixed location can be done faster than finding a button
> >on a portable.

[Mark James Boyd]

Tim Mara > wrote:
>
>Personal ELT's and EPIRB units require you to activate them manually....if
>you're still, after you crash.... able to!

I've activated my ELT not after, but BEFORE any potential
unwitnessed landing. At pattern altitude for an off-field
landing, I've always considered this an emergency. So I pop it
on. If I land safely and happily, I shut it off.

But Tim, your point is good as it relates to ridge soaring or
midairs. In both of those cases, it seems possible to
be knocked unconscious and potentially be at a crash site, bleeding out,
and have an impact activated ELT be useful.

I don't know the story of Peter Masak, however, and don't know if this
was his case...
--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[Martin Gregory]

Mark James Boyd wrote:
> Tim Mara > wrote:
>
>>Personal ELT's and EPIRB units require you to activate them manually....if
>>you're still, after you crash.... able to!
>
>
> I've activated my ELT not after, but BEFORE any potential
> unwitnessed landing. At pattern altitude for an off-field
> landing, I've always considered this an emergency. So I pop it
> on. If I land safely and happily, I shut it off.

You mentioned this before, and it made me wonder.

When I bought mine there were lots of cautions in the instructions
about _not_ activating it unless it was really an emergency.

I have to admit I don't know exactly what the consequences of
activating it will be in the short term. I thought that the result
would be pretty immediate alarm bells souding in cockpits of
overhead jets listening in 121.5.

If I knew that as I approached an outlanding and activated my ELT
I'd be sending every overhead jet crew into an emergency response mode,
I would not like to do that at all. One could almost say "downright
irresponsible". Every weekend day there are people making outlandings
all over the country!

Every XC flight I make I am prepared to and expect to outland. That
is part of what XC flying is about (in a country where you don't plan
to XC from airport to airport, at least)

It would not be fair to carry the expectation that therefore I am prepared to
disturb flight crews every weekend just in case I botch an outlanding...

.... so how do you reconcile this in your mind?

Martin.

[Mark James Boyd]

Well, I believe Carl Herold that an outlanding is an emergency.

And keep in mind I only activate the EPIRB for unobserved
outlandings (nobody around, no farmers, no roads
with people, etc.)

And it's on for at most maybe a few minutes.

The one time I had it on for more than a few minutes, I was a bit busy.
When I called FSS, they said "OK, we got a confirmation
on an ELT just a few minutes ago. Thanks."

So I don't think this is a huge problem. Having an
installed one in a trailer beeping away for hours, now that
is a different matter...

I guess I've also made maybe a dozen precautionary
ATC calls and landings in power planes in several thousands
of flights. The ATC guys have never seemed out of sorts about
it, and they'd rather have a heads up ahead of time and have
it turn out ok, instead of the opposite.

I personally don't think pilots declare emergencies enough.
A few days ago, a malibu pilot here at Palo Alto had
high oil temp and didn't declare, and tried to land here.
Too high, too fast, rolled the thing off the end, destroyed
it and injured herself. Could have just declared an emergency and landed
at Oakland instead (long, wide runway, lots of fire trucks).

I'm not saying push the button on the ELT for every landing.
I'm saying if there is nodoby watching you land, and
you aren't 100% sure of a safe outcome, flip it on at
1000ft, and afterwards flip it off.

A field with grass, potential drainage pipes, wires, and
a narrow road with a tree halfway down it for me constitutes
an exciting landout. If you are more skilled, your results may vary...

In article >,
Martin Gregory > wrote:
>Mark James Boyd wrote:
>> Tim Mara > wrote:
>>
>>>Personal ELT's and EPIRB units require you to activate them manually....if
>>>you're still, after you crash.... able to!
>>
>>
>> I've activated my ELT not after, but BEFORE any potential
>> unwitnessed landing. At pattern altitude for an off-field
>> landing, I've always considered this an emergency. So I pop it
>> on. If I land safely and happily, I shut it off.
>
>You mentioned this before, and it made me wonder.
>
>When I bought mine there were lots of cautions in the instructions
>about _not_ activating it unless it was really an emergency.
>
>I have to admit I don't know exactly what the consequences of
>activating it will be in the short term. I thought that the result
>would be pretty immediate alarm bells souding in cockpits of
>overhead jets listening in 121.5.
>
>If I knew that as I approached an outlanding and activated my ELT
>I'd be sending every overhead jet crew into an emergency response mode,
>I would not like to do that at all. One could almost say "downright
>irresponsible". Every weekend day there are people making outlandings
>all over the country!
>
>Every XC flight I make I am prepared to and expect to outland. That
>is part of what XC flying is about (in a country where you don't plan
>to XC from airport to airport, at least)
>
>It would not be fair to carry the expectation that therefore I am prepared to
>disturb flight crews every weekend just in case I botch an outlanding...
>
>... so how do you reconcile this in your mind?
>
>Martin.

--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[Marc Ramsey]

Mark James Boyd wrote:
> I personally don't think pilots declare emergencies enough.
> A few days ago, a malibu pilot here at Palo Alto had
> high oil temp and didn't declare, and tried to land here.
> Too high, too fast, rolled the thing off the end, destroyed
> it and injured herself. Could have just declared an emergency and landed
> at Oakland instead (long, wide runway, lots of fire trucks).

Let me get this straight, you wanted her to declare an emergency and fly
across 15 miles or so of water (aka SF Bay) with high oil temp? How
about just turning around and flying the couple of miles to Moffat Field
(where they also have a long wide runway with fire engines)? Even San
Jose International is closer than Oakland.

Marc

[Mark James Boyd]

Marc,
It's my understanding the pilot, after declaring the high oil temp, flew
PAST Livermore and Oakland to get to the home field and
2500 foot runway of Palo Alto.

But keep in mind all of this is second hand info. For all I
know first hand, she may have had high oil temp of short
final to PAO, and the stuff I've written is just fiction.

I'm almost certain the person who related the story wasn't listening on
NORCAL, just on tower. So the timing of the oil-temp
call is in doubt.

It just seemed like this was a more timely example than the
gear up F-33 who flew past Paso Robles and Salinas on the way
to Watsonville after an electrical failure, with the battery juice
ticking away, or the numerous other examples I could make that
seemed less relevant in my mind at the time, but which
I witnessed in person and spoke to the pilot about afterwards.

Frankly, I don't have good firsthand examples from
glider flying yet. I have yet to firsthand witness
a glider injury, or even any glider damage at all.

Lucky so far, I guess. And my exposure is less. I've only
been at a gliderport for a few hundred days in my life.
Most posters on this forum have been to gliderports for
thousands of days, if I guess correctly.

And I'm not sure other than a sketchy outlanding,
when declaring an inflight emergency over radio/ELT would
apply to a glider pilot? During the glide while
under parachute canopy? In flight self-launch fire?
Spoilers frozen closed? Above a closed in wave layer?

How is somebody on the ground going to help out?
Maybe to alert SAR, or clear to land on a busy runway?

I don't see someone reading you the gear extension emergency procedures,
or talking you through IMC flight for the first time, or
suggesting diversions for weather or low fuel.

But hey, I'm open to other suggestions :)

In article >,
Marc Ramsey > wrote:
>Mark James Boyd wrote:
>> I personally don't think pilots declare emergencies enough.
>> A few days ago, a malibu pilot here at Palo Alto had
>> high oil temp and didn't declare, and tried to land here.
>> Too high, too fast, rolled the thing off the end, destroyed
>> it and injured herself. Could have just declared an emergency and landed
>> at Oakland instead (long, wide runway, lots of fire trucks).
>
>Let me get this straight, you wanted her to declare an emergency and fly
>across 15 miles or so of water (aka SF Bay) with high oil temp? How
>about just turning around and flying the couple of miles to Moffat Field
>(where they also have a long wide runway with fire engines)? Even San
>Jose International is closer than Oakland.
>
>Marc


--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[Mark James Boyd]

I read about the 1991 incident. That one seems solveable
by a handheld radio or maybe a cell phone, considering
the pilot walked out. And this is an excellent argument
for requiring handheld radios for contests.

So we are really talking about two other circumstances.

1) The pilot is unconscious, the ELT activated on impact
and continues to work, and the ELT transmission is the
difference between life and death because he didn't make a radio
call with good position before the accident, the accident wasn't
observed, and cell phones and radios or a tiny ELT
activated right before a sketchy landout just wouldn't
help for this situation, or

2) We need the ELT to find the dead pilot quickly. Otherwise
the fellow pilots and family will suffer a long time,
not specifically knowing what happened.

Was Peter Masak's 2003 accident an example of #1? He was
unconscious while the SAR teams were using the ELT signal to
help find him, and if they hadn't used it he would have died,
because he couldn't have regained consciousness and
used a cell phone or handheld radio or portable ELT?

It seems like his fatal accident is a clear case of number 2.
And his installation of the ELT, which was his personal choice and not
mandated by any regulation or contest rule, saved his
own family and friends additional grief.

But I think there is a substantial difference
between requiring an ELT because of 1 vs 2.
I personally am unaware of any circumstances that
fall into the number 1 category. I am aware of
circumstances where an EPIRB or handheld radio would
have helped a conscious pilot who was bleeding out,
But I think a requirement for a handheld device would
have been just as good or better than an installed ELT
for these conscious pilots.

So what happened in Mr. Masak's 2003 accident? Was he
unconsciuos, or did he just not have a handheld radio
or cell phone (with cell coverage too, of course)?

I get the point about unexpected crashes, though.
Ridge soaring and midairs seem to fall directly into this category.
But of the accidents I've read about, either the pilots
were dead well before rescuers could have ever reasonably
reached them, or they were conscious and could have used a
tiny ELT and/or handheld radio.

***disclaimer***
I have nothing against requiring ELTs to help situation 2,
and think this is worthwhile, but it is a very different
argument than requiring ELTs for situation 1.

T o d d P a t t i s t > wrote:
>
>You have lots of options after the
>accident if you are conscious. I don't expect to use the
>portable feature of my fixed ELT, but several people claim
>it's an advantage for the tiny ELT, so I listed that feature
>to show it's available in fixed ELT's as well.
>
>>Downside: I would have paid over $8,000 to install even the
>>cheapest ELT in each of the 20 sailplanes I've flown in the past
>>2 years. If I owned my own sailplane, that would be different.
>
>And this is the best argument I can see for the tiny ELT.
>My only question then would be whether other devices might
>be better suited - sat phones, cell phones portable radios,
>etc.
>
>
>
>
>


--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[Mark James Boyd]

So in 2003 Peter Masak crashed in a sailplane in a contest,
was uninjured, and was found quickly because he had an ELT.
But if he didn't have an ELT then a portable radio would have
been easy for him to use and call for help?

And THIS is the justification for requiring ELTs in all
gliders at all contests?

Well, I hope nobody ever crashes and then uses a $10,000
50 pound laser to bounce morse code off the moon and get
rescued. Then I suppose we'd all need tests for morse code
and high-powered lasers before we can fly contests, right?

This sounds fishy to me...

In article >,
T o d d P a t t i s t > wrote:
(Mark James Boyd) wrote:
>
>>So we are really talking about two other circumstances.
>>
>>1) The pilot is unconscious, the ELT activated on impact
>>and continues to work
>
>This is the main reason I bought an ELT, plus it gave me
>another option beyond a cell phone.
>
>>2) We need the ELT to find the dead pilot quickly. Otherwise
>>the fellow pilots and family will suffer a long time,
>>not specifically knowing what happened.
>
>I suspect it's more than just preventing suffering/worry.
>Potential searchers and rescuers do face risk in their
>activities.
>
>>Was Peter Masak's 2003 accident an example of #1?
>
>I was told no.
>
>Initially I heard that he installed one of the new 406 MHz
>ELT units, then later heard that was in error. I'm still
>not sure what type he had installed (anyone know?). The
>newer 406 MHz aircraft ELT units will give a location in a
>single satellite pass and ID the owner of the unit. That's
>important for both issues above, but right now they cost
>$1,000 and $1500 if GPS enabled. I suppose he might have
>had a much less expensive non-aircraft ELT/EPIRB installed.
>
>>But I think there is a substantial difference
>>between requiring an ELT because of 1 vs 2.
>
>I agree.
>
>>I personally am unaware of any circumstances that
>>fall into the number 1 category.
>
>I've read of this happening, but not in the glider context.
>From the speed that Masak's aircraft was found, it could
>have made the difference if he'd been injured. That's why
>I'd like to know if he had the newer type of ELT installed
>
>


--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[Tim Mara]

may I suggest you look at :
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20040604X00737&key=1
tim


"Mark James Boyd" > wrote in message
news:41f01935$1@darkstar...
> So in 2003 Peter Masak crashed in a sailplane in a contest,
> was uninjured, and was found quickly because he had an ELT.
> But if he didn't have an ELT then a portable radio would have
> been easy for him to use and call for help?
>
> And THIS is the justification for requiring ELTs in all
> gliders at all contests?
>
> Well, I hope nobody ever crashes and then uses a $10,000
> 50 pound laser to bounce morse code off the moon and get
> rescued. Then I suppose we'd all need tests for morse code
> and high-powered lasers before we can fly contests, right?
>
> This sounds fishy to me...
>
> In article >,
> T o d d P a t t i s t > wrote:
> (Mark James Boyd) wrote:
> >
> >>So we are really talking about two other circumstances.
> >>
> >>1) The pilot is unconscious, the ELT activated on impact
> >>and continues to work
> >
> >This is the main reason I bought an ELT, plus it gave me
> >another option beyond a cell phone.
> >
> >>2) We need the ELT to find the dead pilot quickly. Otherwise
> >>the fellow pilots and family will suffer a long time,
> >>not specifically knowing what happened.
> >
> >I suspect it's more than just preventing suffering/worry.
> >Potential searchers and rescuers do face risk in their
> >activities.
> >
> >>Was Peter Masak's 2003 accident an example of #1?
> >
> >I was told no.
> >
> >Initially I heard that he installed one of the new 406 MHz
> >ELT units, then later heard that was in error. I'm still
> >not sure what type he had installed (anyone know?). The
> >newer 406 MHz aircraft ELT units will give a location in a
> >single satellite pass and ID the owner of the unit. That's
> >important for both issues above, but right now they cost
> >$1,000 and $1500 if GPS enabled. I suppose he might have
> >had a much less expensive non-aircraft ELT/EPIRB installed.
> >
> >>But I think there is a substantial difference
> >>between requiring an ELT because of 1 vs 2.
> >
> >I agree.
> >
> >>I personally am unaware of any circumstances that
> >>fall into the number 1 category.
> >
> >I've read of this happening, but not in the glider context.
> >From the speed that Masak's aircraft was found, it could
> >have made the difference if he'd been injured. That's why
> >I'd like to know if he had the newer type of ELT installed
> >
> >
>
>
> --
>
> ------------+
> Mark J. Boyd

[Jack]

Well,

I took most of my free time this evening to read this whole thing
through, and so a comment is in order. What I read between these lines
is... "Don't inconvenience me!" There was definitely a mental picture
of my Mom putting me through another guilt trip.

If you are down, I'll look for you. If you need help, I'll be there if
possible. If you land out, I'm available to come get you. Soaring isn't
accomplished without the help and support of others, PERIOD. It just
doesn't happen. The only exception may be the newer generation of
motorgliders, that are - in my world anyway - out of reach. We've flown
these competitions for all these years over bad terrain,
unaccessable/unlandable areas, and so forth. These areas are in and of
themselves a risk to any rescuer that ventures there to drag your
bleeding body out of the bush, whether you have an ELT or not. If I
have to buy a @#$%^&* ELT, then let's go one further and mandate not
flying over these terrible areas. It's far more irresponsible to put
people to this KNOWN risk of bad terrain than to be without an ELT.

As you may have guessed, I'm against the mandating of the ELT for
competition. They lend NOTHING to the safety of the competition. They
WILL limit the participation, and quicken the already fast pace of the
death of competition soaring as we know it. They will also eventually
be mandated in all sailplanes by the FAA, and that will be fueled by
our own demand for their use in competition.

Just my take on it after reading ALL the posts... and not aimed at
anyone...

Jack Womack

[Stephen Paavola]

I carry a bit of equipment that I hope I never need. I've got a
parachute. I've got a "survival kit" - food, blanket, bandages, etc. And
now I've got a $200 TSO C91a ELT. Sure, the $2000 ELT might be nice, but
I'm happy with my $200 one for now. And, that's all the rules require so
far.

Maintenance costs are minimal. Once a year - during the annual - it gets
activated to make sure it still works. Every 3 years the batteries get
replaced - 6 D cells and a couple of AA's for the remote.

I view this as cheap insurance. If I should mess up bad, perhaps it will
help me return alive to my family.

Steve

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
> (Mark James Boyd) wrote:
>
>
>>Unless the coax is severed or the fragile battery box is broken.
>
>
> Sure, there are risks it won't work, but the ELT is
> specifically designed to survive the crash and automatically
> activate. There are many, many other options for rescue if
> you survive the crash, are conscious and/or bail out. I've
> got no problem with a portable ELT unit as one of those
> options, but it just doesn't seem to me that it does the
> job of automatic activation in a midair, structural failure
> or lightning strike type accident.
>
>
>>Tightly belted in, I couldn't reach anything on the panel
>
>
> Install the remote closer, then. It's only a tiny box
>
>
>>>4) The installed ELT can be carried portably after landing
>>>and will transmit voice on 121.5.
>>
>>Yep. So does my handheld radio and my cell phone.
>
>
> Isn't that the point? You have lots of options after the
> accident if you are conscious. I don't expect to use the
> portable feature of my fixed ELT, but several people claim
> it's an advantage for the tiny ELT, so I listed that feature
> to show it's available in fixed ELT's as well.
>
>
>>Downside: I would have paid over $8,000 to install even the
>>cheapest ELT in each of the 20 sailplanes I've flown in the past
>>2 years. If I owned my own sailplane, that would be different.
>
>
> And this is the best argument I can see for the tiny ELT.
> My only question then would be whether other devices might
> be better suited - sat phones, cell phones portable radios,
> etc.
>
>
>
>
>

[Mark James Boyd]

>http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20040604X00737&key=1
Yes, this was the 2004 fatality.
The 2004 crash is a clear example of #2,
but was not given as a reason or argument supporting
the contest rule change.

At the SRA website, and I quote:

"The experience of Peter Masak's accident at the 2003
15 Meter Nationals was a wake-up call for the competition
community."

So was there a 2003 crash, or is this just a typo?
If it's just a typo, then yes,
#2 is their most prominent justification.

I think it absolutely must be a typo, because
I have searched everywhere for an account of a 2003
crash with Mr. Masak.

This sounds like a knee-jerk reaction to an isolated event.

I was interested to read Peter Masaks account of
a contest pilot who had crashed, and had not brought
a cell phone, and had waited a long time before
activating his ELT (which had apparently not activated).
Towplanes and other pilots searched feverently for the pilot.
Mr. Masak wrote about how the contest organizers were
so upset he hadn't brought a CELL phone that they
grounded him the next day.

A requirement for a cell phone, handheld radio, or ELT
of some kind (handheld or installed) seems like a better
option to me. The Australians permitting a handheld
ELT seems quite civilized. I can even see how
a portable ELT could easily be designed to activate in
an impact. Too bad the restriction is for installed ELTs.
I expect in 2006 there will be fewer entries to competitions
because of this very rule.

It will be interesting to compare the number of entries in the
Sports class competitions compared to previous years without
this requirement.

Maybe a better question is: how many competitors in 2003
had no ELT installed? Why didn't these pilots install
the ELT before it became mandatory? They must have reasons,
right? How many had ELTs? 10%? 90%? It looks
like the SRA has these numbers from the competitions forms.
Pray tell, what are the numbers? Are they 80% in Hobbs
and 20% at the Avenal contest? 90% on the east coast and
10% at places like Marfa? To me this would indicate
contest organizer discretion would make more sense, instead
of a blanket requirement.

In article >,
Tim Mara > wrote:
>may I suggest you look at :
>tim
>
>
>"Mark James Boyd" > wrote in message
>news:41f01935$1@darkstar...
>> So in 2003 Peter Masak crashed in a sailplane in a contest,
>> was uninjured, and was found quickly because he had an ELT.
>> But if he didn't have an ELT then a portable radio would have
>> been easy for him to use and call for help?
>>
>> And THIS is the justification for requiring ELTs in all
>> gliders at all contests?
>>
>> Well, I hope nobody ever crashes and then uses a $10,000
>> 50 pound laser to bounce morse code off the moon and get
>> rescued. Then I suppose we'd all need tests for morse code
>> and high-powered lasers before we can fly contests, right?
>>
>> This sounds fishy to me...
>>
>> In article >,
>> T o d d P a t t i s t > wrote:
>> (Mark James Boyd) wrote:
>> >
>> >>So we are really talking about two other circumstances.
>> >>
>> >>1) The pilot is unconscious, the ELT activated on impact
>> >>and continues to work
>> >
>> >This is the main reason I bought an ELT, plus it gave me
>> >another option beyond a cell phone.
>> >
>> >>2) We need the ELT to find the dead pilot quickly. Otherwise
>> >>the fellow pilots and family will suffer a long time,
>> >>not specifically knowing what happened.
>> >
>> >I suspect it's more than just preventing suffering/worry.
>> >Potential searchers and rescuers do face risk in their
>> >activities.
>> >
>> >>Was Peter Masak's 2003 accident an example of #1?
>> >
>> >I was told no.
>> >
>> >Initially I heard that he installed one of the new 406 MHz
>> >ELT units, then later heard that was in error. I'm still
>> >not sure what type he had installed (anyone know?). The
>> >newer 406 MHz aircraft ELT units will give a location in a
>> >single satellite pass and ID the owner of the unit. That's
>> >important for both issues above, but right now they cost
>> >$1,000 and $1500 if GPS enabled. I suppose he might have
>> >had a much less expensive non-aircraft ELT/EPIRB installed.
>> >
>> >>But I think there is a substantial difference
>> >>between requiring an ELT because of 1 vs 2.
>> >
>> >I agree.
>> >
>> >>I personally am unaware of any circumstances that
>> >>fall into the number 1 category.
>> >
>> >I've read of this happening, but not in the glider context.
>> >From the speed that Masak's aircraft was found, it could
>> >have made the difference if he'd been injured. That's why
>> >I'd like to know if he had the newer type of ELT installed
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> ------------+
>> Mark J. Boyd
>
>
>


--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[Mark James Boyd]

From the rule change summary, the mandatory installation of ELTs
in all gliders at all SSA competitions is considered a
"minor" change to the rules.

The Sailplane Racing Association, eh?

Not a terribly astute bunch of folks. Citing a
2003 accident that doesn't exist as their primary
justification for mandatory installed ELTs.
It seems pretty clear this issue didn't even recieve enough
attention or bother that anyone double checked the date
before putting out their "reasoning."

And a closer look at the poll says:

Do you have a portable (user activated) ELT in your glider?

Followed by:

Should ELTs be made mandatory for all participants in all
SSA contests? 42% yes.

---Notice this DIDN'T say "installed" ELTs---

If yes, should ELTs be made mandatory in:
2005: 26%
2006: 22%

They certainly didn't agree with the 78% of the polled pilots
who thought ELTs should NOT be made mandatory in 2006.

From the ELT FAQ:
"80% of those present at the SRA meeting during the
Standard Class Nationals favored mandatory ELTs"

So two months after Peter Masak died, among those who
mourned him and were close to him, 80% favored mandatory ELTs.
Notice not a SINGLE person voted for mandatory glider
installed ELT. Just ELTs in general.

80% sounds a lot like 4 out of 5 SRA rules members to me.
Maybe these 4 already have installed ELTs and would prefer
less competition?

And they seem to have been very creative while interpreting the
poll to mean those who DID want mandatory ELTs meant that they
wanted the kind that require installation in the glider
instead of the portable kind.

What do you call a committee that makes recommendations
which are directly against the desires of a strong majority
of competition pilots? I'd call them disconnected from
the desires of their constituents, at best. At worst,
I'm sure some of you have some more colorful ideas...

Who does this recommendation go to? Who do we contact to
have this recommendation sent back to the committee for
indefinite review, without implementation?

How do we replace the committee members who supported this
rule? Is a 78% vote good enough to replace them after thanking them
for their service?

--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[Ken Kochanski (KK)]

Just to correct your understanding of the SSA organizations and
processes involved. This info is posted on the SSA and SRA sites if
you bothered to research.

http://sailplane-racing.org/Rules/elect_process.htm

The SSA Competition Rules sub-Committee is a part of the Contest
Committee. The chair of the Contest Committee is appointed by the SSA
Board of Directors and serves as one of the five members of the
sub-committee (usually referred to as the "Rules Committee"). The
other four members are elected by the pilots on the SSA Pilot Ranking
List via an electronic ballot conducted each summer.

Mark James Boyd wrote:
>From the rule change summary, the mandatory installation of ELTs
in all gliders at all SSA competitions is considered a
"minor" change to the rules.

The Sailplane Racing Association, eh?

Not a terribly astute bunch of folks. Citing a

What do you call a committee that makes recommendations
which are directly against the desires of a strong majority
of competition pilots? I'd call them disconnected from
the desires of their constituents, at best. At worst,
I'm sure some of you have some more colorful ideas...

Who does this recommendation go to? Who do we contact to
have this recommendation sent back to the committee for
indefinite review, without implementation?

How do we replace the committee members who supported this
rule? Is a 78% vote good enough to replace them after thanking them
for their service?

--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[[email protected]]

Reply comments inserted below by H Nixon SSA Contest Rules Committee
Chair.

Mark James Boyd wrote:
> From the rule change summary, the mandatory installation of ELTs
> in all gliders at all SSA competitions is considered a
> "minor" change to the rules.
>
> The Sailplane Racing Association, eh?

Reply:SRA is volunteer organization to promote and support sailplane
racing.
The most visible activity is archiving and publishingcontest related
items such as rules activity.
>
> Not a terribly astute bunch of folks. Citing a
> 2003 accident that doesn't exist as their primary
> justification for mandatory installed ELTs.
> It seems pretty clear this issue didn't even recieve enough
> attention or bother that anyone double checked the date
> before putting out their "reasoning."

Reply: 2003 date was a typo and corrected- we'll try to do better in
the future.
>
> And a closer look at the poll says:
>
> Do you have a portable (user activated) ELT in your glider?
>
> Followed by:
>
> Should ELTs be made mandatory for all participants in all
> SSA contests? 42% yes.
>
> ---Notice this DIDN'T say "installed" ELTs---
>
> If yes, should ELTs be made mandatory in:
> 2005: 26%
> 2006: 22%
>
> They certainly didn't agree with the 78% of the polled pilots
> who thought ELTs should NOT be made mandatory in 2006.

Reply: with 42% favoring requirement for mandatory ELT's, it should be
obvious that dropping numbers related to future implementation time
indicate sooner rather than later is indicated. Fully expect you will
choose to interpret in your own way. I am explaining the RC
interpretation.
It should be noted also that the Pilot Poll is one input used in these
decisions. Contest organizer input as well as addional polling during
meetings at contests and direct communication with RC members all are
used in this decision making process.


>
> From the ELT FAQ:
> "80% of those present at the SRA meeting during the
> Standard Class Nationals favored mandatory ELTs"
>
> So two months after Peter Masak died, among those who
> mourned him and were close to him, 80% favored mandatory ELTs.
> Notice not a SINGLE person voted for mandatory glider
> installed ELT. Just ELTs in general.

Reply: Question was not worded as specifically as you might have
wished. From the viewpoint of the RC ELT means impact activated device
equivalent to those installed in airplanes.
>
> 80% sounds a lot like 4 out of 5 SRA rules members to me.
> Maybe these 4 already have installed ELTs and would prefer
> less competition?

Reply: 5 of 5 agreed on this. There is no motivation on the part of
this group to try to knock out the little guys. We expect to beat them
with skills, not tricks. Any action that has the potential to reduce
participation is seriously considered. Lack of action that could result
in some contest organizers deciding not to continue to run contests is
also a consideration.
>
> And they seem to have been very creative while interpreting the
> poll to mean those who DID want mandatory ELTs meant that they
> wanted the kind that require installation in the glider
> instead of the portable kind.

Reply: No trickery is involved. The RC simply does not believe personal
mounted non impact devices meet the need. You obviously do not agree. I
can tell you that if a contesy organizer were to ask for a waiver after
this approved( and if it is approved inn Feb'06)that would permit
personal mounted devices for use in their contest, I'm confident that
the contest committee would consider such a waiver.
>
> What do you call a committee that makes recommendations
> which are directly against the desires of a strong majority
> of competition pilots? I'd call them disconnected from
> the desires of their constituents, at best. At worst,
> I'm sure some of you have some more colorful ideas...

Reply: I respectfully submit that 42 to 56 does not constitute the
strong majority that you interpret. RC is connected to more inputs than
you may be aware.
As to the "colorful ideas" you project- insult noted and dismissed.
>
> Who does this recommendation go to? Who do we contact to
> have this recommendation sent back to the committee for
> indefinite review, without implementation?

Reply: Take a few minutes and read the processes. In accordance with
the process for major, non emergency rule changes, this is being
announced as a future pending major change on year in advance. If it
required testing, this would be done in regionals or under waiver.
This rule will become a proposal for adoption by the SSA Board of
directors at the Feb '06 Board meeting.
By announcing this in advance, there is plenty of time for comment and
any revisions that may be appropriate.
>
> How do we replace the committee members who supported this
> rule? Is a 78% vote good enough to replace them after thanking them
> for their service?

Reply: Feel free to ask your director to nominate a candidate you think
can serve the contest community well. The process for this is also
published. It should be noted that no member of the committee has ever
been voted in-or out on a single issue.

Hank Nixon SSA Contest Rules Committee Chair
>
> --
>
> ------------+
> Mark J. Boyd

[goneill]

The glider that crashed in the Omarama Saddle area of New Zealand
called a mayday and as a result the wreckage was spotted very quickly
The mayday call alerts others and gives a chance for other minds to think
of possible solutions to the problem that could be voiced if there is enough
time. At a minimum the emergency services are alerted quicker.
gary
"Mark James Boyd" > wrote in message
news:41eff1ee$1@darkstar...
> Marc,
> It's my understanding the pilot, after declaring the high oil temp, flew
> PAST Livermore and Oakland to get to the home field and
> 2500 foot runway of Palo Alto.
>
> But keep in mind all of this is second hand info. For all I
> know first hand, she may have had high oil temp of short
> final to PAO, and the stuff I've written is just fiction.
>
> I'm almost certain the person who related the story wasn't listening on
> NORCAL, just on tower. So the timing of the oil-temp
> call is in doubt.
>
> It just seemed like this was a more timely example than the
> gear up F-33 who flew past Paso Robles and Salinas on the way
> to Watsonville after an electrical failure, with the battery juice
> ticking away, or the numerous other examples I could make that
> seemed less relevant in my mind at the time, but which
> I witnessed in person and spoke to the pilot about afterwards.
>
> Frankly, I don't have good firsthand examples from
> glider flying yet. I have yet to firsthand witness
> a glider injury, or even any glider damage at all.
>
> Lucky so far, I guess. And my exposure is less. I've only
> been at a gliderport for a few hundred days in my life.
> Most posters on this forum have been to gliderports for
> thousands of days, if I guess correctly.
>
> And I'm not sure other than a sketchy outlanding,
> when declaring an inflight emergency over radio/ELT would
> apply to a glider pilot? During the glide while
> under parachute canopy? In flight self-launch fire?
> Spoilers frozen closed? Above a closed in wave layer?
>
> How is somebody on the ground going to help out?
> Maybe to alert SAR, or clear to land on a busy runway?
>
> I don't see someone reading you the gear extension emergency procedures,
> or talking you through IMC flight for the first time, or
> suggesting diversions for weather or low fuel.
>
> But hey, I'm open to other suggestions :)
>
> In article >,
> Marc Ramsey > wrote:
>>Mark James Boyd wrote:
>>> I personally don't think pilots declare emergencies enough.
>>> A few days ago, a malibu pilot here at Palo Alto had
>>> high oil temp and didn't declare, and tried to land here.
>>> Too high, too fast, rolled the thing off the end, destroyed
>>> it and injured herself. Could have just declared an emergency and
>>> landed
>>> at Oakland instead (long, wide runway, lots of fire trucks).
>>
>>Let me get this straight, you wanted her to declare an emergency and fly
>>across 15 miles or so of water (aka SF Bay) with high oil temp? How
>>about just turning around and flying the couple of miles to Moffat Field
>>(where they also have a long wide runway with fire engines)? Even San
>>Jose International is closer than Oakland.
>>
>>Marc
>
>
> --
>
> ------------+
> Mark J. Boyd

[Mark James Boyd]

You will notice in all of this verbiage that there is no
indication if the rule changes proposed by the
committee are mandatory, or subject to review and rejection
by the SSA membership as a whole.

From my reading, it seems that those soaring pilots who are
NOT YET contest pilots have no voting input whatsoever
into the SRA process. So this process is slanted to advantage
the opinions of current contest pilots, and relies
upon their evenhandedness and wisdom to ensure newly
entering pilots won't face increased barriers to competition.

Under the old system where it seems the SSA BOD was the rules
making body, perhaps there was less expertise in
the rules, but a broader base of competition pilots and
"potential" competition pilots was represented.
I don't see how this is now the case.

If you can point to me where the broader SSA membership as a whole
has voting input into this process, I would be much
obliged. I could not find this after what is, with my
apologies, a less familiar search of the documents posted.

I do want to thank you for your response, however. In none of
this is my desire to work outside of this system. The
rules committee and the competition members who answer polls
and participate apparently do this with NO compensation.
As pointed out before in a different post, no compensation means
exactly what it sounds like. Volunteers do the very best
they can, but they certainly can't be expected to watch over
this stuff like a hawk.

This is why I'm considering the suggestion that a professional
be the final word on rule changes. A professional with the
constituency of the entire SSA organization. I think that
C. Dennis Wright whould have veto over these suggested changes,
with his actions being reviewed by the SSA BOD, or something along
those lines.

If this is already the case, please let me know. I am
certain there are those more versed in the history of
this process than I...

In article . com>,
Ken Kochanski (KK) > wrote:
>Just to correct your understanding of the SSA organizations and
>processes involved. This info is posted on the SSA and SRA sites if
>you bothered to research.
>
>http://sailplane-racing.org/Rules/elect_process.htm
>
>The SSA Competition Rules sub-Committee is a part of the Contest
>Committee. The chair of the Contest Committee is appointed by the SSA
>Board of Directors and serves as one of the five members of the
>sub-committee (usually referred to as the "Rules Committee"). The
>other four members are elected by the pilots on the SSA Pilot Ranking
>List via an electronic ballot conducted each summer.
>
>Mark James Boyd wrote:
>>From the rule change summary, the mandatory installation of ELTs
>in all gliders at all SSA competitions is considered a
>"minor" change to the rules.
>
>The Sailplane Racing Association, eh?
>
>Not a terribly astute bunch of folks. Citing a
>
>What do you call a committee that makes recommendations
>which are directly against the desires of a strong majority
>of competition pilots? I'd call them disconnected from
>the desires of their constituents, at best. At worst,
>I'm sure some of you have some more colorful ideas...
>
>Who does this recommendation go to? Who do we contact to
>have this recommendation sent back to the committee for
>indefinite review, without implementation?
>
>How do we replace the committee members who supported this
>rule? Is a 78% vote good enough to replace them after thanking them
>for their service?
>
> --
>
> ------------+
> Mark J. Boyd
>


--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[Philip Plane]

In article >, goneill wrote:
> The glider that crashed in the Omarama Saddle area of New Zealand
> called a mayday and as a result the wreckage was spotted very quickly
> The mayday call alerts others and gives a chance for other minds to think
> of possible solutions to the problem that could be voiced if there is enough
> time. At a minimum the emergency services are alerted quicker.

The mayday came from a glider operating from a different airfield
that spotted the wreck as he was working along the ridge. The pilot
had been killed on impact.

A couple of years ago Terry Jones hit the Benmores. He survived and called
for assistance on his cellphone. Terry has carried a personal EPIRB for
years. He didn't activate it, probably because shock etc confuse the
thinking at times like that. Instead he reverted to most recently
trained behaviour and called his wife on the cellphone.

Radio or cellphone work if you're alive and have coverage. An ELT
might be better in some circumstances. What has worked recently
at Omarama is crashing in high traffic areas so you're spotted within
minutes by passing gliders.

--
Philip Plane _____
|
---------------( )---------------
Glider pilots have no visible means of support

[Andy Blackburn]

Without arguing the merits -- the amount of time spent
posting on this topic, if applied to a job flipping
meat patties at Burger King, would have yielded enough
cash to buy an ELT. The issues were pretty clear from
the start. IMHO the horse is now dead.

9B

At 19:30 21 January 2005, Mark James Boyd wrote:
>You will notice in all of this verbiage that there
>is no
>indication if the rule changes proposed by the
>committee are mandatory, or subject to review and rejection
>by the SSA membership as a whole.
>
>From my reading, it seems that those soaring pilots
>who are
>NOT YET contest pilots have no voting input whatsoever
>into the SRA process. So this process is slanted to
>advantage
>the opinions of current contest pilots, and relies
>upon their evenhandedness and wisdom to ensure newly
>entering pilots won't face increased barriers to competition.
>
>Under the old system where it seems the SSA BOD was
>the rules
>making body, perhaps there was less expertise in
>the rules, but a broader base of competition pilots
>and
>'potential' competition pilots was represented.
>I don't see how this is now the case.
>
>If you can point to me where the broader SSA membership
>as a whole
>has voting input into this process, I would be much
>obliged. I could not find this after what is, with
>my
>apologies, a less familiar search of the documents
>posted.
>
>I do want to thank you for your response, however.
> In none of
>this is my desire to work outside of this system.
>The
>rules committee and the competition members who answer
>polls
>and participate apparently do this with NO compensation.
>As pointed out before in a different post, no compensation
>means
>exactly what it sounds like. Volunteers do the very
>best
>they can, but they certainly can't be expected to watch
>over
>this stuff like a hawk.
>
>This is why I'm considering the suggestion that a professional
>be the final word on rule changes. A professional
>with the
>constituency of the entire SSA organization. I think
>that
>C. Dennis Wright whould have veto over these suggested
>changes,
>with his actions being reviewed by the SSA BOD, or
>something along
>those lines.
>
>If this is already the case, please let me know. I
>am
>certain there are those more versed in the history
>of
>this process than I...
>
>In article ,
>Ken Kochanski (KK) wrote:
>>Just to correct your understanding of the SSA organizations
>>and
>>processes involved. This info is posted on the SSA
>>and SRA sites if
>>you bothered to research.
>>
>>http://sailplane-racing.org/Rules/elect_process.htm
>>
>>The SSA Competition Rules sub-Committee is a part of
>>the Contest
>>Committee. The chair of the Contest Committee is appointed
>>by the SSA
>>Board of Directors and serves as one of the five members
>>of the
>>sub-committee (usually referred to as the 'Rules Committee').
>>The
>>other four members are elected by the pilots on the
>>SSA Pilot Ranking
>>List via an electronic ballot conducted each summer.
>>
>>Mark James Boyd wrote:
>>>From the rule change summary, the mandatory installation
>>>of ELTs
>>in all gliders at all SSA competitions is considered
>>a
>>'minor' change to the rules.
>>
>>The Sailplane Racing Association, eh?
>>
>>Not a terribly astute bunch of folks. Citing a
>>
>>What do you call a committee that makes recommendations
>>which are directly against the desires of a strong
>>majority
>>of competition pilots? I'd call them disconnected
>>from
>>the desires of their constituents, at best. At worst,
>>I'm sure some of you have some more colorful ideas...
>>
>>Who does this recommendation go to? Who do we contact
>>to
>>have this recommendation sent back to the committee
>>for
>>indefinite review, without implementation?
>>
>>How do we replace the committee members who supported
>>this
>>rule? Is a 78% vote good enough to replace them after
>>thanking them
>>for their service?
>>
>> --
>>
>> ------------+
>> Mark J. Boyd
>>
>
>
>--
>
>------------+
>Mark J. Boyd
>

[Mark James Boyd]

First of all, WOW! Thank you Mr. Nixon for your VERY prompt and
civil replies to this. I think those watching this interaction
appreciate your attention to this, and your
recognition that it has drawn some attention. I think we also
recognise that you are an UNPAID VOLUNTEER and this took some
time out of your life and some contribution
to this sport for you to reply. My gratitude is sincere, and I
thank you for your efforts here.

In article om>,
> wrote:
>Reply comments inserted below by H Nixon SSA Contest Rules Committee
>Chair.
>
>Reply: 2003 date was a typo and corrected- we'll try to do better in
>the future.

Thank you. After some searching I suspected this was the case.
I also suspect your committee didn't anticipate this subject would
generate such interest, and so you wanted to get out information
early, and getting it EXACTLY correct wasn't as high of a priority.
If my comment came across as a bit rude, I apologise. I myself
often go for sooner and less accurate instead of later and more accurate.

>Reply: with 42% favoring requirement for mandatory ELT's, it should be
>obvious that...
>Contest organizer input as well as addional polling during
>meetings at contests and direct communication with RC members...

You got input from other sources, and that is of course important.
I would suggest two other minor changes. Allowing the individual
contest organizers to decide what they want before doing any
contest-wide mandates, and doing another poll. Use more specific wording
which specifically says "mandatory installed ELTs."
I'd like to see a poll by SSA as a whole, too.
This avoids interpretation and ambiguity.

Again, kudos to your group for doing the poll at all. The devil
is in the detailed wording.

>Reply: Question was not worded as specifically as you might have
>wished. From the viewpoint of the RC ELT means impact activated device
>equivalent to those installed in airplanes.

Please ask the question in the next poll, with more specific wording.

>Any action that has the potential to reduce
>participation is seriously considered. Lack of action that could result
>in some contest organizers deciding not to continue to run contests is
>also a consideration.

Tough balance here. I'm putting in my voice for the participation
side, and suggesting exploring other options to ensure contest
organizer support. Contributions to SAR funds in lieu of
ELT installation, requirements for portable ELT/cell phone/radio
in lieu of installed ELT, procedures for contact requirements
(i.e. outlanded pilots MUST make contact or activate all ELTs
and call 911 within 4 hours of landing). etc. I think there
are other, better options to be tried short of mandatory installed
ELTs in all gliders.

>The RC simply does not believe personal
>mounted non impact devices meet the need. You obviously do not agree.

You exclude the possiblity of personal impact-activated devices.
This isn't a farfetched option.

>tell you that if a contest organizer were to ask for a waiver after
>this approved( and if it is approved inn Feb'06)that would permit
>personal mounted devices for use in their contest, I'm confident that
>the contest committee would consider such a waiver.

This would certainly attract more Australian participants ;)
Good. I hope some contest organizers consider this.

>As to the "colorful ideas" you project- insult noted and dismissed.

Some of the other posters to this group have had very, very strong
opinions on this. The strength of feelings for and against this
proposal are in some ways more important than the raw numbers
of for and against. If 51% feel mildly that this is good, and
49% feel fiercely that it is bad, there is something more subtle
going on here that deserves attention. It's not meant as an insult,
but as a recognition that there are some very strong opinions
against this idea...and this strenght of opinion is important.

>> Who does this recommendation go to? Who do we contact to
>> have this recommendation sent back to the committee for
>> indefinite review, without implementation?
>
>Reply: Take a few minutes and read the processes. In accordance with
>the process for major, non emergency rule changes, this is being
>announced as a future pending major change on year in advance. If it
>required testing, this would be done in regionals or under waiver.
>This rule will become a proposal for adoption by the SSA Board of
>directors at the Feb '06 Board meeting.

"major, non emergency rule change" ????
In the proposed rules, I read:
"8. Required use of ELT's (RCM 26, 27, Minor)"

So I thought this was a minor rule change. Again, another
typo. Devil in the details. I'm glad the RC sees this
as a major change, and will follow the implementation
schedule and accomodations for it as such.

OK. I looked through the SRA site for about an hour last night and found
no reference that this was a recommendation that would then be
reviewed by the SSA BOD. That makes a lot more sense. I'm sure this
comes as a good bit of news to many people who now understand the
process a little better (including me).

>By announcing this in advance, there is plenty of time for comment and
>any revisions that may be appropriate.

Good.

>Reply: Feel free to ask your director to nominate a candidate you think
>can serve the contest community well.

When the opportunity to nominate a new member becomes available, I will
certainly want to know his/her postition on barriers to
entry to soaring competitions, and the use of mandatory
rules affecting all competitors. And yes, I will suggest
members who lean more towards the side of fewer barriers and
heavy effort towards cheaper, more flexible, and more directly
applicable measures. And I feel this interaction, and your
voicing of the side of contest organizers, presents me and others
with another side to consider too.

>Hank Nixon SSA Contest Rules Committee Chair

Hank, whether we agree or disagree, I applaud your willingness
to discuss this in a (fairly) open forum. I think it brings
a LOT of credit to your organization. Thanks for your time.

>> ------------+
>> Mark J. Boyd
>


--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[Mark James Boyd]

Twas a typo on the SRA site. Man, I was thinking to myself
"two crashes by the same guy in two years? And in
contests? No wonder they're using this for an example!"

But in the end it was just a typo. As Rosanne Rosannadanna
used to say:

Neveeer Mindddd...

But say, whats all this hubaloo about endangered feces?

In article >,
T o d d P a t t i s t > wrote:
(Mark James Boyd) wrote:
>
>>So in 2003 Peter Masak crashed in a sailplane in a contest,
>>was uninjured, and was found quickly because he had an ELT.
>
>I'm not sure how you got this out of anything I posted.
>Peter tragically died in an accident in May 2004. He
>carried an ELT which allowed the accident site to be located
>relatively quickly (accident in the afternoon, rescuers on
>site next morning). If not for the ELT, it is widely
>believed the accident site would not have been found for
>months or years. AFAIK, Peter died on impact.
>
>I don't know what type of ELT he carried. It seems to me
>that if he carried one of the newer 406 MHz units, as I was
>initially told, it would make a difference as to whether
>this accident should be considered when making rules about
>carrying older 121.5 MHz ELT's.


--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[Mark James Boyd]

Ahem, speaking of horses, what kind of meat do they put in those
patties anyway.

Agreed. Horse 0. Pilots 1.

In article >,
Andy Blackburn > wrote:
>Without arguing the merits -- the amount of time spent
>posting on this topic, if applied to a job flipping
>meat patties at Burger King, would have yielded enough
>cash to buy an ELT. The issues were pretty clear from
>the start. IMHO the horse is now dead.
>
>9B
>
>At 19:30 21 January 2005, Mark James Boyd wrote:
>>You will notice in all of this verbiage that there
>>is no
>>indication if the rule changes proposed by the
>>committee are mandatory, or subject to review and rejection
>>by the SSA membership as a whole.
>>
>>From my reading, it seems that those soaring pilots
>>who are
>>NOT YET contest pilots have no voting input whatsoever
>>into the SRA process. So this process is slanted to
>>advantage
>>the opinions of current contest pilots, and relies
>>upon their evenhandedness and wisdom to ensure newly
>>entering pilots won't face increased barriers to competition.
>>
>>Under the old system where it seems the SSA BOD was
>>the rules
>>making body, perhaps there was less expertise in
>>the rules, but a broader base of competition pilots
>>and
>>'potential' competition pilots was represented.
>>I don't see how this is now the case.
>>
>>If you can point to me where the broader SSA membership
>>as a whole
>>has voting input into this process, I would be much
>>obliged. I could not find this after what is, with
>>my
>>apologies, a less familiar search of the documents
>>posted.
>>
>>I do want to thank you for your response, however.
>> In none of
>>this is my desire to work outside of this system.
>>The
>>rules committee and the competition members who answer
>>polls
>>and participate apparently do this with NO compensation.
>>As pointed out before in a different post, no compensation
>>means
>>exactly what it sounds like. Volunteers do the very
>>best
>>they can, but they certainly can't be expected to watch
>>over
>>this stuff like a hawk.
>>
>>This is why I'm considering the suggestion that a professional
>>be the final word on rule changes. A professional
>>with the
>>constituency of the entire SSA organization. I think
>>that
>>C. Dennis Wright whould have veto over these suggested
>>changes,
>>with his actions being reviewed by the SSA BOD, or
>>something along
>>those lines.
>>
>>If this is already the case, please let me know. I
>>am
>>certain there are those more versed in the history
>>of
>>this process than I...
>>
>>In article ,
>>Ken Kochanski (KK) wrote:
>>>Just to correct your understanding of the SSA organizations
>>>and
>>>processes involved. This info is posted on the SSA
>>>and SRA sites if
>>>you bothered to research.
>>>
>>>http://sailplane-racing.org/Rules/elect_process.htm
>>>
>>>The SSA Competition Rules sub-Committee is a part of
>>>the Contest
>>>Committee. The chair of the Contest Committee is appointed
>>>by the SSA
>>>Board of Directors and serves as one of the five members
>>>of the
>>>sub-committee (usually referred to as the 'Rules Committee').
>>>The
>>>other four members are elected by the pilots on the
>>>SSA Pilot Ranking
>>>List via an electronic ballot conducted each summer.
>>>
>>>Mark James Boyd wrote:
>>>>From the rule change summary, the mandatory installation
>>>>of ELTs
>>>in all gliders at all SSA competitions is considered
>>>a
>>>'minor' change to the rules.
>>>
>>>The Sailplane Racing Association, eh?
>>>
>>>Not a terribly astute bunch of folks. Citing a
>>>
>>>What do you call a committee that makes recommendations
>>>which are directly against the desires of a strong
>>>majority
>>>of competition pilots? I'd call them disconnected
>>>from
>>>the desires of their constituents, at best. At worst,
>>>I'm sure some of you have some more colorful ideas...
>>>
>>>Who does this recommendation go to? Who do we contact
>>>to
>>>have this recommendation sent back to the committee
>>>for
>>>indefinite review, without implementation?
>>>
>>>How do we replace the committee members who supported
>>>this
>>>rule? Is a 78% vote good enough to replace them after
>>>thanking them
>>>for their service?
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> ------------+
>>> Mark J. Boyd
>>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>
>>------------+
>>Mark J. Boyd
>>
>
>
>


--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[Andy Blackburn]

At 20:30 21 January 2005, Mark James Boyd wrote:
>Ahem, speaking of horses, what kind of meat do they
>put in those
>patties anyway.

Oooh, a double entendre. We are what we eat.

I think we're neighbors Mark, so I'm on my best behavior.
;-)

'I'm not dead yet...'

9B

[BGMIFF]

You guys are all missing the point. if you have ever been to a contest that
unfortunately suffers a fatality, you will all quit typing and buy and ELT
immediately. Trust me, the wisdom of this has been thouroughly reviewed by
the rules comittee. Well said 9B!

"Andy Blackburn" > wrote in message
...
> Without arguing the merits -- the amount of time spent
> posting on this topic, if applied to a job flipping
> meat patties at Burger King, would have yielded enough
> cash to buy an ELT. The issues were pretty clear from
> the start. IMHO the horse is now dead.
>
> 9B
>
> At 19:30 21 January 2005, Mark James Boyd wrote:
> >You will notice in all of this verbiage that there
> >is no
> >indication if the rule changes proposed by the
> >committee are mandatory, or subject to review and rejection
> >by the SSA membership as a whole.
> >
> >From my reading, it seems that those soaring pilots
> >who are
> >NOT YET contest pilots have no voting input whatsoever
> >into the SRA process. So this process is slanted to
> >advantage
> >the opinions of current contest pilots, and relies
> >upon their evenhandedness and wisdom to ensure newly
> >entering pilots won't face increased barriers to competition.
> >
> >Under the old system where it seems the SSA BOD was
> >the rules
> >making body, perhaps there was less expertise in
> >the rules, but a broader base of competition pilots
> >and
> >'potential' competition pilots was represented.
> >I don't see how this is now the case.
> >
> >If you can point to me where the broader SSA membership
> >as a whole
> >has voting input into this process, I would be much
> >obliged. I could not find this after what is, with
> >my
> >apologies, a less familiar search of the documents
> >posted.
> >
> >I do want to thank you for your response, however.
> > In none of
> >this is my desire to work outside of this system.
> >The
> >rules committee and the competition members who answer
> >polls
> >and participate apparently do this with NO compensation.
> >As pointed out before in a different post, no compensation
> >means
> >exactly what it sounds like. Volunteers do the very
> >best
> >they can, but they certainly can't be expected to watch
> >over
> >this stuff like a hawk.
> >
> >This is why I'm considering the suggestion that a professional
> >be the final word on rule changes. A professional
> >with the
> >constituency of the entire SSA organization. I think
> >that
> >C. Dennis Wright whould have veto over these suggested
> >changes,
> >with his actions being reviewed by the SSA BOD, or
> >something along
> >those lines.
> >
> >If this is already the case, please let me know. I
> >am
> >certain there are those more versed in the history
> >of
> >this process than I...
> >
> >In article ,
> >Ken Kochanski (KK) wrote:
> >>Just to correct your understanding of the SSA organizations
> >>and
> >>processes involved. This info is posted on the SSA
> >>and SRA sites if
> >>you bothered to research.
> >>
> >>http://sailplane-racing.org/Rules/elect_process.htm
> >>
> >>The SSA Competition Rules sub-Committee is a part of
> >>the Contest
> >>Committee. The chair of the Contest Committee is appointed
> >>by the SSA
> >>Board of Directors and serves as one of the five members
> >>of the
> >>sub-committee (usually referred to as the 'Rules Committee').
> >>The
> >>other four members are elected by the pilots on the
> >>SSA Pilot Ranking
> >>List via an electronic ballot conducted each summer.
> >>
> >>Mark James Boyd wrote:
> >>>From the rule change summary, the mandatory installation
> >>>of ELTs
> >>in all gliders at all SSA competitions is considered
> >>a
> >>'minor' change to the rules.
> >>
> >>The Sailplane Racing Association, eh?
> >>
> >>Not a terribly astute bunch of folks. Citing a
> >>
> >>What do you call a committee that makes recommendations
> >>which are directly against the desires of a strong
> >>majority
> >>of competition pilots? I'd call them disconnected
> >>from
> >>the desires of their constituents, at best. At worst,
> >>I'm sure some of you have some more colorful ideas...
> >>
> >>Who does this recommendation go to? Who do we contact
> >>to
> >>have this recommendation sent back to the committee
> >>for
> >>indefinite review, without implementation?
> >>
> >>How do we replace the committee members who supported
> >>this
> >>rule? Is a 78% vote good enough to replace them after
> >>thanking them
> >>for their service?
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> ------------+
> >> Mark J. Boyd
> >>
> >
> >
> >--
> >
> >------------+
> >Mark J. Boyd
> >
>
>
>

[BGMIFF]

You are such a short sighted man, and thinking of no one but yourself no
less!!!!! i will only say one thing more......you have never been involved
with the search and rescue side, and have never seen how much an ELT can do
when it goes off correctly. I have.......and i hope I never have to see it
again!!!! It was invaluable in a recent wooded contest crash!!!!



"Mark James Boyd" > wrote in message
news:41e9461f$1@darkstar...
> I'd be interested in an aircraft installed ELT requirement if I
> thought it was really useful.
>
> I think installing ELTs in aircraft is great. Just like
> installing a Garmin 430 in the panel. If the individual
> pilot thinks it fits his/her situation and has the money,
> then go for it!
>
> I'm completely against the requirement for ELTs beyond what
> 14 CFR 91 (in the USA) requires.
>
> ELTs don't even activate in 75% of serious (reportable) accidents.
> In the 2-33 I'd be using for a Sports class competition
> in Avenal, an ELT would contribute nothing (zero, nada)
> to safety, search and rescue, etc. The only thing it might
> contribute to is nuisance if it was accidentally activated.
>
> And a requirement for it would do absolutely nothing
> except keep this aircraft from participating in a contest.
>
> Too bad. Flying a short course close to the airport on
> a nice day with tons of landouts in a glider that hasn't
> had a US fatality in 25 years, with a handheld radio and
> handheld ELT and cell phone would have been a lot of fun.
>
> "Only" $300 indeed...perhaps the poster of that one is offering up
> HIS $300...
>
> Perhaps you should require me to carry IFR charts and be IFR
> trained in the 2-33 also, to ensure I don't get confused in the
> clouds and crash into a 4000 foot hill? I'm sure the
> forecast that says CAVU could possibly be wrong too...
>
> Requirements come about because you think the pilots are stupid.
> If you think the pilots are stupid, you have a bigger problem
> than whether you can find them when they crash.
>
> Mark J. Boyd
> <not a fan of pointless blanket requirements>
>
> In article >,
> Eric Greenwell > wrote:
> >jphoenix wrote:
> >> The rule should be amended (in my opinion) to allow continued use of
> >> TSO C91 units that are currently installed. Granted they are not as
> >> accurrate as the C91a units, but at least they are installed. A C91 ELT
> >> may be adequate for contest purposes in someone's estimation, but in no
> >> case may they be used for a new installation (FAR), so there's no
> >> chance of installing the C91 units if you don't already have it
> >> installed.
> >
> >Can experimentally licensed aircraft (like my glider) legally install
> >C91 units? I'm not clear on that, but there are plenty of places selling
> >EBC-102a ELTs, so somebody must be able to use them.
> >
> >I'd certainly like to stick with my current C91 unit until the new,
> >improved ELTs are cheaper!
> >
> >> This new contest rule means that all 1-26's participating in the
> >> Nationals in 2006 shall require an approved ELT installation. I'm
> >> thinking lead balloon on this one.
> >
> >Don't they use their own rules, not the SSA rules? I'm assuming you mean
> >the 1-26 Nationals. Or did you mean the Sports Class Nationals?
> >
> >
> >--
> >Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
> >
> >Eric Greenwell
> >Washington State
> >USA
>
>
> --
>
> ------------+
> Mark J. Boyd

[BGMIFF]

Well said Tim.......refer all people like this to 2004 15M
nationals.......the ELT was invaluable there!!!

Brian


"Tim Mara" > wrote in message
...
> I don't know where your statics come from but I know of NO glider with an
> installed ELT that did not go off in a serious accident....
> Can you give me just one incident where a glider crashed that had an ELT
> that did not go off??? Please, just name ONE time......
> and still ELT's can be had for well under $200.I sell them and have them
on
> the shelf.....there are a very large number of gliders already flying with
> these.......I know, I've sold them!
> And honestly.if a contest orgainizer requires you to have one I think it
is
> their decision and they are the ones hosting the contest....if you don't
> want to compete in their contest or follow their rules then that is going
to
> be your decision...they may also require you to wear a parachute, carry
some
> kind of data-logger and even have some form of badge required.that's their
> rules for having you as their guest.....if you don't want to follow their
> rules for entry I'm sure you'll be missed but then again, forgotten....
> tim
> www.wingsandwheels.com
>
>
> "Mark James Boyd" > wrote in message
> news:41e9461f$1@darkstar...
> > I'd be interested in an aircraft installed ELT requirement if I
> > thought it was really useful.
> >
> > I think installing ELTs in aircraft is great. Just like
> > installing a Garmin 430 in the panel. If the individual
> > pilot thinks it fits his/her situation and has the money,
> > then go for it!
> >
> > I'm completely against the requirement for ELTs beyond what
> > 14 CFR 91 (in the USA) requires.
> >
> > ELTs don't even activate in 75% of serious (reportable) accidents.
> > In the 2-33 I'd be using for a Sports class competition
> > in Avenal, an ELT would contribute nothing (zero, nada)
> > to safety, search and rescue, etc. The only thing it might
> > contribute to is nuisance if it was accidentally activated.
> >
> > And a requirement for it would do absolutely nothing
> > except keep this aircraft from participating in a contest.
> >
> > Too bad. Flying a short course close to the airport on
> > a nice day with tons of landouts in a glider that hasn't
> > had a US fatality in 25 years, with a handheld radio and
> > handheld ELT and cell phone would have been a lot of fun.
> >
> > "Only" $300 indeed...perhaps the poster of that one is offering up
> > HIS $300...
> >
> > Perhaps you should require me to carry IFR charts and be IFR
> > trained in the 2-33 also, to ensure I don't get confused in the
> > clouds and crash into a 4000 foot hill? I'm sure the
> > forecast that says CAVU could possibly be wrong too...
> >
> > Requirements come about because you think the pilots are stupid.
> > If you think the pilots are stupid, you have a bigger problem
> > than whether you can find them when they crash.
> >
> > Mark J. Boyd
> > <not a fan of pointless blanket requirements>
> >
> > In article >,
> > Eric Greenwell > wrote:
> > >jphoenix wrote:
> > >> The rule should be amended (in my opinion) to allow continued use of
> > >> TSO C91 units that are currently installed. Granted they are not as
> > >> accurrate as the C91a units, but at least they are installed. A C91
ELT
> > >> may be adequate for contest purposes in someone's estimation, but in
no
> > >> case may they be used for a new installation (FAR), so there's no
> > >> chance of installing the C91 units if you don't already have it
> > >> installed.
> > >
> > >Can experimentally licensed aircraft (like my glider) legally install
> > >C91 units? I'm not clear on that, but there are plenty of places
selling
> > >EBC-102a ELTs, so somebody must be able to use them.
> > >
> > >I'd certainly like to stick with my current C91 unit until the new,
> > >improved ELTs are cheaper!
> > >
> > >> This new contest rule means that all 1-26's participating in the
> > >> Nationals in 2006 shall require an approved ELT installation. I'm
> > >> thinking lead balloon on this one.
> > >
> > >Don't they use their own rules, not the SSA rules? I'm assuming you
mean
> > >the 1-26 Nationals. Or did you mean the Sports Class Nationals?
> > >
> > >
> > >--
> > >Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
> > >
> > >Eric Greenwell
> > >Washington State
> > >USA
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > ------------+
> > Mark J. Boyd
>
>
>

[Eric Greenwell]

BGMIFF wrote:
> You guys are all missing the point. if you have ever been to a contest that
> unfortunately suffers a fatality, you will all quit typing and buy and ELT
> immediately. Trust me, the wisdom of this has been thouroughly reviewed by
> the rules comittee. Well said 9B!

I have been to a contest with a fatality, and no one even thought about
buying an ELT. It happened near the airport. Does one fatality near the
airport in a contest area (Ephrata, WA) in 30 years justify mandatory
ELTs for everyone? I don't think so, especially since our area is 95%+
open rolling hills that are easy to search. Here's my proposal:

1) The Rules Committee promotes and encourages ELT use. If this is a
good idea, it can be sold, though it might take a few years to get close
to 100% usage at contests.

2) The rules allow any contest director to require an ELT as a condition
of entry. This lets the CD to make the tradeoff between potentially
fewer entries and the amount of grief and anguish the contest operations
people are willing to risk. After all, the ELT is being installed for
THEIR benefit, so they should have a say in the value of this benefit.

3) The pilot is encouraged to discuss the cost of the ELT and it's
benefit with the pilot's spouse and other family members. It is for
THEIR benefit that the ELTs are being mandated, so they should have a
choice on spending their dollars for it, or for some other benefit.

Personally, I fly with a mounted ELT, mostly because it makes my wife
feel better about the extensive cross-country flying I do (it might
possibly even help me, if I survive the crash). It can be activated
manually, so I don't have to depend on impact.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[[email protected]]

-I would like to add one change to Eric's proposal and that is
concerning the requirement for a mounted ELT. I understand the
differences of a mounted/g switch activation and personal ELT's. I
would hope that with all the personal ones being carried by pilots
already, that these would be accepted for a period of time. I would
very much like to have a unit with the GPS and aircraft code but not at
the present cost. I presently have a personal ELT and would have to
consider the expense of obtaining a present mounted model and only
using it until the price becomes more reasonable for the new soon to be
mandated 405 models. So, I suggest and request the Rules committee
allow the personal ELT's at those contests where ELT's will be
required. A suggestion to those contests where ELT's would be
required. There should be an adequate contestant notification period
of time. I suggest nothing less than six months before the contest
date.
Tom
Idaho

Eric Greenwell wrote:
> BGMIFF wrote:
> > You guys are all missing the point. if you have ever been to a
contest that
> > unfortunately suffers a fatality, you will all quit typing and buy
and ELT
> > immediately. Trust me, the wisdom of this has been thouroughly
reviewed by
> > the rules comittee. Well said 9B!
>
> I have been to a contest with a fatality, and no one even thought
about
> buying an ELT. It happened near the airport. Does one fatality near
the
> airport in a contest area (Ephrata, WA) in 30 years justify mandatory

> ELTs for everyone? I don't think so, especially since our area is
95%+
> open rolling hills that are easy to search. Here's my proposal:
>
> 1) The Rules Committee promotes and encourages ELT use. If this is a
> good idea, it can be sold, though it might take a few years to get
close
> to 100% usage at contests.
>
> 2) The rules allow any contest director to require an ELT as a
condition
> of entry. This lets the CD to make the tradeoff between potentially
> fewer entries and the amount of grief and anguish the contest
operations
> people are willing to risk. After all, the ELT is being installed for

> THEIR benefit, so they should have a say in the value of this
benefit.
>
> 3) The pilot is encouraged to discuss the cost of the ELT and it's
> benefit with the pilot's spouse and other family members. It is for
> THEIR benefit that the ELTs are being mandated, so they should have a

> choice on spending their dollars for it, or for some other benefit.
>
> Personally, I fly with a mounted ELT, mostly because it makes my wife

> feel better about the extensive cross-country flying I do (it might
> possibly even help me, if I survive the crash). It can be activated
> manually, so I don't have to depend on impact.
>
> --
> Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> Eric Greenwell
> Washington State
> USA

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> -I would like to add one change to Eric's proposal and that is
> concerning the requirement for a mounted ELT. I understand the
> differences of a mounted/g switch activation and personal ELT's. I
> would hope that with all the personal ones being carried by pilots
> already, that these would be accepted for a period of time. I would
> very much like to have a unit with the GPS and aircraft code but not
at
> the present cost. I presently have a personal ELT and would have to
> consider the expense of obtaining a present mounted model and only
> using it until the price becomes more reasonable for the new soon to
be
> mandated 405 models. So, I suggest and request the Rules committee
> allow the personal ELT's at those contests where ELT's will be
> required. A suggestion to those contests where ELT's would be
> required. There should be an adequate contestant notification period
> of time. I suggest nothing less than six months before the contest
> date.
> Tom
> Idaho

Reply:
With respect to well thought out comments by Eric, this is exactly what
has been done. Gradual increase in ELT adoption has resulted.
Especially effective in getting ELT's in gliders is having the spouse
in the room when the safety talk on this is done. Several have been
under the Christmans tree.
Re notification of intent to require. This is to be announced by
contest organizers when they announce their contest and prior to
closing of preferential entry. Six month lead time is unrealistic given
planning cycles of most contests.
UH
>
> Eric Greenwell wrote:
> > BGMIFF wrote:
> > > You guys are all missing the point. if you have ever been to a
> contest that
> > > unfortunately suffers a fatality, you will all quit typing and
buy
> and ELT
> > > immediately. Trust me, the wisdom of this has been thouroughly
> reviewed by
> > > the rules comittee. Well said 9B!
> >
> > I have been to a contest with a fatality, and no one even thought
> about
> > buying an ELT. It happened near the airport. Does one fatality near
> the
> > airport in a contest area (Ephrata, WA) in 30 years justify
mandatory
>
> > ELTs for everyone? I don't think so, especially since our area is
> 95%+
> > open rolling hills that are easy to search. Here's my proposal:
> >
> > 1) The Rules Committee promotes and encourages ELT use. If this is
a
> > good idea, it can be sold, though it might take a few years to get
> close
> > to 100% usage at contests.
> >
> > 2) The rules allow any contest director to require an ELT as a
> condition
> > of entry. This lets the CD to make the tradeoff between potentially
> > fewer entries and the amount of grief and anguish the contest
> operations
> > people are willing to risk. After all, the ELT is being installed
for
>
> > THEIR benefit, so they should have a say in the value of this
> benefit.
> >
> > 3) The pilot is encouraged to discuss the cost of the ELT and it's
> > benefit with the pilot's spouse and other family members. It is for
> > THEIR benefit that the ELTs are being mandated, so they should have
a
>
> > choice on spending their dollars for it, or for some other benefit.
> >
> > Personally, I fly with a mounted ELT, mostly because it makes my
wife
>
> > feel better about the extensive cross-country flying I do (it might
> > possibly even help me, if I survive the crash). It can be activated
> > manually, so I don't have to depend on impact.
> >
> > --
> > Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
> >
> > Eric Greenwell
> > Washington State
> > USA

[Tim Mara]

406 mzh will not be "mandated" in gliders since gliders are not "mandated"
to have ELT's!.
My best understanding is : even new 406 units will have 121.5/243mzh
capability....the search by 121.5/243 will no longer be continously
monitored but can still be activated when required (when an aircraft is
known down) even after 406 become standard...and even with 406mzh ELT's the
local S&R will still be by 121.5/243.0 signals.....
tim

"T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>
> >until the price becomes more reasonable for the new soon to be
> >mandated 405 models.
>
> I'm not aware that there is any plan to "mandate" the newer
> units. The old ones will no longer be satellite monitored,
> but that's a different issue from whether they will continue
> to meet the applicable FAR requirements. Does anyone have
> info that the new units will be mandated in the U.S.?
>

[[email protected]]

Tim,

I made a bad choice of words, "mandate", was not what I ment to imply.
Lets use the equipment of choice in a few years. The 406 as you
pointed out will be the most efficient ELT around and I would bet as
time goes on the older c91a units will become real dinosaurs. I also
miss implyled that ELT's were required in gliders which they are not,
well not by the FAA. But if this rule goes forward they will be
required for all SSA sanctioned events. I agree with Eric's proposal
that emphasis should be made to get owners to install them but I do not
feel they should make this rule.
Tom
Tim Mara wrote:
> 406 mzh will not be "mandated" in gliders since gliders are not
"mandated"
> to have ELT's!.
> My best understanding is : even new 406 units will have 121.5/243mzh
> capability....the search by 121.5/243 will no longer be continously
> monitored but can still be activated when required (when an aircraft
is
> known down) even after 406 become standard...and even with 406mzh
ELT's the
> local S&R will still be by 121.5/243.0 signals.....
> tim
>
> "T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote in
message
> ...
> > wrote:
> >
> > >until the price becomes more reasonable for the new soon to be
> > >mandated 405 models.
> >
> > I'm not aware that there is any plan to "mandate" the newer
> > units. The old ones will no longer be satellite monitored,
> > but that's a different issue from whether they will continue
> > to meet the applicable FAR requirements. Does anyone have
> > info that the new units will be mandated in the U.S.?
> >

[PC]

> I read about the 1991 incident. That one seems solveable
> by a handheld radio or maybe a cell phone, considering
> the pilot walked out. And this is an excellent argument
> for requiring handheld radios for contests.

I participated in the '91 search effort - fortunately the pilot
sustained only minor injuries during the crash and was able to extract
himself from the wreckage and walk to safety. Although I feel the
OSTIV-award winning design of the ASW-24 safety cockpit had a lot to do
with the survivability of this crash, an ELT would have certainly
assisted us in the search. I ordered an ELT after this contest.
Tim Gossfeld

[Wayne Paul]

Todd,

The answers to your questions are not currently available; however, here is
what the AOPA has to say on the subject.

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/regulatory/elt.html?PF

Wayne
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder


"T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote in message
...
> "Tim Mara" > wrote:
>
> >406 mzh will not be "mandated" in gliders since gliders are not
"mandated"
> >to have ELT's!.
>
> Thanks, Tim.
>
> Yes, I'm aware that gliders are not mandated to have ELT's,
> but airplanes are, (unless used for instruction and flown
> locally, etc.) so my "mandate" question really related to
> airplanes. Do you know if there is any plan to:
>
> a) require airplanes to remove their 121.5 ELTs and replace
> them with 406's or
>
> b) require new installations to use only the new 406 units?
>
> Since the C91 units were grandfathered in when the new C91a
> units were mandated, I presume a) is unlikely, but what
> about (b)? Will they be optional or required for meeting ELT
> requirements.
>
>

[[email protected]]

<<I participated in the '91 search effort - fortunately the pilot
sustained only minor injuries during the crash and was able to extract
himself from the wreckage and walk to safety. Although I feel the
OSTIV-award winning design of the ASW-24 safety cockpit had a lot to do
with the survivability of this crash, an ELT would have certainly
assisted us in the search. I ordered an ELT after this contest.
Tim Gossfeld>>

Tim,

I went one step further: After that contest, I ordered an ASW 24 with
the safety cockpit AND an ELT. Still have both.

Since then, have bought new winglets for the '24, new batteries for the
ACK ELT. Would prefer not to have to spend more money to upgrade either
one. :)

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"