ELT's Personal vs Installed

[[email protected]]

I realize the requirement is only for contests now but does the
personal ELT meet the requirement or does it have to be one installed
in the glider?

[[email protected]]

It has to be mounted and meet FAA c91a standards.
Tom
Idaho
wrote:
> I realize the requirement is only for contests now but does the
> personal ELT meet the requirement or does it have to be one installed
> in the glider?

[Eric Greenwell]

wrote:

> It has to be mounted and meet FAA c91a standards.

The Rules Committee is considering allowing c91 units, but these must
still be mounted. You might want to contact them about personal units,
if those appeal to you.

>
>>I realize the requirement is only for contests now but does the
>>personal ELT meet the requirement or does it have to be one installed
>>in the glider?
>
>


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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[[email protected]]

Eric Greenwell wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > It has to be mounted and meet FAA c91a standards.
>
> The Rules Committee is considering allowing c91 units, but these must

> still be mounted. You might want to contact them about personal
units,
> if those appeal to you.
>
> >
> >>I realize the requirement is only for contests now but does the
> >>personal ELT meet the requirement or does it have to be one
installed
> >>in the glider?
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> Eric Greenwell
> Washington State
> USA

I would seem airplanes can have many passangers and do not normally
carry parachutes so logically you would put the ELT in the plane.
Glider pilots in contest carry parachutes so in most cases I can think
of it would be better to have the ELT with the pilot. Is there a reason
this is not allowed in contest flying?

[MKEENE221]

>Glider pilots in contest carry parachutes so in most cases I can think
>of it would be better to have the ELT with the pilot. Is there a reason
>this is not allowed in contest flying?
>

It's probably because the ELT that's carried in a parachute won't activate on
impact like the one mounted in the aircraft. If an aircraft crashes and the
pilot is incapacitated, can't reach to activate it or worse yet, dead, he might
as well not even have one. The ideal situation would be to have one mounted in
the glider and one carried in the parachute.

Mark

[Eric Greenwell]

MKEENE221 wrote:

>>Glider pilots in contest carry parachutes so in most cases I can think
>>of it would be better to have the ELT with the pilot. Is there a reason
>>this is not allowed in contest flying?
>>
>
>
> It's probably because the ELT that's carried in a parachute won't activate on
> impact like the one mounted in the aircraft. If an aircraft crashes and the
> pilot is incapacitated, can't reach to activate it or worse yet, dead, he might
> as well not even have one. The ideal situation would be to have one mounted in
> the glider and one carried in the parachute.

My imprecise recollection is pilots that parachute out are generally
found a lot quicker than pilots that crash, probably because they
survive and use the radio, cell phone, etc. For this reason, I decided a
mounted ELT would do me, my wife, and search personnel more good than a
personal one.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Mal.com]

In 1989 I cleaned up the results of a glider mid air the wings of one of the
aircraft came off.

The fuselage was gone the biggest part we could recognise was one side of
the battery.

Any ELT would have been pulverised.

Even if I end up in a tree the ELT is still with me as I attach it to my
parachute strap.

Australia is remote place I take my ELT 4WDing, country driving, gliding,
flying, skiing and hiking.

Its the one thing I own that I hope I never have to use.

Mal

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
...
> MKEENE221 wrote:
>
>>>Glider pilots in contest carry parachutes so in most cases I can think
>>>of it would be better to have the ELT with the pilot. Is there a reason
>>>this is not allowed in contest flying?
>>>
>>
>>
>> It's probably because the ELT that's carried in a parachute won't
>> activate on
>> impact like the one mounted in the aircraft. If an aircraft crashes and
>> the
>> pilot is incapacitated, can't reach to activate it or worse yet, dead, he
>> might
>> as well not even have one. The ideal situation would be to have one
>> mounted in
>> the glider and one carried in the parachute.
>
> My imprecise recollection is pilots that parachute out are generally found
> a lot quicker than pilots that crash, probably because they survive and
> use the radio, cell phone, etc. For this reason, I decided a mounted ELT
> would do me, my wife, and search personnel more good than a personal one.
>
> --
> Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> Eric Greenwell
> Washington State
> USA

[tango4]

My parachute is the first thing I hope I never have to use. My ELT is a
close second however!

Ian

[Mark Zivley]

Mark is absolutely correct that the two together is the BEST possible
scenario.

With that said, I think it would be nice if the RC simply stated that an
ELT of any kind is required. If a mounted ELT gets pulverized in the
crash then that's no good and if someone bails out, but becomes
incapacitated then a portable is no good and even if you have both you
are not guaranteed one will work.

Sure would be nice if the RC would allow the individual to make the
decision as to what he/she thinks is best. If the RC makes a
recommendation, that is certainly understandable.

Mark

MKEENE221 wrote:
>>Glider pilots in contest carry parachutes so in most cases I can think
>>of it would be better to have the ELT with the pilot. Is there a reason
>>this is not allowed in contest flying?
>>
>
>
> It's probably because the ELT that's carried in a parachute won't activate on
> impact like the one mounted in the aircraft. If an aircraft crashes and the
> pilot is incapacitated, can't reach to activate it or worse yet, dead, he might
> as well not even have one. The ideal situation would be to have one mounted in
> the glider and one carried in the parachute.
>
> Mark

[Eric Greenwell]

Mal.com wrote:
> In 1989 I cleaned up the results of a glider mid air the wings of one of the
> aircraft came off.
>
> The fuselage was gone the biggest part we could recognise was one side of
> the battery.
>
> Any ELT would have been pulverised.
>
> Even if I end up in a tree the ELT is still with me as I attach it to my
> parachute strap.

Have any glider pilots in Australia parachuted from their glider and not
been found quickly?


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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Mark James Boyd]

Hmmm...in my case a mounted ELT would have, at best, a 5% chance
of activating in the best case.

This is because I have flown 20 gliders without ELTs in the
past 2 years. A single mounted ELT in one of them would have
done little for me except ground the aircraft while it
was installed.

On the other hand, my personal ELT has been with me on every single
glider flight out of the pattern. And I've activated it four times.

Eric Greenwell > wrote:
>
>My imprecise recollection is pilots that parachute out are generally
>found a lot quicker than pilots that crash, probably because they
>survive and use the radio, cell phone, etc. For this reason, I decided a
>mounted ELT would do me, my wife, and search personnel more good than a
>personal one.
--

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

[Mark James Boyd]

How about setting up a rescue fund? Require pilots without
ELTs to donate $300 each year in order to fly in a contest.

What, maybe a few hundred contest pilots. If half
don't use ELTs, then $60,000 would go a long way towards
a rescue search.

And you read Colin's post about 2 aircraft found that
had ELTs and transponders, to no avail.

With 6 fatalities a year on average in all glider
flying, it looks like 1 or 2 per year at most are
during a contest. And of these, 0 or 1 require a search.

If I were a contest pilot, I would certainly like the option
of shelling the $300 instead of just not flying at all.
At least $300 towards a "search and rescue fund" would go
towards a good cause. I'd prefer this to the requirement of
installing a nuisance maker in my glider.

Yes, I've had one accidental activation and been hunted down
("impact" of a backpack nudging an ELT in a 172).
And I've had a CAP guy hunt down an inadvertently activated
personal ELT on an ALSE (aviation life support equipment)
vest.

Also, how long do you think it will be before the FAA requires
EVERY installed ELT to be the expensive kind? 2010? That's
my guess...

Suggesting, prodding, and encouraging contest pilots to
have some kind of ELT sounds great. Requiring it is another matter.
It sure adds to safety, in the same way as sawing off a potential
contestant's wings right before flight. If they don't fly, they won't
be injured or killed in flight. Say, why not just have the BBQ and
forego the whole flying business anyway? $300 from each
contestant buys a LOT of beans and weenies...

The statistic I'm most interested in is:

How many times would an ELT installation in a glider have
resulted in life instead of death for a pilot? If the answer
is "once" and the cost is $4,000,000 then I will go with the findings
of the NTSB about requiring child car seats in airliners.

They found that the estimated cost would be so great that
it was virtually pointless. They actually recommended that the
same amount of money would save hundreds of times as
many childrens lives if it was used to publicize the dangers of
venetian blind cords as a household strangulation
hazard.

Perhaps instead of an ELT, or even a "rescue fund," we should
all take $300 and mail it to J.R. for nicoderm patches and
encourage her to stop smoking ;)

Just kidding, J.R.! We love you and hope you live a long, long time
:)

P.S. By the way, what does "reducio ad absurdum" mean? My wife said it
to me, but I don't speak Italian...can someone translate?

>Sure would be nice if the RC would allow the individual to make the
>decision as to what he/she thinks is best. If the RC makes a
>recommendation, that is certainly understandable.
>
>Mark Keene

--

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

[root]

Mark James Boyd wrote:
> ...
> P.S. By the way, what does "reducio ad absurdum" mean? My wife said it
> to me, but I don't speak Italian...can someone translate?
> ...

This is not Italian, this is Latin and should be spelled "reductio ad absurdum"
(with a "t"). The litteral translation, as you can guess is "reducing to nonsense",
a method often used in mathematical proofs which consist in assuming that the
opposite of what you want to prove is true and deducing from that some contradiction
(absurdity or "absurdum" in Latin).

[For Example John Smith]

Coulda been raddichio ad absurdum--the grocers' practice of charging a
ridiculous price for cabbage of a different color.

"root" > wrote in message
...
> Mark James Boyd wrote:
> > ...
> > P.S. By the way, what does "reducio ad absurdum" mean? My wife said it
> > to me, but I don't speak Italian...can someone translate?
> > ...
>
> This is not Italian, this is Latin and should be spelled "reductio ad
absurdum"
> (with a "t"). The litteral translation, as you can guess is "reducing to
nonsense",
> a method often used in mathematical proofs which consist in assuming that
the
> opposite of what you want to prove is true and deducing from that some
contradiction
> (absurdity or "absurdum" in Latin).

[Nyal Williams]

At 22:00 19 January 2005, Mark James Boyd wrote:

<all the good stuff chopped out>
>
>P.S. By the way, what does 'reducio ad absurdum' mean?
> My wife said it
>to me, but I don't speak Italian...can someone translate?
>
>------------+
>Mark J. Boyd
>

Mark, Why didn't you ask HER?

[Mark James Boyd]

Some of the other members of this newsgroup know:

My wife doesn't speak Italian, Yiddish, or Latin
Minden, California isn't, and I know that (right Al?)

:P

On the flip side, I did find out "reductio etc." referred
to a proof by contradiction, which I did not know.
And I know a lot more about the price of radishes, too...

This shows that sometimes when I ask a question about something
I recall from Latin class 20 years ago, I may
find out something new...

;O

In article >,
Nyal Williams > wrote:
>At 22:00 19 January 2005, Mark James Boyd wrote:
>
> <all the good stuff chopped out>
>>
>>P.S. By the way, what does 'reducio ad absurdum' mean?
>> My wife said it
>>to me, but I don't speak Italian...can someone translate?
>>
>>------------+
>>Mark J. Boyd
>>
>
>Mark, Why didn't you ask HER?
>
>
>


--

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

[Ted Wagner]

Actually it's "Reductio ad absurdum" (with a 't').

http://www.iep.utm.edu/r/reductio.htm

"Nyal Williams" > wrote in message
...
> At 22:00 19 January 2005, Mark James Boyd wrote:
>
> <all the good stuff chopped out>
>>
>>P.S. By the way, what does 'reducio ad absurdum' mean?
>> My wife said it
>>to me, but I don't speak Italian...can someone translate?
>>
>>------------+
>>Mark J. Boyd
>>
>
> Mark, Why didn't you ask HER?
>
>
>