Mandatory ELT

[[email protected]]

With the requirement by the SRA rules committee for mounted FAA
approved ELT's for all SSA contests in 2006 I think it would be
helpfull if those that have them would share:
- Make and Model they have.
- Installation location of unit and antenna.
- Recommendations for those yet to do it.
It would be nice if those of us yet to do it could learn from those
that have done this.

Thanks
Tom
Idaho

[Eric Greenwell]

wrote:
> With the requirement by the SRA rules committee for mounted FAA
> approved ELT's for all SSA contests in 2006 I think it would be
> helpfull if those that have them would share:
> - Make and Model they have.
> - Installation location of unit and antenna.
> - Recommendations for those yet to do it.
> It would be nice if those of us yet to do it could learn from those
> that have done this.

I plan to wait until May 2006 to ask this question. That will give the
other pilots plenty of time to investigate the options, and for the
latest equipment to become avaialble. In the meantime, I believe I my
C-91 ELT (not approved for 2006 contest use, unfortunately) will provide
most of the functionality I want.

If the contest requirement is the only reason a pilot has for installing
one, I suggest he also wait. Even if you'd like to have an ELT now, you
might consider waiting until the newest ELTs are on the shelves and
people have some experience with them. They are currently much more
expensive, but provide much better locating ability, and will be
actively monitored after 2009, unlike the C-91a units.


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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[GM]

wrote:
> With the requirement by the SRA rules committee for mounted FAA
> approved ELT's for all SSA contests in 2006 I think it would be
> helpfull if those that have them would share:
> - Make and Model they have.
> - Installation location of unit and antenna.
> - Recommendations for those yet to do it.
> It would be nice if those of us yet to do it could learn from those
> that have done this.
>
> Thanks
> Tom
> Idaho

In MHO, the proposed rule to only allow FAA approved and mounted ELT's
for sanctioned contests does not make soaring any safer. A portable
unit, that goes on the Nylon-descent with me would be my choice. I want
SAR to find me - not the wreck. I also doubt that a mounted ELT would
even be activated by a glider crashing into trees - with or without a
pilot on board. The new generation units like the Fastfind plus 406 or
AeroFix 406 are very attractive due to their low weight of 11-12oz. How
much does one of those installed 'bricks' weigh? Keep in mind, they
were designed for big planes, not for gliders.

Uli Neumann

[Tim Mara]

since the current and/or in the future, ELT's are NOT required in gliders
by FAR's and the older and current TSO C91 units will still function on into
the future, there is still no need to install 406 units in gliders.not now,
not in 2006......there is simply not outlaw or reason why the current
121.5/243 ELT's will not still be as useful in 2006 as they are today.....
I am not contest flying, but I will have an ELT, a 121.5 unit, installed in
my glider, one that goes off on impact, not simply one I can set off, if I
am still alive and conscious.......just in case...
tim
Please visit the Wings & Wheels website at:
www.wingsandwheels.com



"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>> With the requirement by the SRA rules committee for mounted FAA
>> approved ELT's for all SSA contests in 2006 I think it would be
>> helpfull if those that have them would share:
>> - Make and Model they have.
>> - Installation location of unit and antenna.
>> - Recommendations for those yet to do it.
>> It would be nice if those of us yet to do it could learn from those
>> that have done this.
>
> I plan to wait until May 2006 to ask this question. That will give the
> other pilots plenty of time to investigate the options, and for the latest
> equipment to become avaialble. In the meantime, I believe I my C-91 ELT
> (not approved for 2006 contest use, unfortunately) will provide most of
> the functionality I want.
>
> If the contest requirement is the only reason a pilot has for installing
> one, I suggest he also wait. Even if you'd like to have an ELT now, you
> might consider waiting until the newest ELTs are on the shelves and people
> have some experience with them. They are currently much more expensive,
> but provide much better locating ability, and will be actively monitored
> after 2009, unlike the C-91a units.
>
>
> --
> Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> Eric Greenwell
> Washington State
> USA

[5Z]

Uli,
Are you aware how an ELT is tested? When I get my annual, we remove it
and the A&P just does a firm swing forward and pulls back to verify it
will activate. This is, I'm sure, a lot less force than anything that
might incapacitate the pilot.

If I manage to bail out, and survive, I doubt I'll be more than a mile
from the plane. If the plane is found, I'm sure I will as well.

Given a choice, I'd rather have an ELT that doesn't require me to
activate it. Of course, the best would be to also get a EPIRB for the
parachute harness.

Oh, on my ASH-26E, the ELT is mounted on the cockpit sill just behind
my left elbow. The fuselage is all carbon except for the area above
the baggage compartment, so the whip antenna is mounted internally and
curves around the top. An improvement might be to install a foil type
of antenna in the roof of the baggage compartment.

-Tom

[Ramy Yanetz]

"5Z" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Oh, on my ASH-26E, the ELT is mounted on the cockpit sill just behind
> my left elbow. The fuselage is all carbon except for the area above
> the baggage compartment, so the whip antenna is mounted internally and
> curves around the top. An improvement might be to install a foil type
> of antenna in the roof of the baggage compartment.
>
> -Tom
>

Is there a reason not to use a small flexible antenna from a hand held
radio for the 121.5/243Mhz ELTs?

-Ramy

[[email protected]]

Don't buy either of these units (or buy at your own risk): the
manufacturer was fined $75K by the FCC for advertising unapproved
product as "FCC approved". Decree dated Nov 2004.

[COLIN LAMB]

"Is there a reason not to use a small flexible antenna from a hand held
radio for the 121.5/243Mhz ELTs?"

Yes. A small flexible antenna will not radiate as strong a signal. A full
size 1/4 wave antenna is about 24" long. When you are lost and someone is
looking for you, you would like to have a strong of signal as possible.

If you are planning on landing a few miles from the search aircraft, the
rubber duck will be fine.

Colin

[[email protected]]

The legal notice is at:
http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2004/FCC-04-259A1.html

Here is an excerpt:

I. INTRODUCTION

1. In this Notice of Apparent
Liability for Forfeiture (``NAL''), we find
ACR Electronics, Inc. (``ACR'') apparently
liable for a forfeiture in the amount of
seventy five thousand dollars ($75,000) for
marketing unauthorized equipment in willful
and repeated violation of Section 302(b) of
the Communications Act of 1934 as amended
(``Act''),1 and Section 2.803(a) of the
Commission's Rules (``Rules'').2

II. BACKGROUND

2. In February 2004, the Enforcement
Bureau (``Bureau'') received a complaint
alleging that ACR was marketing through
outdoor and sporting publications and
websites a new personal location beacon
(``PLB''), 406 GPS PLB-200 (``PLB-200''),
under the names ``TerraFix'' for land use,
``AquaFix'' for marine use, and ``AeroFix''
for aviation use, which had not been
authorized by the Commission. In support, the
complainant provided evidence that the PLB-
200 was explicitly being described as ``FCC
approved,'' and marketed to consumers.
Specifically, the complainant submitted a
TerraFix brochure, which stated that the PLB-
200 was ``APPROVED for sale in the U.S,'' and
further provided evidence that at least one
retailer was accepting orders for the PLB-
200. In the latter regard, the complainant
submitted an e-mail order confirmation, dated
February 25, 2004, from Boat U.S. for the
purchase of one ``AquaFix 406 GPS I/O Plb,''
``Item 5321153,'' priced at ``$749.99.''3

[[email protected]]

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
> wrote:
>
> >Don't buy either of these units (or buy at your own risk): the
> >manufacturer was fined $75K by the FCC for advertising unapproved
> >product as "FCC approved". Decree dated Nov 2004.
>
> What units?

I will try this post again.

The legal notice is available at:

hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/ attachmatch/FCC-04-259A1.pdf

Here is an excerpt:

I=2E INTRODUCTION
1=2EIn this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we
find ACR Electronics, Inc. ("ACR") apparently liable for a
forfeiture in the amount of seventy five thousand dollars ($75,000) for
marketing unauthorized equipment in willful and repeated violation of
Section 302(b) of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended
("Act"),1and Section 2.803(a) of the Commission's Rules
("Rules").2II.
BACKGROUND 2.
In February 2004, the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") received a
complaint alleging that ACR was marketing through outdoor and sporting
publications and websites a new personal location beacon ("PLB"),
406 GPS PLB-200 ("PLB-200"), under the names "TerraFix" for
land use, "AquaFix" for marine use, and "AeroFix" for aviation
use, which had not been authorized by the Commission. In support, the
complainant provided evidence that the PLB-200 was explicitly being
described as "FCC approved," and marketed to consumers.
Specifically, the complainant submitted a TerraFix brochure, which
stated that the PLB-200 was "APPROVED for sale in the U.S," and
further provided evidence that at least one retailer was accepting
orders for the PLB-200. In the latter regard, the complainant submitted
an e-mail order confirmation, dated February 25, 2004, from Boat U.S.
for the purchase of one "AquaFix 406 GPS I/O Plb," "Item
5321153," priced at "$749.99."33.In response to the complaint,
the Bureau issued a letter of inquiry ("LOI") to ACR on March 29,
2004.4ACR filed a response to the LOI on April 28, 2004,5and
supplemented its response on 147 U.S.C. =A7 302a(b). 247 C.F.R. =A7
2=2E803(a). 3Under "Status," the submitted confirmation order noted
"051504," which appears to represent the delivery date. 4See Letter
from Joseph P. Casey, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement
Bureau, Federal Communications Commission to Paul Frank, President, ACR
Electronics, Inc. (March 29, 2004).