ELT Required for all SSA sanctioned contests starting 2006

[[email protected]]

I am still hoping to hear from those that have installed ELT's in their
gliders in anticipation of the Competion Rules requireiments for 2006.
I am especially interested in seeing photos or getting descriptions of
installations in ASW 27's. Please contact me directly.
Tom Dixon
Idaho

[pbc76049]

Do personally registerable EPIRB's meet the elt rule?

[[email protected]]

pbc76049 (removethis) wrote:
> Do personally registerable EPIRB's meet the elt rule?



NO! only those mounted that comply with current FAA regulations.

[BTIZ]

Going to be tough to do with carbon fiber fuselages, and internal antennas.
I would not want to be cutting a hole for an external ELT antenna. I've seen
some cut for the external mini transponder antenna neat the gear, but not
sure how that would work for the ELT.

I'd be interested in the installation information also.

BT

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>I am still hoping to hear from those that have installed ELT's in their
> gliders in anticipation of the Competion Rules requireiments for 2006.
> I am especially interested in seeing photos or getting descriptions of
> installations in ASW 27's. Please contact me directly.
> Tom Dixon
> Idaho
>

[GM]

wrote:
> pbc76049 (removethis) wrote:
> > Do personally registerable EPIRB's meet the elt rule?
>
>
>
> NO! only those mounted that comply with current FAA regulations.


Hi all is US glider-land!
I don't quite get that ELT issue. I do understand the need for an ELT
while flying SSA sanctioned contests in difficult (i.e. mountainess)
terrain and it is a good idea to have one just like wearing a
parachute. Austria, I think, has made ELT's mandatory for all gliders
for good reasons. Ok so far, but why does it have to be FAA approved
unit, if newer and technologically more advanced devices are already on
the market? Isn't it true, that the government will stop monitoring
121.5 soon? Then what - mandate to install yet a different type?
Backpackers and other outdoors enthusiasts are using the new EPIRB's -
why can't we? I rather take the ELT with me on the nylon descent since
I would like to be picked up and don't care too much about the wreck.
Ok, there is the issue of 'what happens if you are incapacitated and
can't activate the unit after a mid-air?'
Alright: challenge to all of the electronics whizz-kids out there: how
about adding a tiny glider mounted tri-axial accelerometer that plugs
into the EPIRB? If you have a mid-air or ride your glider into the
crash, it will activate. If you bail out and sever the connection, it
will activate or you turn it on yourself after you landed out in the
boonies where your cell phone dosen't work.

Uli Neumann

[Doug Hoffman]

wrote:
> I am still hoping to hear from those that have installed ELT's in their
> gliders in anticipation of the Competion Rules requireiments for 2006.

About how much does the least expensive approved ELT setup cost? My
entire glider/trailer/etc. cost less than $10,500 US. I'm hoping these
ELTs are not a significant percentage of that.

Regards,

-Doug

[[email protected]]

$189 + shipping

http://www.craggyaero.com/elt.htm

Richard
www.craggyaero.com

[Don Johnstone]

If I were to be persuaded that an ELT was a necessary
peice of equipment, and in the UK at least I see no
urgent need, I think I would want it to indicate where
I was and not where the wreckage of my glider was.
The bit that might need urgent assistance will be me
and not the collection of plastic bits. I have to say
that the requirement for ELTs to be fitted to a glider
seems to miss the point that unlike GA powered aircraft
glider pilots have the opportunity to leave before
the wreckage interfaces with the ground. I would be
interested to know the thinking behind the requirement.


At 13:48 06 September 2005, wrote:
> $189 + shipping
>
>http://www.craggyaero.com/elt.htm
>
>Richard
>www.craggyaero.com
>
>

[BB]

People in this discussion should stop to read the excellent FAQs about
the ELT requirement on the SRA website:

http://sailplane-racing.org/Rules/CRC%20ELT%20FAQ%20.htm

It explains the rationale for the rule quite clearly. Briefly, the
requirement is there to protect contest organizers, and at their
request, rather than to force unwanted protection on pilots. Imagine
running a contest, someone goes missing, and day after day passes.
That's also why the rules require a mounted, impact-activated device.

John Cochrane
BB

[Marc Ramsey]

BB wrote:
> It explains the rationale for the rule quite clearly. Briefly, the
> requirement is there to protect contest organizers, and at their
> request, rather than to force unwanted protection on pilots. Imagine
> running a contest, someone goes missing, and day after day passes.
> That's also why the rules require a mounted, impact-activated device.

The rationale consists of one recent tragic fatal accident at contest,
and another accident at a contest 14 years ago, where the pilot managed
to walk out. The non-ELT equipped US contest pilots (which are likely
still the majority) are either going to be spending an average $400 to
$500 (most of us will have to pay a repair shop for installation) each
this winter, or will simply choose to not to fly in any more sanctioned
contests. Those who do buy ELTs will mostly be buying units that will
be essentially obsolete in 3 or 4 years, as the 406 MHz units are still
too expensive for a lot of us.

It will be interesting to see how many people show up for regional
contests next year. I sympathize with the rationale, but an ELT ends up
being just being another in a set of barriers to participation. In my
own case, there's a chance I'll never get around to doing anything about
it this winter, which will tilt the balance towards not bothering to go
to any contests (and I've flown in 7 regionals in the past 5 years, IIRC).

[Don Johnstone]

So the requirement has nothing at all to do with the
safety of pilots, just for the peace of mind of contest
organisers. Thank you for explaining it so clearly.



At 18:24 06 September 2005, Bb wrote:
>People in this discussion should stop to read the excellent
>FAQs about
>the ELT requirement on the SRA website:
>
>http://sailplane-racing.org/Rules/CRC%20ELT%20FAQ%20.htm
>
>It explains the rationale for the rule quite clearly.
>Briefly, the
>requirement is there to protect contest organizers,
>and at their
>request, rather than to force unwanted protection on
>pilots. Imagine
>running a contest, someone goes missing, and day after
>day passes.
>That's also why the rules require a mounted, impact-activated
>device.
>
>John Cochrane
>BB
>
>

[[email protected]]

Since the vast majority of accidents are in the landing phase,
it can be reasonably expected that glider and pilot will be in very
close proximity- usually intertwined.
UH

[bumper]

And when they smooch the pooch right near the airport, the contest
organizers need an ELT to find 'em??

Strikes me as being another inane rule. If they were trying to improve pilot
safety, which would make more sense, then they'd at least allow PLB's to be
used as an alternative.

Fortunately, I don't fly contests so don't have to be too concerned. But I
will be voluntarily buying a PLB anyway, because I am concerned.

bumper
> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Since the vast majority of accidents are in the landing phase,
> it can be reasonably expected that glider and pilot will be in very
> close proximity- usually intertwined.
> UH
>

[Paul Remde]

Hi,

I have several ELT options and technical information on my web site.
http://www.cumulus-soaring.com/elts.htm

Good Soaring,

Paul Remde
Cumulus Soaring, Inc.
http://www.cumulus-soaring.com

"Doug Hoffman" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> wrote:
>> I am still hoping to hear from those that have installed ELT's in their
>> gliders in anticipation of the Competion Rules requireiments for 2006.
>
> About how much does the least expensive approved ELT setup cost? My
> entire glider/trailer/etc. cost less than $10,500 US. I'm hoping these
> ELTs are not a significant percentage of that.
>
> Regards,
>
> -Doug
>

[309]

Just wait until the civil aviation authority reuqires you to trade your
VolksLogger for an 88 parameter Digital Flight Data Recorder (a.k.a.
"black box," in airline parlance), which will require everything short
of a rectal probe. They HAVE contributed to aircraft safety, albeit
for the NEXT generation of pilots and aircraft. Understanding what
happened (and studying how to prevent it) is important to helping our
sports survive. A shame our data loggers aren't being force fed to the
power aviation fleet.

FWIW, I have an ELT in my humble glider: I want to be found. I treat
it like the spare tire for my crew vehicle (and my trailer), I think of
them as talismans (or as part of homemage to Murphy): I'd rather have
it and not need it than need it and not have it. Being raised to be an
Eagle Scout ("Be Prepared") might have something to do with it too. I
did get the economy Ameri-King ELT, that works with Duracell "D" cells.

I would love for EPIRB's to come down in price, so that I'll have a
belt AND suspenders!

Yes, I have analogies that are more crude, but I shall refrain.

-Pete

[Martin Eiler]

Most people consider pilot safety as everything needed until that pilot is
safe and sound at his intended destination. Pilots spend thousands of
dollars per year on auto, glider and life insurance. Yet there is this
whine about spending a few hundred dollars one time on a piece of equipment
that could mean the difference between life and death, in the event of a
crash. Handheld radios, cell and satellite phones are all excellent items
for your land out kits, but none of them are automatically activated during
a crash; nor will phones or radios be of any use if you become unconscious.



I had the misfortune of recently being involved in a search for a missing
pilot in the Sierra Nevada mountains of California. It gave new meaning to
the old saying of “looking for a needle in a haystack”. Fortunately another
pilot going the other direction had passed and talked with the missing pilot
shortly before his communications ceased. This knowledge narrowed the
search area down to only about a 25 mile stretch of 12,000 ft mountain
peaks.



After landing ourselves, three of us got into a Mooney and flew back the 150
miles to the expected search area, where we had about 45 minutes of
remaining daylight in which to search. At this time, had we heard his
voice or an ELT signal on the radio, we would have had at least some idea as
to where the pilot had crashed. This would have meant search and rescue
efforts in force at the crack of dawn.



That evening, after noting that the glider was not ELT equipped, the sheriff
commented that he was not calling the Civil Air Patrol in, because they
primarily looked for ELT’s. It is sad to report that the deceased pilot and
glider were found the next day at about 12,000 msl by a California Highway
Patrol helicopter.



Pilots who fly in remote, mountainous and wilderness areas should reconsider
installing an ELT, if not for themselves, then maybe for their families who
may lose a loved one simply because they weren’t found in time.



M Eiler

[Martin Gregorie]

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 15:08:08 +0000, Don Johnstone wrote:

> If I were to be persuaded that an ELT was a necessary peice of
> equipment, and in the UK at least I see no urgent need...
>
I beg to disagree: there are quite enough corners of the UK where you can
crash unobserved and are unlikely to be found until a farm hand comes by
on a tractor next day or next week.

One thing bothers me about the UK scene: although the dropping of 121.5
MHz by CORPAS-SARSAT is an international decision and will affect UK
users, there seems to be no publicity for it here and no 406 MHz ELT
equipment available or promised by the likes of RD Aviation.

I notice that all ELT units are very low power on 121.5. They are either
100 mW or don't bother to quote power, so I assume they are 100 mW by
default. I would not want to rely on such a low power transmitter for
non-satellite crashed detection.

Can any of our American friends say what the typical detection range is
for either 90C or 406 ELTs on 121.5?

--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[David Kinsell]

309 wrote:
> Just wait until the civil aviation authority reuqires you to trade your
> VolksLogger for an 88 parameter Digital Flight Data Recorder (a.k.a.
> "black box," in airline parlance), which will require everything short
> of a rectal probe. They HAVE contributed to aircraft safety, albeit
> for the NEXT generation of pilots and aircraft. Understanding what
> happened (and studying how to prevent it) is important to helping our
> sports survive. A shame our data loggers aren't being force fed to the
> power aviation fleet.

You're making a little joke? At best, the information to be extracted
is rather minimal. Usually, there's nothing there at all, as the little
backup battery held in place by a simple spring clip is jarred out of
place and the data in RAM goes away in seconds. Hardly a substitute for
a black box.

-Dave


>
> FWIW, I have an ELT in my humble glider: I want to be found. I treat
> it like the spare tire for my crew vehicle (and my trailer), I think of
> them as talismans (or as part of homemage to Murphy): I'd rather have
> it and not need it than need it and not have it. Being raised to be an
> Eagle Scout ("Be Prepared") might have something to do with it too. I
> did get the economy Ameri-King ELT, that works with Duracell "D" cells.
>
> I would love for EPIRB's to come down in price, so that I'll have a
> belt AND suspenders!
>
> Yes, I have analogies that are more crude, but I shall refrain.
>
> -Pete
>

[MickiMinner]

Just wait until you have to make the phone call to a wife/spouse that
their pilot hasn't come back to the field.....and you don't know where
that pilot is. Just wait until you have to launch rescue search
parties and hoping against all hope that you can get to the pilot
before they die. Personally, I would rather spend the $400 or $500
bucks to get an ELT rather than sitting somewhere in the mountains
waiting to see if anybody "noticed" where I had gone down. just my
thoughts. I have been there and hope to never be there again. I love
the sport, and don't want to see good pilots lost because they wanted
to push that little bit extra and didn't make it.

[Tim Newport-Peace]

X-no-archive: yes
In article >, David Kinsell
> writes
>309 wrote:
>> Just wait until the civil aviation authority reuqires you to trade your
>> VolksLogger for an 88 parameter Digital Flight Data Recorder (a.k.a.
>> "black box," in airline parlance), which will require everything short
>> of a rectal probe. They HAVE contributed to aircraft safety, albeit
>> for the NEXT generation of pilots and aircraft. Understanding what
>> happened (and studying how to prevent it) is important to helping our
>> sports survive. A shame our data loggers aren't being force fed to the
>> power aviation fleet.
>
>You're making a little joke? At best, the information to be extracted
>is rather minimal. Usually, there's nothing there at all, as the little
>backup battery held in place by a simple spring clip is jarred out of
>place and the data in RAM goes away in seconds. Hardly a substitute for
>a black box.
>
>-Dave
>
That might be true of some older recorders, but later recorders are
better in their construction and the use of Non-volatile memory.

The analysis of IGC traces post accident can be informative, of
sometimes show that the accident became inevitable some time before the
actual event. Plan Ahead!

It has been written into the specification for IGC Flight Recorders for
some time that they should be "Crashworthy".

Tim Newport-Peace

"Indecision is the Key to Flexibility."

[bumper]

"Martin Eiler" > wrote in message
...
> Most people consider pilot safety as everything needed until that pilot is
> safe and sound at his intended destination. Pilots spend thousands of
> dollars per year on auto, glider and life insurance. Yet there is this
> whine about spending a few hundred dollars one time on a piece of
> equipment
> that could mean the difference between life and death, in the event of a
> crash.

As we are all aware, the old 121.5 MHz ELTs are on their way out, with only
3 more years of promised satallite coverage. The few 406 MHz ELTs that I've
seen have yet to see much of a price drop.

From Chief Aircraft:

Ameri-King AK-450, a popular 121.5 ELT: $183.75 USD

Artex G406, a 406 MHz ELT: $1589.00

Handheld radios, cell and satellite phones are all excellent items
> for your land out kits, but none of them are automatically activated
> during
> a crash; nor will phones or radios be of any use if you become
> unconscious.
>

One of the many problems with the real world experience of the older ELTs,
is that in most cases they have not activated automatically in a crash. They
do, however, seem to activate for a myrid number of non-crash reasons such
as hard landings and whatever. And almost all activations have been false.

> Pilots who fly in remote, mountainous and wilderness areas should
> reconsider
> installing an ELT, if not for themselves, then maybe for their families
> who
> may lose a loved one simply because they weren’t found in time.
>
>
>
> M Eiler


The argument I've seen most often against the US contest requirement for an
installed ELT, is not that there isn't a need for this sort of thing at all,
but rather that a PLB (personal locator beacon) is a more viable solution.
PLBs can be small enough to attach to a parachute harness, operate on 406
MHz (so won't become obsolete in 3 years), can be had with built in GPS to
send a precise location, and will direct search personnel to the pilot as
opposed to the wreckage. Further, they are registered to the pilot so
searcher know who they are looking for, and obviously will work in more than
just one vehicle or activity. Prices have come down to the $500 -$700 range
(w/ GPS built in).

bumper

[Ian Cant]

The main objections to use of a personal beacon rather
than an installed ELT appear to be cost [i.e. a weak
emotional and personal issue] and lack of automatic
activation. Does anyone know of a way to activate
an EPIRB automatically in the event of a crash ? If
that could be done, would the SRA accept it in place
of an ELT ?

Being with the pilot rather than the aircraft, and
having the 406/GPS capabilities, are strong arguments
for preferring the EPIRB solution.

Ian

[Don Johnstone]

At 13:36 07 September 2005, Mickiminner wrote:
>
>Just wait until you have to make the phone call to
>a wife/spouse that
>their pilot hasn't come back to the field.....and you
>don't know where
>that pilot is. Just wait until you have to launch
>rescue search
>parties and hoping against all hope that you can get
>to the pilot
>before they die. Personally, I would rather spend the
>$400 or $500
>bucks to get an ELT rather than sitting somewhere in
>the mountains
>waiting to see if anybody 'noticed' where I had gone
>down. just my
>thoughts. I have been there and hope to never be there
>again. I love
>the sport, and don't want to see good pilots lost because
>they wanted
>to push that little bit extra and didn't make it.

I think the point is that the ELT will not indicate
to the rescuers where you are. It may be very interesting
to find the wreckage of your glider but the whole point
of the exercise is to find the pilot. ELT are fine
for powered aircraft where the occupant(s) don't have
the means of abandoning the aircraft and are also the
only way to cover all those on board. For the majority
of glider pilots a PLB would be the far better option.
They already operate on the new frequency and can be
activated automatically by suitably equipped aircraft.
I would have thought that having a beacon serval miles
away in the wreckage of your glider would do little
for you if you have happened to land several miles
away and need assistance.

I would have thought that the choice between pushing
that little bit extra and avoiding crashing was a complete
no brainer, ELT or no ELT.

It seems to me that the choice of ELT is the result
of wholly thinking especially as it has already been
pointed out that it has less to do with pilot safety
and more for the peace of mind of contest organisers.

[Don Johnstone]

At 18:24 07 September 2005, T O D D P A T T I S T wrote:
>Don Johnstone
>wrote:
>
>>I think the point is that the ELT will not indicate
>>to the rescuers where you are. It may be very interesting
>>to find the wreckage of your glider but the whole point
>>of the exercise is to find the pilot.
>
>The error zone for locating the ELT is significantly
>greater
>than the distance any pilot is going to be separated
>from
>the wreckage by a chute. If you are worried about walking
>away after the accident, get one of the removable ELT
>units
>with voice capability.
>
>> ELT are fine
>>for powered aircraft where the occupant(s) don't have
>>the means of abandoning the aircraft and are also the
>>only way to cover all those on board. For the majority
>>of glider pilots a PLB would be the far better option.
>
>I strongly disagree. Automatic activation in a crash
>is
>absolutely essential.

Which is why proper aircraft PLBs, not the marine EPIRB
or backpackers PLB, have that capability

http://www.sarbe.com/g2r.htm which has a 'G' switch
activation amongst others (see data sheet on page)

they also produce models for the current frequency
SABRE 5/6 for example. I have looked at other sites
and the PLBs I have seen have the ability to automatically
activate.

http://www.hr-smith.com/products.htm

However this is not the point, the SSA requirement
is not about finding the pilot it is about peace of
mind for organisers (See the earlier posts) Perhaps
the answer should be if the SSA want ELTs in contests
then they should loan them to contestants.

[M B]

G activated ELTs in gliders? This should make the
contest pilots very well known with the local police
and CAP. After a few hundred false ELT alarms from
contest pilots who have the thing bumping around in
the trailer, we'll see how this pans out.

<grabs spoon, stirs the s***pot a little more>
Mark J. Boyd

[Paul Remde]

Hi,

I will soon have "low cost" 406 ELTs from Artex for $995. They are listed
on my web site. I don't have them in stock yet but they should be available
in a few weeks.
http://www.soarmn.com/cumulus/elts.htm

Good Soaring,

Paul Remde
Cumulus Soaring, Inc.
http://www.cumulus-soaring.com

"bumper" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Martin Eiler" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Most people consider pilot safety as everything needed until that pilot
>> is
>> safe and sound at his intended destination. Pilots spend thousands of
>> dollars per year on auto, glider and life insurance. Yet there is this
>> whine about spending a few hundred dollars one time on a piece of
>> equipment
>> that could mean the difference between life and death, in the event of a
>> crash.
>
> As we are all aware, the old 121.5 MHz ELTs are on their way out, with
> only 3 more years of promised satallite coverage. The few 406 MHz ELTs
> that I've seen have yet to see much of a price drop.
>
> From Chief Aircraft:
>
> Ameri-King AK-450, a popular 121.5 ELT: $183.75 USD
>
> Artex G406, a 406 MHz ELT: $1589.00
>
> Handheld radios, cell and satellite phones are all excellent items
>> for your land out kits, but none of them are automatically activated
>> during
>> a crash; nor will phones or radios be of any use if you become
>> unconscious.
>>
>
> One of the many problems with the real world experience of the older ELTs,
> is that in most cases they have not activated automatically in a crash.
> They do, however, seem to activate for a myrid number of non-crash reasons
> such as hard landings and whatever. And almost all activations have been
> false.
>
>> Pilots who fly in remote, mountainous and wilderness areas should
>> reconsider
>> installing an ELT, if not for themselves, then maybe for their families
>> who
>> may lose a loved one simply because they weren't found in time.
>>
>>
>>
>> M Eiler
>
>
> The argument I've seen most often against the US contest requirement for
> an installed ELT, is not that there isn't a need for this sort of thing at
> all, but rather that a PLB (personal locator beacon) is a more viable
> solution. PLBs can be small enough to attach to a parachute harness,
> operate on 406 MHz (so won't become obsolete in 3 years), can be had with
> built in GPS to send a precise location, and will direct search personnel
> to the pilot as opposed to the wreckage. Further, they are registered to
> the pilot so searcher know who they are looking for, and obviously will
> work in more than just one vehicle or activity. Prices have come down to
> the $500 -$700 range (w/ GPS built in).
>
> bumper
>

[Stefan]

M B wrote:

> G activated ELTs in gliders? This should make the
> contest pilots very well known with the local police

In the country I fly, nearly all gliders are ELT equipped. Very few
false alarms. Hint: You can actually turn the ELT off for transportation
(or secure it, depends on the brand).

Stefan

[[email protected]]

I've had an ACK-brand ELT in my ASW 24 since 1992. Cost me about $200
plus a fresh set of D-cell batteries every few years (the old ones go
into the flashlights that my young daughters are always leaving
switched on).

No false alarms in that time. No activations either, thank goodness.

I switch it to "armed" before each flight (it's on my checklist) and
back to "off" when I derig. There's an annunciator on my instrument
panel so I can see it blink if it deploys accidentally. More important,
I can manually activate it if necessary after a crash. Or, if I have
great presence of mind, I can punch the button just before I land in
the trees. It came with a "walk out" antenna and lanyard so I can carry
it with me following a survivable crash.

It's not perfect (I'd also like a personal beacon for possible
bailout). And I'd probably have a somewhat different opinion if I had
to buy one now knowing that sat coverage is planned to end in three
years. But I wouldn't squawk about it even if I had to do so. I'll
probably fly 6-9 SSA contests over the next three seasons plus a whole
bunch of practice XC flights over non-flatland terrain. It's worth $3
or $4 a flight for a little peace of mind (however misguided others may
think that is) plus reassurance to my family that I've taken every
reasonable step to maximize my survival if something goes wrong.

I'm not planning to crash, but the situations I think about the most
are takeoff, landing, low thermaling/ridge flying, and mid-air
collision. The first and last scenarios will have witnesses. It's the
two middle cases where an ELT might be valuable. And in both of those,
someone will know I'm missing if I don't return; the first question
will be "where to look?"

As one poster notes, the cost of the 121.5/243 ELTs today is very
likely less than the expected price reduction of 406 units over the
next 3+ years. And that's presuming I would replace my unit with a new
406 ELT at that time, which isn't certain.

And it's a whole lot less expensive--by nearly an order of
magnitude--than the flight recorders we were forced to buy to replace
the clock cameras we were forced to buy to replace the Instamatic
cameras we were forced to buy when turnpoint panels were discontinued
in the 1960s. Ah, those were the good old days... :)

Chip Bearden

[Eric Greenwell]

Don Johnstone wrote:

> So the requirement has nothing at all to do with the
> safety of pilots, just for the peace of mind of contest
> organisers. Thank you for explaining it so clearly.

The following is not directed at Don, but at those that think an ELT is
worthless because it is unlikely to result in saving a pilot's life.

We should remember that the contest organizers are almost always glider
pilots like ourselves, who have given up some days of flying and put in
a lot of work so the rest of us can fly in a contest. Doing something
that they think is important seems like a good way of thanking them for
their sacrifice, and is likely to result in some volunteers for the
contest next year.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Eric Greenwell]

M B wrote:

> G activated ELTs in gliders? This should make the
> contest pilots very well known with the local police
> and CAP. After a few hundred false ELT alarms from
> contest pilots who have the thing bumping around in
> the trailer, we'll see how this pans out.

I've trailered my ELT equipped glider for about 60,000 miles without a
single activation, and I don't even secure it for travel. I've made
about 300 flights with it, again without activation. I don't know what
airplane pilots do to accidentally activate theirs, but it doesn't seem
to happen in the ELT equipped gliders I know about.

I haven't crashed with it yet, so I can't document that part of it's
ability.


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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[GM]

>> snip >>
Does anyone know of a way to activate
an EPIRB automatically in the event of a crash ?

Alright: challenge to all of the electronics whizz-kids out there: how
about adding a tiny glider mounted tri-axial accelerometer that plugs
into the EPIRB? If you have a mid-air or ride your glider into the
crash, it will activate. If you bail out and sever the connection, it
will activate or you turn it on yourself after you landed out in the
boonies where your cell phone dosen't work.

Uli Neumann


Ian, that question is exactly why I posted the 'challenge' above.

Uli

[Eric Greenwell]

Don Johnstone wrote:

> Which is why proper aircraft PLBs, not the marine EPIRB
> or backpackers PLB, have that capability
>
> http://www.sarbe.com/g2r.htm which has a 'G' switch
> activation amongst others (see data sheet on page)
>
> they also produce models for the current frequency
> SABRE 5/6 for example. I have looked at other sites
> and the PLBs I have seen have the ability to automatically
> activate.
>
> http://www.hr-smith.com/products.htm

This site has no details on the units and the pictures don't load. Is
there site that describes them in detail, particularly the activation,
and has a picture? Is there vendor for them, or at least prices? I
couldn't either.


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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[David Kinsell]

Tim Newport-Peace wrote:
> X-no-archive: yes
> In article >, David Kinsell
> > writes
>
>>309 wrote:
>>
>>>Just wait until the civil aviation authority reuqires you to trade your
>>>VolksLogger for an 88 parameter Digital Flight Data Recorder (a.k.a.
>>>"black box," in airline parlance), which will require everything short
>>>of a rectal probe. They HAVE contributed to aircraft safety, albeit
>>>for the NEXT generation of pilots and aircraft. Understanding what
>>>happened (and studying how to prevent it) is important to helping our
>>>sports survive. A shame our data loggers aren't being force fed to the
>>>power aviation fleet.
>>
>>You're making a little joke? At best, the information to be extracted
>>is rather minimal. Usually, there's nothing there at all, as the little
>>backup battery held in place by a simple spring clip is jarred out of
>>place and the data in RAM goes away in seconds. Hardly a substitute for
>>a black box.
>>
>>-Dave
>>
>
> That might be true of some older recorders, but later recorders are
> better in their construction and the use of Non-volatile memory.
>
> The analysis of IGC traces post accident can be informative, of
> sometimes show that the accident became inevitable some time before the
> actual event. Plan Ahead!

Let's see, vertical descent became extreme. Was that because the
wings fell off, or did the wings fall off after exceeding redline?
Without attitude indication, cockpit recordings, and a host of other
parameters recorded in real black boxes, there's little to go on. The
data may be interesting, but hardly the stuff that prevents future
accidents.

>
> It has been written into the specification for IGC Flight Recorders for
> some time that they should be "Crashworthy".

Heck, if it's that easy, why not require that gliders be "Crashworthy"??
That would solve the whole problem. Just build them out of the same stuff
they use for IGC Flight Recorders.

-Dave



>
> Tim Newport-Peace
>
> "Indecision is the Key to Flexibility."

[bumper]

Are we mixing up terms here . . . or am I just confused (as usual)?

PLB = personal locator beacon (i.e. small and meant to be carried)

EPIRB = emergency position indicating radio beacon

ELT = emergency locator transmitter

Of these, AFAIK, only ELT's, either the old 121.5/243 MHz or the newer 406
MHz include a G-switch to trigger the unit (hopefully) in the event of a
crash.

The post I made the other day on 406 MHz pricing had some misinformation.
The 406 ELT Chief Aircraft has for $1589 USD, has three externally mounted
antennas required. If you'd like a single output (antenna) version, that'll
be $1825. If you'd like your shiny new ELT to get GPS info (it doesn't have
one built in just yet), that'll cost an additional $1358.00.

That little Piper Super Cub that took off from Jackpot Nevada last
Wednesday, father and 17 year old daughter, bound for Davis California is
still missing. Much of the terrain in between is high desert, mountains, and
desolate.

Having the beacon with me is more important to me that having it go down
with the glider. I'm buying a PLB with integral GPS for about $500.

bumper




"T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote in message
...
> Don Johnstone >
> wrote:
>
>
>>> Automatic activation in a crash is absolutely essential.
>>
>>Which is why proper aircraft PLBs, not the marine EPIRB
>>or backpackers PLB, have that capability
>
> In that case, assuming they can be properly mounted they'd
> be great.
>
>
>
> T o d d P a t t i s t - "WH" Ventus C
> (Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)

[M B]

Eric, first of all, your participation here, as always,
is welcome, and I am glad you have responded. As usual,
I respect your adding your (very well thought out voice)
to this. I'm going to make some points here that are
subtle.

First of all, you are right, I was probably using hyperbole
to make a point. There may not be hundreds of ELT
accidental activations caused by this rule. It may
be less, or even none. I don't know for sure, but
I am going to write about reasons why accidental activations
may be more common than your experience.

Hmmm...making some guesses here:

Is your trailer very well padded so the fuselage isn't
damaged during trailering?

Do you have the kind of ELT that required a bit more
sophistication to install, and has a remote activation
button with a small LED light that tells you if it
accidentally activates?

Did you install this ELT voluntarily, and carefully
read the documentation with it about how to install
it correctly and how to dial in 121.5 on the radio
to listen for false activations?

You land real gentle in your nice glider don't you?
Thats why you have so many flights and trailerings,
instead of having it in the repair shop, right?

I'm guessing that for you, and most of your friends,
the answer to all of these will be 'yes.'

For the folks at the 'margin' for whom the added ELT
cost is almost too much to ask to enter a contest,
the answer to these questions may be 'no.' Their trailers
may not be the
$5000-$10,000 cobra with super suspension. The ELT
may be the old non-remote kind bought secondhand with
no documents, and installed themselves non-perfectly.
Their landiing may not be pretty.

These same folks, at the margin, may highly respect
the volunteer efforts of the contest organizers and
want to install the ELT to accomodate their wishes.
But this may not change the economics that they can't
afford a brand new ELT with remote LED professionally
installed, much less a 406MHz GPS unit...

You and I are talking about different things. I don't
think you or most of the other experienced, devoted,
contest pilots with moderate incomes will have that
much of a problem complying with this 'minor change'
to the rules.

But others, including Marc Ramsey, and me, and some
others see this as another brick stacked up in a wall
that creates a slightly larger barrier to entry into
this sport. This barrier affects lower-income, entering
pilots more than those who are already contest fliers.
And at some point too many bricks makes the wall too
high.

There will be some who overcome this, and there will
be some who don't. I think the contest numbers next(?)
year of #s of entrants who have installed ELTs, and
numbers of 'new' entrants compared to prior years,
will speak to this.

I hope I am wrong. I honestly do. In the meantime
I will bang the drum loudly about barriers to entry,
especially for lower-income pilots. And I hope this
will strike a balance opposite those who are willing
to require $$$$s for marginal improvements in the name
of 'safety.'

On the subject of ELTs, I have had one go off accidentally
(the cheapo non-LED kind) when the switch was flicked
by putting in a backpack in the backseat. After engine
shutdown I caught it by the bleedover on the radio
(ASEL).

Three weeks ago a fellow pilot (low timer) had the
police break into his hangar, and subsequently call
him, after a hard landing (ASEL).

Low-timers are more likely to fly lower-quality equipment,
land harder, and have less sophisticated senses about
how to detect accidental activation. And they won't
as commonly have the LED on to warn them of accidental
activations.

Anyway, I enjoy further discussion on this, if you
think it is productive, and appreciate your thoughts
and counterpoints.

At 00:12 08 September 2005, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>M B wrote:
>
>> G activated ELTs in gliders? This should make the
>> contest pilots very well known with the local police
>> and CAP. After a few hundred false ELT alarms from
>> contest pilots who have the thing bumping around in
>> the trailer, we'll see how this pans out.
>
>I've trailered my ELT equipped glider for about 60,000
>miles without a
>single activation, and I don't even secure it for travel.
>I've made
>about 300 flights with it, again without activation.
>I don't know what
>airplane pilots do to accidentally activate theirs,
>but it doesn't seem
>to happen in the ELT equipped gliders I know about.
>
>I haven't crashed with it yet, so I can't document
>that part of it's
>ability.
>
>
>--
>Change 'netto' to 'net' to email me directly
>
>Eric Greenwell
>Washington State
>USA
>
Mark J. Boyd

[Don Johnstone]

At 16:18 08 September 2005, Bumper wrote:
>Are we mixing up terms here . . . or am I just confused
>(as usual)?
>
>PLB = personal locator beacon (i.e. small and meant
>to be carried)
>
>EPIRB = emergency position indicating radio beacon
>
>ELT = emergency locator transmitter
>
>Of these, AFAIK, only ELT's, either the old 121.5/243
>MHz or the newer 406
>MHz include a G-switch to trigger the unit (hopefully)
>in the event of a
>crash.

There is no mix up of terms. The Sarbe GR2 series of
Personal Locator Beacons, that is the ones you carry
do have a G switch to trigger the unit in the event
of a crash (or ejection). Details at http://www.sarbe.com/g2r.htm.
From the menu on that page you can select Datasheet
which gives details. The Sarbe beacons are in use worldwide
by the military but there are civilian versions. I
am awaiting a reply from them as to cost but it won't
be cheap. While the Sarbe site shows details of the
earlier versions Sarbe5/6 they have said that as from
January this year they do not accept orders for those
models, presumably because they do not have the new
frequency. I would add that I do not work in the aviation
industry or have any connection with Sarbe, I do know
a couple of people who vouched for their efficiency.

A firm callled H R Smith also provides PLBs which are
automatically activated see:
http://80.168.111.36/servlet/HRSmithDisplay?purpose=displayproduct
s&prodtype=Personal+Locator+Beacon

You will have to re-construct the URL to get it to
work if it is split over 2 lines. I have no other details
of these units.

EPIRBs are mainly for use in the marine world. PLBs
and ELT are produced for aviation use.

[Eric Greenwell]

Don Johnstone wrote:

> There is no mix up of terms. The Sarbe GR2 series of
> Personal Locator Beacons, that is the ones you carry
> do have a G switch to trigger the unit in the event
> of a crash (or ejection). Details at http://www.sarbe.com/g2r.htm.
> From the menu on that page you can select Datasheet
> which gives details.

Are you sure it is crash activated? Or is it activated by the G loads
when the pilot ejects? I couldn't determine that from the brochure.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Don Johnstone]

At 18:06 08 September 2005, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>Don Johnstone wrote:
>
>> There is no mix up of terms. The Sarbe GR2 series
>>of
>> Personal Locator Beacons, that is the ones you carry
>> do have a G switch to trigger the unit in the event
>> of a crash (or ejection). Details at http://www.sarbe.com/g2r.ht
>>>m.
>> From the menu on that page you can select Datasheet
>> which gives details.
>
>Are you sure it is crash activated? Or is it activated
>by the G loads
>when the pilot ejects? I couldn't determine that from
>the brochure.

Both, and immersion in water and pulling the pin.
>
>--
>Change 'netto' to 'net' to email me directly
>
>Eric Greenwell
>Washington State
>USA
>

[Tim Mara]

Not so fast.................Artex has re-called these already....
tim
Wings & Wheels
www.wingsandwheels.com

"Paul Remde" > wrote in message
news:mLITe.316115$_o.53729@attbi_s71...
> Hi,
>
> I will soon have "low cost" 406 ELTs from Artex for $995. They are listed
> on my web site. I don't have them in stock yet but they should be
> available in a few weeks.
> http://www.soarmn.com/cumulus/elts.htm
>
> Good Soaring,
>
> Paul Remde
> Cumulus Soaring, Inc.
> http://www.cumulus-soaring.com
>
> "bumper" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Martin Eiler" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Most people consider pilot safety as everything needed until that pilot
>>> is
>>> safe and sound at his intended destination. Pilots spend thousands of
>>> dollars per year on auto, glider and life insurance. Yet there is this
>>> whine about spending a few hundred dollars one time on a piece of
>>> equipment
>>> that could mean the difference between life and death, in the event of a
>>> crash.
>>
>> As we are all aware, the old 121.5 MHz ELTs are on their way out, with
>> only 3 more years of promised satallite coverage. The few 406 MHz ELTs
>> that I've seen have yet to see much of a price drop.
>>
>> From Chief Aircraft:
>>
>> Ameri-King AK-450, a popular 121.5 ELT: $183.75 USD
>>
>> Artex G406, a 406 MHz ELT: $1589.00
>>
>> Handheld radios, cell and satellite phones are all excellent items
>>> for your land out kits, but none of them are automatically activated
>>> during
>>> a crash; nor will phones or radios be of any use if you become
>>> unconscious.
>>>
>>
>> One of the many problems with the real world experience of the older
>> ELTs, is that in most cases they have not activated automatically in a
>> crash. They do, however, seem to activate for a myrid number of non-crash
>> reasons such as hard landings and whatever. And almost all activations
>> have been false.
>>
>>> Pilots who fly in remote, mountainous and wilderness areas should
>>> reconsider
>>> installing an ELT, if not for themselves, then maybe for their families
>>> who
>>> may lose a loved one simply because they weren't found in time.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> M Eiler
>>
>>
>> The argument I've seen most often against the US contest requirement for
>> an installed ELT, is not that there isn't a need for this sort of thing
>> at all, but rather that a PLB (personal locator beacon) is a more viable
>> solution. PLBs can be small enough to attach to a parachute harness,
>> operate on 406 MHz (so won't become obsolete in 3 years), can be had with
>> built in GPS to send a precise location, and will direct search personnel
>> to the pilot as opposed to the wreckage. Further, they are registered to
>> the pilot so searcher know who they are looking for, and obviously will
>> work in more than just one vehicle or activity. Prices have come down to
>> the $500 -$700 range (w/ GPS built in).
>>
>> bumper
>>
>
>

[Eric Greenwell]

Don Johnstone wrote:

>>Are you sure it is crash activated? Or is it activated
>>by the G loads
>>when the pilot ejects? I couldn't determine that from
>>the brochure.
>
>
> Both, and immersion in water and pulling the pin.

And do they claim the G threshold is suitable for small general aviation
aircraft? Again, everything I read on their site suggests these units
are not aimed at people like us. Maybe I'm not finding the right section.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Ian Cant]

Sarbe make a range of beacons, easily confused. Some
are activated by immersion [and are buoy packs for
marine use] and some are 'personal' items stowed on
the pilot or in an ejection seat cushion. Their brochure
states that the operation is 'compatible' with automatic
activation. Translated, that means it is operated
by pulling a pin; the pin can be pulled manually, or
by a static line attached between the ejection seat
and the aircraft, or by some unspecified G-sensitive
device not part of the unit.

G-sensitive devices are not too reliable - it depends
on the direction as well as the energy of the force
at impact. Flying into a brick wall or hitting the
ground in a vertical dive will certainly trigger it;
a hard landing may or may not; a low speed mush into
treetops or a BRS-assisted landing may or may not.


To think that either a PLB or an ELT will always operate
in a glider crash is wishful thinking. However, if
a PLB [the manufacturer's term] such as the Sarbe
series is good enough for NATO military use, it's certainly
good enough for me. Unfortunately, not cheap enough
!

In terms of value, a PLB with 406 capability and built-in
GPS is available now for around $600 from several sources.
An ELT with only 121.5 can be had for less than $200.
I'd pay the extra for the much greater PLB effectiveness.

As for the peace of mind issue, if someone goes missing
and an ELT is activated, his condition and whereabouts
are still unknown until the searches [for glider and
then for pilot] are completed. If he carries a PLB
and activates it manually, his condition and whereabouts
are quickly [a matter of minutes] known. If he carries
a PLB but is unable to activate it, then his condition
is also known and knowledge of his whereabouts is secondary.

As an aside, JJ might have an opinion about whether
the peace of mind issue might be more pertinent to
finish gates and procedures...

Ian




At 19:54 08 September 2005, Don Johnstone wrote:
>At 18:06 08 September 2005, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>>Don Johnstone wrote:
>>
>>> There is no mix up of terms. The Sarbe GR2 series
>>>of
>>> Personal Locator Beacons, that is the ones you carry
>>> do have a G switch to trigger the unit in the event
>>> of a crash (or ejection). Details at http://www.sarbe.com/g2r.ht
>>>>
>>>>m.
>>> From the menu on that page you can select Datasheet
>>> which gives details.
>>
>>Are you sure it is crash activated? Or is it activated
>>by the G loads
>>when the pilot ejects? I couldn't determine that from
>>the brochure.
>
>Both, and immersion in water and pulling the pin.
>>
>
>
>

[Wayne Paul]

I consider myself a "lower-income" pilot. I installed an Ameri-King model
AK-450 ELT in my HP-14 early this summer. I don't have any false ideas that
this device will "save my life." I installed it, not because of future
contest rules, but simply to help SAR in case something happened while
flying in the mountains. (See:
http://www.soaridaho.com/photogallery/index.htm)

My unit is actuated by excessive "G" loading along the longitudinatal axis.
(Ameri-King also makes a model for helicopters that is actuated by both
longitudinal and vertical "G" forces.) The installation instructions are
complete and simple to follow.

I arm the system when I assemble the glider and turn it off during
de-assembly. (These actions are part of my check lists.) There isn't
anything fancy about my trailer. That is unless you consider spring on the
axle "fancy." Even if I didn't turn the unit off before trailering the '14,
I don't think normal or emergency braking would actuate the unit.

My unit was purchased from Tim Mara (http://www.wingsandwheels.com). A
couple hundred "bucks" isn't excessive amount to invest assist in a SAR
effort, even for a HP-14 driver.

Wayne
http://www.soaridaho.com



"M B" > wrote in message
...
> Eric, first of all, your participation here, as always,
> is welcome, and I am glad you have responded. As usual,
> I respect your adding your (very well thought out voice)
> to this. I'm going to make some points here that are
> subtle.
>
> First of all, you are right, I was probably using hyperbole
> to make a point. There may not be hundreds of ELT
> accidental activations caused by this rule. It may
> be less, or even none. I don't know for sure, but
> I am going to write about reasons why accidental activations
> may be more common than your experience.
>
> Hmmm...making some guesses here:
>
> Is your trailer very well padded so the fuselage isn't
> damaged during trailering?
>
> Do you have the kind of ELT that required a bit more
> sophistication to install, and has a remote activation
> button with a small LED light that tells you if it
> accidentally activates?
>
> Did you install this ELT voluntarily, and carefully
> read the documentation with it about how to install
> it correctly and how to dial in 121.5 on the radio
> to listen for false activations?
>
> You land real gentle in your nice glider don't you?
> Thats why you have so many flights and trailerings,
> instead of having it in the repair shop, right?
>
> I'm guessing that for you, and most of your friends,
> the answer to all of these will be 'yes.'
>
> For the folks at the 'margin' for whom the added ELT
> cost is almost too much to ask to enter a contest,
> the answer to these questions may be 'no.' Their trailers
> may not be the
> $5000-$10,000 cobra with super suspension. The ELT
> may be the old non-remote kind bought secondhand with
> no documents, and installed themselves non-perfectly.
> Their landiing may not be pretty.
>
> These same folks, at the margin, may highly respect
> the volunteer efforts of the contest organizers and
> want to install the ELT to accomodate their wishes.
> But this may not change the economics that they can't
> afford a brand new ELT with remote LED professionally
> installed, much less a 406MHz GPS unit...
>
> You and I are talking about different things. I don't
> think you or most of the other experienced, devoted,
> contest pilots with moderate incomes will have that
> much of a problem complying with this 'minor change'
> to the rules.
>
> But others, including Marc Ramsey, and me, and some
> others see this as another brick stacked up in a wall
> that creates a slightly larger barrier to entry into
> this sport. This barrier affects lower-income, entering
> pilots more than those who are already contest fliers.
> And at some point too many bricks makes the wall too
> high.
>
> There will be some who overcome this, and there will
> be some who don't. I think the contest numbers next(?)
> year of #s of entrants who have installed ELTs, and
> numbers of 'new' entrants compared to prior years,
> will speak to this.
>
> I hope I am wrong. I honestly do. In the meantime
> I will bang the drum loudly about barriers to entry,
> especially for lower-income pilots. And I hope this
> will strike a balance opposite those who are willing
> to require $$$$s for marginal improvements in the name
> of 'safety.'
>
> On the subject of ELTs, I have had one go off accidentally
> (the cheapo non-LED kind) when the switch was flicked
> by putting in a backpack in the backseat. After engine
> shutdown I caught it by the bleedover on the radio
> (ASEL).
>
> Three weeks ago a fellow pilot (low timer) had the
> police break into his hangar, and subsequently call
> him, after a hard landing (ASEL).
>
> Low-timers are more likely to fly lower-quality equipment,
> land harder, and have less sophisticated senses about
> how to detect accidental activation. And they won't
> as commonly have the LED on to warn them of accidental
> activations.
>
> Anyway, I enjoy further discussion on this, if you
> think it is productive, and appreciate your thoughts
> and counterpoints.
>

[2cernauta2]

M B > wrote:

>For the folks at the 'margin' for whom the added ELT
>cost is almost too much to ask to enter a contest,
>the answer to these questions may be 'no.'

A simple solution: the SSA, or a local club, finds some ELT units (on
the 2nd hand market, or borrowed from members), and makes them
available for a small fee (15USD ?) to the low-income competition
pilot. At the end of the contest, the units are returned to the
owners, or sent to another contest location...

Aldo Cernezzi

[Paul Remde]

Hi Tim,

I'm aware of the situation. It is my understanding that they are on hold
and will be available again soon. I have some on order.

Paul Remde

"Tim Mara" > wrote in message
...
> Not so fast.................Artex has re-called these already....
> tim
> Wings & Wheels
> www.wingsandwheels.com
>
> "Paul Remde" > wrote in message
> news:mLITe.316115$_o.53729@attbi_s71...
>> Hi,
>>
>> I will soon have "low cost" 406 ELTs from Artex for $995. They are
>> listed on my web site. I don't have them in stock yet but they should be
>> available in a few weeks.
>> http://www.soarmn.com/cumulus/elts.htm
>>
>> Good Soaring,
>>
>> Paul Remde
>> Cumulus Soaring, Inc.
>> http://www.cumulus-soaring.com
>>
>> "bumper" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Martin Eiler" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Most people consider pilot safety as everything needed until that pilot
>>>> is
>>>> safe and sound at his intended destination. Pilots spend thousands of
>>>> dollars per year on auto, glider and life insurance. Yet there is this
>>>> whine about spending a few hundred dollars one time on a piece of
>>>> equipment
>>>> that could mean the difference between life and death, in the event of
>>>> a
>>>> crash.
>>>
>>> As we are all aware, the old 121.5 MHz ELTs are on their way out, with
>>> only 3 more years of promised satallite coverage. The few 406 MHz ELTs
>>> that I've seen have yet to see much of a price drop.
>>>
>>> From Chief Aircraft:
>>>
>>> Ameri-King AK-450, a popular 121.5 ELT: $183.75 USD
>>>
>>> Artex G406, a 406 MHz ELT: $1589.00
>>>
>>> Handheld radios, cell and satellite phones are all excellent items
>>>> for your land out kits, but none of them are automatically activated
>>>> during
>>>> a crash; nor will phones or radios be of any use if you become
>>>> unconscious.
>>>>
>>>
>>> One of the many problems with the real world experience of the older
>>> ELTs, is that in most cases they have not activated automatically in a
>>> crash. They do, however, seem to activate for a myrid number of
>>> non-crash reasons such as hard landings and whatever. And almost all
>>> activations have been false.
>>>
>>>> Pilots who fly in remote, mountainous and wilderness areas should
>>>> reconsider
>>>> installing an ELT, if not for themselves, then maybe for their families
>>>> who
>>>> may lose a loved one simply because they weren't found in time.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> M Eiler
>>>
>>>
>>> The argument I've seen most often against the US contest requirement for
>>> an installed ELT, is not that there isn't a need for this sort of thing
>>> at all, but rather that a PLB (personal locator beacon) is a more viable
>>> solution. PLBs can be small enough to attach to a parachute harness,
>>> operate on 406 MHz (so won't become obsolete in 3 years), can be had
>>> with built in GPS to send a precise location, and will direct search
>>> personnel to the pilot as opposed to the wreckage. Further, they are
>>> registered to the pilot so searcher know who they are looking for, and
>>> obviously will work in more than just one vehicle or activity. Prices
>>> have come down to the $500 -$700 range (w/ GPS built in).
>>>
>>> bumper
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[bumper]

The Ameri-King AK-450 ELT w/voice, was also installed in the new Husky I
bought 3 months back. I was disappointed as I wasn't given the option of
spending a bit more to get a newer 406 unit . . . and I didn't think to ask.

Bad news is the 121.5/243 MHz frequency is scheduled for no satellite
monitoring response in 3 years. I'm sure the price on the new 406 MHz ELTs
will drop to a more reasonable level by then.

For now,I think a $400 to $500 dollar PLB represents a better buy than an
121.5 built-in with 3 more years to go. At least the 406 MHz PLB will be
useful for other activities, hiking, boating etc. and will work into the
foreseeable future.

bumper


"Wayne Paul" > wrote in message
...
>I consider myself a "lower-income" pilot. I installed an Ameri-King model
> AK-450 ELT in my HP-14 early this summer. I don't have any false ideas
> that
> this device will "save my life." I installed it, not because of future
> contest rules, but simply to help SAR in case something happened while
> flying in the mountains. (See:
> http://www.soaridaho.com/photogallery/index.htm)
>
> My unit is actuated by excessive "G" loading along the longitudinatal
> axis.
> (Ameri-King also makes a model for helicopters that is actuated by both
> longitudinal and vertical "G" forces.) The installation instructions are
> complete and simple to follow.
>
> I arm the system when I assemble the glider and turn it off during
> de-assembly. (These actions are part of my check lists.) There isn't
> anything fancy about my trailer. That is unless you consider spring on
> the
> axle "fancy." Even if I didn't turn the unit off before trailering the
> '14,
> I don't think normal or emergency braking would actuate the unit.
>
> My unit was purchased from Tim Mara (http://www.wingsandwheels.com). A
> couple hundred "bucks" isn't excessive amount to invest assist in a SAR
> effort, even for a HP-14 driver.
>
> Wayne
> http://www.soaridaho.com
>
>
>
> "M B" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Eric, first of all, your participation here, as always,
>> is welcome, and I am glad you have responded. As usual,
>> I respect your adding your (very well thought out voice)
>> to this. I'm going to make some points here that are
>> subtle.
>>
>> First of all, you are right, I was probably using hyperbole
>> to make a point. There may not be hundreds of ELT
>> accidental activations caused by this rule. It may
>> be less, or even none. I don't know for sure, but
>> I am going to write about reasons why accidental activations
>> may be more common than your experience.
>>
>> Hmmm...making some guesses here:
>>
>> Is your trailer very well padded so the fuselage isn't
>> damaged during trailering?
>>
>> Do you have the kind of ELT that required a bit more
>> sophistication to install, and has a remote activation
>> button with a small LED light that tells you if it
>> accidentally activates?
>>
>> Did you install this ELT voluntarily, and carefully
>> read the documentation with it about how to install
>> it correctly and how to dial in 121.5 on the radio
>> to listen for false activations?
>>
>> You land real gentle in your nice glider don't you?
>> Thats why you have so many flights and trailerings,
>> instead of having it in the repair shop, right?
>>
>> I'm guessing that for you, and most of your friends,
>> the answer to all of these will be 'yes.'
>>
>> For the folks at the 'margin' for whom the added ELT
>> cost is almost too much to ask to enter a contest,
>> the answer to these questions may be 'no.' Their trailers
>> may not be the
>> $5000-$10,000 cobra with super suspension. The ELT
>> may be the old non-remote kind bought secondhand with
>> no documents, and installed themselves non-perfectly.
>> Their landiing may not be pretty.
>>
>> These same folks, at the margin, may highly respect
>> the volunteer efforts of the contest organizers and
>> want to install the ELT to accomodate their wishes.
>> But this may not change the economics that they can't
>> afford a brand new ELT with remote LED professionally
>> installed, much less a 406MHz GPS unit...
>>
>> You and I are talking about different things. I don't
>> think you or most of the other experienced, devoted,
>> contest pilots with moderate incomes will have that
>> much of a problem complying with this 'minor change'
>> to the rules.
>>
>> But others, including Marc Ramsey, and me, and some
>> others see this as another brick stacked up in a wall
>> that creates a slightly larger barrier to entry into
>> this sport. This barrier affects lower-income, entering
>> pilots more than those who are already contest fliers.
>> And at some point too many bricks makes the wall too
>> high.
>>
>> There will be some who overcome this, and there will
>> be some who don't. I think the contest numbers next(?)
>> year of #s of entrants who have installed ELTs, and
>> numbers of 'new' entrants compared to prior years,
>> will speak to this.
>>
>> I hope I am wrong. I honestly do. In the meantime
>> I will bang the drum loudly about barriers to entry,
>> especially for lower-income pilots. And I hope this
>> will strike a balance opposite those who are willing
>> to require $$$$s for marginal improvements in the name
>> of 'safety.'
>>
>> On the subject of ELTs, I have had one go off accidentally
>> (the cheapo non-LED kind) when the switch was flicked
>> by putting in a backpack in the backseat. After engine
>> shutdown I caught it by the bleedover on the radio
>> (ASEL).
>>
>> Three weeks ago a fellow pilot (low timer) had the
>> police break into his hangar, and subsequently call
>> him, after a hard landing (ASEL).
>>
>> Low-timers are more likely to fly lower-quality equipment,
>> land harder, and have less sophisticated senses about
>> how to detect accidental activation. And they won't
>> as commonly have the LED on to warn them of accidental
>> activations.
>>
>> Anyway, I enjoy further discussion on this, if you
>> think it is productive, and appreciate your thoughts
>> and counterpoints.
>>
>
>

[Eric Greenwell]

M B wrote:
> Eric, first of all, your participation here, as always,
> is welcome, and I am glad you have responded. As usual,
> I respect your adding your (very well thought out voice)
> to this. I'm going to make some points here that are
> subtle.

Thanks for the kind words.
>
> First of all, you are right, I was probably using hyperbole
> to make a point. There may not be hundreds of ELT
> accidental activations caused by this rule. It may
> be less, or even none. I don't know for sure, but
> I am going to write about reasons why accidental activations
> may be more common than your experience.

Accidental activations are not really an issue for glider pilots, based
on my experience and those of several others that have commented on RAS
and directly to me. Even if they were, we shouldn't be worried about the
effect of a few hundred additional glider ELTs (out hundreds of
thousands in airplanes) on a system (FAA and SAR folks) that wants us to
use them. We don't use them because the FAA gave us a waiver, not
because we cause problems.


> But others, including Marc Ramsey, and me, and some
> others see this as another brick stacked up in a wall
> that creates a slightly larger barrier to entry into
> this sport. This barrier affects lower-income, entering
> pilots more than those who are already contest fliers.
> And at some point too many bricks makes the wall too
> high.

Exactly: the real issue is cost. Pilots that already have them or are
already dedicated contest pilots will still come to contests, but the
new or occasional contest pilot may decide the travel, vacation time,
GPS logger, entry fee, ELT, and so on, just adds up to too much money.

My preference is to allow the contest organizers to decide whether an
ELT is required. That way, they can balance the peace of mind it gives
them against the potential loss of entrants. In our region, I suspect we
would not require an ELT, but obviously, some places would. Still, we
should remember the people that want this rule ARE glider pilots, and
treat their views with respect.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[bumper]

I usually agree with you Eric, and do this time as well, but with one
"amendment". Given the limited 3 year lifetime of the more common and less
expensive 121.5 ELT, I think they should allow the portable 406 PLB to
satisfy the contest requirement for a locator beacon.

bumper

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
...
>M B wrote:
>> Eric, first of all, your participation here, as always,
>> is welcome, and I am glad you have responded. As usual,
>> I respect your adding your (very well thought out voice)
>> to this. I'm going to make some points here that are
>> subtle.
>
> Thanks for the kind words.
>>
>> First of all, you are right, I was probably using hyperbole
>> to make a point. There may not be hundreds of ELT
>> accidental activations caused by this rule. It may
>> be less, or even none. I don't know for sure, but
>> I am going to write about reasons why accidental activations
>> may be more common than your experience.
>
> Accidental activations are not really an issue for glider pilots, based on
> my experience and those of several others that have commented on RAS and
> directly to me. Even if they were, we shouldn't be worried about the
> effect of a few hundred additional glider ELTs (out hundreds of thousands
> in airplanes) on a system (FAA and SAR folks) that wants us to use them.
> We don't use them because the FAA gave us a waiver, not because we cause
> problems.
>
>
>> But others, including Marc Ramsey, and me, and some
>> others see this as another brick stacked up in a wall
>> that creates a slightly larger barrier to entry into
>> this sport. This barrier affects lower-income, entering
>> pilots more than those who are already contest fliers.
>> And at some point too many bricks makes the wall too
>> high.
>
> Exactly: the real issue is cost. Pilots that already have them or are
> already dedicated contest pilots will still come to contests, but the new
> or occasional contest pilot may decide the travel, vacation time, GPS
> logger, entry fee, ELT, and so on, just adds up to too much money.
>
> My preference is to allow the contest organizers to decide whether an ELT
> is required. That way, they can balance the peace of mind it gives them
> against the potential loss of entrants. In our region, I suspect we would
> not require an ELT, but obviously, some places would. Still, we should
> remember the people that want this rule ARE glider pilots, and treat their
> views with respect.
>
> --
> Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> Eric Greenwell
> Washington State
> USA

[309]

Ditto EVERYTHING Wayne Paul wrote, 'cept on my 1-26 and I got the unit
from Aircraft Spruce.

Turn it OFF during disassembly (it's on the CHECKLIST), and turn it to
ARM during assembly (CHECKLIST). Also, check the function at annual
time, change the batteries per the schedule (or ahead, at annual time),
and this includes the fancy panel remote with those sexy LED's (part of
the CHECKLIST, too!).

No false activations (despite the "soft" 1-26 gear arrangement).
Hopefully don't need it to activate anytime soon.

Cheap insurance, peace of mind, and airborne SAR will still "hear"
121.5 for years to come (hopefully when 406 units are as inexpensive as
hiking GPS units). I have heard 121.5 ELT's while flying ASEL, relayed
info to ATC (though I never heard if they found the source).

I wonder if I could get an insurance discount to really convince
everybody that it is "cost effective" to have one!

-Pete

Wayne Paul wrote:
> I consider myself a "lower-income" pilot. I installed an Ameri-King model
> AK-450 ELT in my HP-14 early this summer. I don't have any false ideas that
> this device will "save my life." I installed it, not because of future
> contest rules, but simply to help SAR in case something happened while
> flying in the mountains. (See:
> http://www.soaridaho.com/photogallery/index.htm)
>
> My unit is actuated by excessive "G" loading along the longitudinatal axis.
> (Ameri-King also makes a model for helicopters that is actuated by both
> longitudinal and vertical "G" forces.) The installation instructions are
> complete and simple to follow.
>
> I arm the system when I assemble the glider and turn it off during
> de-assembly. (These actions are part of my check lists.) There isn't
> anything fancy about my trailer. That is unless you consider spring on the
> axle "fancy." Even if I didn't turn the unit off before trailering the '14,
> I don't think normal or emergency braking would actuate the unit.
>
> My unit was purchased from Tim Mara (http://www.wingsandwheels.com). A
> couple hundred "bucks" isn't excessive amount to invest assist in a SAR
> effort, even for a HP-14 driver.
>
> Wayne
> http://www.soaridaho.com
>
>
>
> "M B" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Eric, first of all, your participation here, as always,
> > is welcome, and I am glad you have responded. As usual,
> > I respect your adding your (very well thought out voice)
> > to this. I'm going to make some points here that are
> > subtle.
> >
> > First of all, you are right, I was probably using hyperbole
> > to make a point. There may not be hundreds of ELT
> > accidental activations caused by this rule. It may
> > be less, or even none. I don't know for sure, but
> > I am going to write about reasons why accidental activations
> > may be more common than your experience.
> >
> > Hmmm...making some guesses here:
> >
> > Is your trailer very well padded so the fuselage isn't
> > damaged during trailering?
> >
> > Do you have the kind of ELT that required a bit more
> > sophistication to install, and has a remote activation
> > button with a small LED light that tells you if it
> > accidentally activates?
> >
> > Did you install this ELT voluntarily, and carefully
> > read the documentation with it about how to install
> > it correctly and how to dial in 121.5 on the radio
> > to listen for false activations?
> >
> > You land real gentle in your nice glider don't you?
> > Thats why you have so many flights and trailerings,
> > instead of having it in the repair shop, right?
> >
> > I'm guessing that for you, and most of your friends,
> > the answer to all of these will be 'yes.'
> >
> > For the folks at the 'margin' for whom the added ELT
> > cost is almost too much to ask to enter a contest,
> > the answer to these questions may be 'no.' Their trailers
> > may not be the
> > $5000-$10,000 cobra with super suspension. The ELT
> > may be the old non-remote kind bought secondhand with
> > no documents, and installed themselves non-perfectly.
> > Their landiing may not be pretty.
> >
> > These same folks, at the margin, may highly respect
> > the volunteer efforts of the contest organizers and
> > want to install the ELT to accomodate their wishes.
> > But this may not change the economics that they can't
> > afford a brand new ELT with remote LED professionally
> > installed, much less a 406MHz GPS unit...
> >
> > You and I are talking about different things. I don't
> > think you or most of the other experienced, devoted,
> > contest pilots with moderate incomes will have that
> > much of a problem complying with this 'minor change'
> > to the rules.
> >
> > But others, including Marc Ramsey, and me, and some
> > others see this as another brick stacked up in a wall
> > that creates a slightly larger barrier to entry into
> > this sport. This barrier affects lower-income, entering
> > pilots more than those who are already contest fliers.
> > And at some point too many bricks makes the wall too
> > high.
> >
> > There will be some who overcome this, and there will
> > be some who don't. I think the contest numbers next(?)
> > year of #s of entrants who have installed ELTs, and
> > numbers of 'new' entrants compared to prior years,
> > will speak to this.
> >
> > I hope I am wrong. I honestly do. In the meantime
> > I will bang the drum loudly about barriers to entry,
> > especially for lower-income pilots. And I hope this
> > will strike a balance opposite those who are willing
> > to require $$$$s for marginal improvements in the name
> > of 'safety.'
> >
> > On the subject of ELTs, I have had one go off accidentally
> > (the cheapo non-LED kind) when the switch was flicked
> > by putting in a backpack in the backseat. After engine
> > shutdown I caught it by the bleedover on the radio
> > (ASEL).
> >
> > Three weeks ago a fellow pilot (low timer) had the
> > police break into his hangar, and subsequently call
> > him, after a hard landing (ASEL).
> >
> > Low-timers are more likely to fly lower-quality equipment,
> > land harder, and have less sophisticated senses about
> > how to detect accidental activation. And they won't
> > as commonly have the LED on to warn them of accidental
> > activations.
> >
> > Anyway, I enjoy further discussion on this, if you
> > think it is productive, and appreciate your thoughts
> > and counterpoints.
> >

[Ian Cant]

As a reality check, has there EVER been a case where
a glider pilot was unconscious at the accident scene
[the place where the glider and its ELT ended up] for
more than an hour or so [the minimum time for any response
to an ELT signal] but ultimately survived ? Being
knocked out for a short time may delay PLB activation;
but the more precise position and quicker detection
of the 406/GPS more than compensates for this.

The real world is full of compromises. But the mandatory
ELT arguments seem to be relying on marginal situations.

Ian




At 14:06 09 September 2005, T O D D P A T T I S T wrote:
>Ian Cant wrote:
>
>>In terms of value, a PLB with 406 capability and built-in
>>GPS is available now for around $600 from several sources.
>> An ELT with only 121.5 can be had for less than $200.
>> I'd pay the extra for the much greater PLB effectiveness.
>
>It's not any more effective if it won't activate when
>the
>pilot is unconscious at the accident scene. The PLB
>and ELT
>serve distinctly different functions. Automatic activation
>is the key to that difference.
>
>>If he carries
>>a PLB but is unable to activate it, then his condition
>>is also known and knowledge of his whereabouts is secondary.
>
>But isn't that the point - that knowledge of his condition
>is not known? He can be unconscious. I'm not against
>PLBs,
>and certainly not against 406 ELTs. I'd love to have
>both,
>but I would never choose a PLB over either type of
>ELT.
>Battery size/weight/power/duration and antenna size
>alone
>are factors strong enough to make me choose the fixed
>mount
>ELT, even if automatic activation were not as important
>as
>it is.
>
>
>
>
>T o d d P a t t i s t - 'WH' Ventus C
>(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
>

[M B]

Yes, body recovery, not rescue, seems the primary (only?)
benefit of this rule. $100,000 cost of mandated installed
ELTs to recover one dead body 24 hours faster every
four years? Somebody check my math, please...

If fatalities were the concern, a mandatory $80 cholesterol
blood screening and 5 minute checkup by an MD on the
first day of each contest would most certainly better
reduce overall morbidity of the contest pilots, and
for far less money.

At 15:24 09 September 2005, T O D D P A T T I S T wrote:
>Ian Cant wrote:
>
>>The real world is full of compromises. But the mandatory
>>ELT arguments seem to be relying on marginal situations.
>
>I express no opinion on the mandatory contest rule,
>but they
>don't seem to be totally relying on what you call the
>'marginal situation' (even if that's important to me
>personally). It's reasonable for the rescuers to want
>to
>know even if the pilot is dead to minimize risk to
>the
>rescuers.
>
>T o d d P a t t i s t - 'WH' Ventus C
>(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
>
Mark J. Boyd

[bumper]

"T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote in message
...
> Ian Cant > wrote:
>
>>In terms of value, a PLB with 406 capability and built-in
>>GPS is available now for around $600 from several sources.
>> An ELT with only 121.5 can be had for less than $200.
>> I'd pay the extra for the much greater PLB effectiveness.
>
> It's not any more effective if it won't activate when the
> pilot is unconscious at the accident scene. The PLB and ELT
> serve distinctly different functions. Automatic activation
> is the key to that difference.


Unfortunately, very many ELT's do not function as intended or designed.
That's part of the problem. See page 4 in the following url pdf doc for an
example of this:

http://www.ntsb.gov/Recs/letters/1999/A99_59_63.pdf

I know studies have been done on the percentage of ELT failures, it's not
insignificant . . . but I was unable to find the figure on the net.

bumper

[[email protected]]

If y'all feel strongly about a Personal Locator Beacon (PLB), consider
this: The SSA Board meets in Memphis on OCTOBER 1. SSA Directors need
your items NOW to be included in the agenda. Perhaps an email to the
SSA Rules Committee and your Regional Directors (don't send it to
Dennis Wright - go up through your chain of command) to ask them to
consider adding the option of the PLB, as Bumper suggests below.

The contact info for all our SSA Directors and Committee Chairs can be
found on the SSA webpage, www.ssa.org under SSA Members, Governance.

As I will host a National Contest at Marfa, Texas in 2006, I am in
favor of some sort of ELT / PLB. I like the idea of equpping the
pilot (PLB), not the glider (ELT). I will not be able to sleep if one
pilot is missing, even after their safe landing on the Marfa plateau.
Cellphone coverage is poor here. Lots of places to land, but few roads
and lots of fences. We strongly recommend anyone flying at Marfa
bring a capable crew, and install a good radio whip antenna (tall &
tuned) on their crew car. Handhelds with rubber-ducky's don't cut it.
For certain tasks and for good radio contact, sending your crew on the
road is worthwhile, if you want to get yourself back to our brisket and
beer party by sunset.

Burt
Marfa, west Texas
www.flygliders.com

Bumper wrote:

a PLB (personal locator beacon) is a more viable solution.
PLBs can be small enough to attach to a parachute harness, operate on
406
MHz (so won't become obsolete in 3 years), can be had with built in GPS
to
send a precise location, and will direct search personnel to the pilot
as
opposed to the wreckage. Further, they are registered to the pilot so
searcher know who they are looking for, and obviously will work in more
than
just one vehicle or activity. Prices have come down to the $500 -$700
range
(w/ GPS built in).

[Udo Rumpf]

This is a done deal.
The contest organizers will be able to stipulate
if you fly in "there" contest or not.
An ELT will be a prerequisite if you want to compete.
Some organizers had it already in place this year.
Udo

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> If y'all feel strongly about a Personal Locator Beacon (PLB), consider
> this: The SSA Board meets in Memphis on OCTOBER 1. SSA Directors need
> your items NOW to be included in the agenda. Perhaps an email to the
> SSA Rules Committee and your Regional Directors (don't send it to
> Dennis Wright - go up through your chain of command) to ask them to
> consider adding the option of the PLB, as Bumper suggests below.
>
> The contact info for all our SSA Directors and Committee Chairs can be
> found on the SSA webpage, www.ssa.org under SSA Members, Governance.
>
> As I will host a National Contest at Marfa, Texas in 2006, I am in
> favor of some sort of ELT / PLB. I like the idea of equpping the
> pilot (PLB), not the glider (ELT). I will not be able to sleep if one
> pilot is missing, even after their safe landing on the Marfa plateau.
> Cellphone coverage is poor here. Lots of places to land, but few roads
> and lots of fences. We strongly recommend anyone flying at Marfa
> bring a capable crew, and install a good radio whip antenna (tall &
> tuned) on their crew car. Handhelds with rubber-ducky's don't cut it.
> For certain tasks and for good radio contact, sending your crew on the
> road is worthwhile, if you want to get yourself back to our brisket and
> beer party by sunset.
>
> Burt
> Marfa, west Texas
> www.flygliders.com
>
> Bumper wrote:
>
> a PLB (personal locator beacon) is a more viable solution.
> PLBs can be small enough to attach to a parachute harness, operate on
> 406
> MHz (so won't become obsolete in 3 years), can be had with built in GPS
> to
> send a precise location, and will direct search personnel to the pilot
> as
> opposed to the wreckage. Further, they are registered to the pilot so
> searcher know who they are looking for, and obviously will work in more
> than
> just one vehicle or activity. Prices have come down to the $500 -$700
> range
> (w/ GPS built in).
>

[[email protected]]

HI Burt:
Agenda for October meeting is set. This item is handled by the Rules
Subcommittee and will be on the pending pilot poll. The poll results
will be used to guide the RC proposed rules which will be voted on by
the BOD at the Winter meeting.
Hank Nixon
SSA Contest Rule Subcommittee Chair

[[email protected]]

I am one of the believers in this technology. It doesn't matter where
you crash - you WILL be found! Very quickly if you install a 406 Mhz
unit.

PLB's transmit on the same frequency (406), however you have to be
ALIVE, AWAKE and ABLE to turn the thing on. That is why we have
aircraft approved units! They will go off in the crash and at least
your body will be found.

I have an ELT in both my Ventus 2bx and Nimbus 4. They are mounted on
the shelf that sits behind the pilot's head, just in front of the
spars. I have them hooked up (factory installed) to a "rubber ducky
antenna" that sits on the right rear side of the cockpit, so that the
antenna has a good view through the plexiglass. My avionics guy has
looked at this and given his blessing.

I have been diseminating ELT information for about one-year (since
Peter Masak's crash).

The latest 406Mhz units can be bought for about $1,000 and the only one
that I know of at that price (that is certified) is the ARTEX ME406
unit. This does NOT hook up to your GPS.

If anyone wants more information, send me an email directly, as I do
not read this newsgroup very often. Put 406 ELT in the message header.

Brian Milner (GJ)


wrote:
> I am still hoping to hear from those that have installed ELT's in their
> gliders in anticipation of the Competion Rules requireiments for 2006.
> I am especially interested in seeing photos or getting descriptions of
> installations in ASW 27's. Please contact me directly.
> Tom Dixon
> Idaho

[Eric Greenwell]

wrote:

>
> I have an ELT in both my Ventus 2bx and Nimbus 4. They are mounted on
> the shelf that sits behind the pilot's head, just in front of the
> spars. I have them hooked up (factory installed) to a "rubber ducky
> antenna" that sits on the right rear side of the cockpit, so that the
> antenna has a good view through the plexiglass. My avionics guy has
> looked at this and given his blessing.

I don't know specifically about the Ventus and Nimbus, but most gliders,
even new ones of carbon fiber construction, have only fiberglass over
the baggage area. This allows radio signals for ELT and GPS units to
penetrate the fuselage, so their antennas can be mounted there. If not,
Brian's method is easy and should work fine.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Jack]

wrote:

> It doesn't matter where
> you crash - you WILL be found!

> PLB's transmit on the same frequency (406)....


All well and good, but if you only have a limited amount to spend,
should you spend it on locater beacon/s or on a transponder?


Jack

[Eric Greenwell]

Jack wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > It doesn't matter where
>
>> you crash - you WILL be found!
>
>
>> PLB's transmit on the same frequency (406)....
>
>
>
> All well and good, but if you only have a limited amount to spend,
> should you spend it on locater beacon/s or on a transponder?

This article from Soaring Magazine might help you decide if a
transponder makes sense for you:

http://www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/transponders.pdf

While you are there, check out the rest of the Soaring Safety Foundation
web site.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Duane Eisenbeiss]

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>
> I don't know specifically about the Ventus and Nimbus, but most gliders,
> even new ones of carbon fiber construction, have only fiberglass over
> the baggage area.
>
Schempp-Hirth does not seem to subscribe to that idea. Must put an antenna
in the canopy area.
Even then, all sailplanes sort of need to crash and remain right side up so
that the antenna does not have to transmit upward through the carbon fibre
fuselage which would most likely result in a very weak signal.

If ELTs are going to be used in most sailplanes it would be nice if the
manufacturers would install a second antenna in the fin (which is of glass
fibre construction) for use by an ELT. Then the position of the sailplane
after the crash would not be so critical. Or, maybe someone will design a
coupler so that two radios can safely be connected to the same antenna (the
one already in the fin).

Duane

[[email protected]]

When the fuselage gets broken, so does the antenna lead.
UH

[Steve Leonard]

> So, why not use that tail battery box for your ELT
> installation?
> ZS

Let me clarify. IF the entire thing will fit in the
tail battery box (Transmitter, battery, antenna, etc),
why not consider putting it there? Surely if the manufactures
can find a way to install 14 volt 10 amp hour batteries,
plus a couple of gallons of water in the fin, there
must be room in there for an ELT. Maybe not in all
gliders, but it could be an option for some.

If I am going to keep flying contests, I will have
to get an ELT. And I know it is for the peace of mind
of the organizers. Just like the requirement for liability
insurance is to protect others investments in case
of my screwups. We do lots of things to protect and
help others in this otherwise rather self centered
sport. Yes, this is another cost those of us that
like to compete will have to bear. And we will have
another item to check pre and post flight to make sure
we don't have people buzzing around us in the middle
of the night.

For those that are complaining of the about $200 investment
you will have to make in the cheapest ELTs, that will,
so they say, no longer be satellite monitored in 3
years, let me ask you this. How many of you will spend
$500 every couple of years to upgrade your home computer,
knowing full well it will be obsolete in two years?
Oh, and how many of the airplanes are flying with
the Mode S Transpondes we in the US were told we would
all need to have by, when was it, about 1990? I will
believe the no more satellite monitoring of 121.5 and
243.0 when it really happens. Then, I will have to
spend more money to 'upgrade' or maybe obsolete my
previous investment.

In the mean time, I will continue to fly without and
ELT, since I fly in the flat lands where a gear door
can be seen sticking up in a field from nearly a mile
away. If you see me at a contest in 2006, you will
know that I gave in and bought an ELT. Since I still
like contest flying, maybe Santa will bring me an ELT
for Christmas?

Steve Leonard
ZS

[Marc Ramsey]

Steve Leonard wrote:
> Let me clarify. IF the entire thing will fit in the
> tail battery box (Transmitter, battery, antenna, etc),
> why not consider putting it there? Surely if the manufactures
> can find a way to install 14 volt 10 amp hour batteries,
> plus a couple of gallons of water in the fin, there
> must be room in there for an ELT. Maybe not in all
> gliders, but it could be an option for some.

You seem to have forgotten about the cable connecting to the remote
control panel, which must be mounted in the cockpit to be compliant with
the regulations. Last time I had to run something from the fin to the
cockpit, it involved cutting a thousand dollars or so worth of holes...

Marc

[Duane Eisenbeiss]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> When the fuselage gets broken, so does the antenna lead.
> UH
>
Not necessarily. I have seen several broken fuselages that did not break
the antenna wire. I am sure that you have also. A little slack in the wire
would give even more assurance.

Duane

[Martin Gregorie]

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 23:06:34 -0500, Duane Eisenbeiss wrote:

>
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>> When the fuselage gets broken, so does the antenna lead. UH
>>
> Not necessarily. I have seen several broken fuselages that did not break
> the antenna wire. I am sure that you have also. A little slack in the
> wire would give even more assurance.
>
...or run it near to the rudder cables. *They* don't break. Often.

--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[Eric Greenwell]

Martin Gregorie wrote:

>>Not necessarily. I have seen several broken fuselages that did not break
>>the antenna wire. I am sure that you have also. A little slack in the
>>wire would give even more assurance.
>>
>
> ..or run it near to the rudder cables. *They* don't break. Often.

Considering the size of my tail boom, I don't see how it is possible to
do otherwise.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Martin Gregorie]

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 10:58:24 -0700, Eric Greenwell wrote:

> Martin Gregorie wrote:
>
>> ..or run it near to the rudder cables. *They* don't break. Often.
>
> Considering the size of my tail boom, I don't see how it is possible to
> do otherwise.

Fair comment. I've only seen the inside of an ASW-20 boom. In that the
rudder cables run down each side in plastic tubes. I thought this was
typical for all cable-operated rudder circuits.

--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |