US ELT Installation

[mhr]

Hi All,

As I understand the racing rules for 2006, the SSA has decided to
mandate ELT installation for all competitors. The ELT must be
permanently mounted inside the glider. Personal ELTs will not suffice.
This is all complicated by the FAA's decision to obsolete some existing
ELT frequencies in the coming years.

With the decision made, I wonder if the ruling has been well thought
out. The question is how will each contest organizer verify that the
ELT installation is actually functional since some gliders are type
certificated and others have experimental certification?

>From an owners perspective, installation could be troublesome since
many newer gliders are made of Carbon Fiber which limits installation
choices and could lead to some "kludged" installations in
experimentally certificated gliders.

In discussions with US based glider factory reps, it appears that the
European manufacturer's have not uniformly accounted for this rule
change in their basic offering. When asked about installed ELT
antennas, the response has been Hmm.

So the question is how does one retrofit an ELT solution to an existing
glider and how does one specify an installation for a new glider?

Additionally, how does the SSA insure that the installations done for
the 2006 racing season actually work versus merely demonstrating that
an "expensive" new box has been permanently mounted inside the
fuselage?

All thought and feedback appreciated.

mhr

[[email protected]]

SSA Contest Rules Subcommittee reviewed the action proposed last year
and has revised proposed action for 2006 and forward. Text of rule
that will be proposed to the SSA BOD is as follows:
ELTs

No longer does an ELT have to be TSOed.

6.5.2 When announced by contest organizers prior to the Preferential
Entry Deadline, an impact-activated Emergency Locator Transmitter (ELT)
is required in every sailplane.

This will permit organizers that see fit to require ELT's but not make
them mandatory across the board.
The minutes of the Fall RC meeting and Draft Rules will be published
for review in the next week or so.
H Nixon
UH
SSA Contest Rules Subcommittee chair

[Paul Remde]

Hi,

This is great news! If I understand correctly, ELTs will only be required
if the contest organizers require them. Although I sell ELTs, I was against
making them mandatory at all contests because I feared that it would keep
many potential new contest pilots from competing due to the high cost.

Good Soaring,

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

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> SSA Contest Rules Subcommittee reviewed the action proposed last year
> and has revised proposed action for 2006 and forward. Text of rule
> that will be proposed to the SSA BOD is as follows:
> ELTs
>
> No longer does an ELT have to be TSOed.
>
> 6.5.2 When announced by contest organizers prior to the Preferential
> Entry Deadline, an impact-activated Emergency Locator Transmitter (ELT)
> is required in every sailplane.
>
> This will permit organizers that see fit to require ELT's but not make
> them mandatory across the board.
> The minutes of the Fall RC meeting and Draft Rules will be published
> for review in the next week or so.
> H Nixon
> UH
> SSA Contest Rules Subcommittee chair
>

[Rex]

BE VERY CAREFUL.
If you own a sailplane with a STANDARD AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATE, and
you choose to install an ELT, it must be one that is TSO'd and the
installation must be done in accordance with an STC or a FAA field
approval.

I have seen and heard about many pilots who have purchased these units
from their favorite vendor and stuck it in their glider. If you do
not do a legal installation, you may be putting your insurance coverage
in jepardy.

If the contest committe would abolish the pst and tat and go back to
real glider racing ie AST, the hysteria about installing ELTs would go
away. We would narrow the search pattern for lost pilots and in most
cases increase the odds of having witnessed losses. This would be REAL
safety reform.

I do believe that installing ELTs in gliders that are flown cross
country in general is good and a responsible thing to do. I find it
ironic that years ago the SSA went to bat for the "good of soaring
pilots in the US" and lobbied the FAA for and exemption to the ELT
rule.

I quess I should probably shut up and lick my chops in anticipation of
all the ELT sales that I am about to be flooded with.

(sigh)

Rex Mayes
Williams Soaring Center

[mhr]

Hi Hank,

Thanks for the feedback.

Your reply was illuminating but still leaves many questions unanswered.

While having the option to mandate ELTs sounds promising, what contest
organizer will not require ELTs knowing that the option exists as part
of the rules. By making this part of the rules, the situation exists
that each contest organizer will require them to mitigate potential
liability. If another tragedy does occur, the contest organizer that
did not require ELTs will surely be sued. Hence, who will not require
them to preclude or limit liability issues?

So, if we assume that ELTs will be required by all contest managers,
the potential competitor is still faced with installation issues,
arising primarily form antenna location and effectiveness; and the
contest manager is still faced with assurance issues that each
installation meets the intent of the rules and operates as required.

The bottom line is that we now have a rule that presents problems for
both the contest pilot (how do I install an operable system?) and the
contest organizer (it would be foolish not to mandate ELT usage for
liability protection but how do I know that the systems actually work?)

While the intent and spirit of the rule is admirable, it seems that the
implementation of this rule has not been well thought through.

As usual, all feedback and discussion appreciated.

mhr

[[email protected]]

I must be missing something. ELTs are not required in glider by the
FAA, also flight recorders, GPS systems, CAI 302, Borgelt B500, Ilec
SN10, LX 7007, PDA's with software are not required in gliders by the
FAA. None of the systems I mentioned are TSO'd. Does this mean STC or
FFA field approvals are required for these instruments and my insurance
may be in jepardy if I have any of these systems installed by myself or
a favorite vendor in a Standard Airworthiness Certificated Glider.

I also sell ELT's, they are very inexpensive $183.75. I believe that
they are a good idea especially in some of the areas that we typically
fly.

Richard
www.craggyaero.com

Rex wrote:
> BE VERY CAREFUL.
> If you own a sailplane with a STANDARD AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATE, and
> you choose to install an ELT, it must be one that is TSO'd and the
> installation must be done in accordance with an STC or a FAA field
> approval.
>
> I have seen and heard about many pilots who have purchased these units
> from their favorite vendor and stuck it in their glider. If you do
> not do a legal installation, you may be putting your insurance coverage
> in jepardy.
>
> If the contest committe would abolish the pst and tat and go back to
> real glider racing ie AST, the hysteria about installing ELTs would go
> away. We would narrow the search pattern for lost pilots and in most
> cases increase the odds of having witnessed losses. This would be REAL
> safety reform.
>
> I do believe that installing ELTs in gliders that are flown cross
> country in general is good and a responsible thing to do. I find it
> ironic that years ago the SSA went to bat for the "good of soaring
> pilots in the US" and lobbied the FAA for and exemption to the ELT
> rule.
>
> I quess I should probably shut up and lick my chops in anticipation of
> all the ELT sales that I am about to be flooded with.
>
> (sigh)
>
> Rex Mayes
> Williams Soaring Center

[Bill Daniels]

I'm not sure TSO is a requirement. I have had non-TSO'd equipment installed
in certified aircraft by avionics shops who took care of the 337.

I agree that carrying an ELT of some kind is responsible but it grates to
see obsolescent equipment mandated by what could be seen as a CYA scenario.
To mandate parachutes be worn by the pilot and then mandate the ELT to be
fitted to the glider seems nonsensical. In Colorado's rough terrain, it
doesn't seem reasonable to me that a parachuting pilot would necessarily
land near the wreckage.

My plan is to buy a 406Mhz GPS unit that will be attached to my parachute
harness. If an outlanding is imminent, I will turn it on. If the landing
goes well, I will turn it back off and contact the SAR folks ASAP to say
nevermind. I would plan to contact contest managers in advance to state my
position and, if they didn't agree, I'd just stick with the OLC.

BTW, I just turned my handheld comm to 121.5 and got a strong ELT signal.
Since I'm in my home office in suburban metro Denver, It's a fair guess that
an aircraft at KAPA 4 miles away has a tripped ELT although there are
several glider owners within that range may have ELT's installed.

Bill Daniels

"Rex" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> BE VERY CAREFUL.
> If you own a sailplane with a STANDARD AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATE, and
> you choose to install an ELT, it must be one that is TSO'd and the
> installation must be done in accordance with an STC or a FAA field
> approval.
>
> I have seen and heard about many pilots who have purchased these units
> from their favorite vendor and stuck it in their glider. If you do
> not do a legal installation, you may be putting your insurance coverage
> in jepardy.
>
> If the contest committe would abolish the pst and tat and go back to
> real glider racing ie AST, the hysteria about installing ELTs would go
> away. We would narrow the search pattern for lost pilots and in most
> cases increase the odds of having witnessed losses. This would be REAL
> safety reform.
>
> I do believe that installing ELTs in gliders that are flown cross
> country in general is good and a responsible thing to do. I find it
> ironic that years ago the SSA went to bat for the "good of soaring
> pilots in the US" and lobbied the FAA for and exemption to the ELT
> rule.
>
> I quess I should probably shut up and lick my chops in anticipation of
> all the ELT sales that I am about to be flooded with.
>
> (sigh)
>
> Rex Mayes
> Williams Soaring Center
>

[Greg Arnold]

This has been a recurring discussion topic on RAS. However, before it
dealt with the question of the legal requirements. Now, it has been
expanded to the question of whether your insurance will cover you.

I don't understand how an insurance company could deny coverage because
something in the glider (which had no effect on the cause of the damage)
was not legal. If my ELT is not legal or does not have a legal
installation, can the insurance company deny coverage if I groundloop on
landing and break the fuselage? That doesn't seem logical to me.



wrote:
> I must be missing something. ELTs are not required in glider by the
> FAA, also flight recorders, GPS systems, CAI 302, Borgelt B500, Ilec
> SN10, LX 7007, PDA's with software are not required in gliders by the
> FAA. None of the systems I mentioned are TSO'd. Does this mean STC or
> FFA field approvals are required for these instruments and my insurance
> may be in jepardy if I have any of these systems installed by myself or
> a favorite vendor in a Standard Airworthiness Certificated Glider.
>
> I also sell ELT's, they are very inexpensive $183.75. I believe that
> they are a good idea especially in some of the areas that we typically
> fly.
>
> Richard
> www.craggyaero.com
>
> Rex wrote:
>> BE VERY CAREFUL.
>> If you own a sailplane with a STANDARD AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATE, and
>> you choose to install an ELT, it must be one that is TSO'd and the
>> installation must be done in accordance with an STC or a FAA field
>> approval.
>>
>> I have seen and heard about many pilots who have purchased these units
>> from their favorite vendor and stuck it in their glider. If you do
>> not do a legal installation, you may be putting your insurance coverage
>> in jepardy.
>>
>> If the contest committe would abolish the pst and tat and go back to
>> real glider racing ie AST, the hysteria about installing ELTs would go
>> away. We would narrow the search pattern for lost pilots and in most
>> cases increase the odds of having witnessed losses. This would be REAL
>> safety reform.
>>
>> I do believe that installing ELTs in gliders that are flown cross
>> country in general is good and a responsible thing to do. I find it
>> ironic that years ago the SSA went to bat for the "good of soaring
>> pilots in the US" and lobbied the FAA for and exemption to the ELT
>> rule.
>>
>> I quess I should probably shut up and lick my chops in anticipation of
>> all the ELT sales that I am about to be flooded with.
>>
>> (sigh)
>>
>> Rex Mayes
>> Williams Soaring Center
>

[[email protected]]

I fly with a 406 MHz PLB on my parachute harness and will probably add
a 406 MHz ELT to the glider at some point. The PLB is only useful if I
survive a parachute out or a crash and can turn it on and extend the
antenna and it can get good sight to a satellite (some require a manual
antenna extension, some extend when you pull the tab to turn the PLB
on).

Bill Daniels wrote:
[snip]
> I agree that carrying an ELT of some kind is responsible but it grates to
> see obsolescent equipment mandated by what could be seen as a CYA scenario.
> To mandate parachutes be worn by the pilot and then mandate the ELT to be
> fitted to the glider seems nonsensical. In Colorado's rough terrain, it
> doesn't seem reasonable to me that a parachuting pilot would necessarily
> land near the wreckage.

Then have a 406 MHz PLB on your parachute as well. Even without this
you are probably going to land within a few miles of the wreckage, and
with a 406 MHz PLB in the glider that is still going to help find you.
If they find the glider without pilot/parachute it is pretty obvious
you bailed out and that helps keep search teams focusing on finding you
nearby.

> My plan is to buy a 406Mhz GPS unit that will be attached to my parachute
> harness. If an outlanding is imminent, I will turn it on. If the landing
> goes well, I will turn it back off and contact the SAR folks ASAP to say
> nevermind. I would plan to contact contest managers in advance to state my
> position and, if they didn't agree, I'd just stick with the OLC.

You can't be serious right? Since when is an outlanding an emergency
justifying a PLB/ELT activation? If you are over a forrest etc. and
have no other options them by all means try whatever you want. Turning
on a PLB prior to an outlanding won't do much unless you extend the
antenna. Even if you extended the antenna and got a signal out how do
you think you are going to notify CAP or anybody else that it was an
"precautionary" activation - not something they may be happy with you
doing anyhow. Then don't even get me started about the distraction of
trying to activate this and the antenna flopping around in the cockpit
while you are trying to land.

> BTW, I just turned my handheld comm to 121.5 and got a strong ELT signal.
> Since I'm in my home office in suburban metro Denver, It's a fair guess that
> an aircraft at KAPA 4 miles away has a tripped ELT although there are
> several glider owners within that range may have ELT's installed.

121.5 is full of noise, a 406 MHz signal is going to get more
attention. And since they know exactly who you are from the signal you
can expect followup. As for those cheap few hundred dollar 121.5 ELTs,
given the much better performance of 406 MHz ELTs/PLBs and I don't see
why people are bothering with the 121.5 units.

Darryl Ramm
6DX

[Bill Daniels]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> I fly with a 406 MHz PLB on my parachute harness and will probably add
> a 406 MHz ELT to the glider at some point. The PLB is only useful if I
> survive a parachute out or a crash and can turn it on and extend the
> antenna and it can get good sight to a satellite (some require a manual
> antenna extension, some extend when you pull the tab to turn the PLB
> on).
>
> Bill Daniels wrote:
> [snip]

> > My plan is to buy a 406Mhz GPS unit that will be attached to my
parachute
> > harness. If an outlanding is imminent, I will turn it on. If the
landing
> > goes well, I will turn it back off and contact the SAR folks ASAP to say
> > nevermind. I would plan to contact contest managers in advance to state
my
> > position and, if they didn't agree, I'd just stick with the OLC.
>
> You can't be serious right? Since when is an outlanding an emergency
> justifying a PLB/ELT activation? If you are over a forrest etc. and
> have no other options them by all means try whatever you want. Turning
> on a PLB prior to an outlanding won't do much unless you extend the
> antenna. Even if you extended the antenna and got a signal out how do
> you think you are going to notify CAP or anybody else that it was an
> "precautionary" activation - not something they may be happy with you
> doing anyhow. Then don't even get me started about the distraction of
> trying to activate this and the antenna flopping around in the cockpit
> while you are trying to land.
>

You bet I'm serious. I don't think it would hard at all to convince the
CAP or any other SAR group that landing a motorless aircraft in a remote
area justifies a precautionary ELT activation. (BTW, I've already asked
them.) If I couldn't convince them, my a** is more important than their
regulations anyway. As for distraction, I fly WAY ahead of my glider -
nothing is done at the last minute. I'd have the antenna extended at 2000'
AGL and note the switch position so it could be activated on downwind.

Bill Daniels

[[email protected]]

Part of the research on this was a poll of contest managers and CD's
who worked during 2005.
On the subject of making mandatory 10 of 28 favored this.
Of those saying no to mandatory, 12 said yes to making it available by
organizer option.
6 said no to either option.
This guidance, in addition to the Poll response, was considered in the
decision to make the option available to organizers as a part of the
rules without requiring a waiver.
I'm not convinced all organizers will require them- far from it. Nor do
I think they are sure to be sued since they will not be the cause of
the accident.
That said,I sincerely hope none of them has to answer the question "Why
did you not require this safety device when it could have helped save a
life?"
As a long time racer, and member of the rules committee, I personally
can't see how to make any case for not requiring them. That said, I am
in the minority on this and support the half way approach as what is to
go forward.
Have one friend missing for one night and you will understand.
As to the assertion that this has not been thought through, this is
simply not the case. You may not agree with the result, but I can
assure you this has been considered with great care and in
consideration of the opinions of many.
Respectfully
UH

[mhr]

Hi UH,

Thanks for the feedback.

Nevertheless, I am back to my original set of questions regarding the
best approach to compliance.

Does one only "jury-rig" a system to meet compliance or will one need
some certification that one's installation is actually functional.

These questions are particularly pertinent to owners of experimentally
certificated gliders since the owner can do all the work. As well, for
owners of experimentally certificated gliders made of carbon fiber, a
functional installation could be quite difficult unless the new antenna
is mounted externally, which no racer would want to do.

Still waiting to see a well thought out policy with respect to the
intent of the rule.

So far, none of the replies seems coherent on this topic.

mhr

[Jack]

mhr wrote:

> ...the contest manager is still faced with assurance issues that each
> installation meets the intent of the rules and operates as required.

Isn't that going a bit too far? Will the CM also be reviewing all the
aircraft log books? How about making sure that each tire and wheel
assembly on each glider meets the letter of the law too?

Maybe we could just have annual-inspection contests, or even concours
d'elegance, rather than risking our precious jewels (personal &
otherwise) by putting them in the air.


Jack

[Rex]

Richard,
It is contrary to the FARs to make modifications to type certificated
aircraft with out approval of the Administator. The age old argument
is "what constitutes a modification".

Most mechanics that work closely with a FAA inspector will tell you
that even the smallest addition of equipment is considered a
modification that requires approval data. Non tso'd varios and gps nav
systems are consider by many to be non-essential equipment and belived
to be leagal to install in type certificated gliders. The only people
that can approve the installation of this equipment in these sailplanes
is the glider manufacturer. Many inspectors and DARs look the
otherway and do not take issue with these instruments.
But the FARs are clear.

When push comes to shove, if you have a standard type certificated
glider, you better have properly approved installations for any
equipment installed. In the case of an accident, the offending
equiptment does not have to be a causal factor of the accident for the
Insurance company to find your glider unairworthy therefore in breech
of the policy.

This seems like a dooms day, naysayer's view but ask your insurance
agent if you are covered when you operate your glider out of annual.
Operating your glider with unapproved equipment installed is the same
thing. This is the main benefit to hold an experimental airworthiness
certificate for your glider.

Rex.

[bumper]

"Rex" > wrote in message In the case of an
accident, the offending
> equiptment does not have to be a causal factor of the accident for the
> Insurance company to find your glider unairworthy therefore in breech
> of the policy.
> Rex.
>

Everything I've read and heard from insurance agents says this is not the
case. If the "illegal" equipment is not causal or contributory in any way to
the incident/accident, insurance companies have not been successful, in the
courts, in denying coverage.

bumper

[Bob Kuykendall]

Earlier, Rex wrote:

> Most mechanics that work closely with a FAA inspector will tell you
> that even the smallest addition of equipment is considered a
> modification that requires approval data. Non tso'd varios and gps nav
> systems are consider by many to be non-essential equipment and belived
> to be leagal to install in type certificated gliders. The only people
> that can approve the installation of this equipment in these sailplanes
> is the glider manufacturer. Many inspectors and DARs look the
> otherway and do not take issue with these instruments.
> But the FARs are clear...

Ah, if the FARs are clear, please cite them by number.

On the topic of TSOs, 337s, and "Major Alterations," I still think that
this 1996 Rod Farlee post sums up the situation best:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.owning/msg/bbcf7fe9b9e52da3

Quoted:

> To install non-TSO'd equipment, there
> is no requirement for an STC. A 377
> "Major Alteration" form is needed only
> if the installation requires structural
> modifications to the airplane or
> fabrication of a mounting tray.
> Otherwise, it requires only a logbook
> entry by a radio shop or A&P with
> avionics inspection authorization that
> the physical installation conforms to
> AC 43 standard practices, and noting
> any change in aircraft weight and balance.
>...
> There is enough confusion among FAA
> FSDO inspectors over the new PMA
> requirements that some of them seem to
> be making up there own rules in this area,
> but let's not make up our own!

Thanks, and best regards to all

Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com

[Greg Arnold]

On Rex's view, most of the Standard gliders in the USA are not
airworthy. Yet I am under the impression that insurance companies are
not denying coverage on that basis.


bumper wrote:
> "Rex" > wrote in message In the case of an
> accident, the offending
>> equiptment does not have to be a causal factor of the accident for the
>> Insurance company to find your glider unairworthy therefore in breech
>> of the policy.
>> Rex.
>>
>
> Everything I've read and heard from insurance agents says this is not the
> case. If the "illegal" equipment is not causal or contributory in any way to
> the incident/accident, insurance companies have not been successful, in the
> courts, in denying coverage.
>
> bumper
>
>
>

[Eric Greenwell]

Rex wrote:

> When push comes to shove, if you have a standard type certificated
> glider, you better have properly approved installations for any
> equipment installed. In the case of an accident, the offending
> equiptment does not have to be a causal factor of the accident for the
> Insurance company to find your glider unairworthy therefore in breech
> of the policy.

This is not the case with insurance through the SSA. Pat Costello has
said, and written, many times that insurance will not be denied unless
the equipment was a factor in the accident. I think any insurance
company that tried to do business this way would soon find they had no
business.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Eric Greenwell]

mhr wrote:

> These questions are particularly pertinent to owners of experimentally
> certificated gliders since the owner can do all the work. As well, for
> owners of experimentally certificated gliders made of carbon fiber, a
> functional installation could be quite difficult unless the new antenna
> is mounted externally, which no racer would want to do.

There are alternatives for the gliders that can not install an antenna
in the fuselage, such as one in the cockpit; for example, I've seen
rubber ducky type mounted on the cockpit sill even with the pilot's
shoulder or more rearward. My unit is mounted like that, but with a whip
style instead of the ducky style. Schleicher gliders are not carbon
above the baggage area, so an antenna can be mounted there.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Eric Greenwell]

mhr wrote:

> By making this part of the rules, the situation exists
> that each contest organizer will require them to mitigate potential
> liability. If another tragedy does occur, the contest organizer that
> did not require ELTs will surely be sued.

"Surely"? On what possible basis can an organizer be sued for not
requiring equipment that the pilot is allowed to install, and even the
FAA does not require? Especially since the pilot knows well in advance
that ELTs are not going to be required, and could elect not to enter.
Accepting risks is inherent in entering a contest, and this risk seems
minute compared to the other risks he and the organizers accept.

I would like to hear opinions from experienced liability lawyers, but
I'm not interested in guesses "supported" (for example) with generic
worries about what litigious society we are. Surely (there's that word
again!) we would have heard from Costello and Associates, the people in
charge of our contest insurance, if liability was a concern for this rule.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[[email protected]]

Eric,

Do all Schleicher gliders lack carbon fiber above the baggage
compartment?

For example, is that true of my ASW-27 (sn 29)?

How far back does the carbon free area go?

If so, is that a reasonable location for a transponder antenna?

I want to install a transponder, but I will not use an external
antenna.

Thanks,

Bob Zahradnik
Durango, CO


Eric Greenwell wrote:
> mhr wrote:
>
> > These questions are particularly pertinent to owners of experimentally
> > certificated gliders since the owner can do all the work. As well, for
> > owners of experimentally certificated gliders made of carbon fiber, a
> > functional installation could be quite difficult unless the new antenna
> > is mounted externally, which no racer would want to do.
>
> There are alternatives for the gliders that can not install an antenna
> in the fuselage, such as one in the cockpit; for example, I've seen
> rubber ducky type mounted on the cockpit sill even with the pilot's
> shoulder or more rearward. My unit is mounted like that, but with a whip
> style instead of the ducky style. Schleicher gliders are not carbon
> above the baggage area, so an antenna can be mounted there.
>
> --
> Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> Eric Greenwell
> Washington State
> USA

[Greg Arnold]

In my 1998 '24B, you could tell where the carbon was just by the color
of the fiberglass above the spar area.



wrote:
> Eric,
>
> Do all Schleicher gliders lack carbon fiber above the baggage
> compartment?
>
> For example, is that true of my ASW-27 (sn 29)?
>
> How far back does the carbon free area go?
>
> If so, is that a reasonable location for a transponder antenna?
>
> I want to install a transponder, but I will not use an external
> antenna.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bob Zahradnik
> Durango, CO
>
>
> Eric Greenwell wrote:
>> mhr wrote:
>>
>>> These questions are particularly pertinent to owners of experimentally
>>> certificated gliders since the owner can do all the work. As well, for
>>> owners of experimentally certificated gliders made of carbon fiber, a
>>> functional installation could be quite difficult unless the new antenna
>>> is mounted externally, which no racer would want to do.
>> There are alternatives for the gliders that can not install an antenna
>> in the fuselage, such as one in the cockpit; for example, I've seen
>> rubber ducky type mounted on the cockpit sill even with the pilot's
>> shoulder or more rearward. My unit is mounted like that, but with a whip
>> style instead of the ducky style. Schleicher gliders are not carbon
>> above the baggage area, so an antenna can be mounted there.
>>
>> --
>> Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>>
>> Eric Greenwell
>> Washington State
>> USA
>

[Eric Greenwell]

wrote:

> Eric,
>
> Do all Schleicher gliders lack carbon fiber above the baggage
> compartment?
>
> For example, is that true of my ASW-27 (sn 29)?

My ASH 26 E is carbon free in that area, but I don't know about all
Schleichers. There is some right over where the spars go through the
fuselage, but mostly it's non-carbon (glass or aramid - don't know
which). It will be black if there is carbon there, and
greenish/yellowish if it's not.

The dealer, John Murray, may be able to tell you what other pilots have
done, and save you reinventing the wheel. I wonder if an antenna could
be incorporated into the headrest, which I think is fiberglass on my glider.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[[email protected]]

Two years ago Tom Brenza did a nice job installing an ELT behind the
seatback on the left. The whip antenna then curls up along the roof of
the luggage compartment. I guess he knew that that section was not
carbon.

I've talked to John about this, and while he is usually very helpful,
he had little transponder experience.

The headreast idea may work for an ELT antenna, but my tired old brain
doesn't need a transponder antenna transmitting right behind my head.

Behind the spars would be ideal if it would work.

Bob Zahradnik
Durango, CO

[M B]

The last time I read it, ELTs are mandatory, not
optional at all, has this changed?

'8. Required use of ELTs (RCM 26, 27, Minor)
The use of ELT's will become a mandatory requirement
for entry to all SSA competitions beginning in 2006.'


I am waiting to see the # of entries in contests
the first year this is implemented. I am especially
interested in comparing the # of 'new' contest entrants
in 2006 compared to the previous 3 years or so.

I am guessing there will be more than a 20% decrease
in total contest participants the first year glider-mounted
ELTs are required in all SSA contests. I am also guessing
that some classes/entire contests will be cancelled
from lack of participation if this rule is fully implemented
this way.

But I've been wrong before. The fact that UH is
responding to this thread makes me think that more
flexible options are being well considered. Perhaps
this rule will be morphed into a better solution.

In any case, I am heartened to see lively discussion
about this subject...

I would like to see a new poll:
Question-Are you in favor of mandatory requirement
of permanently installed impact activated ELTs in every
glider in every SSA soaring contest?

Mark

At 20:42 02 December 2005, wrote:
>Part of the research on this was a poll of contest
>managers and CD's
>who worked during 2005.
>On the subject of making mandatory 10 of 28 favored
>this.
>Of those saying no to mandatory, 12 said yes to making
>it available by
>organizer option.
>6 said no to either option.
>This guidance, in addition to the Poll response, was
>considered in the
>decision to make the option available to organizers
>as a part of the
>rules without requiring a waiver.
>I'm not convinced all organizers will require them-
>far from it. Nor do
>I think they are sure to be sued since they will not
>be the cause of
>the accident.
>That said,I sincerely hope none of them has to answer
>the question 'Why
>did you not require this safety device when it could
>have helped save a
>life?'
>As a long time racer, and member of the rules committee,
>I personally
>can't see how to make any case for not requiring them.
>That said, I am
>in the minority on this and support the half way approach
>as what is to
>go forward.
>Have one friend missing for one night and you will
>understand.
>As to the assertion that this has not been thought
>through, this is
>simply not the case. You may not agree with the result,
>but I can
>assure you this has been considered with great care
>and in
>consideration of the opinions of many.
>Respectfully
>UH
>
>
Mark J. Boyd

[M B]

The last time I read it, ELTs are mandatory, not
optional at all, has this changed?

'8. Required use of ELTs (RCM 26, 27, Minor)
The use of ELT's will become a mandatory requirement
for entry to all SSA competitions beginning in 2006.'


I am waiting to see the # of entries in contests
the first year this is implemented. I am especially
interested in comparing the # of 'new' contest entrants
in 2006 compared to the previous 3 years or so.

I am guessing there will be more than a 20% decrease
in total contest participants the first year glider-mounted
ELTs are required in all SSA contests. I am also guessing
that some classes/entire contests will be cancelled
from lack of participation if this rule is fully implemented
this way.

But I've been wrong before. The fact that UH is
responding to this thread makes me think that more
flexible options are being well considered. Perhaps
this rule will be morphed into a better solution.

In any case, I am heartened to see lively discussion
about this subject...

I would like to see a new poll:
Question-Are you in favor of mandatory requirement
of permanently installed impact activated ELTs in every
glider in every SSA soaring contest?

Mark

At 20:42 02 December 2005, wrote:
>Part of the research on this was a poll of contest
>managers and CD's
>who worked during 2005.
>On the subject of making mandatory 10 of 28 favored
>this.
>Of those saying no to mandatory, 12 said yes to making
>it available by
>organizer option.
>6 said no to either option.
>This guidance, in addition to the Poll response, was
>considered in the
>decision to make the option available to organizers
>as a part of the
>rules without requiring a waiver.
>I'm not convinced all organizers will require them-
>far from it. Nor do
>I think they are sure to be sued since they will not
>be the cause of
>the accident.
>That said,I sincerely hope none of them has to answer
>the question 'Why
>did you not require this safety device when it could
>have helped save a
>life?'
>As a long time racer, and member of the rules committee,
>I personally
>can't see how to make any case for not requiring them.
>That said, I am
>in the minority on this and support the half way approach
>as what is to
>go forward.
>Have one friend missing for one night and you will
>understand.
>As to the assertion that this has not been thought
>through, this is
>simply not the case. You may not agree with the result,
>but I can
>assure you this has been considered with great care
>and in
>consideration of the opinions of many.
>Respectfully
>UH
>
>
Mark J. Boyd

[[email protected]]

Too much "chicken little" there, Mark!

I purchased and installed an impact activated ELT in my glider for less
than $100 so I could race this past season. I doubt if the cost of an
ELT is going to make the difference between racing and not racing for
most people, especially since it is actually a potentially useful
addition to one's glider!

Let's see - $1000 for a logger, $3000 for a glide computer/vario, $750
for a PDA and software, $1500 for a nice comfortable parachute, etc...
Racing isn't cheap - in any sport!

I would think that anyone who can afford a glider and the cost of going
to a race will be able to foot the one time expense of the ELT.

Now, what we really need is FLARM in all contestants to actually try to
avoid midairs!

Kirk
66

[Eric Greenwell]

wrote:

> Too much "chicken little" there, Mark!
>
> I purchased and installed an impact activated ELT in my glider for less
> than $100 so I could race this past season.

So, tell us what model it is, where your got it, and how you dealt with
the antenna!

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[[email protected]]

Eric,

It's a Filser ELT-2, non-TSO european glider ELT. Fits over the spars
in my LS6, with the rubber ducky (and on-off switch) just behind my
headrest.

W & W lists it for $219 or so - I ordered mine from a competitor (who
doesn't seem to carry them any more) and paid half that. Lucky, I
guess, since it was listed for $200 or so.

I installed it myself on my battery tray - it happens to be the same
size as my old (and deceased) GR1000 logger, and fit in the same mount.
Its totally self contained, so no wires to fiddle with, and I don't
have carbon fiber in the fuselage to worry about.

I just arm it before takeoff and check 121.5 on my radio before and
after flight.

The point is - there are a lot of options out there - especially now
that the TSO requirement will apparently be dropped - and cost
shouldn't be a real hindrance. After all, you are adding a good piece
of safety equipment to your glider that is probably as likely to save
your life as your parachute!

Kirk
66

[jphoenix]

Eric,

I installed mine this past weekend, the antenna is located forward and
under the instrument panel glareshield, attached to the rudder pedal
bracket and installed within 20° of vertical as required by the
manual.

AmeriKing, $206 including shipping from Paul Remde.

See details here: www.jimphoenix.com

Jim

Eric Greenwell wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > Too much "chicken little" there, Mark!
> >
> > I purchased and installed an impact activated ELT in my glider for less
> > than $100 so I could race this past season.
>
> So, tell us what model it is, where your got it, and how you dealt with
> the antenna!
>
> --
> Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> Eric Greenwell
> Washington State
> USA

[[email protected]]

Mark, Read 3 above for current info.
UH

[Paul Remde]

Hi Jim,

Thanks for doing such an excellent job of documenting your ELT installation.
That is a valuable resource for glider pilots! Excellent!

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

"jphoenix" > wrote in message
ups.com...
Eric,

I installed mine this past weekend, the antenna is located forward and
under the instrument panel glareshield, attached to the rudder pedal
bracket and installed within 20° of vertical as required by the
manual.

AmeriKing, $206 including shipping from Paul Remde.

See details here: www.jimphoenix.com

Jim

Eric Greenwell wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > Too much "chicken little" there, Mark!
> >
> > I purchased and installed an impact activated ELT in my glider for less
> > than $100 so I could race this past season.
>
> So, tell us what model it is, where your got it, and how you dealt with
> the antenna!
>
> --
> Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> Eric Greenwell
> Washington State
> USA

[Eric Greenwell]

jphoenix wrote:
> Eric,
>
> I installed mine this past weekend, the antenna is located forward and
> under the instrument panel glareshield, attached to the rudder pedal
> bracket and installed within 20° of vertical as required by the
> manual.
>
> AmeriKing, $206 including shipping from Paul Remde.
>
> See details here: www.jimphoenix.com

That looks like a good installation, though I'd be concerned the antenna
would be damaged by in crash. It's still better than no ELT, but the
front of the cockpit is more likely to be significantly damaged than the
rear of the cockpit. Perhaps a rubber ducky mounted on a top corner of
the seat back would survive better, though it might not have the output
power of the longer whip.


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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Tim Mara]

> jphoenix wrote:
>> I installed mine this past weekend, the antenna is located forward and
>> under the instrument panel glareshield, attached to the rudder pedal
>> bracket and installed within 20° of vertical as required by the
>> manual.
>>
>> AmeriKing, $206 including shipping from Paul Remde.

I have sold and installed the Ameri-King ELT's (I still sell these for just
$189.00) and other ELT's using a variety of antenna installations, usually a
rubber duck mounted on a metal ground plane in the baggage area is the
easiest and cleanest installation, providing you don't have a carbon fiber
or metal fuselage. I've also seen installations of the same antenna type
from some glider manufacturers mounted on simple brackets in the cockpit
that provide little of no ground plane....I have "unscientifically tested"
my own installations and they work, at least TX with reasonable strength and
range but I don't know how well the antenna performs without some ground
plane. Some time ago I did however speak with someone at Ameri-King who told
me then they actually certified their AK-450 while it was simply sitting on
a wing without an antenna attached (there is also a telescoping antenna
provided with the ELT so it can be used as a portable unit as well).
Consider though that handheld radios use nothing more than the radio body as
the grounding plane, and they do work, although not with the same range or
power as an external antenna, and it's easy to see that most antenna
installations will allow transmit, if even at less than optimum.
Also keep in mind the ground plane doe not have to be a larger metal
plate......it can be wire "whiskers" like many base station antennas use, or
even foil tape (check out any heating supply or even the Home Depot and
you'll find a variety of foil tapes used mostly for heating ductwork and the
ground plane issue becomes a " non-issue" very simply.
best regards
Tim
Wings & Wheels
www.wingsandwheels.com

[Paul Remde]

Hi,

Just to clarify. I sell the AmeriKing ELT for $195. Just $8 more than Tim.
I try to be competitive with Tim and other online competitors. One some
products I'm a little more, on some a little less.

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

"Tim Mara" > wrote in message
...
>> jphoenix wrote:
>>> I installed mine this past weekend, the antenna is located forward and
>>> under the instrument panel glareshield, attached to the rudder pedal
>>> bracket and installed within 20° of vertical as required by the
>>> manual.
>>>
>>> AmeriKing, $206 including shipping from Paul Remde.
>
> I have sold and installed the Ameri-King ELT's (I still sell these for
> just $189.00) and other ELT's using a variety of antenna installations,
> usually a rubber duck mounted on a metal ground plane in the baggage area
> is the easiest and cleanest installation, providing you don't have a
> carbon fiber or metal fuselage. I've also seen installations of the same
> antenna type from some glider manufacturers mounted on simple brackets in
> the cockpit that provide little of no ground plane....I have
> "unscientifically tested" my own installations and they work, at least TX
> with reasonable strength and range but I don't know how well the antenna
> performs without some ground plane. Some time ago I did however speak with
> someone at Ameri-King who told me then they actually certified their
> AK-450 while it was simply sitting on a wing without an antenna attached
> (there is also a telescoping antenna provided with the ELT so it can be
> used as a portable unit as well). Consider though that handheld radios use
> nothing more than the radio body as the grounding plane, and they do work,
> although not with the same range or power as an external antenna, and it's
> easy to see that most antenna installations will allow transmit, if even
> at less than optimum.
> Also keep in mind the ground plane doe not have to be a larger metal
> plate......it can be wire "whiskers" like many base station antennas use,
> or even foil tape (check out any heating supply or even the Home Depot and
> you'll find a variety of foil tapes used mostly for heating ductwork and
> the ground plane issue becomes a " non-issue" very simply.
> best regards
> Tim
> Wings & Wheels
> www.wingsandwheels.com
>
>
>

[Eric Greenwell]

Tim Mara wrote:
>>jphoenix wrote:
>>
>>>I installed mine this past weekend, the antenna is located forward and
>>>under the instrument panel glareshield, attached to the rudder pedal
>>>bracket and installed within 20° of vertical as required by the
>>>manual.
>>>
>>>AmeriKing, $206 including shipping from Paul Remde.
>
>
> I have sold and installed the Ameri-King ELT's (I still sell these for just
> $189.00) and other ELT's using a variety of antenna installations, usually a
> rubber duck mounted on a metal ground plane in the baggage area is the
> easiest and cleanest installation, providing you don't have a carbon fiber
> or metal fuselage. I've also seen installations of the same antenna type
> from some glider manufacturers mounted on simple brackets in the cockpit
> that provide little of no ground plane....I have "unscientifically tested"
> my own installations and they work, at least TX with reasonable strength and
> range but I don't know how well the antenna performs without some ground
> plane.

I just tested the antenna from my handheld radio, using a SWR (AKA VSWR)
meter. The SWR was too high (greater than 3) when on a 2 foot long piece
of coax, and acceptable (about 2) when attached directly to the SWR
instrument. So, Tim's suggestions for ground planes make good sense and
could easily double the transmitted power. It is always a good idea to
measure the SWR of any new antenna installation (not antennas mounted on
the directly on the ELT or handheld radio, of course), and every year or
so. VSWR meters can be purchased cheaply or easily borrowed from another
pilot. Check CB radio shops or search Froogle for "SWR meter" for dozens
under $50.

Hmmm, might be a good item for Paul, Richard, or Tim to sell.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[jphoenix]

It's the shipping cost that drives my purchase decisions these days,
Craggy is lowest, but I don't think Richard has the AmeriKing, maybe he
does, can't recall.

Chief Aircraft has the lowest price, but they're not a soaring
supplier, so I put them at the bottom of the list with Wicks, Aircraft
Spruce, etc. - only as a last resort.

Sometimes Tim has stuff Paul or Richard doesn't, or maybe Tom has
something I need that the others don't, but usually, it's the shipping
cost.

Mcmaster-Carr has become a big supplier of Schempp-Hirth parts like pee
tube connectors, aileron control tube bearing balls, flap handles,
metric screws, etc.

So, has anyone calculated the number of ELT's the contest community
will need next year? Figure half the contests will require them, half
the contestants will already have one, etc. etc.? Market research?
Supply chain? Is everyone going to wait until the preferential entry
deadline to decide?

Jim


Paul Remde wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Just to clarify. I sell the AmeriKing ELT for $195. Just $8 more than Tim.
> I try to be competitive with Tim and other online competitors. One some
> products I'm a little more, on some a little less.
>
> Paul Remde
> Cumulus Soaring, Inc.
> http://www.cumulus-soaring.com
>

[Wayne Paul]

"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
...

> Check CB radio shops or search Froogle for "SWR meter" for dozens
> under $50.
>

The standard CB SWR meter's range is 2 to 30 MHz. For accurate measurements
you need one designed for VHF frequencies.

Respectfully,

Wayne
HP-14 N990 "6F"
Ham Radio W7ADK
http://www.soaridaho.com/

[[email protected]]

Craggy does have the AmeriKing AK-450 and at the same price as Chief
$183.75.

Richard
www.craggyaero.com

[jphoenix]

I guess I should have checked at Craggy first!

Next time Richard - there's always something I "need" for my glider.

Jim

[Eric Greenwell]

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:

> "Wayne Paul" > wrote:
>
>
>>>Check CB radio shops or search Froogle for "SWR meter" for dozens
>>>under $50.
>>
>>The standard CB SWR meter's range is 2 to 30 MHz. For accurate measurements
>>you need one designed for VHF frequencies.
>
>
> It's worthwhile comparing the measurements you get with the
> two, which is what I did when I bought my CB-intended SWR
> meter. (Used a Bird for the comparison) The numbers were
> within 0.1 of each other over the entire aircraft band. Of
> course, I bought my Radio Shack meter 10 years ago, so the
> design may have changed. If anyone has a good VHF SWR meter
> and wants to report a comparison with a current Radio Shack
> (or other) model, it would be a valuable piece of
> information.

I did the same comparison (also using a Bird instrument - shouldn't
every glider pilot have a Bird in his tool box?) with a 25 year old
Radio Shack model, and got the same results. Wayne and I discussed the
issue, and concluded that the CB units are probably just fine for SWR
measurements, so use it if you have one. The reason is SWR measurements
are ratio measurements, so frequency effects tend to cancel. Not so if
you want to do power measurements, for example.

Wayne suggested (and I agree) that if you are going to buy one, spend
the extra $10 and get one for our frequencies. Here are couple we think
would do the job, but we haven't actually used either of them:

http://www.thomas-distributing.com/meters-konnex1.htm

http://www.mfjenterprises.com/products.php?prodid=MFJ-812B
(the $29 unit)


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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[mhr]

Hi All,

One option that I have not seen discussed is using the voice
communication antenna already installed in most gliders for both the
comm radio and ELT.

It would seem that a directional coupler could be installed in the
existing RF cable that would direct the ELT transmission to the
communication antenna without going to the comm radio input receiver.

Presumably, if one is hurt severely enough, then voice communications
would be of little value and the ELT transmission would be paramount.

As always, thoughts and feedback appreciated.

mhr

[Eric Greenwell]

Bill Daniels wrote:

>
> You bet I'm serious. I don't think it would hard at all to convince the
> CAP or any other SAR group that landing a motorless aircraft in a remote
> area justifies a precautionary ELT activation. (BTW, I've already asked
> them.) If I couldn't convince them, my a** is more important than their
> regulations anyway. As for distraction, I fly WAY ahead of my glider -
> nothing is done at the last minute. I'd have the antenna extended at 2000'
> AGL and note the switch position so it could be activated on downwind.

This would still not provide a signal in crashes that weren't preceded
by an intent to land, or intended landings that weren't in a remote
area. It would be better than no ELT, I think, but would you be willing
to turn on the ELT every time you were low, including ridge soaring
(Peter Masak's case)? A low save might mean the ELT was on for many
minutes, and ridge soaring might go on for hours.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[01-- Zero One]

"mhr" > wrote in message
oups.com:

> Hi All,
>
> One option that I have not seen discussed is using the voice
> communication antenna already installed in most gliders for both the
> comm radio and ELT.
>
> It would seem that a directional coupler could be installed in the
> existing RF cable that would direct the ELT transmission to the
> communication antenna without going to the comm radio input receiver.
>
> Presumably, if one is hurt severely enough, then voice communications
> would be of little value and the ELT transmission would be paramount.
>
> As always, thoughts and feedback appreciated.
>
> mhr



One downside of this is that most of the comm antennae are in the tail.
Frequently the empennage separates from the rest of the fuselage in an
accident. and even in a fair number of ground loops. I think nearer to
the ELT would be better.



Larry

"01" USA

[309]

Jim's web site on his ELT installation is very informative, and he
brings up a good point about testing the function of your ELT, whether
it's required by "FAR" or not. Here's another good reason TO test.

Several years back, I installed an AmeriKing ELT in my 1-26. When my
A&P/IA and I went to test it, nothing happened. We found that the
battery label on the bottom case was mislabeled, so the batteries did
not form a continuous chain, ergo, no electricity was supplied to the
unit, not it banged or switched on. When we turnd the base around, it
worked fine. So we "corrected" the label on the case and it's checked
out fine every year when we exercise it, need to or not. And I DO hope
that those are the ONLY times that my ELT sees use.

And this should serve as a word to those wise enough to install the
AmeriKing units (or those from ANY manufacturer). Since batteries are
cheap, I try to replace them at each annual, including the remote
switch battery (a pesky 2/3 A cell, though available at Radio Shack).
The six D cells get used in any number of flashlights or toys over the
year, they've still got most of their charge from sitting in the glider
unused.

Fly safe,

-Pete

jphoenix wrote:
> Eric,
>
> I installed mine this past weekend, the antenna is located forward and
> under the instrument panel glareshield, attached to the rudder pedal
> bracket and installed within 20° of vertical as required by the
> manual.
>
> AmeriKing, $206 including shipping from Paul Remde.
>
> See details here: www.jimphoenix.com
>
>

[01-- Zero One]

To be completely legal, you very well may need to use a particular brand
of battery. Those will be specified in the manual. The ones most often
specified that I have seen are the Duracell -- because they have a
printed expiration date on each cell and are rather ubiquitous.
Therefore, the batteries must be "in date" and of the approved brand to
be legal.



Larry




"309" > wrote in message
oups.com:

> Jim's web site on his ELT installation is very informative, and he
> brings up a good point about testing the function of your ELT, whether
> it's required by "FAR" or not. Here's another good reason TO test.
>
> Several years back, I installed an AmeriKing ELT in my 1-26. When my
> A&P/IA and I went to test it, nothing happened. We found that the
> battery label on the bottom case was mislabeled, so the batteries did
> not form a continuous chain, ergo, no electricity was supplied to the
> unit, not it banged or switched on. When we turnd the base around, it
> worked fine. So we "corrected" the label on the case and it's checked
> out fine every year when we exercise it, need to or not. And I DO hope
> that those are the ONLY times that my ELT sees use.
>
> And this should serve as a word to those wise enough to install the
> AmeriKing units (or those from ANY manufacturer). Since batteries are
> cheap, I try to replace them at each annual, including the remote
> switch battery (a pesky 2/3 A cell, though available at Radio Shack).
> The six D cells get used in any number of flashlights or toys over the
> year, they've still got most of their charge from sitting in the glider
> unused.
>
> Fly safe,
>
> -Pete
>
> jphoenix wrote:
> > Eric,
> >
> > I installed mine this past weekend, the antenna is located forward and
> > under the instrument panel glareshield, attached to the rudder pedal
> > bracket and installed within 20° of vertical as required by the
> > manual.
> >
> > AmeriKing, $206 including shipping from Paul Remde.
> >
> > See details here: www.jimphoenix.com
> >
> >

[309]

01-- Zero One wrote:
> To be completely legal, you very well may need to use a particular brand
> of battery. Those will be specified in the manual. The ones most often
> specified that I have seen are the Duracell -- because they have a
> printed expiration date on each cell and are rather ubiquitous.
>
Actually, I DO follow the manual for all the batteries. The manual
recommends that the remote battery (the oddball two-thirds-"AA" cell)
be a Duracell LITHIUM battery, and that cell is good for 8 years.
However the manual says that "alkaline type cells are available from
various manufacturers and may be used in place of the Lithium cell...",
but the "Alkaline battery must be replaced every four years" (remote
only, Page 26). You have to replace the batteries by the "freshness
date" on the batteries, for both the main power "D" cells and the
remote. I recall the manual had the Duracell requirement, likely
because of the freshness date.

http://www.ameri-king.com/pdf/9.1.22.pdf

Now days, all major brands of batteries (Duracell, Eveready/Energizer,
Rayovac) have the freshness date printed on. I use the Duracells for
the main power -- it's tough finding the 2/3 AA cell from Duracell.
Ameri-King still stipulates Duracell for main power...and this is a
good way to stay legal, for a few pennies more (sometimes less!).

-Pete

[jphoenix]

Yeah, the manual actually specifies the part number Duracell to be used
and warns that failure to use that specific battery voids the warranty
and the TSO and your compliance with The Rules - if you should decide
that you need to comply with the rules ;-)

Speaking of rules, has anyone heard from any contest organizers which
contests will require ELT's?

Jim

309 wrote:
> 01-- Zero One wrote:
> > To be completely legal, you very well may need to use a particular brand
> > of battery. Those will be specified in the manual. The ones most often
> > specified that I have seen are the Duracell -- because they have a
> > printed expiration date on each cell and are rather ubiquitous.
> >
> Actually, I DO follow the manual for all the batteries. The manual
> recommends that the remote battery (the oddball two-thirds-"AA" cell)
> be a Duracell LITHIUM battery, and that cell is good for 8 years.
> However the manual says that "alkaline type cells are available from
> various manufacturers and may be used in place of the Lithium cell...",
> but the "Alkaline battery must be replaced every four years" (remote
> only, Page 26). You have to replace the batteries by the "freshness
> date" on the batteries, for both the main power "D" cells and the
> remote. I recall the manual had the Duracell requirement, likely
> because of the freshness date.
>
> http://www.ameri-king.com/pdf/9.1.22.pdf
>
> Now days, all major brands of batteries (Duracell, Eveready/Energizer,
> Rayovac) have the freshness date printed on. I use the Duracells for
> the main power -- it's tough finding the 2/3 AA cell from Duracell.
> Ameri-King still stipulates Duracell for main power...and this is a
> good way to stay legal, for a few pennies more (sometimes less!).
>
> -Pete

[Jay]

Jim - and anyone else interested - Region 8 will not require the use of
an ELT for the 2006 Regionals

Jay (Region 8 CM)

[Jay]

Actually, I had better clarify the above statement. Providing that the
rules committee follows the decision they made in November and posted
on the SRA site under the minutes of that meeting, use of ELT's will be
at the contest organizers discretion - as it was in 2005. If that rule
is finalized during the February meeting, Region 8 will not require the
use of an ELT for the 2006 contest.

I do wish that the rules committee would make their rules final a year
in advance rather than 3 months in advance. I suspect that it could
have saved a number of folks a chunk of change.

Jay

[jphoenix]

Thanks Jay, that's good news. I hope the other contests announce their
requirement well before the preferential entry deadline so that all
propspective contestants will have time to accommodate the rule, if
iimposed.

Jim

[jcarlyle]

This has been an interesting thread. But there seems to be a
potentially major problem with ELTs that depend upon a cable and an
external antenna - they may not work after a crash!

First, consider the cable. I make my living using coaxial cables with
BNC (and other) types of connectors, and I can't count the times that
those connectors have failed. True, some were due to poor assembly, but
others (that had been tested after assembly) failed during non-abusive,
normal service. Considering the magnitude of the g-forces that could be
generated during a crash and the likely fragmentation of the fuselage,
how likely is it that the antenna will be electrically connected to the
ELT afterwards?

Second, consider the antenna. There was reference in this thread to a
whip antenna whose instructions specified that it needed to be mounted
within 20 degrees of vertical. There was also reference to mounting
antennas in carbon fiber gliders near the canopy or under a small
fiberglass area in the fuselage. How likely is it in these cases that a
wrecked glider will come to rest with the antenna properly oriented for
transmitting?

It seems strange to have the device itself meet a whole raft of specs
under a TSO (even going to the lengths of specifying the type of
battery) when after a crash the signal might not be able to leave the
ELT. Have the regulatory bodies (FAA, JAA, CAA, etc.) formally
considered this problem, or is it just left to the installer to assess
operational survival probabilities for the ELT system as a whole?

-John

[jphoenix]

Interstingly enough, they do seem to work pretty well after a crash. I
investigated a mid-air in 2004 (I'm a Fed, but normally assigned only
to air carrier ops) where one aircraft was cut in half ( a Cessna 210)
and the ELT was in the aft part of the fuselage - pretty well rolled up
in the tin - and the antenna rolled up in another part of the fuselage,
but the coax was still connected. The Thurston County Sherriff's Huey
had no trouble locating the aft fuselage pieces, the ELT was
transmitting clearly. The other Cessna was not so lucky, the antenna
was not connected - because the ELT had been removed. That aircraft
wasn't hard to find - it was in an open field.

All those specific requirements that we have to comply with are
required by the manufacturer to insure that the installation complies
with the TSO. Maybe not real world in the end, but they do seem to
work. From what I've seen and read, most ELT failures are due to dead
batteries or improper installation, or even missing! Note the rule
allows a required ELT to be removed for repair for I think 90 days,
with a log entry, etc.

I made the decision to install an ELT in my glider after reading all
the discussion, seems like a good idea and for $200 what the heck, why
not? This will be harder to do for others because they have to get
somebody to install it and/or sign it off, or they cannot find a good
place to locate one. My glider was easy with a large unused open space
to mount it, many gliders do not have this kind of open real estate
available.

Jim

[jcarlyle]

Not sure that I follow you, Jim. You say "All those specific
requirements that we have to comply with are required by the
manufacturer to insure that the installation complies with the
TSO.....From what I've seen and read, most ELT failures are due to dead
batteries or improper installation, or even missing!"

Do ELT manufacturers specify how to mount the antenna and how to strain
relieve the cable to meet TSO requirements? From my reading, the choice
of antenna and the antenna mounting appears to be at the discretion of
the installer. You seem to confirm that when you say "most ELT
failures are due to ...improper installation...".

The example you gave of the Cessna 210 cut in two with the ELT still
working is remarkable, but that certainly wouldn't be typical. I've
seen a 70 pound instrument brought up short after an accidental 50 foot
drop to the end of a single RG-58 cable, and we found the electrical
connection still good afterwards. But I've also seen a two year old
circuit fail at a BNC connector when the attached coaxial cable was
gently moved sideways less than 3 inches. The point is that the
cable/connector interface is problematic, and is therefore a weak point
in what is arguably a critical system.

By the way, I sincerely hope you don't think I was criticizing you.
Your web site shows that your ELT is mounted in a very sound,
workmanlike manner. I was merely asking a rhetorical question as to
whether the regulating bodies had considered what appeared to be a weak
link in the ELT chain.

-John

[jphoenix]

John,

The ELT installation manual contains all of the specific requirements
that must be met to comply with the TSO. In other words, the TSO covers
not only the unit, but also the installation. For example, the
Ameriking ELT has a remote unit that appears to be optional because
there exist the same control switches on the unit. In fact, the remote
unit is not optional and must be installed in order to comply with the
TSO. Not installing the remote does not make your glider unairworthy,
it simply means the installation does not meet the TSO requirements.

If the ELT was installed in an airplane that requires a TSO'd ELT by
Part 91, then the installation must be exactly in accordance with the
manual, thereby exactly in accordance with the TSO. The Ameriking unit
must have the Ameriking antenna installed (in accordance with the
instructions in the manual) to meet the TSO.Everything is specified in
the manual, from the mounting position and alignment right down to the
D cell part number.

I decided that I wanted to do a "legal" installation - per the manual,
after all, I do need to set a good example ;-). But other folks may
decide they just want to meet the minimum requirement - the SSA rule. I
really don't care and certainly no offense taken on my part, I'm my own
worst enemy with the keyboard.

I don't disagree that the coax is a weak link, as is the antenna
location, but they sure seem to work even when damaged. I suspect the
transmitted range of an antenna wrapped in aluminum or broken is much
lower than one sticking straight up out of the trees. I can imagine
some of the airplanes crash with the ELT antenna on the bottom with the
remains of a twin Beech on top, not sure how well they work like that
-, but it would be difficult to engineer a simple installation that
would provide maximum transmitting power even when rolled into a ball
or subjected to the typical post crash fire. ELT's were certainly not
designed with gliders in mind and vice versa.

Jim

[jcarlyle]

Jim,

Thanks! I've never seen the manual for an ELT, so your detailed reply
was very instructive.

I wonder if during the design process engineers ever considered the use
of an integral antenna for ELTs, which would take over transmitting
duties if the main external antenna were damaged or destroyed? Probably
not, since most ELT installations would be in metal aircraft, and as
you point out they could wind up inside a metal ball post-crash.

It's comforting to hear that ELTs seem to work even when damaged.
Guess I'm just making a problem where none exists.

-John

[Martin Gregorie]

jcarlyle wrote:
>
> First, consider the cable. I make my living using coaxial cables with
> BNC (and other) types of connectors, and I can't count the times that
> those connectors have failed. True, some were due to poor assembly, but
> others (that had been tested after assembly) failed during non-abusive,
> normal service.
>
Having made up, though not professionally, a few BNC terminated co-ax
cables I'd emphatically agree about some connectors being the weak link:
especially the solderless, no-crimp twist-on BNC connectors. I mean the
type where the centre wire is just pushed into the centre pin and the
ground is a knurled cylinder that you're expected to ram between the
braided shield and the insulation.

I've had uniformly bad results with these connectors and, as the
connector can be easily pulled off the cable, they're probably wildly
unsuitable for an ELT antenna cable.

I will go out of my way to find a soldered-on BNC connector: I've not
tried crimp-on types.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. |
org | Zappa fan & glider pilot

[jcarlyle]

Martin,

You're absolutely correct - the push on BNC connectors are junk,
pure and simple. Their only claim to fame is that they will get you
working, right now - but they won't stay working for long! The
crimp-on BNC connectors are just slightly better, even if you invest
big bucks in the special crimping tool. They work for a bit, but they
just won't stand up to normal usage.

The best BNC connector is definitely the one with the soldered center
conductor, with the braid held solidly inside the body by a ferrule
locked by a nut, and a vinyl strain relief over the body of the
connector. They're not easy to make, though, even with lots of
practice. They usually fail because either the center conductor strands
or the shield braid get nicked slightly during assembly. Another
failure is due to corrosion of the braid or the center conductor.
Neither of these failure modes can easily be found in the field, until
things suddenly stop working.

You can see why I was concerned with the possibility of an ELT failing
suddenly when it was most needed.

-John