View Single Post
  #3  
Old July 13th 04, 12:22 PM
Jerry Springer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

John wrote:
Jim Weir wrote:


In the July 2004 issue of Sport Aviation, there was an article published
on the
installation of ELTs. I have taken issue with the article with Tom
Poberezny and Scott Spangler, and before I go off half-cocked (how unusual
for me) I'd
like some confirmation from this group. Understand that I may quote you
directly if you respond, so if you don't want your name mentioned, just
say so.

Here's the deal: My contention is that EAA should have an editorial board
that reviews technical articles like this for theoretical as well as
practical errors
of fact or judgement. Every ethical magazine in the world has a competent
review team that looks at an author's work and at LEAST asks the questions
as to where the data came from.

Now I'm not looking to pick the nits. They say that the CORPASS-SARSAT
satellites are flying at 528 miles. If the actual altitude happens to be
527.4, that's a nit.

On the other hand, in the next paragraph (page 108, column 2, first
paragraph) they say that the analog ELTs operate on 121.5 MHz. and the
digital ELTs operate
on 406 MHz.. There are two errors of fact he The VHF ELTs operate on
12.15
MHz. AND 243.0 Mhz. The UHF 406 MHz. ELT is NOT totally digital
technology.

Now here's the challenge...

Find errors of technical fact AND practical installation (so far I've
found ten
of them) and post them here (please do not send to me by private email).
I'll
collate them and send them off to TomP. Perhaps we can get the folks back
in Oshkosh to listen and publish something that resembles the truth.

And yes, in case of an unfortunate incident, it CAN make the difference
between YOUR life and death.

Jim


Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com




Do Typo's count ?
You just stated VHF 12.15 Mhz it should be 121.5 mhz and 243 mhz.
If your getting ready to slam them you might well get someone to proof read
your own posts ;-)
John

I think you missed the point of his article John. He was pointing out their
mistakes.

Jerry