"Jim Weir" wrote in message
...
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.


Hi Jim,

As a writer, I agree that the final responsibility is on the magazine's
editor's shoulders for accuracy. Bu the fault lies with the writer. In this
case the writer(s) appear to be insiders.
Huge mags, like National Geographic and others, have dozens of people
who do nothing but 'fact checking,' name spelling, placement of decimal
points (like the one you blooped in your message above. Smaller magazines,
like Sport Aviation and Flying don't do as good a job because of the staff
costs. As an entrepreneur, you know the largest costs in any business are
labor+overhead and overhead (G&A) exceeds labor by multiple factors.
That doesn't excuse allowing errors to reach print, but it does explain
why editors rely more and more on us writers to get it right. Go for it,
Jim, but I don't think you will make much headway. I'll bet the magazine
just won't increase the staffing to include a technical review board. I'd
also bet that a person with the CVs for doing the review job won't work for
the pitiful wages the mag would pay. It is a universal problem in the
industry.
Now for a fine point in your discussion of frequencies. The guard
frequency 243.0 Mhz is within the military band 225.0 to 399.9. For as long
as I can remember, and that goes back at least to the fifties as an
electronics tech in the USMC, the military band has been considered UHF
despite the delineation of 30 to 300 attached to the definition of VHF. I
won't give you points for that one.
As to the rest.... I don't subscribe to the magazine.

Regards,

Casey