Proposed 2005 Rules On SRA Site

ELT's have nothing to do with safety. If safety is a concern, consider
making BRS's mandatory; then imagine what would happen to contest
participation..........I'd have less competitors to worry about.

"Marc Ramsey" wrote in message
om...
Did anyone even bother to contemplate the effect the 2006 mandatory ELT
rule would have on US contest participation? I am a casual contest
pilot, normally flying in only one or two a year. If the rule comes
down, I won't be happy about it, but I probably will scrape together the
money. But, it isn't someone like me you have to worry about.

What it's going to do is kill off a lot of the regional contests out
here are the west coast (and probably elsewhere). The pilots who are
already hooked on contests will pay the price. Those who participate
even less frequently than I, or who just want to try it out (and may
eventually get hooked) will hem and haw about getting an ELT, and then
simply won't show up. You'll also lose most of the entrants that fly
club ships in Sports Class. I'd guess that at least half of the
entrants in the 2004 Region 11 FAI contest would not have participated
if ELTs had been required. I'd also guess that the Region 11 Sports
Class contest would cease to exist if the ELT rule was in place.

I, too, have sat around in a gliderport office late into the evening
waiting (in vain) for a missing pilot to show up alive. I understand
the desire to reduce this burden on contest officials in the future.
But, if the result of this seemingly sensible rule is a significant
reduction in the number of people participating in US contests, is it
really worth the cost?

Marc

A quick (and not exhaustive) search on Google turned up the WGC rules for
1999. I could not find rules for anything later, though I am sure they
exist. Would someone please direct me to the site for the most current
rules?
Thanks
--
Hartley Falbaum
ASW27B "KF" USA

"BB" wrote in message
oups.com...

comcast webnews wrote:

I personally feel that we should move in the direction of the WGC
scoring
formulas. Possibly adopt the WGC formulas 100%, or possibly a blend
of our
current system and the WGC system.

I wonder how many pilots in favor of moving to WGC scoring formulas
have actually read them? (Actually, how many poll respondents have
actually read the US scoring formulas?!)

The idea sounds nice, "let's score the way the worlds are, so our guys
get used to that and do better." But when you actually look at the mess
in the world scoring formulas, you realize "why should we screw up
every contest in the US just because the world rules are screwed up?"

Two small examples, second-hand from the last worlds.

1) Start gate with limited height but not limited speed or the US
two-minute rule. Back to dive-bombing. Do you really want that?

2) MAT style task is distance in a set time. It allows the strategy of
timing-out low, way downwind, then trying to scratch back to the
airport to see if you can get the bonus for finishing at home. Do you
really want to do this at US contests?

And of course, world and European devaluation rules give a huge benefit
to gaggling. I hear there was a day in an Australian worlds where
pilots simply refused to go out on course since nobody wanted to be
first. Again, do we really want that?

Are US contests places for US pilots to have fun, compete, learn to do
better in a safe environment, or are they just a training camp for the
top 5 or so who want to go to the worlds? The poll question on "goals"
suggested a lot more pilots in favor of the former, not the latter.

If you move to WGC scoring, what do you do when you see obvious safety
or procedural problems? Here, you call up UH or the current rules
committee chairman, and it gets fixed. If you're committed to WGC
scoring, fixing the simplest problem has to wait for the IGC to move on
it. This is like having the UN in charge of parking regulations.
John Cochrane (BB)

HL Falbaum wrote:
A quick (and not exhaustive) search on Google turned up the WGC rules
for
1999. I could not find rules for anything later, though I am sure
they
exist. Would someone please direct me to the site for the most
current
rules?

All international rules are at the FAI website. What you're looking is
at:

http://www.fai.org/sporting_code/sc3.asp#sc3a

-Tom

Another incentive might be to charge lost pilots a finder's fee equal
to the effort required to find them. Tow plane hours, search crews,
office staff spending the night on site by the phone, CAP, local polie,
etc. Demonstrating a willingness to invest in your own search and
rescue by purchasing and installing an ELT would exempt you from these
charges.

If, however, we're looking for a handout, can I have my parachute
subsidized as well?

I guess I'm jaded. The other day I was considering the cost/value of a
suit at Nordstrom. It suddenly occurred to me that I don't bat an eye
when purchasing glider equiptment at three times the price. $1K for a
406 MHz ELT is peanuts in competitive gliding. Of course, no one is
asking you to purchase a reliable ELT... just an apporved on. If you're
whining about $300 then you're whining just for the sake of hearing
your own voice.

I've flown for almost three decades WITHOUT an ELT (regardless of
price) because I know that the economically-priced 121.5 units had
serious flaws. But the new 406 units have demonstrated themselves worth
the money, and with a GPS interface might even provide for resuce. We
have an obligation to those who come looking for us to reduce their
exposure to mishap by providing the best possible tracking available at
reasonable cost.

That some pilots don't care what becomes of their bones is their
business. That they don't care about those who'll come looking for them
is unacceptable. Such pilots have no place in organized comptetition. I
think that's the message.

Very selfish, Bob. It has plenty to do with safety. Just not yours.
Have you ever been involved in a search and rescue? See my previous
posts.

I'd be interested in an aircraft installed ELT requirement if I
thought it was really useful.

I think installing ELTs in aircraft is great. Just like
installing a Garmin 430 in the panel. If the individual
pilot thinks it fits his/her situation and has the money,
then go for it!

I'm completely against the requirement for ELTs beyond what
14 CFR 91 (in the USA) requires.

ELTs don't even activate in 75% of serious (reportable) accidents.
In the 2-33 I'd be using for a Sports class competition
in Avenal, an ELT would contribute nothing (zero, nada)
to safety, search and rescue, etc. The only thing it might
contribute to is nuisance if it was accidentally activated.

And a requirement for it would do absolutely nothing
except keep this aircraft from participating in a contest.

Too bad. Flying a short course close to the airport on
a nice day with tons of landouts in a glider that hasn't
had a US fatality in 25 years, with a handheld radio and
handheld ELT and cell phone would have been a lot of fun.

"Only" $300 indeed...perhaps the poster of that one is offering up
HIS $300...

Perhaps you should require me to carry IFR charts and be IFR
trained in the 2-33 also, to ensure I don't get confused in the
clouds and crash into a 4000 foot hill? I'm sure the
forecast that says CAVU could possibly be wrong too...

Requirements come about because you think the pilots are stupid.
If you think the pilots are stupid, you have a bigger problem
than whether you can find them when they crash.

Mark J. Boyd
not a fan of pointless blanket requirements

In article ,
Eric Greenwell wrote:
jphoenix wrote:
The rule should be amended (in my opinion) to allow continued use of
TSO C91 units that are currently installed. Granted they are not as
accurrate as the C91a units, but at least they are installed. A C91 ELT
may be adequate for contest purposes in someone's estimation, but in no
case may they be used for a new installation (FAR), so there's no
chance of installing the C91 units if you don't already have it
installed.

Can experimentally licensed aircraft (like my glider) legally install
C91 units? I'm not clear on that, but there are plenty of places selling
EBC-102a ELTs, so somebody must be able to use them.

I'd certainly like to stick with my current C91 unit until the new,
improved ELTs are cheaper!

This new contest rule means that all 1-26's participating in the
Nationals in 2006 shall require an approved ELT installation. I'm
thinking lead balloon on this one.

Don't they use their own rules, not the SSA rules? I'm assuming you mean
the 1-26 Nationals. Or did you mean the Sports Class Nationals?


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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA


--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

Well perhaps if most contestants were racing in 2-33's,
this might not be such a hot idea...

Somewhere in this thread the idea of being responsible
to others, surfaces here and there. And what sort
of monetary value to attach to that. In some states,
such as Colorado...a hunting or fishing license absolves
one from paying for the search to find him out in the
woods if something goes wrong. This is cheap insurance
for that unlikely occurance.

When I look at what guys pay to go race...in time,
effort and dineros...is this an onerous requirement?

Hard to say, $2k is a lot of money. $300 seems to
be below the pain threshold for most. But I suspect
the ELT discussion is actually more then just talking
about putting something in the glider to help with
body recovery....

Bob,

here's a snip from a thread back in June of last year:

A couple of years ago I agreed with your position without reservation.
However, I've had a change of heart... and so with it the ex-smoker's
compulsion to overreact to those that still fume. My rationalizations
were not about choice, rather practicality. The 406 units have rendered
that arguments empty.

We had an accident at our club in the mid 90s. The good news is, the
pilot survived, but with very serious injuries. But for the people who
ran through literally a mile of thickets and brambles, shredding their
own skin, he might have died of his injuries. That one had nothing to
do with ELTs. But it demonstrated to me just how motivated some people
become when lives are at stake. I would hate that my negligence led to
someone's injury or death whose only concern was to save me.

Chris OCallaghan Jun 17 2004, 11:19 am show options
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.soaring
From: (Chris OCallaghan) - Find messages by
this author
Date: 17 Jun 2004 11:19:50 -0700
Local: Thurs, Jun 17 2004 11:19 am
Subject: ELT Mandatory ?
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Remove | Report Abuse

This morning CNN reported the drownings of 4 people. A small child
fell into a fountain. A rescuer followed her immediately. As did
another. And another. All were killed by a circulation pump that
pinned them to the bottom.

This is a cautionary tale. Some, like the previous poster, would say
the moral is "Look before your leap." Others might recognize that it
is in our primal nature to risk our lives to save others.

The lesson I've learned is that while I may be harwired to demonstrate
bravado through lack of concern for my own welfare, I should at the
very least consider those who are hardwired to respond to any call for
help. And a glider which doesn't return home carries with it an
implied call for help.

Joseph Campbell discussed this "need to help," even at risk to one's
own well-being, in The Hero with a Thousand Faces and The Power of
Myth. Both are interesting reads -- and emphasize just how dear such
people really are.

I don't know where your statics come from but I know of NO glider with an
installed ELT that did not go off in a serious accident....
Can you give me just one incident where a glider crashed that had an ELT
that did not go off??? Please, just name ONE time......
and still ELT's can be had for well under $200.I sell them and have them on
the shelf.....there are a very large number of gliders already flying with
these.......I know, I've sold them!
And honestly.if a contest orgainizer requires you to have one I think it is
their decision and they are the ones hosting the contest....if you don't
want to compete in their contest or follow their rules then that is going to
be your decision...they may also require you to wear a parachute, carry some
kind of data-logger and even have some form of badge required.that's their
rules for having you as their guest.....if you don't want to follow their
rules for entry I'm sure you'll be missed but then again, forgotten....
tim
www.wingsandwheels.com


"Mark James Boyd" wrote in message
news:41e9461f$1@darkstar...
I'd be interested in an aircraft installed ELT requirement if I
thought it was really useful.

I think installing ELTs in aircraft is great. Just like
installing a Garmin 430 in the panel. If the individual
pilot thinks it fits his/her situation and has the money,
then go for it!

I'm completely against the requirement for ELTs beyond what
14 CFR 91 (in the USA) requires.

ELTs don't even activate in 75% of serious (reportable) accidents.
In the 2-33 I'd be using for a Sports class competition
in Avenal, an ELT would contribute nothing (zero, nada)
to safety, search and rescue, etc. The only thing it might
contribute to is nuisance if it was accidentally activated.

And a requirement for it would do absolutely nothing
except keep this aircraft from participating in a contest.

Too bad. Flying a short course close to the airport on
a nice day with tons of landouts in a glider that hasn't
had a US fatality in 25 years, with a handheld radio and
handheld ELT and cell phone would have been a lot of fun.

"Only" $300 indeed...perhaps the poster of that one is offering up
HIS $300...

Perhaps you should require me to carry IFR charts and be IFR
trained in the 2-33 also, to ensure I don't get confused in the
clouds and crash into a 4000 foot hill? I'm sure the
forecast that says CAVU could possibly be wrong too...

Requirements come about because you think the pilots are stupid.
If you think the pilots are stupid, you have a bigger problem
than whether you can find them when they crash.

Mark J. Boyd
not a fan of pointless blanket requirements

In article ,
Eric Greenwell wrote:
jphoenix wrote:
The rule should be amended (in my opinion) to allow continued use of
TSO C91 units that are currently installed. Granted they are not as
accurrate as the C91a units, but at least they are installed. A C91 ELT
may be adequate for contest purposes in someone's estimation, but in no
case may they be used for a new installation (FAR), so there's no
chance of installing the C91 units if you don't already have it
installed.

Can experimentally licensed aircraft (like my glider) legally install
C91 units? I'm not clear on that, but there are plenty of places selling
EBC-102a ELTs, so somebody must be able to use them.

I'd certainly like to stick with my current C91 unit until the new,
improved ELTs are cheaper!

This new contest rule means that all 1-26's participating in the
Nationals in 2006 shall require an approved ELT installation. I'm
thinking lead balloon on this one.

Don't they use their own rules, not the SSA rules? I'm assuming you mean
the 1-26 Nationals. Or did you mean the Sports Class Nationals?


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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA


--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

For those of you that wish to have some statistics pertaining to ELT
reliability go to this page:
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/regulatory/elt.html

As with most arguements on this group there has been hyperbole on the part
of both sides. While I would agree that another $2000 instrument will not
keep me from entering a contest I do feel that it could keep a newcomer from
entering their first contest. There have been multiple threads on this
group re how the average age of sailplane pilots is steadily growing and
wishing to know how we might interest new folks in joining our sport.
Making the cost of entering a contest higher does not help that goal. We
should at least be honest with ourselves about that.

In my opinion transponders go much farther in at least potentially
furthering the greater good than an ELT. Pretty much each of us has a story
of being closer to power traffic than we would have liked to be. If there
is a midair and lives lost you can bet that there will be immediate steps
made to regulate our flying. Admittedly it has a different function than an
ELT and would also be cost prohibitive but does have the potential for
locating a downed aircraft based upon the last known position.

Casey Lenox
Phoenix