![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
COLIN LAMB wrote:
had ELTs and transponders. In both cases, the aircraft was found by luck and/or good guesswork. The ELT is not bullet proof. I believe it is likely to survive a crash if the pilot does, but no more. The installation is also critical. For example, with a remote antenna, the coax cable could be severed in a crash, rendering the entire system useless. Colin N12HS (Yamhill County Sheriffs Search and Rescue) One of the reasons I wear my ELT across my chest and activate it before outlandings is for all of these reasons. Plus I can take it in any aircraft. I also carry handheld radio and cell phone. Installed ELTs and radios seem really much more delicate than the personal ELT or handheld radios. And certainly seem somewhat more delicate than humans. I'd rather have a more surviveable ELT with my little tiny battery and antenna than an installed one that will have the coax severed and battery case crushed. If my personal ELT is destroyed, then it means my harness broke and my body is dismembered and obliterated. Yes, it may take a month for some hiker to wander over my body, but hey, I wouldn't be in too much of a hurry anyway. Like I said, I'm interested in cases where an installed ELT would make the difference between life and death. Beyond that, I'd like to know how many of these cases wouldn't be just as solved by a personal ELT activated right before an attempted outlanding. I'm not so concerned about the midair/parchuting out cases. I have yet to hear of any case where someone parachuting out with a handheld or cell phone would have been better off with ELT or not... -- ------------+ Mark J. Boyd |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Eric Greenwell" wrote in message ... Centurion wrote: The possibility is there, but I don't know of any gliders that have burned after crashing. Does anyone know someone that had a post-crash fire? Not a crash, but in the early 60's a pilot dropped his cigarette in a 2-22. The ship started burning on final. The guys got out immediately on landing and all the fabric burnt off the 2-22. Duane |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
To my knowledge, no cellphone information was used in the Peter Masak
search. He was in mountains with little to no service, and very rugged. The ELT was the saving grace here! "For Example John Smith" wrote in message ... I'm beginning to wonder if the problems associated w/ELTs don't approach the level of problems associated with a much lower cost and far more ubiquitous option--GPS enabled cell phones. No, a GPS phone won't send out a signal if you crash and yes, we do fly in a lot of places where a cell phone conversation composed mostly of "can you hear me now?" is considered a good connection. That said, the standard of comparison isn't perfection--the ELT is an unreliable piece of equipment. If a sailplane goes down, a 'last sighted near' report and a call to the phone operator would be effective in some cases. Less often than with an ELT?--that's anybody's GUESS. Do I remember correctly that the cell phone company was able to provide some information to the teams searching for Peter Masak, eventhough his phone was not GPS enabled? This new rule looks a bit to me like a "we've gotta do something" response. I'd buy a $300 ELT to comply with the rules but would have a hard time spending $2k, eventhough from the disucssion it seems like that's the pricepoint where the product works well enough to be somewhat useful. We each (should) decide for ourselves what the value is. I look at the situation and say "this is a low occurance problem with a 'solution' that only has a 50% chance of helping'. Others say "if it only saves one life it is worth it". YMMV Brent "COLIN LAMB" wrote in message . net... I am a member of Search and Rescue - on the ground end of things. I have been involved in a number of missing aircraft searches and have my own ELT tracking equipment. We regularly practice searches in mountainous country. My experience has been that when we have a report of a missing aircraft and begin the search, that the sparse information we get is ambiguous and incomplete. By the time information gets to us, it has been through a number of relays. Our area is the Coast Range of Western Oregon. Transponder tracking is undependable and late at best. In most cases we get no information at all. In one case, involving a fatality, the only useful information we had was from a "last seen" report from a fellow pilot. We picked a spot on the map that was likely and sent in ground teams on logging roads to do a visual search. Weather was bad. We found the aircraft after 2 days, before either the National Guard or the CAP. The aircraft was destroyed. After searching the wreckage, we found an orange piece of plastic - similar to the color used in ELTs - the size of a quarter dollar. In a second fatality, our ground team was out searching when a logger reported a plume of smoke by his cell phone. In both cases, the aircraft had ELTs and transponders. In both cases, the aircraft was found by luck and/or good guesswork. The ELT is not bullet proof. I believe it is likely to survive a crash if the pilot does, but no more. The installation is also critical. For example, with a remote antenna, the coax cable could be severed in a crash, rendering the entire system useless. I suppose the best solution would be to have an ejection system and ballistic parachute for the ELT, so that just before a crash the pilot hits a button to eject the ELT and bring it down to safety, But I can tell that idea will never fly. Colin N12HS (Yamhill County Sheriffs Search and Rescue) --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.783 / Virus Database: 529 - Release Date: 10/25/04 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
![]() T o d d P a t t i s t wrote: T o d d P a t t i s t wrote: can you verify for me whether Peter's ELT was a 121.5/243 MHz unit or one of the newer 406 MHz units? In case others want to know the answer to this, I've been informed it was a standard C91a 121.5/243 MHz unit. That gives me some comfort, since that is the type of ELT I have in my Ventus. In fact, the reason I bought it was after getting low in a remote area on the same ridges where Peter's accident occurred. Additonal Info: Peter's ELT is one of the later style that uploads info to satellite so there was a positive ID. Very useful in knowing it was a real event. UH |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I got it wrong. Have since found out Peter was using older style 121.5
ELT. I was there and still had the wrong info. Sorry for the misinformation. UH |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Lawsuit filed over AFA towpilot fatality | Stewart Kissel | Soaring | 20 | June 11th 17 02:58 PM |
Soaring Seminar - March 19th - ChicagoLand Glider Council | ContestID67 | Soaring | 4 | January 6th 05 11:28 PM |
Philadelphia Glider Council hosting Region 2 Ground School | chipsoars | Soaring | 0 | December 23rd 04 02:11 AM |
Seeking Partners for Minden Based Glider | Don Johnson | Soaring | 0 | August 31st 03 07:20 PM |
FAA | Judy Ruprecht | Soaring | 51 | August 25th 03 07:56 PM |