US ELT Installation

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