Proposed 2005 Rules On SRA Site

wrote:
Would someone please tell me - without rancor and name calling - how
the rule requiring ELT's for all SSA events in 2006 came to be. If I
read the 2004 poll correctly, 58% of the respondents did not want
ELT's
required at all and only about 22% wanted them by 2006. If the polls
are not going to have a bearing in the rules then why do them?

Tom
Idaho
Ken Kochanski (KK) wrote:
http://sailplane-racing.org/

Ken Kochanski
SRA Secretary


Reply
Mandatory use of ELT's is a major change which must be proposed a year
in advance in accordance with the SSA Contest Rules process. This is
done, in part to avoid surprise rules and permit pilots to plan
accordingly.
It also permits a comment period.
The reason the proposed rules are published in advance is so that
comments and exchanges like this can occur.
It is also understood that some decisions may,at times, not reflect
majority positions, This is rare and not done without considerable
thought.
Please feel free to have your director aware of your position. If
enough pilots oppose, and directors agree, this will not go into effect
next year.
Please understand, no voting on this rule occurs this year. The only
change related to this is to formally permit organizers to require
ELT's without getting the waiver previously required.
As to the reasoning behind the proposed '06 rule: Having been involved
in the search for one live pilot lost in the trees and onother killed
on a mountain, it is easy to see why they are needed. If your wife,
significant other, or whoever was the one that had to wait for you to
be found, possibly for months if you are dead , how do you think they
would feel?
Thanks for your input and for not calling anybody and idiot!
Hank Nixon UH
SSA Contest Rules Committee Chair

Cost of entering the "Competition Ranks" is a major consideration to those
of us who are relativity new to the sport. To some the cost of an
"inexpensive" $300 ELT is of no consequence. To others it is an additional
investment, not required by the FAA, that stands in the way of entering
their first "Sports Class" competition. The requirement also establishes,
with the FAA, the precedence that the soaring community considers the ELT as
an essential piece of safety equipment.

The cost will jump to around $2,000 with the ELT move to the 406 MHz. At
that point it will be a definite roadblock to entering into the competition
ranks.

My personal resources which I can dedicate to the sport are somewhat
limited. ($300 can buy quite a few tows - $2,000 even more.)

Respectfully,
Wayne
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder


wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
Would someone please tell me - without rancor and name calling - how
the rule requiring ELT's for all SSA events in 2006 came to be. If I
read the 2004 poll correctly, 58% of the respondents did not want
ELT's
required at all and only about 22% wanted them by 2006. If the polls
are not going to have a bearing in the rules then why do them?

Tom
Idaho
Ken Kochanski (KK) wrote:
http://sailplane-racing.org/

Ken Kochanski
SRA Secretary


Reply
Mandatory use of ELT's is a major change which must be proposed a year
in advance in accordance with the SSA Contest Rules process. This is
done, in part to avoid surprise rules and permit pilots to plan
accordingly.
It also permits a comment period.
The reason the proposed rules are published in advance is so that
comments and exchanges like this can occur.
It is also understood that some decisions may,at times, not reflect
majority positions, This is rare and not done without considerable
thought.
Please feel free to have your director aware of your position. If
enough pilots oppose, and directors agree, this will not go into effect
next year.
Please understand, no voting on this rule occurs this year. The only
change related to this is to formally permit organizers to require
ELT's without getting the waiver previously required.
As to the reasoning behind the proposed '06 rule: Having been involved
in the search for one live pilot lost in the trees and onother killed
on a mountain, it is easy to see why they are needed. If your wife,
significant other, or whoever was the one that had to wait for you to
be found, possibly for months if you are dead , how do you think they
would feel?
Thanks for your input and for not calling anybody and idiot!
Hank Nixon UH
SSA Contest Rules Committee Chair

wrote:

Reply
Mandatory use of ELT's is a major change which must be proposed a year
in advance in accordance with the SSA Contest Rules process. This is
done, in part to avoid surprise rules and permit pilots to plan
accordingly.

I've had an ELT (EBC-102a) installed for about 5 years now, including
several contests. I got one because it's small size and self-contained
antenna made it much easier to mount. I know several other pilots that
use these, also.

It's TSO C91, not C91a as the proposed rules require, and I'm not keen
on paying another $200-$300 to replace a fairly new, working unit.

Can you tell me why C91 isn't adequate for contest purposes, or if these
units can be accepted specifically? It's not like pilots will rush out
to buy these to save a few bucks, because they cost about $200 more than
a number of C91a units.


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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

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.

A 406 mHz unit would be best, but I'd MUCH prefer to spend the money on
a transponder - if I had to spend the money. At least with a
transponder I could get a FL 180 waiver.

My portable, parachute-mounted ELT does not comply with the proposed
contest rule.

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.

Jim

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

"Eric Greenwell" wrote
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 re-read the rule and since ELT's are not required for gliders (only
airplanes as previously discussed here ad infinitum), I will change my
opinion to say that none of the other requirements of the rule applies to
gliders. I say this because the sentence that states no new installations
may use c91 ELT's says "those required by paragraph (a) - and the ELT is not
required by paragraph (a) for gliders, so I could argue that none of the FAR
requirements are applicable to a non-airplane.

But this view may not be shared by all FSDO's or IA's should you choose to
make a new installation in your glider certificated in any category. I would
also infer that the annual test and logbook entry would not be required, but
I may be out on a limb here tilting a windmill or something like that.

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

Amen - the FAA would allow you to do that - if they required an ELT in your
aircraft.

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?

The 1-26 Nationals are an SSA sanctioned contest, right? I'll need an SSA
membership to fly in the contest, so I believe it qualifies under the
proposed rule as an "SSA Competition". If not, I'd be interested to hear
that from someone with the real scoop.

Jim

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

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

Tim,

this is the problem with depending on personal experience rather than
statistics. Unfortunately, sailplane ELT activation appears not to be
reported in accident investigations. Therefore, we have to depend on GA
statistics (and their tortuous path into being). At best, activation is
75%. At worst, about 25%. Let's split the difference and call it a coin
toss. The real problem with the 121.5 units is the false alarm rate.
This costs resources. Imagine how many fire houses we'd need if the
false alarm rate was 97%, or more accurately, how many houses would
burn down. If you can't think of a single non-activation, how many
times have you seen the CAP looking for an ELT in a hangar, trailer, or
tie-down?

BTW, I'm searching for two 406 units for our gliders. I can either
continue my own research and buy them direct from the manufacturer...
or buy them from a soaring supplier. I know there are a large number
of pilots who share my preference, both in equipment and source. But it
doesn't seem like any vendor is making an effort to satisfy the need.
Am I missing something?