Proposed 2005 Rules On SRA Site

Well said Tim.......refer all people like this to 2004 15M
nationals.......the ELT was invaluable there!!!

Brian


"Tim Mara" wrote in message
...
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

You are such a short sighted man, and thinking of no one but yourself no
less!!!!! i will only say one thing more......you have never been involved
with the search and rescue side, and have never seen how much an ELT can do
when it goes off correctly. I have.......and i hope I never have to see it
again!!!! It was invaluable in a recent wooded contest crash!!!!



"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

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.

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

Reply and update on thinking.
RC is reviewing and most likely will revise text to reflect C91 or C91a
units.
As to 1-26'rs, they are sanctioned by SSA but have their own rules
system and do not fall under these rules.
Thanks for input from all
H Nixon RC Chair

Reply and update on thinking.
RC is reviewing and most likely will revise text to reflect C91 or
C91a
units.
As to 1-26'rs, they are sanctioned by SSA but have their own rules
system and do not fall under these rules.
Thanks for input from all
H Nixon RC Chair

That sounds good. Thanks Hank.

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

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

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.

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.