US ELT Installation

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

Hi UH,

Thanks for the feedback.

Nevertheless, I am back to my original set of questions regarding the
best approach to compliance.

Does one only "jury-rig" a system to meet compliance or will one need
some certification that one's installation is actually functional.

These questions are particularly pertinent to owners of experimentally
certificated gliders since the owner can do all the work. As well, for
owners of experimentally certificated gliders made of carbon fiber, a
functional installation could be quite difficult unless the new antenna
is mounted externally, which no racer would want to do.

Still waiting to see a well thought out policy with respect to the
intent of the rule.

So far, none of the replies seems coherent on this topic.

mhr

mhr wrote:

...the contest manager is still faced with assurance issues that each
installation meets the intent of the rules and operates as required.

Isn't that going a bit too far? Will the CM also be reviewing all the
aircraft log books? How about making sure that each tire and wheel
assembly on each glider meets the letter of the law too?

Maybe we could just have annual-inspection contests, or even concours
d'elegance, rather than risking our precious jewels (personal &
otherwise) by putting them in the air.


Jack

Richard,
It is contrary to the FARs to make modifications to type certificated
aircraft with out approval of the Administator. The age old argument
is "what constitutes a modification".

Most mechanics that work closely with a FAA inspector will tell you
that even the smallest addition of equipment is considered a
modification that requires approval data. Non tso'd varios and gps nav
systems are consider by many to be non-essential equipment and belived
to be leagal to install in type certificated gliders. The only people
that can approve the installation of this equipment in these sailplanes
is the glider manufacturer. Many inspectors and DARs look the
otherway and do not take issue with these instruments.
But the FARs are clear.

When push comes to shove, if you have a standard type certificated
glider, you better have properly approved installations for any
equipment installed. In the case of an accident, the offending
equiptment does not have to be a causal factor of the accident for the
Insurance company to find your glider unairworthy therefore in breech
of the policy.

This seems like a dooms day, naysayer's view but ask your insurance
agent if you are covered when you operate your glider out of annual.
Operating your glider with unapproved equipment installed is the same
thing. This is the main benefit to hold an experimental airworthiness
certificate for your glider.

Rex.

"Rex" wrote in message In the case of an
accident, the offending
equiptment does not have to be a causal factor of the accident for the
Insurance company to find your glider unairworthy therefore in breech
of the policy.
Rex.


Everything I've read and heard from insurance agents says this is not the
case. If the "illegal" equipment is not causal or contributory in any way to
the incident/accident, insurance companies have not been successful, in the
courts, in denying coverage.

bumper

Earlier, Rex wrote:

Most mechanics that work closely with a FAA inspector will tell you
that even the smallest addition of equipment is considered a
modification that requires approval data. Non tso'd varios and gps nav
systems are consider by many to be non-essential equipment and belived
to be leagal to install in type certificated gliders. The only people
that can approve the installation of this equipment in these sailplanes
is the glider manufacturer. Many inspectors and DARs look the
otherway and do not take issue with these instruments.
But the FARs are clear...

Ah, if the FARs are clear, please cite them by number.

On the topic of TSOs, 337s, and "Major Alterations," I still think that
this 1996 Rod Farlee post sums up the situation best:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...cf7fe9b9e52da3

Quoted:

To install non-TSO'd equipment, there
is no requirement for an STC. A 377
"Major Alteration" form is needed only
if the installation requires structural
modifications to the airplane or
fabrication of a mounting tray.
Otherwise, it requires only a logbook
entry by a radio shop or A&P with
avionics inspection authorization that
the physical installation conforms to
AC 43 standard practices, and noting
any change in aircraft weight and balance.
...
There is enough confusion among FAA
FSDO inspectors over the new PMA
requirements that some of them seem to
be making up there own rules in this area,
but let's not make up our own!

Thanks, and best regards to all

Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com

On Rex's view, most of the Standard gliders in the USA are not
airworthy. Yet I am under the impression that insurance companies are
not denying coverage on that basis.


bumper wrote:
"Rex" wrote in message In the case of an
accident, the offending
equiptment does not have to be a causal factor of the accident for the
Insurance company to find your glider unairworthy therefore in breech
of the policy.
Rex.


Everything I've read and heard from insurance agents says this is not the
case. If the "illegal" equipment is not causal or contributory in any way to
the incident/accident, insurance companies have not been successful, in the
courts, in denying coverage.

bumper

Rex wrote:

When push comes to shove, if you have a standard type certificated
glider, you better have properly approved installations for any
equipment installed. In the case of an accident, the offending
equiptment does not have to be a causal factor of the accident for the
Insurance company to find your glider unairworthy therefore in breech
of the policy.

This is not the case with insurance through the SSA. Pat Costello has
said, and written, many times that insurance will not be denied unless
the equipment was a factor in the accident. I think any insurance
company that tried to do business this way would soon find they had no
business.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

mhr wrote:

These questions are particularly pertinent to owners of experimentally
certificated gliders since the owner can do all the work. As well, for
owners of experimentally certificated gliders made of carbon fiber, a
functional installation could be quite difficult unless the new antenna
is mounted externally, which no racer would want to do.

There are alternatives for the gliders that can not install an antenna
in the fuselage, such as one in the cockpit; for example, I've seen
rubber ducky type mounted on the cockpit sill even with the pilot's
shoulder or more rearward. My unit is mounted like that, but with a whip
style instead of the ducky style. Schleicher gliders are not carbon
above the baggage area, so an antenna can be mounted there.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

mhr wrote:

By making this part of the rules, the situation exists
that each contest organizer will require them to mitigate potential
liability. If another tragedy does occur, the contest organizer that
did not require ELTs will surely be sued.

"Surely"? On what possible basis can an organizer be sued for not
requiring equipment that the pilot is allowed to install, and even the
FAA does not require? Especially since the pilot knows well in advance
that ELTs are not going to be required, and could elect not to enter.
Accepting risks is inherent in entering a contest, and this risk seems
minute compared to the other risks he and the organizers accept.

I would like to hear opinions from experienced liability lawyers, but
I'm not interested in guesses "supported" (for example) with generic
worries about what litigious society we are. Surely (there's that word
again!) we would have heard from Costello and Associates, the people in
charge of our contest insurance, if liability was a concern for this rule.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA