Proposed 2005 Rules On SRA Site

Mark James Boyd wrote:
I personally don't think pilots declare emergencies enough.
A few days ago, a malibu pilot here at Palo Alto had
high oil temp and didn't declare, and tried to land here.
Too high, too fast, rolled the thing off the end, destroyed
it and injured herself. Could have just declared an emergency and landed
at Oakland instead (long, wide runway, lots of fire trucks).

Let me get this straight, you wanted her to declare an emergency and fly
across 15 miles or so of water (aka SF Bay) with high oil temp? How
about just turning around and flying the couple of miles to Moffat Field
(where they also have a long wide runway with fire engines)? Even San
Jose International is closer than Oakland.

Marc

Marc,
It's my understanding the pilot, after declaring the high oil temp, flew
PAST Livermore and Oakland to get to the home field and
2500 foot runway of Palo Alto.

But keep in mind all of this is second hand info. For all I
know first hand, she may have had high oil temp of short
final to PAO, and the stuff I've written is just fiction.

I'm almost certain the person who related the story wasn't listening on
NORCAL, just on tower. So the timing of the oil-temp
call is in doubt.

It just seemed like this was a more timely example than the
gear up F-33 who flew past Paso Robles and Salinas on the way
to Watsonville after an electrical failure, with the battery juice
ticking away, or the numerous other examples I could make that
seemed less relevant in my mind at the time, but which
I witnessed in person and spoke to the pilot about afterwards.

Frankly, I don't have good firsthand examples from
glider flying yet. I have yet to firsthand witness
a glider injury, or even any glider damage at all.

Lucky so far, I guess. And my exposure is less. I've only
been at a gliderport for a few hundred days in my life.
Most posters on this forum have been to gliderports for
thousands of days, if I guess correctly.

And I'm not sure other than a sketchy outlanding,
when declaring an inflight emergency over radio/ELT would
apply to a glider pilot? During the glide while
under parachute canopy? In flight self-launch fire?
Spoilers frozen closed? Above a closed in wave layer?

How is somebody on the ground going to help out?
Maybe to alert SAR, or clear to land on a busy runway?

I don't see someone reading you the gear extension emergency procedures,
or talking you through IMC flight for the first time, or
suggesting diversions for weather or low fuel.

But hey, I'm open to other suggestions

In article ,
Marc Ramsey wrote:
Mark James Boyd wrote:
I personally don't think pilots declare emergencies enough.
A few days ago, a malibu pilot here at Palo Alto had
high oil temp and didn't declare, and tried to land here.
Too high, too fast, rolled the thing off the end, destroyed
it and injured herself. Could have just declared an emergency and landed
at Oakland instead (long, wide runway, lots of fire trucks).

Let me get this straight, you wanted her to declare an emergency and fly
across 15 miles or so of water (aka SF Bay) with high oil temp? How
about just turning around and flying the couple of miles to Moffat Field
(where they also have a long wide runway with fire engines)? Even San
Jose International is closer than Oakland.

Marc


--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

I read about the 1991 incident. That one seems solveable
by a handheld radio or maybe a cell phone, considering
the pilot walked out. And this is an excellent argument
for requiring handheld radios for contests.

So we are really talking about two other circumstances.

1) The pilot is unconscious, the ELT activated on impact
and continues to work, and the ELT transmission is the
difference between life and death because he didn't make a radio
call with good position before the accident, the accident wasn't
observed, and cell phones and radios or a tiny ELT
activated right before a sketchy landout just wouldn't
help for this situation, or

2) We need the ELT to find the dead pilot quickly. Otherwise
the fellow pilots and family will suffer a long time,
not specifically knowing what happened.

Was Peter Masak's 2003 accident an example of #1? He was
unconscious while the SAR teams were using the ELT signal to
help find him, and if they hadn't used it he would have died,
because he couldn't have regained consciousness and
used a cell phone or handheld radio or portable ELT?

It seems like his fatal accident is a clear case of number 2.
And his installation of the ELT, which was his personal choice and not
mandated by any regulation or contest rule, saved his
own family and friends additional grief.

But I think there is a substantial difference
between requiring an ELT because of 1 vs 2.
I personally am unaware of any circumstances that
fall into the number 1 category. I am aware of
circumstances where an EPIRB or handheld radio would
have helped a conscious pilot who was bleeding out,
But I think a requirement for a handheld device would
have been just as good or better than an installed ELT
for these conscious pilots.

So what happened in Mr. Masak's 2003 accident? Was he
unconsciuos, or did he just not have a handheld radio
or cell phone (with cell coverage too, of course)?

I get the point about unexpected crashes, though.
Ridge soaring and midairs seem to fall directly into this category.
But of the accidents I've read about, either the pilots
were dead well before rescuers could have ever reasonably
reached them, or they were conscious and could have used a
tiny ELT and/or handheld radio.

***disclaimer***
I have nothing against requiring ELTs to help situation 2,
and think this is worthwhile, but it is a very different
argument than requiring ELTs for situation 1.

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:

You have lots of options after the
accident if you are conscious. I don't expect to use the
portable feature of my fixed ELT, but several people claim
it's an advantage for the tiny ELT, so I listed that feature
to show it's available in fixed ELT's as well.

Downside: I would have paid over $8,000 to install even the
cheapest ELT in each of the 20 sailplanes I've flown in the past
2 years. If I owned my own sailplane, that would be different.

And this is the best argument I can see for the tiny ELT.
My only question then would be whether other devices might
be better suited - sat phones, cell phones portable radios,
etc.







--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

So in 2003 Peter Masak crashed in a sailplane in a contest,
was uninjured, and was found quickly because he had an ELT.
But if he didn't have an ELT then a portable radio would have
been easy for him to use and call for help?

And THIS is the justification for requiring ELTs in all
gliders at all contests?

Well, I hope nobody ever crashes and then uses a $10,000
50 pound laser to bounce morse code off the moon and get
rescued. Then I suppose we'd all need tests for morse code
and high-powered lasers before we can fly contests, right?

This sounds fishy to me...

In article ,
T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
(Mark James Boyd) wrote:

So we are really talking about two other circumstances.

1) The pilot is unconscious, the ELT activated on impact
and continues to work

This is the main reason I bought an ELT, plus it gave me
another option beyond a cell phone.

2) We need the ELT to find the dead pilot quickly. Otherwise
the fellow pilots and family will suffer a long time,
not specifically knowing what happened.

I suspect it's more than just preventing suffering/worry.
Potential searchers and rescuers do face risk in their
activities.

Was Peter Masak's 2003 accident an example of #1?

I was told no.

Initially I heard that he installed one of the new 406 MHz
ELT units, then later heard that was in error. I'm still
not sure what type he had installed (anyone know?). The
newer 406 MHz aircraft ELT units will give a location in a
single satellite pass and ID the owner of the unit. That's
important for both issues above, but right now they cost
$1,000 and $1500 if GPS enabled. I suppose he might have
had a much less expensive non-aircraft ELT/EPIRB installed.

But I think there is a substantial difference
between requiring an ELT because of 1 vs 2.

I agree.

I personally am unaware of any circumstances that
fall into the number 1 category.

I've read of this happening, but not in the glider context.
From the speed that Masak's aircraft was found, it could
have made the difference if he'd been injured. That's why
I'd like to know if he had the newer type of ELT installed




--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

may I suggest you look at :
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...04X00737&key=1
tim


"Mark James Boyd" wrote in message
news:41f01935$1@darkstar...
So in 2003 Peter Masak crashed in a sailplane in a contest,
was uninjured, and was found quickly because he had an ELT.
But if he didn't have an ELT then a portable radio would have
been easy for him to use and call for help?

And THIS is the justification for requiring ELTs in all
gliders at all contests?

Well, I hope nobody ever crashes and then uses a $10,000
50 pound laser to bounce morse code off the moon and get
rescued. Then I suppose we'd all need tests for morse code
and high-powered lasers before we can fly contests, right?

This sounds fishy to me...

In article ,
T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
(Mark James Boyd) wrote:

So we are really talking about two other circumstances.

1) The pilot is unconscious, the ELT activated on impact
and continues to work

This is the main reason I bought an ELT, plus it gave me
another option beyond a cell phone.

2) We need the ELT to find the dead pilot quickly. Otherwise
the fellow pilots and family will suffer a long time,
not specifically knowing what happened.

I suspect it's more than just preventing suffering/worry.
Potential searchers and rescuers do face risk in their
activities.

Was Peter Masak's 2003 accident an example of #1?

I was told no.

Initially I heard that he installed one of the new 406 MHz
ELT units, then later heard that was in error. I'm still
not sure what type he had installed (anyone know?). The
newer 406 MHz aircraft ELT units will give a location in a
single satellite pass and ID the owner of the unit. That's
important for both issues above, but right now they cost
$1,000 and $1500 if GPS enabled. I suppose he might have
had a much less expensive non-aircraft ELT/EPIRB installed.

But I think there is a substantial difference
between requiring an ELT because of 1 vs 2.

I agree.

I personally am unaware of any circumstances that
fall into the number 1 category.

I've read of this happening, but not in the glider context.
From the speed that Masak's aircraft was found, it could
have made the difference if he'd been injured. That's why
I'd like to know if he had the newer type of ELT installed




--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

Well,

I took most of my free time this evening to read this whole thing
through, and so a comment is in order. What I read between these lines
is... "Don't inconvenience me!" There was definitely a mental picture
of my Mom putting me through another guilt trip.

If you are down, I'll look for you. If you need help, I'll be there if
possible. If you land out, I'm available to come get you. Soaring isn't
accomplished without the help and support of others, PERIOD. It just
doesn't happen. The only exception may be the newer generation of
motorgliders, that are - in my world anyway - out of reach. We've flown
these competitions for all these years over bad terrain,
unaccessable/unlandable areas, and so forth. These areas are in and of
themselves a risk to any rescuer that ventures there to drag your
bleeding body out of the bush, whether you have an ELT or not. If I
have to buy a @#$%^&* ELT, then let's go one further and mandate not
flying over these terrible areas. It's far more irresponsible to put
people to this KNOWN risk of bad terrain than to be without an ELT.

As you may have guessed, I'm against the mandating of the ELT for
competition. They lend NOTHING to the safety of the competition. They
WILL limit the participation, and quicken the already fast pace of the
death of competition soaring as we know it. They will also eventually
be mandated in all sailplanes by the FAA, and that will be fueled by
our own demand for their use in competition.

Just my take on it after reading ALL the posts... and not aimed at
anyone...

Jack Womack

I carry a bit of equipment that I hope I never need. I've got a
parachute. I've got a "survival kit" - food, blanket, bandages, etc. And
now I've got a $200 TSO C91a ELT. Sure, the $2000 ELT might be nice, but
I'm happy with my $200 one for now. And, that's all the rules require so
far.

Maintenance costs are minimal. Once a year - during the annual - it gets
activated to make sure it still works. Every 3 years the batteries get
replaced - 6 D cells and a couple of AA's for the remote.

I view this as cheap insurance. If I should mess up bad, perhaps it will
help me return alive to my family.

Steve

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
(Mark James Boyd) wrote:


Unless the coax is severed or the fragile battery box is broken.


Sure, there are risks it won't work, but the ELT is
specifically designed to survive the crash and automatically
activate. There are many, many other options for rescue if
you survive the crash, are conscious and/or bail out. I've
got no problem with a portable ELT unit as one of those
options, but it just doesn't seem to me that it does the
job of automatic activation in a midair, structural failure
or lightning strike type accident.


Tightly belted in, I couldn't reach anything on the panel


Install the remote closer, then. It's only a tiny box


4) The installed ELT can be carried portably after landing
and will transmit voice on 121.5.

Yep. So does my handheld radio and my cell phone.


Isn't that the point? You have lots of options after the
accident if you are conscious. I don't expect to use the
portable feature of my fixed ELT, but several people claim
it's an advantage for the tiny ELT, so I listed that feature
to show it's available in fixed ELT's as well.


Downside: I would have paid over $8,000 to install even the
cheapest ELT in each of the 20 sailplanes I've flown in the past
2 years. If I owned my own sailplane, that would be different.


And this is the best argument I can see for the tiny ELT.
My only question then would be whether other devices might
be better suited - sat phones, cell phones portable radios,
etc.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...04X00737&key=1
Yes, this was the 2004 fatality.
The 2004 crash is a clear example of #2,
but was not given as a reason or argument supporting
the contest rule change.

At the SRA website, and I quote:

"The experience of Peter Masak's accident at the 2003
15 Meter Nationals was a wake-up call for the competition
community."

So was there a 2003 crash, or is this just a typo?
If it's just a typo, then yes,
#2 is their most prominent justification.

I think it absolutely must be a typo, because
I have searched everywhere for an account of a 2003
crash with Mr. Masak.

This sounds like a knee-jerk reaction to an isolated event.

I was interested to read Peter Masaks account of
a contest pilot who had crashed, and had not brought
a cell phone, and had waited a long time before
activating his ELT (which had apparently not activated).
Towplanes and other pilots searched feverently for the pilot.
Mr. Masak wrote about how the contest organizers were
so upset he hadn't brought a CELL phone that they
grounded him the next day.

A requirement for a cell phone, handheld radio, or ELT
of some kind (handheld or installed) seems like a better
option to me. The Australians permitting a handheld
ELT seems quite civilized. I can even see how
a portable ELT could easily be designed to activate in
an impact. Too bad the restriction is for installed ELTs.
I expect in 2006 there will be fewer entries to competitions
because of this very rule.

It will be interesting to compare the number of entries in the
Sports class competitions compared to previous years without
this requirement.

Maybe a better question is: how many competitors in 2003
had no ELT installed? Why didn't these pilots install
the ELT before it became mandatory? They must have reasons,
right? How many had ELTs? 10%? 90%? It looks
like the SRA has these numbers from the competitions forms.
Pray tell, what are the numbers? Are they 80% in Hobbs
and 20% at the Avenal contest? 90% on the east coast and
10% at places like Marfa? To me this would indicate
contest organizer discretion would make more sense, instead
of a blanket requirement.

In article ,
Tim Mara wrote:
may I suggest you look at :
tim


"Mark James Boyd" wrote in message
news:41f01935$1@darkstar...
So in 2003 Peter Masak crashed in a sailplane in a contest,
was uninjured, and was found quickly because he had an ELT.
But if he didn't have an ELT then a portable radio would have
been easy for him to use and call for help?

And THIS is the justification for requiring ELTs in all
gliders at all contests?

Well, I hope nobody ever crashes and then uses a $10,000
50 pound laser to bounce morse code off the moon and get
rescued. Then I suppose we'd all need tests for morse code
and high-powered lasers before we can fly contests, right?

This sounds fishy to me...

In article ,
T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
(Mark James Boyd) wrote:

So we are really talking about two other circumstances.

1) The pilot is unconscious, the ELT activated on impact
and continues to work

This is the main reason I bought an ELT, plus it gave me
another option beyond a cell phone.

2) We need the ELT to find the dead pilot quickly. Otherwise
the fellow pilots and family will suffer a long time,
not specifically knowing what happened.

I suspect it's more than just preventing suffering/worry.
Potential searchers and rescuers do face risk in their
activities.

Was Peter Masak's 2003 accident an example of #1?

I was told no.

Initially I heard that he installed one of the new 406 MHz
ELT units, then later heard that was in error. I'm still
not sure what type he had installed (anyone know?). The
newer 406 MHz aircraft ELT units will give a location in a
single satellite pass and ID the owner of the unit. That's
important for both issues above, but right now they cost
$1,000 and $1500 if GPS enabled. I suppose he might have
had a much less expensive non-aircraft ELT/EPIRB installed.

But I think there is a substantial difference
between requiring an ELT because of 1 vs 2.

I agree.

I personally am unaware of any circumstances that
fall into the number 1 category.

I've read of this happening, but not in the glider context.
From the speed that Masak's aircraft was found, it could
have made the difference if he'd been injured. That's why
I'd like to know if he had the newer type of ELT installed




--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd





--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

From the rule change summary, the mandatory installation of ELTs
in all gliders at all SSA competitions is considered a
"minor" change to the rules.

The Sailplane Racing Association, eh?

Not a terribly astute bunch of folks. Citing a
2003 accident that doesn't exist as their primary
justification for mandatory installed ELTs.
It seems pretty clear this issue didn't even recieve enough
attention or bother that anyone double checked the date
before putting out their "reasoning."

And a closer look at the poll says:

Do you have a portable (user activated) ELT in your glider?

Followed by:

Should ELTs be made mandatory for all participants in all
SSA contests? 42% yes.

---Notice this DIDN'T say "installed" ELTs---

If yes, should ELTs be made mandatory in:
2005: 26%
2006: 22%

They certainly didn't agree with the 78% of the polled pilots
who thought ELTs should NOT be made mandatory in 2006.

From the ELT FAQ:
"80% of those present at the SRA meeting during the
Standard Class Nationals favored mandatory ELTs"

So two months after Peter Masak died, among those who
mourned him and were close to him, 80% favored mandatory ELTs.
Notice not a SINGLE person voted for mandatory glider
installed ELT. Just ELTs in general.

80% sounds a lot like 4 out of 5 SRA rules members to me.
Maybe these 4 already have installed ELTs and would prefer
less competition?

And they seem to have been very creative while interpreting the
poll to mean those who DID want mandatory ELTs meant that they
wanted the kind that require installation in the glider
instead of the portable kind.

What do you call a committee that makes recommendations
which are directly against the desires of a strong majority
of competition pilots? I'd call them disconnected from
the desires of their constituents, at best. At worst,
I'm sure some of you have some more colorful ideas...

Who does this recommendation go to? Who do we contact to
have this recommendation sent back to the committee for
indefinite review, without implementation?

How do we replace the committee members who supported this
rule? Is a 78% vote good enough to replace them after thanking them
for their service?

--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

Just to correct your understanding of the SSA organizations and
processes involved. This info is posted on the SSA and SRA sites if
you bothered to research.

http://sailplane-racing.org/Rules/elect_process.htm

The SSA Competition Rules sub-Committee is a part of the Contest
Committee. The chair of the Contest Committee is appointed by the SSA
Board of Directors and serves as one of the five members of the
sub-committee (usually referred to as the "Rules Committee"). The
other four members are elected by the pilots on the SSA Pilot Ranking
List via an electronic ballot conducted each summer.

Mark James Boyd wrote:
From the rule change summary, the mandatory installation of ELTs
in all gliders at all SSA competitions is considered a
"minor" change to the rules.

The Sailplane Racing Association, eh?

Not a terribly astute bunch of folks. Citing a

What do you call a committee that makes recommendations
which are directly against the desires of a strong majority
of competition pilots? I'd call them disconnected from
the desires of their constituents, at best. At worst,
I'm sure some of you have some more colorful ideas...

Who does this recommendation go to? Who do we contact to
have this recommendation sent back to the committee for
indefinite review, without implementation?

How do we replace the committee members who supported this
rule? Is a 78% vote good enough to replace them after thanking them
for their service?

--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd