Proposed 2005 Rules On SRA Site

In article . com,
writes:

$1K for a
406 MHz ELT is peanuts in competitive gliding. Of course, no one is
asking you to purchase a reliable ELT... just an apporved on. If you're
whining about $300 then you're whining just for the sake of hearing
your own voice.


This statment jumped out at me.
Steve

At 16:30 14 January 2005, Wayne Paul wrote:

I feel strongly ELT contest requirement will lead to
the removal of glider
ELT exception. The exemption loss will cost us $2,000+
with transition to
406 MHz units.

Cheaper 406 MHz models are on the way.

http://www.artex.net/me406.html

I can't seem to find any G-activated 406 MHz units
with a GPS input, except for ones that require 28 volts
for the interface unit.

Any leads?

9B

Perhaps you don't bat an eye for $1K peice of Glider Equipment.

I however won't even walk in to Nordstrom. I have yet to spend more
$400 for a peice of glider equipment other than the inital cost of the
glider. 7 Years ago I flew my 1st contest in a Glider I paid $6500 for
with a $200 used Parachute and a $35 35mm Camera.

Today I am flying a $11,000 glider with 15 year old Flight Computer,
$150 GPS and a $400 flight Recorder. My $800 parachute came with the
glider, otherwise I would still be using the $200 one.

I really don't have an issue putting a $300 ELT into my glider ,I do
think it is a worthwhile peice of equipment. I have been looking at
them for some time even before the proposed rule, I would also like a
better Radio, and a Transponder and a 406 ELT. So what is my priority.
as of 2006 it is the ELT per the rules. Probably the $300 dollar one. I
guess you can put up with my scratchy radio calls for another year and
I can continue to see and avoid 737's while they never see me.


Brian

Talk about cost!!!!!!!
Transponders in gliders are expensive.......!
Initial cost to install a transponder is +/- $2000, semi-annual cost, +
additional batteries + upkeep = more $
My biggest fear is that transponders could eventually be required for
everything that fly's...that means every homebuilt, every 126, 222, k6 or k8
and so on and every club glider will have this additional expense.... now
you won't only have problems with a newbie trying to get into a contest, but
with every potential glider owner, every club member all having to pay more
or.......have less
As for " Pretty much each of us has a story of being closer to power traffic
than we would have liked to be". "IF you have stories about close
encounters then it's likely because you're flying in heavily congested
airspace.....Don't fly there!......you are absolutely correct "If there is a
midair and lives lost you can bet that there will be immediate steps made to
regulate our flying." and that will be the end of soaring as we know it!
I do sell transponders.....but I try also to explain as best I can what
their limitations are to buyers as well......these are not a simply, flip it
on when YOU want it and go on flying down the approach corridor.....if
you're not talking with ATC in these highly congested areas you are still
putting yourself and others at risk.........not every other plane in this
area will be talking with ATC or have a TCAS system on board ...... if you
want simple and inexpensive traffic avoidance look beyond simply squawking
in the blind but look also at the TPAS systems....far better than having the
Fed's tell us we all need to have transponders installed to fly "anywhere"
tim
www.wingsandwheels.com


"Kilo Charlie" wrote in message
news:1GwGd.2637$0B.729@fed1read02...
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
notPretty 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.
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. 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

This is the relevant paragraph from the link Casey offered:

When ELTs were mandated in 1973, most GA aircraft were equipped with an
ELT that transmits on the 121.5 MHz frequency, the designated
international distress frequency. The original ELTs were manufactured
to the specifications of an FAA technical standard order (TSO-C91A) and
have an activation rate of less than 25 percent in actual crashes and a
97 percent false-alarm rate. In 1985, a new TSO-C91A ELT was developed,
which substantially reduces or eliminates many problems with the
earlier model. The TSO-C91A provides improved performance and
reliability (with an activation rate of 73 percent in actual crashes)
at a reasonable cost to users ($200-$500 including installation). Since
then, an even more advanced model of ELT has been developed - the
C126 ELT (406 MHz). This newest model activates 81-83 percent of the
time, but the current cost is $1,500 or more per unit, not including
installation.

Please note that these are AOPA rendered statistics. AOPA has a very
strong position against mandatory use of the 406 MHz units based on
member financial impact. (In fact, little of AOPA writes should be
accepted at face value. They are an advocacy group, and not always in
the best interests of the majority of pilots.) Therefore, they have
painted a picture that shows little value in moving from the older
technology to the new and have omitted some important facts regarding
time to acquisiton of signal, ability to verify whether the signal is
an actual emergency, accuracy of first pass position resolution,
reduction in false alerts, and time to arrival of emergency personnel
on scene. They do, however, acknowledge that as of 2009, satellites
will no longer monitor the old bandwidths. This means no repsonse
unless someone watched you go in.

The rhetoric used by the AOPA is interesting. Note the lack of
parallelism between the first two examples. A false alarm rate in C91A
models is not cited. This is always a sign of a potentially flawed
argument, typically presented intentionally to drive the reader to
specific conclusion.

In response to Casey's point, I'll repeat my earlier concerns that put
me on the unpopular side of this discussion: the units aren't for our
safety but for the safety of those who might one day have to come
looking for us. Search and rescue is a dangerous business. Consider
Utah skiers killed in avalanches this past weekend. NONE wore beacons
while skiing off piste. That has put many dozens of searchers in harms
way for much longer than was necessary. Finally, recognize that we are
talking about racing. Pilots typically fly more aggressively, cover
larger distances at high speeds, often traversing unlandable terrain.
Organizers are asking racers to make their jobs a little easier. For
the cost-conscious, they can satisfy the requrest for under $300. For
the value-concscious, $1K will provide an even greater degree of
assurance.

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?

Chris, Chris, Chris......I love it when you stoop to arguing with statistics
by not only dissing the ones presented but not offering any of your own to
support another viewpoint! The old "I just know those aren't correct" idea.
Hey I'm here to learn so show me the money and I'll be glad to see it
another way. Honestly I thought that those nasty old AOPA stats with all of
their bias supported the point that Tim (and you) were making.

And Tim.....the reason that I bought and installed a transponder (which with
an encoder was less than $2000 BTW) was that when I was flying back from the
Grand Canyon towards Phoenix on those very long flat glides, I could not
even see the gliders in front of me but could see the occasional 737 heading
in to PHX. Now I'm not thinkin' that you fly in a place more remote than
northern Arizona but I suppose I may have missed that spot while I was
flying on the east coast. With that 37 and I heading the same direction I
figured that I would get a loud noise followed by crunching as the first
sign I may be too close.

As you point out and as I said already, transponders are a lot of money but
you chose to overlook that part about the newer ELT's (and soon to be only
effective models) currently being the same price. Maybe they'll come down
in price, maybe so will transponders, maybe neither will.

I'll make the point again.....ANY $2000 required piece of equipment for
contest entry will be prohibitive to some pilots, esp newer ones. Point
number 2 is that if we are forced to choose which is a more effective
instrument in preventing human loss of life and therefore psychological
trauma to the greater number of people I say that the stats would support
the transponder.

I used OC logic with that last statement since I have nothing to support
it!!! But darn it I know I'm right!

KC

Rats, it doesn't look like my knee jerk response posted. Ah well,
nothing particularly interesting. Just some poking at Casey...
sometimes a Jeanne d'Arc is the most powerful appeal. Besides, if you
can lead with pathos, then counter the criticism with logic, you have a
much more powerful argument. But alas, that wasn't the intent (this
time).

I don't dispute the AOPA's numbers, just the sophistry of their
presentation. I've cited sources of such statistics in past in related
threads. Probably the most relevant is
http://www.cospas-sarsat.org/Beacons...provedList.htm which gives
the background and mission of SARSAT as well as a list of current 406
manufacturers. (I'm reviewing and pricing avaiation units now.) The
important message to take away from this site is that 121.5/243 MHz
ELTs were not designed to operate with satellites. Improvements have
been made, but the 406 MHz ELT is specifically designed to be
instantaneously detected by satellite and provide sufficient accuracy
(first pass doppler shift) to allow a manageable search effort.

Another general information page is
http://www.sarsat.noaa.gov/emerbcns.html.

You can find the statistics quoted (in part) by AOPA at
http://www.sarsat.noaa.gov/406vs121.pdf.

I've lost the link for failure rates of the first and second generation
inertial switches used in aviation ELTs. Maybe someone else recalls....

As for Casey's belief that transponders would provide a better
investment with respect to safety, it's hard to argue the value. Once
again, though, this seems to be a rule responding to the concerns of
contest organizers. All things measured, the transponder may be more
valuable to the pilot, but not to contest staff.

In fact, my guess would be that the best invesment we could make as
pilots would be annual recurrency training. It seems that even the best
of us are apt to pick up bad habits. If only there were experienced
coaches who could inspire enough respect to overcome our egos and do us
some real good. Barring that, impersonal, nonjudgemental gadgets seem
the next best bet.

wrote:
As for Casey's belief that transponders would provide a better
investment with respect to safety, it's hard to argue the value. Once
again, though, this seems to be a rule responding to the concerns of
contest organizers. All things measured, the transponder may be more
valuable to the pilot, but not to contest staff.

Frankly, it doesn't appear to me to be due to the concerns of "contest
organizers" in general, it is the concerns of some members of the Rules
Committee, and perhaps a few contest organizers on the east coast, that
are driving this. No contest official I've had contact with out here
has ever expressed reservations about the lack of ELTs, and as president
of a regional/national contest sponsoring organization (Pacific Soaring
Council), I can't say that I've ever much thought about it, until now.
Strangely enough, we do actively encourage local pilots to get
transponders, due to traffic concerns in the Reno area.

Marc

Now that's more like it Chris! Those are some nice reference
sites....thanks!

If you find a good source for ELT's at a reasonable price please post it
here.

BTW I assume that these are useful anywhere in the world. Are any other
countries requiring them for contests?

Casey
KC