Region 4 S: ELT Mandatory

I just received a note from Lanier Frantz stating that all competitors
at R4S must have an ELT. I understand the reason for this decision,
but I question whether it will have the intended effect. I have long
been against mandatory ELT use in soaring competitions for one reason
only: they do not operate as advertised. While 121.5 MHz ELTs are
useful for locating a crash scene, they are nearly useless as a life
saving device. And, in fact, these units only activate properly in
about 12% of crashes.

The management of R4S has made this decision for safety reasons... for
the safety of their own and emergency personnel. This is laudible. But
if such a decision is to be carried through to its intended ends, it
needs to be more specific. It should require that all pilots use 406
MHz ELTs (as Peter Masak was using) and recommend the use of GPS PLBs.
This would dramitically improve the chances of proper activation as
well as early and pinpoint detection. Of course, there's always a
but...

A 406 MHz unit will cost approximately $1500. A GPS PLB about $800. A
121.5 MHz ELT can be had for under $400. Which will pilots choose? The
nearly useless, and soon to be obsolete (2/1/2009) low cost
alternative offered by soaring parts suppliers nationwide.

R4S is mandating a placebo. Again, I understand and commned their
willingness to take a stand, but clearly some more thought is
warranted. Here are a pair of links to help you (the pilot) cut
through the emotional aspects and understand what your dollars are
buying... or aren't.

http://www.sarsat.noaa.gov/emerbcns.html

http://beacons.amsa.gov.au/What_is/index.asp

Frankly, given this information, I find it unethical for suppliers to
continue selling 121.5 ELTs. Peter was using a 406 transmitter -- the
state of the art. Had he been using a 121.5 unit, there is less than a
1 in 8 chance it would have activated, and assuming it worked
properly, the search area would have been at least 8 times larger (500
nm^2 versus 65 nm^2). Even with the improved unit, it took nearly 16
hours to accurately locate and arrive at the crash site.

It's important to recognize that ELTs are not life saving devices.
They are, at best, crash site locaters. Rapid, life-saving response to
a remote crash site can only happen with a GPS PLB (300-foot accuracy,
several minuts to detection after activation). But these have problems
as well. For instance, they are not automatic. The pilot would need to
recognize danger and activate the unit before the accident or losing
consciousness.

Apologies for wandering here. There's alot to be thought about. By
pilots and contest organizers. This is a response to a well
intentioned, but not necessarily well thought out decision. It
represents a half step: a gesture only. Either we're going to demand
as a group that pilots take more responsibility for protecting those
souls who will risk their lives to find them by installing reliable,
useful devices, or we should leave such decisions entirly up to the
pilot.

Region 4 South has decided that regulation is warranted. Now they
should follow through... or back off. Please, no half steps.

OC

As a member of the local Search and Rescue group, I find the ELT units to be
useful to locate downed aircraft. While it is true that they are activated
accidently in many cases (I have located activated ELT units in hangars in
perfectly good aircraft), they are also useful in locating people who are
alive.

I question some of the conclusions arrived at in the article mentioned and
suggest that SARSAT has a vested interest in promoting the newer units (they
are part of it and it justifies their existence). No doubt the newer units
are better - but the standard ELT does work and does save lives.

In terms of expense, I would be willing to bet that it would be less
expensive to purchase a standard ELT now and in 5 years purchase a
replacement unit (at a mass produced lower cost) than to purchase the 406
unit today.

I have been at a crash scene where the ELT did not work. The largest piece
of the ELT case we found was the size of a quarter. But the crash was not
survivable and in that case it did not matter what the aircraft had.

Sometimes choices made are not perfect, but the present cost of an ELT is
significantly less than $400 and it does offer real benefits over not having
one.

Colin


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.706 / Virus Database: 462 - Release Date: 6/14/04

This ELT string is likely to start a robust conversation, so I may as well
be first. A few points of interest here. I don't know what this assumption
is about the 406 ELT in the Masak crash, but Peter was using a 121.5 ELT. I
was the first airplane to pick up the signal after the US Air Force called
and told us about where to go look. The range of this thing was no where
near 500 miles as has been suggested here. In fact you could fly out of the
range of it in about 4-5 miles, and by going back to the search area, and
flying a different direction, you could soon have a fairly good idea where
to look.

Now, to address why it took so long to find this crash sight, it is very
simple. The ONLY reason it took this long, was because of a cocky, arrogant
EMS director who thought we had nothing good to offer to there search. And
actually at one point as we were trying to get him to look where the ELT was
pointing, he threatened to arrest some of our people, who were quite frankly
getting real fed up with him as well. The message here is, don't be so quick
to write off ANY ELT, because you did not know what really happened here
with Peter. THERE IS NO REASON that it should have taken that long, we had
BETTER information that the search coordinator did, and he refused for about
6 hours to even consider that we might know what we were talking about. In
short.....he was an a--hole!!!

The other factor here is this. Without that, or any ELT, this crash sight
would not be found yet. It was in a protected watershed, where no hiking OR
hunting is allowed for fear of polluting the drinking water, and it was
fenced in....WELL. We needed a key to get into the mountain. One local man
told us that it could have been at least months, and maybe years until
anyone stumbled onto it by accident. let's face it guys, if something bad
should happen to us while flying, do we really want our families to suffer
for a long period of time without closure! I am sure that we are all aware
that sometimes the "not knowing or being able to find" can be worse than
swallowing the fact that our loved ones have actually perished doing what
they truly enjoyed doing. Do you really want to do that too your family? I
DON'T!!!! Use the ELT, it is better than the alternative.

Brian Glick
Mifflin



"Chris OCallaghan" wrote in message
om...
I just received a note from Lanier Frantz stating that all competitors
at R4S must have an ELT. I understand the reason for this decision,
but I question whether it will have the intended effect. I have long
been against mandatory ELT use in soaring competitions for one reason
only: they do not operate as advertised. While 121.5 MHz ELTs are
useful for locating a crash scene, they are nearly useless as a life
saving device. And, in fact, these units only activate properly in
about 12% of crashes.

The management of R4S has made this decision for safety reasons... for
the safety of their own and emergency personnel. This is laudible. But
if such a decision is to be carried through to its intended ends, it
needs to be more specific. It should require that all pilots use 406
MHz ELTs (as Peter Masak was using) and recommend the use of GPS PLBs.
This would dramitically improve the chances of proper activation as
well as early and pinpoint detection. Of course, there's always a
but...

A 406 MHz unit will cost approximately $1500. A GPS PLB about $800. A
121.5 MHz ELT can be had for under $400. Which will pilots choose? The
nearly useless, and soon to be obsolete (2/1/2009) low cost
alternative offered by soaring parts suppliers nationwide.

R4S is mandating a placebo. Again, I understand and commned their
willingness to take a stand, but clearly some more thought is
warranted. Here are a pair of links to help you (the pilot) cut
through the emotional aspects and understand what your dollars are
buying... or aren't.

http://www.sarsat.noaa.gov/emerbcns.html

http://beacons.amsa.gov.au/What_is/index.asp

Frankly, given this information, I find it unethical for suppliers to
continue selling 121.5 ELTs. Peter was using a 406 transmitter -- the
state of the art. Had he been using a 121.5 unit, there is less than a
1 in 8 chance it would have activated, and assuming it worked
properly, the search area would have been at least 8 times larger (500
nm^2 versus 65 nm^2). Even with the improved unit, it took nearly 16
hours to accurately locate and arrive at the crash site.

It's important to recognize that ELTs are not life saving devices.
They are, at best, crash site locaters. Rapid, life-saving response to
a remote crash site can only happen with a GPS PLB (300-foot accuracy,
several minuts to detection after activation). But these have problems
as well. For instance, they are not automatic. The pilot would need to
recognize danger and activate the unit before the accident or losing
consciousness.

Apologies for wandering here. There's alot to be thought about. By
pilots and contest organizers. This is a response to a well
intentioned, but not necessarily well thought out decision. It
represents a half step: a gesture only. Either we're going to demand
as a group that pilots take more responsibility for protecting those
souls who will risk their lives to find them by installing reliable,
useful devices, or we should leave such decisions entirly up to the
pilot.

Region 4 South has decided that regulation is warranted. Now they
should follow through... or back off. Please, no half steps.

OC

I disagree with the comment that 121.5 ELT's are obsolete and question where
this data that " only activate properly in about 12% of crashes." Where did
these statistics come from?
There are proper mounting procedures for ELT's can of course influence the
possibility of the ELT "G" switch functioning properly and antenna
installations will naturally have some affect on the range of the signal.
The use and usefulness of (marine) EPIRBs or PLBs (used for land-based
applications) in sailplanes IMHO is very questionable, that is of course
unless you plan on crashing into a lake or river (Marine EPIRB's are
typically activated by being submersed in water or know you are going to
crash and have time to manually set off the ELT, but in most Sailplane
accidents, like the most recent one with Peter Masak, manually setting of
the ELT would not have been possible therefore the manual triggered PLB
would have been of no use.
Also even though the 406 MHz ELT's "may" be the future standard and "may"
be required (where ELT's are required, in sailplanes they are still not an
FAA requirement), this is not even yet in the USA a mandate, but still
simply proposed, even so, should they become mandated it is still some time
off, and even AFTER this time, 121.5 MHz ELT's will still be allowed. The
fact is still that in local Search and Rescue operations 121.5 will be used
and useful, and though the monitoring of the 121.5 frequency will, when
initiated at this future time not be continuous, BUT they will still be able
to use this frequency when an aircraft is reported missing and will be able
to switch on the 121.5 HHz searching when needed.
more info on http://www.sarsat.noaa.gov/ Also, I'm not sure how many local
pilots have or will have the ability to locate 406 MHz signals.....my radio
sure doesn't go this high, though all current sailplane and local aircraft
transceivers that could be useful in searching for and do have within their
range the 121.5 MHz frequency and can detect the signal from their current
radio set-up.
Also, 121.5 MHz aircraft ELT's are in fact available for under $200 today
adding these units is not a big financial deterrent, but requiring this use
of even the lowest cost 406 MHz ELT's which are going to be well over $1000
($2000 and much higher for any certified units) mandating these be used in
glider contests will certainly adversely affect participation.
tim


"Chris OCallaghan" wrote in message
om...
I just received a note from Lanier Frantz stating that all competitors
at R4S must have an ELT. I understand the reason for this decision,
but I question whether it will have the intended effect. I have long
been against mandatory ELT use in soaring competitions for one reason
only: they do not operate as advertised. While 121.5 MHz ELTs are
useful for locating a crash scene, they are nearly useless as a life
saving device. And, in fact, these units only activate properly in
about 12% of crashes.

The management of R4S has made this decision for safety reasons... for
the safety of their own and emergency personnel. This is laudible. But
if such a decision is to be carried through to its intended ends, it
needs to be more specific. It should require that all pilots use 406
MHz ELTs (as Peter Masak was using) and recommend the use of GPS PLBs.
This would dramitically improve the chances of proper activation as
well as early and pinpoint detection. Of course, there's always a
but...

A 406 MHz unit will cost approximately $1500. A GPS PLB about $800. A
121.5 MHz ELT can be had for under $400. Which will pilots choose? The
nearly useless, and soon to be obsolete (2/1/2009) low cost
alternative offered by soaring parts suppliers nationwide.

R4S is mandating a placebo. Again, I understand and commned their
willingness to take a stand, but clearly some more thought is
warranted. Here are a pair of links to help you (the pilot) cut
through the emotional aspects and understand what your dollars are
buying... or aren't.

http://www.sarsat.noaa.gov/emerbcns.html

http://beacons.amsa.gov.au/What_is/index.asp

Frankly, given this information, I find it unethical for suppliers to
continue selling 121.5 ELTs. Peter was using a 406 transmitter -- the
state of the art. Had he been using a 121.5 unit, there is less than a
1 in 8 chance it would have activated, and assuming it worked
properly, the search area would have been at least 8 times larger (500
nm^2 versus 65 nm^2). Even with the improved unit, it took nearly 16
hours to accurately locate and arrive at the crash site.

It's important to recognize that ELTs are not life saving devices.
They are, at best, crash site locaters. Rapid, life-saving response to
a remote crash site can only happen with a GPS PLB (300-foot accuracy,
several minuts to detection after activation). But these have problems
as well. For instance, they are not automatic. The pilot would need to
recognize danger and activate the unit before the accident or losing
consciousness.

Apologies for wandering here. There's alot to be thought about. By
pilots and contest organizers. This is a response to a well
intentioned, but not necessarily well thought out decision. It
represents a half step: a gesture only. Either we're going to demand
as a group that pilots take more responsibility for protecting those
souls who will risk their lives to find them by installing reliable,
useful devices, or we should leave such decisions entirly up to the
pilot.

Region 4 South has decided that regulation is warranted. Now they
should follow through... or back off. Please, no half steps.

OC

Brian,

I appreciate your first hand knowledge, but you need more info. 406
MHz ELTs broadcast both 406 and 121.5. So I'll grant you some
confusion. Now go back and read my post and the links more carefully.
A 121.5 MHz ELT is anonymous. Peter's was registered and according to
John Good's commentary, confirmed as Peter by the Air Force. There are
many, many other reasons a 406 is better than a single band 121.5
unit. But I'll leave it you to search these out, as I've suggested
every pilot should.

I agree with just about every opinion you've offered. But if we agree
that an ELT is important, let's choose a good one. The best technology
and regulations currently offer. Perhaps, in a better world, you'd
have spotted the wreckage from the air and had hard facts to present
to a narrow minded bureuacrat. I'm not sure I've had borne that
frustration well, either heading off for a stealth search or finding
myself in jail depending on which won out, my head or my heart. I now
understand John Good's references to official incompetence.

Chris
Point well taken on the ELT. I read the link, and I agree, I was
misinformed. And as to EMS. That guy somehow found John's commentary, and
had the nerve to call the retrieve office the next day and express his
displeasure with that report. The guy must have a guilty complex, as so many
agencies were involved that he has no way of knowing who John was talking
about. I also sent you an e-mail with a few comments. Hope you got it!



"Chris OCallaghan" wrote in message
om...
Brian,

I appreciate your first hand knowledge, but you need more info. 406
MHz ELTs broadcast both 406 and 121.5. So I'll grant you some
confusion. Now go back and read my post and the links more carefully.
A 121.5 MHz ELT is anonymous. Peter's was registered and according to
John Good's commentary, confirmed as Peter by the Air Force. There are
many, many other reasons a 406 is better than a single band 121.5
unit. But I'll leave it you to search these out, as I've suggested
every pilot should.

I agree with just about every opinion you've offered. But if we agree
that an ELT is important, let's choose a good one. The best technology
and regulations currently offer. Perhaps, in a better world, you'd
have spotted the wreckage from the air and had hard facts to present
to a narrow minded bureuacrat. I'm not sure I've had borne that
frustration well, either heading off for a stealth search or finding
myself in jail depending on which won out, my head or my heart. I now
understand John Good's references to official incompetence.

Tim

Read one of the links on Chris's original post. There the statistics he
quoted are spelled out. Looks like the link is NOAA\FAA related.

Brian


"Tim Mara" wrote in message
.. .
I disagree with the comment that 121.5 ELT's are obsolete and question
where
this data that " only activate properly in about 12% of crashes." Where
did
these statistics come from?
There are proper mounting procedures for ELT's can of course influence the
possibility of the ELT "G" switch functioning properly and antenna
installations will naturally have some affect on the range of the signal.
The use and usefulness of (marine) EPIRBs or PLBs (used for land-based
applications) in sailplanes IMHO is very questionable, that is of course
unless you plan on crashing into a lake or river (Marine EPIRB's are
typically activated by being submersed in water or know you are going to
crash and have time to manually set off the ELT, but in most Sailplane
accidents, like the most recent one with Peter Masak, manually setting of
the ELT would not have been possible therefore the manual triggered PLB
would have been of no use.
Also even though the 406 MHz ELT's "may" be the future standard and "may"
be required (where ELT's are required, in sailplanes they are still not an
FAA requirement), this is not even yet in the USA a mandate, but still
simply proposed, even so, should they become mandated it is still some
time
off, and even AFTER this time, 121.5 MHz ELT's will still be allowed. The
fact is still that in local Search and Rescue operations 121.5 will be
used
and useful, and though the monitoring of the 121.5 frequency will, when
initiated at this future time not be continuous, BUT they will still be
able
to use this frequency when an aircraft is reported missing and will be
able
to switch on the 121.5 HHz searching when needed.
more info on http://www.sarsat.noaa.gov/ Also, I'm not sure how many
local
pilots have or will have the ability to locate 406 MHz signals.....my
radio
sure doesn't go this high, though all current sailplane and local aircraft
transceivers that could be useful in searching for and do have within
their
range the 121.5 MHz frequency and can detect the signal from their current
radio set-up.
Also, 121.5 MHz aircraft ELT's are in fact available for under $200 today
adding these units is not a big financial deterrent, but requiring this
use
of even the lowest cost 406 MHz ELT's which are going to be well over
$1000
($2000 and much higher for any certified units) mandating these be used in
glider contests will certainly adversely affect participation.
tim


"Chris OCallaghan" wrote in message
om...
I just received a note from Lanier Frantz stating that all competitors
at R4S must have an ELT. I understand the reason for this decision,
but I question whether it will have the intended effect. I have long
been against mandatory ELT use in soaring competitions for one reason
only: they do not operate as advertised. While 121.5 MHz ELTs are
useful for locating a crash scene, they are nearly useless as a life
saving device. And, in fact, these units only activate properly in
about 12% of crashes.

The management of R4S has made this decision for safety reasons... for
the safety of their own and emergency personnel. This is laudible. But
if such a decision is to be carried through to its intended ends, it
needs to be more specific. It should require that all pilots use 406
MHz ELTs (as Peter Masak was using) and recommend the use of GPS PLBs.
This would dramitically improve the chances of proper activation as
well as early and pinpoint detection. Of course, there's always a
but...

A 406 MHz unit will cost approximately $1500. A GPS PLB about $800. A
121.5 MHz ELT can be had for under $400. Which will pilots choose? The
nearly useless, and soon to be obsolete (2/1/2009) low cost
alternative offered by soaring parts suppliers nationwide.

R4S is mandating a placebo. Again, I understand and commned their
willingness to take a stand, but clearly some more thought is
warranted. Here are a pair of links to help you (the pilot) cut
through the emotional aspects and understand what your dollars are
buying... or aren't.

http://www.sarsat.noaa.gov/emerbcns.html

http://beacons.amsa.gov.au/What_is/index.asp

Frankly, given this information, I find it unethical for suppliers to
continue selling 121.5 ELTs. Peter was using a 406 transmitter -- the
state of the art. Had he been using a 121.5 unit, there is less than a
1 in 8 chance it would have activated, and assuming it worked
properly, the search area would have been at least 8 times larger (500
nm^2 versus 65 nm^2). Even with the improved unit, it took nearly 16
hours to accurately locate and arrive at the crash site.

It's important to recognize that ELTs are not life saving devices.
They are, at best, crash site locaters. Rapid, life-saving response to
a remote crash site can only happen with a GPS PLB (300-foot accuracy,
several minuts to detection after activation). But these have problems
as well. For instance, they are not automatic. The pilot would need to
recognize danger and activate the unit before the accident or losing
consciousness.

Apologies for wandering here. There's alot to be thought about. By
pilots and contest organizers. This is a response to a well
intentioned, but not necessarily well thought out decision. It
represents a half step: a gesture only. Either we're going to demand
as a group that pilots take more responsibility for protecting those
souls who will risk their lives to find them by installing reliable,
useful devices, or we should leave such decisions entirly up to the
pilot.

Region 4 South has decided that regulation is warranted. Now they
should follow through... or back off. Please, no half steps.

OC

"BGMIFF" wrote in message ...
This ELT string is likely to start a robust conversation, so I may as well
be first. A few points of interest here. I don't know what this assumption
is about the 406 ELT in the Masak crash, but Peter was using a 121.5 ELT. I
was the first airplane to pick up the signal after the US Air Force called
and told us about where to go look. The range of this thing was no where
near 500 miles as has been suggested here. In fact you could fly out of the
range of it in about 4-5 miles, and by going back to the search area, and
flying a different direction, you could soon have a fairly good idea where
to look.



I don't have any info on what ELT Peter had, but my recent research on
ELTs and PLB's indicated that all 406 units also transmit on 121.5.
There may be exceptions.

Problem seems to be that there are very few 406 ELTs available and, if
there is a TSO, I couldn't find it.

I concluded that an installed 121.5 unit and a portable 406 unit
probably offered the best protection for the money.

I still don't have a reply from Schleicher on recommended installation
for the ASW 28.


Andy

"Andy Durbin" wrote in message
om...

Problem seems to be that there are very few 406 ELTs available and, if
there is a TSO, I couldn't find it.


TSO C-126

Look he http://av-info.faa.gov/tso/Tsocur/Current.htm

Lotsa big talk about ELT's. Not all very true and correct, lotsa good ideas,
but if you actually own an "aircraft" that requires one, you'll be well
served to read the rule that says no more *new* installations using a
TSO-C91 unit. I think it's 91.207 or something thereabouts - very
confusing - it was designed that way I believe.

If you own an aircraft (such as a glider) that does not currently require
one - do what you wish, but if it's US certificated, best to follow the
rules because when you crash is when the rule book comes out. Looks like a
gray (grey for our friends across the pond) area to me, but I suppose if you
elect to install an ELT in a glider that doesn't require one, you can put in
whatever you want. Nobody's gonna care anyhow except your A&P or IA because
maybe he has to sign it off. The Contest Management won't care because they
don't know.

We've had 406 mHz units in our 747's for years - the nice thing about the
406 units is that when they go off, they (the SAR folks) know instantly (LEO
sat I think) not only where the ELT is, but who to call - and we've gotten
calls when they have gone off mistakenly - they have professionals
monitoring these things and they take them very seriously. If you install
one, be damn sure you follow the rules and don't leave it on inadvertantly
because these guys have a tendency to follow up on this kind of thing.

Also, the 406 units are registered - you'll want to keep that up to date as
well or you'll have the Coasties or NOAA on your butt. I just finished a
midair investigation during which we found the tail section of one of the
aircraft because it had an ELT (old one), otherwise we never would have
found the tail because it was a mile away from the rest of the pieces.

Jim

Tim,

I'm disappointed by you lack of knowledge. Your word carries weight as
an expert in these matters. Get expert. For example, 406 ELTs are dual
frequency, broadcasting on 121.5 as well. Suggesting that marine
EPIRBs are the same as Aircraft 406 ELTs is the worst kind of
obfuscation. While they take advantage of the same satellite
resources, the boxes themselves are very different. A sunset date for
121.5 satellite coverage has been set for February of 2009. As I've
noted, there are many other reasons the 406 units are better. These
are just a few. There are also diffences in
unit-to-satellite-to-receiving station visibility, accuracy, and time
to verification of signal. Not the least factor is the false alarm
rate, which introduces an adminstrative delay when any 121.5 signal
appears. Here's a snip from the SARSAT link.

"Different types of ELTs are currently in use. There are approximately
170,000 of the older generation 121.5 MHz ELTs in service.
Unfortunately, these have proven to be highly ineffective. They have a
97% false alarm rate, activate properly in only 12% of crashes, and
provide no identification data. In order to fix this problem 406 MHz
ELTs were developed to work specifically with the Cospas-Sarsat
system. These ELTs dramatically reduce the false alert impact on SAR
resources, have a higher accident survivability success rate, and
decrease the time required to reach accident victims by an average of
6 hours.

Presently, most aircraft operators are mandated to carry an ELT and
have the option to choose between either a 121.5 MHz ELT or a 406 MHz
ELT. The Federal Aviation Administration has studied the issue of
mandating carriage of 406 MHz ELTs. The study indicates that 134 extra
lives and millions of dollars in SAR resources could be saved per
year. The only problem is that 406 MHz ELTs currently cost about
$1,500 and 121.5 MHz ELTs cost around $500. It's easy to see one
reason for the cost differential when you look at the numbers.However,
no one can argue the importance of 406 MHz ELTs and the significant
advantages they hold.

Due to the obvious advantages of 406 MHz beacons and the significant
disadvantages to the older 121.5 MHz beacons, the International
Cospas-Sarsat Program have made a decision to phaseout 121.5 MHz
satellite alerting on February 1st, 2009. All pilots are highly
encouraged both by NOAA and by the FAA to consider making the switch
to 406!"