Proposed 2005 Rules On SRA Site

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

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

BGMIFF wrote:
You guys are all missing the point. if you have ever been to a contest that
unfortunately suffers a fatality, you will all quit typing and buy and ELT
immediately. Trust me, the wisdom of this has been thouroughly reviewed by
the rules comittee. Well said 9B!

I have been to a contest with a fatality, and no one even thought about
buying an ELT. It happened near the airport. Does one fatality near the
airport in a contest area (Ephrata, WA) in 30 years justify mandatory
ELTs for everyone? I don't think so, especially since our area is 95%+
open rolling hills that are easy to search. Here's my proposal:

1) The Rules Committee promotes and encourages ELT use. If this is a
good idea, it can be sold, though it might take a few years to get close
to 100% usage at contests.

2) The rules allow any contest director to require an ELT as a condition
of entry. This lets the CD to make the tradeoff between potentially
fewer entries and the amount of grief and anguish the contest operations
people are willing to risk. After all, the ELT is being installed for
THEIR benefit, so they should have a say in the value of this benefit.

3) The pilot is encouraged to discuss the cost of the ELT and it's
benefit with the pilot's spouse and other family members. It is for
THEIR benefit that the ELTs are being mandated, so they should have a
choice on spending their dollars for it, or for some other benefit.

Personally, I fly with a mounted ELT, mostly because it makes my wife
feel better about the extensive cross-country flying I do (it might
possibly even help me, if I survive the crash). It can be activated
manually, so I don't have to depend on impact.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

-I would like to add one change to Eric's proposal and that is
concerning the requirement for a mounted ELT. I understand the
differences of a mounted/g switch activation and personal ELT's. I
would hope that with all the personal ones being carried by pilots
already, that these would be accepted for a period of time. I would
very much like to have a unit with the GPS and aircraft code but not at
the present cost. I presently have a personal ELT and would have to
consider the expense of obtaining a present mounted model and only
using it until the price becomes more reasonable for the new soon to be
mandated 405 models. So, I suggest and request the Rules committee
allow the personal ELT's at those contests where ELT's will be
required. A suggestion to those contests where ELT's would be
required. There should be an adequate contestant notification period
of time. I suggest nothing less than six months before the contest
date.
Tom
Idaho

Eric Greenwell wrote:
BGMIFF wrote:
You guys are all missing the point. if you have ever been to a
contest that
unfortunately suffers a fatality, you will all quit typing and buy
and ELT
immediately. Trust me, the wisdom of this has been thouroughly
reviewed by
the rules comittee. Well said 9B!

I have been to a contest with a fatality, and no one even thought
about
buying an ELT. It happened near the airport. Does one fatality near
the
airport in a contest area (Ephrata, WA) in 30 years justify mandatory

ELTs for everyone? I don't think so, especially since our area is
95%+
open rolling hills that are easy to search. Here's my proposal:

1) The Rules Committee promotes and encourages ELT use. If this is a
good idea, it can be sold, though it might take a few years to get
close
to 100% usage at contests.

2) The rules allow any contest director to require an ELT as a
condition
of entry. This lets the CD to make the tradeoff between potentially
fewer entries and the amount of grief and anguish the contest
operations
people are willing to risk. After all, the ELT is being installed for

THEIR benefit, so they should have a say in the value of this
benefit.

3) The pilot is encouraged to discuss the cost of the ELT and it's
benefit with the pilot's spouse and other family members. It is for
THEIR benefit that the ELTs are being mandated, so they should have a

choice on spending their dollars for it, or for some other benefit.

Personally, I fly with a mounted ELT, mostly because it makes my wife

feel better about the extensive cross-country flying I do (it might
possibly even help me, if I survive the crash). It can be activated
manually, so I don't have to depend on impact.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

wrote:
-I would like to add one change to Eric's proposal and that is
concerning the requirement for a mounted ELT. I understand the
differences of a mounted/g switch activation and personal ELT's. I
would hope that with all the personal ones being carried by pilots
already, that these would be accepted for a period of time. I would
very much like to have a unit with the GPS and aircraft code but not
at
the present cost. I presently have a personal ELT and would have to
consider the expense of obtaining a present mounted model and only
using it until the price becomes more reasonable for the new soon to
be
mandated 405 models. So, I suggest and request the Rules committee
allow the personal ELT's at those contests where ELT's will be
required. A suggestion to those contests where ELT's would be
required. There should be an adequate contestant notification period
of time. I suggest nothing less than six months before the contest
date.
Tom
Idaho

Reply:
With respect to well thought out comments by Eric, this is exactly what
has been done. Gradual increase in ELT adoption has resulted.
Especially effective in getting ELT's in gliders is having the spouse
in the room when the safety talk on this is done. Several have been
under the Christmans tree.
Re notification of intent to require. This is to be announced by
contest organizers when they announce their contest and prior to
closing of preferential entry. Six month lead time is unrealistic given
planning cycles of most contests.
UH

Eric Greenwell wrote:
BGMIFF wrote:
You guys are all missing the point. if you have ever been to a
contest that
unfortunately suffers a fatality, you will all quit typing and
buy
and ELT
immediately. Trust me, the wisdom of this has been thouroughly
reviewed by
the rules comittee. Well said 9B!

I have been to a contest with a fatality, and no one even thought
about
buying an ELT. It happened near the airport. Does one fatality near
the
airport in a contest area (Ephrata, WA) in 30 years justify
mandatory

ELTs for everyone? I don't think so, especially since our area is
95%+
open rolling hills that are easy to search. Here's my proposal:

1) The Rules Committee promotes and encourages ELT use. If this is
a
good idea, it can be sold, though it might take a few years to get
close
to 100% usage at contests.

2) The rules allow any contest director to require an ELT as a
condition
of entry. This lets the CD to make the tradeoff between potentially
fewer entries and the amount of grief and anguish the contest
operations
people are willing to risk. After all, the ELT is being installed
for

THEIR benefit, so they should have a say in the value of this
benefit.

3) The pilot is encouraged to discuss the cost of the ELT and it's
benefit with the pilot's spouse and other family members. It is for
THEIR benefit that the ELTs are being mandated, so they should have
a

choice on spending their dollars for it, or for some other benefit.

Personally, I fly with a mounted ELT, mostly because it makes my
wife

feel better about the extensive cross-country flying I do (it might
possibly even help me, if I survive the crash). It can be activated
manually, so I don't have to depend on impact.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

406 mzh will not be "mandated" in gliders since gliders are not "mandated"
to have ELT's!.
My best understanding is : even new 406 units will have 121.5/243mzh
capability....the search by 121.5/243 will no longer be continously
monitored but can still be activated when required (when an aircraft is
known down) even after 406 become standard...and even with 406mzh ELT's the
local S&R will still be by 121.5/243.0 signals.....
tim

"T o d d P a t t i s t" wrote in message
...
wrote:

until the price becomes more reasonable for the new soon to be
mandated 405 models.

I'm not aware that there is any plan to "mandate" the newer
units. The old ones will no longer be satellite monitored,
but that's a different issue from whether they will continue
to meet the applicable FAR requirements. Does anyone have
info that the new units will be mandated in the U.S.?

Tim,

I made a bad choice of words, "mandate", was not what I ment to imply.
Lets use the equipment of choice in a few years. The 406 as you
pointed out will be the most efficient ELT around and I would bet as
time goes on the older c91a units will become real dinosaurs. I also
miss implyled that ELT's were required in gliders which they are not,
well not by the FAA. But if this rule goes forward they will be
required for all SSA sanctioned events. I agree with Eric's proposal
that emphasis should be made to get owners to install them but I do not
feel they should make this rule.
Tom
Tim Mara wrote:
406 mzh will not be "mandated" in gliders since gliders are not
"mandated"
to have ELT's!.
My best understanding is : even new 406 units will have 121.5/243mzh
capability....the search by 121.5/243 will no longer be continously
monitored but can still be activated when required (when an aircraft
is
known down) even after 406 become standard...and even with 406mzh
ELT's the
local S&R will still be by 121.5/243.0 signals.....
tim

"T o d d P a t t i s t" wrote in
message
...
wrote:

until the price becomes more reasonable for the new soon to be
mandated 405 models.

I'm not aware that there is any plan to "mandate" the newer
units. The old ones will no longer be satellite monitored,
but that's a different issue from whether they will continue
to meet the applicable FAR requirements. Does anyone have
info that the new units will be mandated in the U.S.?

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.

I participated in the '91 search effort - fortunately the pilot
sustained only minor injuries during the crash and was able to extract
himself from the wreckage and walk to safety. Although I feel the
OSTIV-award winning design of the ASW-24 safety cockpit had a lot to do
with the survivability of this crash, an ELT would have certainly
assisted us in the search. I ordered an ELT after this contest.
Tim Gossfeld

Todd,

The answers to your questions are not currently available; however, here is
what the AOPA has to say on the subject.

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/regulatory/elt.html?PF

Wayne
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder


"T o d d P a t t i s t" wrote in message
...
"Tim Mara" wrote:

406 mzh will not be "mandated" in gliders since gliders are not
"mandated"
to have ELT's!.

Thanks, Tim.

Yes, I'm aware that gliders are not mandated to have ELT's,
but airplanes are, (unless used for instruction and flown
locally, etc.) so my "mandate" question really related to
airplanes. Do you know if there is any plan to:

a) require airplanes to remove their 121.5 ELTs and replace
them with 406's or

b) require new installations to use only the new 406 units?

Since the C91 units were grandfathered in when the new C91a
units were mandated, I presume a) is unlikely, but what
about (b)? Will they be optional or required for meeting ELT
requirements.

I participated in the '91 search effort - fortunately the pilot
sustained only minor injuries during the crash and was able to extract
himself from the wreckage and walk to safety. Although I feel the
OSTIV-award winning design of the ASW-24 safety cockpit had a lot to do
with the survivability of this crash, an ELT would have certainly
assisted us in the search. I ordered an ELT after this contest.
Tim Gossfeld

Tim,

I went one step further: After that contest, I ordered an ASW 24 with
the safety cockpit AND an ELT. Still have both.

Since then, have bought new winglets for the '24, new batteries for the
ACK ELT. Would prefer not to have to spend more money to upgrade either
one.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"