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 comopetitions for one reason
only: they do not operate as advertised. While 121.5 MHz ELTs are
useful in 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

"BGMIFF" <bglick@acsworld.com> wrote in message news:<10d36u7c7h7bob4@corp.supernews.com>...
> 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

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!"

In article <236582a0.0406170359.7fc2db2f@com >, Chris
OCallaghan <fiveniner2001m> writes
>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 comopetitions for one reason
>only: they do not operate as advertised. While 121.5 MHz ELTs are
>useful in 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

And one of the snags of this device is that they have been know to go
off accidentally.
When that happens a great bit expensive helicopter suddenly appears over
your trailer....
--
Mike Lindsay

Mike Lindsay wrote:

> And one of the snags of this device is that they have been know to go
> off accidentally.
> When that happens a great bit expensive helicopter suddenly appears over
> your trailer....

The one I have can be disabled with a pin (with an attached red flag to
make it obvious). I use to disable it for trailering, then I got lazy,
and 50,000 trailer miles later, no activation. My trailer is metal, so
the signal wouldn't get out anyhow.

Has anyone had an ELT activate while trailering?

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA