Slashdot Mirror

According to Wikipedia, Fossett was flying a Bellanca Super Decathlon. That's not a homebuilt, it's a certified airplane that was an enhancement of the venerable Citabria...much like the 7ECA Citabria that I instruct in at my "night" job (yes, I'm a fly-by-night instructor, lol).

It is possible that Fossett modified his Decathlon so that it met the requirements to become an experimental airplane, but that still wouldn't have excused him from the requirement for the ELT. The FARs require an ELT in any aircraft -- certified or experimental -- with more than one seat. For example, my airplane is a homebuilt, but because it has two seats, it also has an ELT.

So, if he did not have an ELT installed, "why???" is still a valid question.

The ELTs that we currently have on our aircraft work just fine.

Not really. Part of the reason for the switch to 406MHz is because the new units provide two important pieces of information that the 121.5MHz units don't: GPS position information and the registered N-number for the airplane in which the ELT is installed. This means that when an ELT signal is "heard", emergency services don't have to initiate a search to find out if it is a real emergency, if it is in an airplane that was bumped on the ramp or if a pilot or mechanic accidentally hit the "on" switch on an ELT while loading or working on an airplane. Ask any CAP member how many times they've had to run out to the airport to do a ramp search because someone accidentally set off an ELT, and you'll quickly find out why this is a good idea.

It's a software issue, nothing more, so why change it?

Again, not exactly. It *is* a software issue in that the big difference between a 406MHz ELT and a 121.5MHz ELT is the frequency they operate on. However, the 406MHz ELT has the additional hardware to receive a GPS signal, and the hardware to encode the GPS position information in the broadcast signal. And, as any savvy network geek can tell you, the amount of information that can be broadcast in a given carrier signal is a function of the frequency of the carrier. As the carrier frequency increases, so does the amount of data that the radio signal can carry. I don't know how much data the new 406MHz units are supposed to carry, but according to an Air Force search and rescue guy who gave a talk at the local EAA meeting this summer, that is part of the reason for the switch -- the 121.5MHz units didn't have the bandwidth to carry the data tags.

So what if it is not as accurate as the newer technology, that's a choice we make as owners. I don't fly in remote areas... in fact, most of my flights are withing 200 miles of Cincinnati, so if I go down, I'm within a few miles of a population center. CAP can use their ELT Locators to find me.

That's great for you, but there are a number of pilots who *do* fly in remote areas, and the simple fact is that the new ELTs allow SAR personnel to respond more quickly, more easily more effectively and with less risk -- especially to false alarms. It is *much* better for an Air Force Rescue Coordination Center to get a hit on a 406MHz ELT and be able to look up the N-number and therefore telephone number for the owner of the ELT that is going off. Then they can call the owner and have them go shut off the ELT if it is a false alarm, or they can dispatch a rescue mission when they speak to the owner's spouse and find out that the owner was really out flying when the ELT went off.

We don't need an additional "TAX..."Right now, they cost 12x as much!

Yes, but right now, the FAA isn't requiring that we replace our 121.5MHz units, either. The USAF is retiring the satellites that monitor 121.5MHz, but if you don't want to switch, you don't have to! Just be aware that, unless you file a flight plan, it could be awhile before anyone goes looking for you because the satellites won't pick up your ELT. However, since you've already stated that most of your flights are "...within a few miles of a population center" that shouldn't really be a big deal for you, right?

FWIW, I have a 121.5MHz unit installed in my airplane, and I don't plan to upgrade to 406MHz until prices drop a bit. However, I am very seriously looking at the personal locater transmitter beacons as a stop-gap. Some (most?) of them use the same system and signalling as the 406MHz ELTs, and they are much more competitively priced. I could easily carry one in the survival vest I wear when flying outside of my local area. The only downside is that you have to manually activate them, so if I crash and am unconscious, the 121.5MHz ELT is all I have. That's a risk I can live with until the 406MHz ELTs come down a bit in price, however.

Part of the clue is with WEP...but not muc less either

I disagree. WEP was a marketing phrase -- "See? Our wireless networking gear is just as secure as traditional wired networks!" Unfortunately, it wasn't. WEP was flawed from the start because of some mistakes made in the implementation of encryption (I don't recall exactly what was wrong and I'm too lazy to Google it, but IIRC, they implemented RC4 incorrectly). A more telling clue about the security (or lack thereof) of WEP was in a quote I found while researching wireless networking for a college presentation: "Installing a wireless LAN may seem like putting Ethernet ports everywhere, including in your parking lot." (Cisco Systems document, "Wireless LAN Security"). You are correct that if you are on the inside, getting access to a wire is not terribly difficult. However, if you don't have access to my facilities, getting access to my wired network just got orders of magnitude harder. It might still be possible, but it's certainly not as easy as simply plugging into an empty network jack. For that matter, where I work, we turn off unused network jacks, so even if you get inside the building, you still won't have physical access to my network unless you unplug someone else's connection -- which will probably be noticed, even if it's only for a few seconds while you connect a switch. But it's worse than that, because on my switch, I can filter ports by MAC address, so unless you find an active port *and* clone a valid MAC address for that port you still won't have access.

If all you want to do is passively sniff traffic that is flowing through a wire, then it's certainly much easier for you -- all you have to do, as you state above, is insert a sniffer between a valid network host and the network jack and you're golden...but that's once you are inside my building. Fortunately, I work in a small enough company that if someone unknown starts mucking around with our network cables, someone is going to get suspicious, so even passively sniffing isn't as easy as you suggest.

With WEP -- and now WPA, as well -- all you have to do is sit in your car on the street outside my building, take ten to fifteen minutes (according to the summary above, anyway) and you can sniff to your heart's content. Sounds much easier than gaining access to my wired network, IMHO.

Sigh...I'm quite familiar with experimental aircraft. My airplane uses one of the two-cylinder Rotax engines you mentioned and you are correct that it only takes a 40 hour test period to get the restrictions removed from your experimental airplane (actually, I think in some cases, it can be as little as 20 hours). Having said that, experimental airplanes a peculiar niche in aviation. From the context, it sounded like the parent post was referring to commercial (i.e. airline) flights, in which case my response was entirely accurate: it is not merely thousands of parts produced by the lowest bidder flying together in formation.

As for whether or not you can do pretty much what you want, that's true as long as you can get the FAA inspector who reviews your airplane to sign off on it. So while you might feel perfectly safe using a couple of pieces of clothesline to tie you into the seat instead of a $50 restraint from Aircraft Spruce (or whoever), unless the FAA inspector signs off on it, you aren't legal (not to say someone probably hasn't tried it or that someone isn't flying without being signed off, but...). You could almost certainly get by with a seatbelt from the local junkyard, but like I said earlier, experimentals are a niche within aviation in general. You *won't* find junkyard seat belts in a Cessna, and if you do, it won't be legal. You for sure won't see them in an airliner.

Experimentals are definitely the exception to what I posted above. I looked at a Dragonfly in the mid-90s, which -- according to the advertising literature, at least -- can hit 140+ MPH on a 80HP VW engine, although I'm a bit skeptical of those claims. Still, I got as far as ordering plans, but didn't have a place to build it. I've since settled for a 70MPH experimental that's fun and cheap, but slower than Christmas, lol.

Going even further off-topic, how do you like the Dyke Delta? I've only seen a write-up once in a very old issue of Kitplanes (early 90's), and I've never seen one in person.

Ummm...most airplanes aren't fit for urban areas. My airplane http://www.gecko-ak.org/N600LW only has a 50hp Rotax engine, but I'd bet my neighbors would lynch me if I were to fire it up in my back yard.

Do newer airplanes still use magnetos?

Do they now use microprocessors or fancy electronics somewhere in either the fuel system or ignition system?

I believe that's being challenged right now. Wasn't there a guy recently arrested for refusing to turn over information requested in a National Security Letter and for contacting a lawyer to have the NSL challenged? I'm too lazy to look it up right now, but I believe I read that here on /. The bottom line is, until SCOTUS rules on the legality of NSLs, their validity is in question. So, for now, my response to an NSL would be: http://www.gecko-ak.org/SpecialPurposeSigFile.txt :)

In any case, your point is taken -- there are plenty of people who will cave under even the slightest pressure, unfortunately.

Well thats precisely what TCAS (Traffic alert and Collision Avoidance System) is designed to do

and there are no "automatic" tools to sweep it clean

Quote:Actually, with aircraft wings, it has been found that vortexes are beneficial...

I think you probably mean that vortices CAN be (but aren't necessarily) beneficial. It is to minimize the effects of wingtip vortices, and the induced drag associated with wingtip vortices, that Lear Jets, Grumman Gulfstreams and (blush) Falcon XP's have those funny-looking winglets at the end of their wings. It is also wingtip vortices that caused me to crack my head on the ceiling of a Cessna Skyhawk, despite the fact that 1) I was wearing my seatbelt and 2) the 747 I was following into Anchorage Int'l was five miles ahead of me (google "wake turbulence").