FCC Bans 121.5 ELTs

[GAHorn]

AvWeb says the ban goes into effect this August.

[jatkins]

But our VHF com radios can broadcast on 121.50 ?? That is a part of the standat\rd freq. ranges ?
So we cannot use that freq. anymore ??

[n3833v]

What a crazy dilema and regulation.

John

[lowNslow]

Here is a further quote from the FCC ruling:

We agree with the USCG that 121.5 MHz ELTs have little residual value for distress alerting purposes now that
Cospas-Sarsat has terminated satellite monitoring of the frequency. See USCG Comments at 1. We also believe
that whatever residual value 121.5 MHz ELTs may have after February 1, 2009, is outweighed by the compelling
interest in ensuring that aviators do not mistakenly rely on 121.5 MHz ELTs for distress alerting and relay in lieu of
carrying 406.0-406.1 MHz ELTs. We are not persuaded by Wartofsky’s speculation that 121.5 MHz ELTs may
retain value for distress alerting purposes through the emergence of an “alternative ELT surveillance technology.”
See Wartofsky Comments at 1.
77 Although this may force some aircraft owners and operators to terminate their use of 121.5 MHz ELTs sooner
than they may have anticipated when they acquired the device, and impel them to incur the cost of purchasing a
406.0-406.1 MHz ELT as a replacement, the safety benefits of imposing an immediate prohibition on continued use
of 121.5 MHz ELTs outweigh the costs. We note, moreover, that the users of 121.5 MHz ELTs have been on notice
of the need to transition to 406.0-406.1 MHz ELTs for a long time. As explained supra, Cospas-Sarsat announced
the 2009 termination of 121.5 MHz signal monitoring in 2000, and the Commission specifically raised the issue of a
domestic prohibition of continued use of 121.5 MHz ELTs in the Second FNPRM, which was released in 2006.

[lowNslow]

Well, assuming we have to go out and purchase a new 406 ELT does anyone have any suggestions?
I am looking at the ACK E-04 for $585.00. They say I can use the remote panel from my current Ameriking unit and it accepts GPS position from Bendix/Garmin devices.
http://www.chiefaircraft.com/airsec/Air ... T/ACK.html

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

Karl,

Like so many 406 ELTs that model ELT will be illegal because it broadcast on 121.5 as well.

[falco]

Karl,

Like so many 406 ELTs that model ELT will be illegal because it broadcast on 121.5 as well.

If the rationale is safety, then the dual freq units (like this one with 406/121.5, not the 121.5/243 units) should be totally acceptable. But then this is the US government we are dealing with. I predict a storm of comments, a big cross agency pissing match, and delay in implementation of this rule.

I'm gonna wait until the dust settles a bit before buying anything.

[Brad Brady]

Well, I'm back at it...the 121.50 system has never worked! The Spot and other systems seam to be a better option!

[Brad Brady]

I was just thinking about it a little more...George Orwell wasn't that far off...121.5 can't find you..but the credit card you have in your pocket....will! ...Big brother is here! but it is in the format of business, not government.

[jrenwick]

Another nail in GA's coffin! If someone wants to come up with a good form letter for members to use to send to our represetatives, etc., I'll be sure to send mine

Don't send form letters. Individually composed letters, in your own words, carry much more weight. Don't try to be fancy, just say what you think. Email and faxes are much better than letters, because since the anthrax scare nine years ago, letters have to go through heavy screening before your senator or representative can see them.

John

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

Jack Nicholson: "OK, folks, heere's the deeel.... any of you who crash and use your 121.5 ELTs to saave your skin...will be

prosecuted by FCC. ......

Discussing this with a friend of mine whose business it is to deal with the FCC and the regulations, he said that broadcasting a signal on any frequency in an emergency including 121.5 is allowed under the basic regulations the FCC was chartered with. Very similar to the FAR that allows a pilot to deviate from any regulation in an emergency.

He said he is not surprised by the FCC action because the under funded understaffed agency is full of people who are politically connected rather than an expert in the field and in large they have no clue what they are doing. He says it is routine for the agency to sell the same spectrum to two different entities but never really allow either to use it. It's gotten so bad that several other agencies of the government like the military and NASA actually have departments in charge of monitoring the FCC and their actions to protect the frequencies and spectrum allocated to them otherwise the FCC is likely to sell it to someone else.

[GAHorn]

... We also believethat whatever residual value 121.5 MHz ELTs may have after February 1, 2009, is outweighed by the compelling interest in ensuring that aviators do not mistakenly rely on 121.5 MHz ELTs ...Although this may force some aircraft owners and operators to terminate their use of 121.5 MHz ELTs sooner
than they may have anticipated when they acquired the device, and impel them to incur the cost of purchasing a
406.0-406.1 MHz ELT as a replacement, the safety benefits ...outweigh the costs. ....

In other words.... FCC thinks it's THEIR job to enforce FAA interests????

Isn't this an FAA matter? If FAA thinks 121.5 ELTs have little/no value...then why does FCC take it upon themselves to prohibit a radio using freqs already, and long-allocated, for emergency use? Doesn't FAA find it offensive that another fed agency is dallying in FAA's playground?

[c170b53]

Oh boy my confidence of those in governance is being severely shaken, what other bubbles could possibly emerge from their beans?

[hilltop170]

As a Civil Air Patrol Search and Rescue Mission Pilot for the last 37 years, I can guarantee you I will not remove my ELTs that broadcast on 121.5. If I need rescue, I'll be transmitting on every frequency that is available to me, whether it is a cell phone, satellite phone, SPOT, 121.5, 406, ham radio, or whatever is available, whether or not I have authorization.

Every airplane with a com radio and every person with a hand-held com is a potential search resource in an ELT event. My CAP Squadron has around twenty mission qualified personnel but only TWO 406 locators! I personally locate several ELTs every year with nothing more than a com radio both on the ground and in the air. I have located two ELTs in the last month with them. The idea of removing those resources from the system is ridiculous and irresponsible. I have no way of monitoring 406 without dedicated equipment that is only available during a search event. We are already required to replace 121.5 ELTs with 121.5/406 ELTs. Removing 121.5 from the equation accomplishes nothing and jeapordizes potential saves.

An ELT or EPIRB signal will not prohibit a voice transmission on 121.5 in the majority of situations so there is not really any conflict in that event. 121.5 is and always has been the emergency frequency and unless the FCC is planning on using that frequency for some other purpose, they have lost their mind if they remove 121.5 from ELTs and EPIRBs. Idiots!

[GAHorn]

Doubtless, it is merely an unfortunate choice of wording in the new FCC policy. I am sure that there is no FCC intent to re-allocate 121.5 for any other purpose than emergency purposes and aviation emergency/guard use.
The intent of the new policy is to prevent/discourage the new mfr, certification, sale, installation, and use of ELTs which primarily use 121.5 as their broadcast frequency. The intent is to encourage everyone to transition to the new 406/243/121.5 ELT units.

This is an opportunity, in my opinion, for us to lobby for the complete revocation of the ELT requirement on aircraft. ELT's should be optional equipment. History has proven them to be unreliable and troublesome, with the vast majority of "alerts" to be false. Few actual saves have resulted from their installation/activation which would not have occured without them. General Aviation has been the group burdened with them primarily, not airlines or military.

It's TIME to DUMP this stupid regulation requiring them.