FCC Outlaws 121.5 MHz ELTs

[West_Coast_Guy]

This takes effect sixty days after publication in the Federal Register (per Item D26 on page 15):

PDF version:

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-103A1.pdf

Text version:

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-103A1.txt

MS Word version:

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-103A1.doc

Excerpt from the Final Rule (Appendix B):

§ 87.195 Prohibition of 121.5 MHz ELTs.
The manufacture, importation, sale or use of 121.5 MHz ELTs is prohibited.

Since even the "use" of 121.5 MHz ELTs appears to be banned, I find myself wondering how the avionics industry and avionics shops are going to get all those ELTs replaced in less than sixty days.

[Eclipse]

What it says is clear, but doesn't make any sense - the new(ish) 400Mhz devices still xmit the DF locater signal on 121.5.

Does that make it a 121.5 device in this context?  The band is still designated as emergency.

W/O the DF constant signal, there's little chance of finding an airplane based on the burst alone.

[Eclipse]

They's also just obsoleted hundreds of thousands of dollars (if not millions) of equipment, not just in CAP, but all sorts of agencies, and put several companies out of business.

Anyone have background on this?  The 400Mhz switch-over was a big, public deal.  why is something like this under the radar?

[a2capt]

Interesting, you'd think AOPA would be all over it like gnats on a crop dusters leading edge.

[tsrup]

There's more to be done here.  I noticed that the FAA and AOPA were excluded from the commenting parties. 

I wouldn't be surprised if there was some enormous pressure put forth by AOPA to either extend the end date or to shoot this plan out of the water.

And as it was posted earlier, the 406 does xmit on 121.5 so I'm guessing that the FCC has a few more bugs in their plan that they need to work out.

What they seem most concerned about in their proposition is the termination of satellite usage, as breitling got the go ahead to continue it's use of the 121.5 band.  Either that or there's some FCC higher ups with some nice new expensive watches.

I don't see the 60 day sundown panning out as expected.

[tsrup]

Interesting, you'd think AOPA would be all over it like gnats on a crop dusters leading edge.

From what I understand is that this proposal has just reached the AOPA not to soon before it was posted here.  We can expect comment on this by Monday at the latest.

[PHall]

It's not like there hasn't been any advance notice of this coming. This has been in the works for the past 10 years.
And as the Commission pointed out, the only way to make the transition happen was to ban the 121.5 MHz beacons, otherwise the procrastinators will keep on using their obsolete beacons for years.

[Eclipse]

It's not like there hasn't been any advance notice of this coming. This has been in the works for the past 10 years.
And as the Commission pointed out, the only way to make the transition happen was to ban the 121.5 MHz beacons, otherwise the procrastinators will keep on using their obsolete beacons for years.

Agreed, but then why allow the new beacons to do 121.5 at all?  I'd be pretty hacked if I bought a new ELT only to find out a year or
two later I had to buy another one.

[West_Coast_Guy]

What it says is clear, but doesn't make any sense - the new(ish) 400Mhz devices still xmit the DF locater signal on 121.5.

Does that make it a 121.5 device in this context?  The band is still designated as emergency.

W/O the DF constant signal, there's little chance of finding an airplane based on the burst alone.

I doubt that the inclusion of the 121.5 MHz beacon in a 406 MHz ELT makes it a 121.5 MHz ELT.

[lordmonar]

Note how they talk about the ELT watch.....I think the FCC does not consider the 121.5 of the new 406 ELTs to be "ELTs" but simply a homing signal......

As for why this is happening....the AOPA has been blocking Mandating the 406 since forever.   

As for making CAP equipment obsolete......that is not true.  The 406 will still have the 121.5 and we should be transitioning all of our aircraft to the Becker any whys.

This is a nice example of how the government gets around special intrest groups.

The AOPA has a lot of clout with the FAA but not a whole lot with the FCC.

I thing all in all this is a good move.  It will force GA owners to transition to the 406 which will reduce the SAR time in the event of an accident.

[West_Coast_Guy]

It's not like there hasn't been any advance notice of this coming. This has been in the works for the past 10 years.
And as the Commission pointed out, the only way to make the transition happen was to ban the 121.5 MHz beacons, otherwise the procrastinators will keep on using their obsolete beacons for years.

It's true that they have been working on this rulemaking since 2001, but the date by which the old ELTs can no longer be used was not announced until FOUR DAYS AGO! The time for an entire industry to make a transition like this needs to be a lot longer than sixty days.

There also needs to be some period of years between prohibiting sale and prohibiting use, so that unsuspecting buyers don't end up paying for new ELTs that they are almost immediately prohibited from using.

[West_Coast_Guy]

The AOPA has a lot of clout with the FAA but not a whole lot with the FCC.

Organizations that don't even comment on the NPRM don't have much "clout" either, that much I know. From the list of commenters in Appendix A, It looks to me like this NPRM escaped the notice of AOPA and the other GA groups.

I thing all in all this is a good move.  It will force GA owners to transition to the 406 which will reduce the SAR time in the event of an accident.

Could be, but I don't see how manufacturers of 406 MHz beacons are going to be able to ramp up production fast enough, or avionics shops are going to be able to install new ELTs fast enough, to get nearly the entire GA fleet converted within sixty days. It seems to me that a lot more thought is needed on the realities of the transition process.

[PHall]

There also needs to be some period of years between prohibiting sale and prohibiting use, so that unsuspecting buyers don't end up paying for new ELTs that they are almost immediately prohibited from using.

You're going to have to convince me that anybody who owns their own airplane is so far out-of-the-loop that they don't know about 121.5 MHz beacons going away.

[Flying Pig]

^   HAAA....Oh Man brutha....if you only knew!

[FW]

^Seriously, if this happens, CAP will be spending close to a million dollars on switching the remaining 121.5 MHz ELTs (I think that's the entire training budget for the year...)  It will be next to impossible to equip the fleet in 60 days with the 406 MHz ELTs; especially with about 100k GA aircraft still needing to change.

Look for the AOPA and other Aviation advocacy groups to seek an injuction before the ink is dry on the final ruling.   

[wuzafuzz]

60 days?!?!  Yeah right...  Compliance will be lower than whale poop.  The FCC will have a better chance of convincing people to play nice and follow the rules on the CB radio bands. 

[PHall]

In theory, when the plane goes through it annual, the ELT is supposed to get it's battery replaced.
If the A&P is following the rules, the 121.5 MHz beacon would be removed because it's not legal anymore.
If a plane goes through it's annual and the 121.5 MHz ELT is not removed then the A&P who signed off the annual just put his license in jeopardy.
The FAA could revoke it for not following the rules.

[Al Sayre]

Most ELT Batteries are generally changed out every 4 years. CAP has been changing out the ELT's to 406 as they come due for a couple of years now, so I suspect it will be somewhere around 25% or less of the fleet remains as 121.5 only.  I believe MS Wing has already completed our transition.  I also suspect the USAF will have some comments on that since they will have to approve the maintenance budget for a rapid change out.

[FW]

121.5 MHz ELTs are still legal in the U.S.  IF they become illegal to use, it will take at least 1 year to transition.  There is no way, IMO, Avionics shops/FBO's will be able to handle over 100k aircraft in just 60 days.
This is not a simple matter of "replacing a battery" 406 MHz ELT's require different switching and antennas, as well as a different mounting harness (except for one company's product).  Your looking at about 3-5 (?) hours of labor to make the switch.  Let's see, that makes over 300,000 hours of labor to do the job for the entire GA fleet (time includes paperwork). Now, let's assume avionics shops/FBO's have more than just ELT installations to handle.  Hmm, anyone care to do the math....

[lordmonar]

^Seriously, if this happens, CAP will be spending close to a million dollars on switching the remaining 121.5 MHz ELTs (I think that's the entire training budget for the year...)  It will be next to impossible to equip the fleet in 60 days with the 406 MHz ELTs; especially with about 100k GA aircraft still needing to change.

Look for the AOPA and other Aviation advocacy groups to seek an injuction before the ink is dry on the final ruling.   

CAP has been transitioning to the 406 for awhile....so I don't see the price tag being that high.....eitherway.....it is a cost we should have been planning for all along!

[PHall]

I know the CAWG aircraft have been getting the new 406 MHz ELTs installed during their annuals when the battery needs replacing for a couple of years now.
And all of the new aircraft that have been purchased in the past couple of years came equipped from the factory with a 406 MHz ELT.

[Trung Si Ma]

This is a nice example of how the government gets around special intrest groups.

Looks to me more like a nice example of how a special interest group (406 MHz ELT manufacturers) get around the appropriate government body. 

Dad (the FAA) said NO, so let's go to Mom (FCC) and whine some more, maybe she'll say yes.  Besides, Mom doesn't fly, so she has no understanding why no one else mandates 406 beacons at this time (at least in NA).

I can't get my 182 in the shop for an avionics upgrade until late August for an IFR check, but we're going to switch out the entire GA fleet in that same time?

[lordmonar]

I just got an e-mail from my wing ops officer telling all squadrons to check their aircraft for the old ELTS.

At least NVWG is moving forward.

Trang Si Ma,

I don't think it is the ELT manufacturers (they are the same guys who make the 121.5s) who are pushing it.

We (the SAR community) moved to the 406 because it will save more lives.....but the AOPA is blocking the FAA's attempt to make it manditory.  So the SAR community went else where.

The FAA only said "no" because of threats from from outside the government....AOPA.

Now don't get me wrong....I like the AOPA and think they do a good job of watching out for the rights of pilots and the GA community in general.

But I think they are DEAD WRONG when they blocked the FAA in making the transition to the 406 mandatory.

[West_Coast_Guy]

You're going to have to convince me that anybody who owns their own airplane is so far out-of-the-loop that they don't know about 121.5 MHz beacons going away.

EVERYONE was out-of-the-loop as to the final implementation date until FIVE DAYS AGO!

I'm not an aircraft owner, but I'm guessing that most of them thought there would be more than a sixty day transition period when the time finally came.

[Trung Si Ma]

I don't think it is the ELT manufacturers (they are the same guys who make the 121.5s) who are pushing it.

Who else would be pushing it?  The ELT in my 182 was installed in 1974 and is now 36 years without being replaced by the next new thing.  And it still worked when I checked it during the annual last week.  If they want to keep manufacturing new ELT's, they need to create a new customer base.  If the FAA won't let them, maybe the FCC will.

We (the SAR community) moved to the 406 because it will save more lives.....

Gee, I thought it was because it was illegal for yachts to use 121.5 internationally.  Isn't that the reason we're moving the aircraft to a boating frequency?  Boat people - now there is an international lobby group for you.

[Jerry Jacobs]

I don't think it is the ELT manufacturers (they are the same guys who make the 121.5s) who are pushing it.

Who else would be pushing it?  The ELT in my 182 was installed in 1974 and is now 36 years without being replaced by the next new thing.  And it still worked when I checked it during the annual last week.  If they want to keep manufacturing new ELT's, they need to create a new customer base.  If the FAA won't let them, maybe the FCC will.

We (the SAR community) moved to the 406 because it will save more lives.....

Gee, I thought it was because it was illegal for yachts to use 121.5 internationally.  Isn't that the reason we're moving the aircraft to a boating frequency?  Boat people - now there is an international lobby group for you.

I think that anyone flying in a plane would want to ave a 406 beacon in their plane.  Lets list some facts.

Time from ELT activation until SAR resources start rolling

121.5 ELT: 6 Hours (This was back when the freq. was monitored too, imagine it can be more like a day now in some less populated area, just last week in CAWG we had a 121.5 ELT get reported several times over several days until AFRCC was notified.

406 w/o GPS: 1 Hour (406 also saves the government money on not needing to mount a Search and Rescue operation when the plane is sitting at an airport. It also gives a more accurate location)

406 with GPS: 5 Minutes

I don't want to have to be laying in a aircraft wreckage for at least 6 hours during a cold, damp night because the pilot was to cheap to buy a new ELT. YMMV

[lordmonar]

I don't think it is the ELT manufacturers (they are the same guys who make the 121.5s) who are pushing it.

Who else would be pushing it?  The ELT in my 182 was installed in 1974 and is now 36 years without being replaced by the next new thing.  And it still worked when I checked it during the annual last week.  If they want to keep manufacturing new ELT's, they need to create a new customer base.  If the FAA won't let them, maybe the FCC will.

We (the SAR community) moved to the 406 because it will save more lives.....

Gee, I thought it was because it was illegal for yachts to use 121.5 internationally.  Isn't that the reason we're moving the aircraft to a boating frequency?  Boat people - now there is an international lobby group for you.

No....we are using the 406 because it is better.

Faster triangulation by the sats, better initial fix and GPS capable.

The boat people were using 121.5 just like we were....they had to change too.

[FW]

The argument is not which freq is the better one;(406 MHz is the superior technology).  It is the logistical impossibility to change out every existing 121.5 MHz GA ELT in 60 days.  It just isn't going to happen.  It usually takes 2 months just to schedule a visit to the shop.  No, this NPRM will not fly peacefully into the record.  Not going to happen....

[a2capt]

Are there even that many units in stock anywhere right this moment?

Or that many hours in the day for every flight worthy aircraft to get it's paperwork done?

[RiverAux]

This is nothing different than what they did to boaters when they prohibited 121.5 EPIRBs, so the concept is nothing new.  The phaseout period has to be a mistake as I just don't see anything really thinking that this was doable in this time period. 

[Major Lord]

I guess we will see lots of old ELT's on E-Bay......Maybe we can re-crystal them as practice beacons.

Major Lord

[sardak]

This is nothing different than what they did to boaters when they prohibited 121.5 EPIRBs, so the concept is nothing new.

Not exactly.  Here is the wording from the FCC regs eliminating 121.5 EPRIBs.
Class [A, B, S] EPIRBs shall not be manufactured, imported, or sold in the United States on or after February 1, 2003.
Operation of Class [A, B, S] EPIRB stations shall be prohibited after December 31, 2006.
New Class [A, B, S] EPIRBs will no longer be certified by the Commission. Existing Class [A, B, S] EPIRBs must be operated as certified.

Here's the wording for ELTs.
The manufacture, importation, sale or use of 121.5 MHz ELTs is prohibited.

So owners of 121.5 EPIRBs had almost four years to transition to 406 EPIRBs. 

The phaseout period has to be a mistake as I just don't see anything really thinking that this was doable in this time period.

Agreed. The argument presented in the order is that ELT owners have had plenty of notice about the phase-out of Sarsat monitoring of 121.5 and so should have switched to 406. But so what, the FAA hasn't mandated 406 beacons, so ELT owners have not been required to switch.

This move by the FCC creates a legal conflict.  For some (most?) aircraft required by FARs to have an ELT, a TSO C-91a (121.5) is still a legal choice. An aircraft owner or A&P has to follow the FARs, not the FCC regs. Is a 121.5 ELT installed in an aircraft, but not transmitting, being "used"?

As for the numbers that need to be changed over in "60 days," by NOAA's own estimates, in 2009 there were roughly 298,000 121.5 ELTs in the US.

Mike

[West_Coast_Guy]

Is a 121.5 ELT installed in an aircraft, but not transmitting, being "used"?

The normal use of an ELT is to install it in an aircraft and arm it, with the expectation that it will transmit if there is a crash. So I would say that anyone who thinks that is not "using" it is engaging in wishful thinking.

[PHall]

If the FCC wants to be a real pain about it, the next "non-distress" 121.5 MHz ELT find you get could result in a nice big fine for the owner.

I wonder if that will reduce the number of inadvertent ELT activations?

[SarDragon]

I guess we will see lots of old ELT's on E-Bay......Maybe we can re-crystal them as practice beacons.

Major Lord

According to info put out by Hartley Gardner a while back, that is a no-no. The transmitters are set up to allow significant 2nd harmonic radiation, so the military 243 MHz receivers can also hear them. The second harmonic of 121.775 MHz is not on our list of usable frequencies.

[a2capt]

..and that has been a big prickly pear. Because I have modified some brands of them and the output has been only 121.775 and nothing else.

Done very similarly to how the Pointer trainer does it.

[SarDragon]

..and that has been a big prickly pear. Because I have modified some brands of them and the output has been only 121.775 and nothing else.

Done very similarly to how the Pointer trainer does it.

Interesting. The one I have in my garage definitely transmitted on both freqs. Don't recall the date of manufacture, and it was on the now-discarded case.

[Major Lord]

The technician responsible for the conversion would be required to insure that the unit met the FCC standards for spectral purity. A big second harmonic would be a no-no. Converting an ELT to operation off 121.5 would not just require a new crystal, but a realignment of the whole device.

Major Lord
FCC GROL + RADAR Licensee

[West_Coast_Guy]

...There also needs to be some period of years between prohibiting sale and prohibiting use, so that unsuspecting buyers don't end up paying for new ELTs that they are almost immediately prohibited from using.

I need to correct my statement above. It was pointed out on another board that new installations of 121.5 MHz ELTs have been prohibited by 14 CFR 91.207 since 1995, so the only people who might be forced to discard newly purchase items are those who have recently bought new batteries for existing 121.5 MHz ELTs.

There's still the problem of the ability of the avionics industry to accommodate replacement of a large number of ELTs in less than sixty days, however.

[JoeTomasone]

I need to correct my statement above. It was pointed out on another board that new installations of 121.5 MHz ELTs have been prohibited by 14 CFR 91.207 since 1995

Huh?   

If you bought a new ELT in, say, 1998, what did you buy?

[tsrup]

As predicted, AOPA released this today:
http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2010/100621elt.html

[West_Coast_Guy]

Huh?   

If you bought a new ELT in, say, 1998, what did you buy?

Well, I just dug a little deeper, and it appears that what 91.207 has prohibited since 1995 are TSO-C91 ELTs, but it doesn't say anything about ones that meet TSO-C91a, which are also 121.5 MHz. The following AOPA regulatory brief explains the difference between them:

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

It's hard to keep this stuff straight! 

[sardak]

Since 1995, C91a ELTs have been installed. They are 121.5/243.0 beacons and are still legal to install today. 406 MHz ELTs are built to TSO-C126, which can also be installed, and if the FCC order holds, will be required.

Mike

[sardak]

More evidence that the FCC, led by the National SAR Committee (among others), ambushed the aviation industry. From the Aircraft Electronics Association.
http://aea.net/governmentaffairs/regulatoryupdates.asp?ID=42

The AEA was made aware of this issue only today (June 21, 2010), and has begun working with the FAA, FCC and other associations to allow for a timely transition to this new FCC prohibition without grounding thousands of general aviation aircraft. At this time, the AEA recommends members delay selling any new 121.5 MHz ELTs until further understanding of this new prohibition can be understood and a realistic timeline for transition can be established.

Mike

I thought I posted this but it didn't show up. If we see this message twice, sorry.

[West_Coast_Guy]

I doubt that the inclusion of the 121.5 MHz beacon in a 406 MHz ELT makes it a 121.5 MHz ELT.

By the way, I've been having a hard time convincing some of the posters on the AOPA Forum of this. For some reason, some of them think that it's plausible that the FCC would intend to obsolete all of the existing 406 MHz ELTs along with the 121.5 MHz ones. Reading the explanatory text and notes in the Report and Order would seem to dispel that misconception, IMO.

[C-182 Jockey]

406 ELT Homer - If you read the Third Report and Order just after the paragraph on analog ELT's you will see another paragraph that talks about 406 ELT's.  The first line of that paragraph states that except for the "spurious emission limits specified" - the 406 - 406.1 ELT must meet the performance standards.

12. Section 87.199 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 87.199 Special requirements for 406.0-406.1 MHz ELTs.
(a) 406.0-406.1 ELTs use G1D emission. Except for the spurious emission limits specified in
§ 87.139(h), 406.0–406.1 MHz ELTs must meet all the technical and performance standards contained in the
Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics document titled Minimum Operational Performance
Standards 406 MHz Emergency Locator Transmitters (ELT)" Document No. RTCA/DO–204 dated
September 29, 1989.


12 Section 97.139(h) For ELTs operating on 121.500 MHz, 243.000 MHz and 406.0406.1 MHz the mean power of any emission must be attenuated below the mean power of the transmitter (pY) as follows: (1) When the frequency is moved from the assigned frequency by more than 50 percent up to and including 100 percent of the authorized bandwidth the attenuation must be at least 25 dB; (2) When the frequency is removed from the assigned frequency by more than 100 percent of the authorized bandwidth the attenuation must be at least 30 dB.


I would bet you a box of SM Doughnuts that is the allowance for the analog 121.5 homer on the 406 beacons.

Commies am I close??

[West_Coast_Guy]

Unfortunately RTCA/DO-204A (the current version) is only available for purchase (for around $100). However we can infer the spec by looking at the specs for available units. The first one I checked is five watts on 406 MHz, and 100 mW on 121.5 MHz. That's about 17 dB down.

http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/elt406.php

[C-182 Jockey]

FCC Decision - Before you bash the FCC folks keep in mind that the FCC is a member of the National SAR Committee along with the FAA, USAF-AFRCC, USCG, NASA, FEMA, National Park Service, NOAA and the USGS.

The 121.5 phaseout discussion has been going on for almost 20 years!  No one was "blind sided".  The last time a public notice was issued was January 2009.  "The Commission has prohibited the use of 121.5 MHz EPIRBs on U.S.-registered vessels,  and is considering a proposal  to prohibit the use of 121.5 MHz ELTs on U.S.-registered aircraft."
http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/cg534/EmergencyBeacons/FCC_Public_Notice_121.5_Jan09.doc

What has happened is that the agency that regulates General Aviation has dropped the ball.  No leadership, no ownership. Maybe now that they have a "SAR Office" that might change.

Also keep in mind that this is not a US GA issue - it is an international issue.
"The International COSPAS-SARSAT Program's mission is to protect life and property by providing accurate, timely, and reliable alert and location information from persons in distress to search and rescue authorities. Due to numerous signal reception problems, a high incidence of false alerts (over 97%), and a host of other limitations associated with the 121.5 and 243 MHz frequencies, the International COSPAS-SARSAT Program, with guidance from the United Nations, decided to terminate the processing of 121.5/243 MHz alerts by the COSPAS-SARSAT satellite system as of 1 February 2009.


Additionally it is in the FCC's mission too "to further the Commission's goals of accommodating new technologies, facilitating the efficient and effective use of the aeronautical spectrum, avoiding unnecessary regulation, and, above all, enhancing the safety of flight."

Analog ELT's are 1950's technology folks!  It is time to make the change and do less searching and more rescuing!!

[Major Lord]

406 ELT Homer - If you read the Third Report and Order just after the paragraph on analog ELT's you will see another paragraph that talks about 406 ELT's.  The first line of that paragraph states that except for the "spurious emission limits specified" - the 406 - 406.1 ELT must meet the performance standards.

12. Section 87.199 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 87.199 Special requirements for 406.0-406.1 MHz ELTs.
(a) 406.0-406.1 ELTs use G1D emission. Except for the spurious emission limits specified in
§ 87.139(h), 406.0–406.1 MHz ELTs must meet all the technical and performance standards contained in the
Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics document titled Minimum Operational Performance
Standards 406 MHz Emergency Locator Transmitters (ELT)" Document No. RTCA/DO–204 dated
September 29, 1989.


12 Section 97.139(h) For ELTs operating on 121.500 MHz, 243.000 MHz and 406.0406.1 MHz the mean power of any emission must be attenuated below the mean power of the transmitter (pY) as follows: (1) When the frequency is moved from the assigned frequency by more than 50 percent up to and including 100 percent of the authorized bandwidth the attenuation must be at least 25 dB; (2) When the frequency is removed from the assigned frequency by more than 100 percent of the authorized bandwidth the attenuation must be at least 30 dB.


I would bet you a box of SM Doughnuts that is the allowance for the analog 121.5 homer on the 406 beacons.

Commies am I close??

Who you call'n a commie?

Major Lord

[West_Coast_Guy]

Does anyone actually have a copy of RTCA/DO-204? I'm wondering if the 121.5 MHz homing beacon is required, or is it just an option?

The reason I ask is that this ELT doesn't seem to have one:

http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/aircraftspruceelt.php

[sardak]

Yes, your example ELT has a 121.5 homing signal. Check the manufacturer's website  http://www.elt406.net/index.htm  The 121.5 information is in the owner's manual.

In answer to your real question, all 406 MHz beacons sold for use in the US must have the 121.5 homing signal. This is in the Code of Federal Regulations, not the RTCM and RTCA documents. Those just define the technical requirements.

47CFR87.199
(b) The 406.0–406.1 MHz ELT must contain as an integral part a homing beacon operating only on 121.500 MHz that meets all the requirements described in the RTCA Recommended Standards document described in paragraph (a) of this section. The 121.500 MHz homing beacon must have a continuous duty cycle that may be interrupted during the transmission of the 406.0–406.1 MHz signal only.

47CFR95.1402
(b) The 406 MHz PLB must contain, as an integral part, a homing beacon operating only on 121.500 MHz and meeting all requirements described in the RTCM Recommended Standards document described in paragraph (a) of this section. The 121.500 MHz homing beacon must have a continuous duty cycle that can be interrupted only during the transmission of the 406 MHz signal. The 406 MHz PLB shall transmit a unique identifier (Morse code ''P'') on the 121.500 MHz signals.

47CFR80.1061
(b) The 406.0–406.1 EPIRB must contain as an integral part a ''homing'' beacon operating only on 121.500 MHz that meets all the requirements described in the RTCM Recommended Standards document described in paragraph (a) of this section. The 121.500 MHz ''homing'' beacon must have a continuous duty cycle that may be interrupted during the transmission of the 406.0–406.1 MHz signal only.

Here are the output power specs of the 121.5 signal from the RTCA and RTCM documents, of which I do have copies.

ELT (RTCA Standard DO-204A)
50 mW to 400 mW (technically, per the document - EIRP shall not be less than -13 dBW or greater than -4 dBW)

PLB (RTCM Standard 11010.2)
25 mW to 100 mW (the technical requirement -  25 mW -0/+6dB PEIRP)

EPIRB (RTCM Standard 11000.2)
same as PLB

*************
I'm fully aware of who makes up NSARC, I'm on first name basis with some reps to it, and am well versed in the history of Sarsat, beacons and the phaseout.  The fact is, the FCC ruling caught the aviation industry, which follows the FAA, by surprise. The FAA, which has not wanted to fight with AOPA, has refused to mandate 406 beacons for general aviation. Some NSARC member agencies and the NTSB have been fighting with the FAA over this since the early 90's. The way to finally force the issue, now that 121.5 monitoring has ceased, was through the FCC.

As I said earlier, the Coast Guard, through the FCC, outlawed 121.5 EPIRBs, but boat owners were given almost four years to make the transition. This move by the FCC gives aircraft owners 60 days from publication (which hasn't happened yet) to replace their ELTs.  In an effort to get at the FAA, the aircraft owners, and to a lesser extent ELT manufacturers, have been caught in the middle.

*********************
And to everyone who thinks the FCC rule outlaws 406 beacons because they contain a 121.5 homer, get real. The whole point of the action is to force the use of 406 MHz beacons, with the 121.5 homer. They aren't considered "121.5 MHz ELTs." Granted, the FCC wording could be more specific.

Mike

[West_Coast_Guy]

THANK YOU - EXCELLENT INFORMATION!!!

[C-182 Jockey]

DITTO - We just need an "Ask SARDAK" tab on this board.

[sardak]

As expected, the FAA, through the NTIA, asked that the rules regarding 121.5 MHz ELTs not be changed.

http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2010/100720elt.html?WT.mc_id=ebrief

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=6015693487

Mike

[West_Coast_Guy]

Thanks for the update.

I don't understand why they want new installations of 121.5 MHz ELTs to still be allowed. It seems like phasing out their manufacture over a reasonable time period, and letting existing installations remain in use as long as they meet their original specs, would alleviate most of the financial burden.

[Short Field]

It is a lot cheaper to replace an existing 121.5 MHz ELT when the old one fails than have a 406 ELT installed.  If the price falls on the 406 ELTs, then you will see more people changing out their 121.1s for the 406s.

[West_Coast_Guy]

It is a lot cheaper to replace an existing 121.5 MHz ELT when the old one fails than have a 406 ELT installed.  If the price falls on the 406 ELTs, then you will see more people changing out their 121.1s for the 406s.

406 ELT prices have come down a lot, although one of the manufacturers I checked on aircraftspruce.com prices the 406 at $583 vs $160 for 121.5, so you're right, 121.5 is still a lot cheaper. As volume increases, they should come down more. Maybe they should allow continued manufacture, but allow installation only to replace an existing 121.5 ELT.

Another thing discouraging upgrades is that the cost of having the required wiring harness installed from the ELT to the panel is said to about double the cost of the upgrade. One thing that would encourage additional 406 installations would be to eliminate that requirement when upgrading existing airplanes. That would deal with about half of the cost objection, while preserving almost all of the benefit of having a 406 ELT.   

[billford1]

I'm trying to process this. No more dragging a Ground Team together to go off in the night and search for hours to get to an airport where an hour or two later the owner opens the plane up, turns the thing off then walks away with a sheepish grin on his face. I've heard this called a "Hanger Banger".  So in the future we'll go off and search for a human being who is lost. Maybe the ANG will invite us to go out and practice with them for an event where they could possibly be short a Helo and wouldn't mind having a Cessna flying around to support them. Besides they know the Civil Air Patrol all know where the good restaurants are.

[West_Coast_Guy]

That reminds me: When I was working as an electrical engineer, I noticed that the marketing guys knew where the good restaurants were!