FCC Outlaws 121.5 MHz ELTs

[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?