FAA considers dropping several RCOs across the country

[Live2Learn]

It looks like  public involvement  is beginning for a substantial reduction in RCO coverage nationwide.  Here's  a short blurb in the July/Aug 2016  FAA Safety Briefing  (see page 2, http://www.faa.gov/news/safety_briefing/2016/media/JulAug2016.pdf). 

The  graphics are interesting.  While the analysis description says emergency frequencies are 'excluded' from this decision, it's not clear what that means. Large radio coverage  gaps in mountainous regions in the Western US  are implicitly accepted by the analysis as "o.k.".  The analysis baseline is a comparison of current coverage to proposed coverage after 'redundant' frequencies are eliminated.  Comparisons are based upon  incremental modeling of 1,000, 2,000, 3,000, 4,000 and 5,000 AGL coverage.  The already very poor coverage in the mountainous areas of the Western US gets marginally worse at 1,000, 2,000, and 3,000 AGL.

See:  http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/systemops/fs/media/Radio_Reduction_Fed_Reg.pdf

I wonder how those gaps would have affected rescue efforts in any of the fatal accidents of the last couple of years?  From my read of the NTSB reports (accident reports/dockets for those a couple of years past, and preliminary reports for recent events)  many of these accidents involved normally aspirated single engine aircraft, occurred where the aircraft cruise altitude  was 1,000-3,000'AGL over the highest terrain, and in areas were existing radio coverage was spotty.    FWIW, I can't image EVER flying over the N. Cascades or the Rockies  in any normally aspirated single engine aircraft at 4,000' or 5,000' AGL, and very seldom at 3,000' AGL.  In some instances 2,000 AGL in a normally aspirated engine might even be a stretch.  I speculate that the adverse impact of the analysis disproportionately affects GA users of the NAS.  I know a lot of the areas where I fly the MEAs are well above the capability of my (or CAP) equipment.

I wonder whether investing some or all of the estimated $2.5MM projected annual savings in expanding 121.5 coverage might mitigate some of the existing communication gaps and thereby reduce current and projected SAR costs... as well as save a few lives?