FAA (FSDO) Notice on training beacon

[a2capt]

The current 100-1, 6-6 d, says:

FAA Notification.  Where possible CAP units will provide advance notification of
intended use of practice beacon transmitters on 121.775 MHz to the appropriate FAA Regional
Frequency Management Office, the FAA Flight Service Station, or the local air traffic control
facility nearest the practice beacon transmitter(s) operating location(s).  Notification should
include: date of test, test location, geographical coordinates, and a local contact (individual). 
This is a professional courtesy extended to the FAA to reduce any possibility of confusion. 
Exercise managers should make every effort to provide this advance notice when possible.

Since it's highlighted - I'll presume that was added or changed in it's entirety.

I also seem to recall a discussion where this used to be mandatory and then was dropped, at least thats what it seems like.

What was the procedure in the past? It says "professional courtesy" now, which implies it's not compulsory. CAWG put out a notice that says it's required.

What I'm getting at is, mostly when I call to report activation, I get the feeling that I'm bugging them, as if they are writing it on a scrap and pushing it off the desk when I hang up. This being the attitude I'm feeling from the responses on the phone after starting out that I am who I am, with a local Civil Air Patrol unit, conducting training and want to give advance notice of a practice ELT transmitter being activated in the vicinity of .. sometimes they just fork over the tower cab phone number instead, too. "Call them and tell them" if it's near an airport.

[Eclipse]

We generally do it, especially considering that at times our practice beacons bleed over into ATIS.

Its not unusual to get the "Why are you telling me this?" response, but at least you can log the call and if there's issues later have evidence you told them.

[RiverAux]

If they actually wanted this done they would have included it in 60-3 which the people planning and conducting the exercises actually read and consult (sometimes) and not hide it deep in the comm regulation. 

[jimmydeanno]

When we conduct training exercises here at my unit we notify someone.  However, that someone isn't the control tower (they've said, "we don't care.") but security forces, so they aren't chasing our cadets down at night for being in the woods, on and around the base...

[wingnut55]

CAWG DO has mandated the call must be made.

I do it for two reasons.

1. If you notice the 121.775 sweep tone can be picked up on a handheld on 121.5. This is due to the sheer power and the close proximity to the signal source.

2. Most pilots are aware that Copas- Sarsat is no longer monitoring so they may be fast to jump the gun and not pay any attention to it being on 121.775.

3. I think it is common professional courtesy, maybe we should just send a FAX, because twice I have called and never received a call back.

[JoeTomasone]

I've encountered the same confusion when making that call -- they are quite obviously not used to it and usually have to scramble around asking questions as to who I should be talking to, etc.

There's no terribly good answer, but I can see a certain logic in getting a procedure worked out where we notify AFRCC who could then make the notifications - after all, it's likely the same folks they are getting 121.5 airborne reports from now. 

[desertengineer1]

The biggest concern here isn't the bleed-over to 121.5 (especially since it's no longer actively monitored) but rather bleed-over into other VHF AM channels that carry routine air traffic (Center, App/Dep, etc).

I think also the "system" (i.e. the rulebook) has been behind the times for years.  I remember coming across an older set of rules that mandated notification and approval with XXX days prior and the like, and chuckled.

If anyone is familiar with the "new" FAA world of bureaucracy, you'll know there's a good chance you'll be spending a lot of time being bounced from one desk to another until someone recognizes what you are wanting to do, because only CAP does it, and most don't notify anyone anyway.  It's kind of a hit or miss thing, well developed over the years.

My personal feeling is that no one really cares, and no penalty points if you don't, but being kind to those asking for early notice may avoid issues if interference to voice channels is reported.

Just my $0.02 thoughts...

[RiverAux]

I would just find the fax number of your local FAA office and just fax them a notification.  If they round-file it, thats on them.  Saves you the trouble of playing phone tag and talking to a dozen people.  Give them the notification and let them figure out who in their office needs to know. 

[RADIOMAN015]

Thanks for the reminder I'm going to try this notification to the military control tower next ES night via base operations (yea we train the cadets in darkness on ELT searches because than they can't see the ELT).  I have been notifying base security, so they don't over react to seeing a device with an antenna planted next to a building, etc, or don't think all those cadets in BDU's are an "attack" force 

Overall the DF practice training & tactical support communications definitely motivate & excite the cadets, and some of the senior members.
RM 

[JohnKachenmeister]

I've never notified an FSDO about exercises.  I usually just called the nearest tower.  This covered any concerns about bleed-over from the practice ELT and any inadvertent entries into controlled airspace.  I'm not sure an FSDO would know what to do with the information we gave them.

[JoeTomasone]

Thanks for the reminder I'm going to try this notification to the military control tower next ES night via base operations

When we did a quick UDF demo at the Squadron that meets on base (whose building is adjacent to the tower), I gave the tower a call but couldn't get anyone on the phone at all.  So I showed up early and notified them in person.   They were polite and intrigued, but didn't seem concerned - which is to say that they appeared to take more note of it than the FAA normally does, but not enough where you got the impression that they considered it operationally important.   They noted no interference whatsoever afterwards.