[Eaa42-list] FCC Bans 121.5 ELTs

Wed Jun 23 13:50:23 CDT 2010

The FCC proposed rule, as written, is flawed in many ways.   

Assuming that the manufactures could build the more than 200,000 406MHz ELTs needed between now and the end of August, there is simply no way they could be installed by the date proposed.

Spending at least a $1000 (acquisition & installation) to trade one flawed system for another flawed system seems pretty stupid.  Granted, when it works, the new system is faster and more accurate.  Satellite location of 121.5/243.0 ELTs was accurate only within a radius of approximately 12 nautical miles, identifying a search area of 452 square miles, and on average it took six hours for search-and-rescue centers to be notified of the beacon coordinates. Compare this to the new 406 MHz PLBs that can be located to within a radius of two nautical miles, identifying a search area of just 12.5 square miles, and an S&R notification time of one hour. Add the optional GPS capability to the PLB and the location radius becomes 0.05 nautical miles, a search area of 0.008 square miles, and five-minute notification time.  Reliability is improved too.  The research I've read said that by 1997,  the old 121.5 system had a 75% failure rate and a 97% false alarm rate.  The new 406 system research I've been reading has dropped the failure rate to 40%, and the false alarm rate to 93%.  However the false alarm rate is expected to drop sharply as relatively few of the 406's have been installed, but when the 406MHz unit goes off falsely, if they choose to do so, they know exactly where to send the bill for the false alarm response, as each 406 unit is registered with the FAA and has a unique ID that is attached to a specific airframe.  As equipage grows the numbers will improve but I'm not thrilled about being forced to have a system that can get me punished if it goes berserk.

But DON'T trash that old 121.5 MHz unit just yet. Both the 121.5 MHz and 243.0 MHz are still being monitored.  Per the AIM Chapter 6, Section 3, 121.5MHz remains the distress frequency and "...is guarded by direction finding stations and some military and civil aircraft. 243.0 MHz is guarded by military aircraft. Both 121.5 MHz and 243.0 MHz are guarded by military towers, most civil towers, FSSs, and radar facilities. Normally ARTCC emergency frequency capability does not extend to radar coverage limits. If an ARTCC does not respond when called on 121.5 MHz or 243.0 MHz, call the nearest tower or FSS."  The stand-alone 406 doesn't do voice, so if you hear your rescuers nearby, and it's after dark, you might need that old 121.5 unit to talk to them because 406 direction finding equipment isn't widely available yet.  When I'm in a multi-radioed aircraft, I often "monitor" one radio tuned to 125.5...just like I was taught to do by my kindly old flight instructor some 28 years ago.

Most of the newer ELT systems support both 121.5 and 406MHz.  (Several also have 243.0)  The FCC rule doesn't make exception for those units.  So Harry, if the rule stands as written, if you bought the $800.00 Artex multi-frequency unit, or a more capable $2500 Kannad multi-frequency unit, (among others),  get ready to pitch it in the trash come the end of August, then ground your bird and wait for a new box to come available.

Another point to ponder.  The move to 406MHz was largely pushed by the loss of the 121.5 monitoring satellites.  What happens in 6 - 8 years when the 4 Geo and 5 Polar orbit Leo's that support the 406 technology die?

My government can, and should, do better.  

Elmer

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Rob Stapleton 
  To: 'Harry DeBruhl' ; 'Walter Yankauskas' ; 'ehotline' ; eaa42-list at eaa42.org ; govt at eaa.org ; 'Lars Gleitsmann' 
  Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 11:02 PM
  Subject: Re: [Eaa42-list] FCC Bans 121.5 ELTs

  Mr. DeBruhl,

  Your logic is predictable. 

  Change a regulation and make it mandatory so that manufacturers and patent holders can profit from it. This is the way a "Free Country" treats its servants.

  This is also what is driving the cost of everything up in the U.S. Do you have to pay $1000 plus dollars for a 911 call for help in a traffic accident? And then what if the means in which you send for help is suddenly changed by federal law, requiring an additional $2,000 for the same call. 

  That's what is being protested here.

  Yes 121.5 is not being monitored by our paid heroes any more, and yes a switch to the 406 ELT is necessary for rescue and expedient first response but is the ATC and our paid hero rescue systems ready to respond to false alarms like Private pilots, CAP and over flying aircraft have been doing since 1972? I don't think so. 

  In addition there are other options like PABs that are far less expensive than the cost of a 406 ELT and the installation that it will require.

  Look at this from the perspective of an aircraft owner who is required to have an ELT in their aircraft by the FAA. The new ELT frequency and device is developed with a suggestion that owners should use this new better more expensive device that just became available. Then a different government entity says they are going to ban the use of the older units-forcing you to use the newer ones, good or bad.

   This is like going to the dentist and having them shove their hand down your throat and tell you that it is necessary so you can survive their oral surgery because you will be so busy regurgitating that you won't notice the pain of the surgery.

  So I am all for using my brain-- but the banks have cut my credit, raised the interest rates and I am looking for anyway possible to achieve being self supportive and not calling on an expensive rescue by trained heroes, and I don't think I need lawyers and Congress to legislate my safety by killing off something that works for something that is reported to have a low battery life. Not to mention the issue of a one time Lat/Long transmit that will cost me $50,000 for first responder heroes to help me whether or not it is a false alarm or a real emergency.

  RS

  Rob Stapleton, Jr.

  Photographer/Writer

  KL2AN

  skype:rob.stapleton.jr

  IM:foto at alaska.net

  907-230-9425

  www.alaskafoto.com

  -----Original Message-----
  From: eaa42-list-bounces at eaa42.org [mailto:eaa42-list-bounces at eaa42.org] On Behalf Of Harry DeBruhl
  Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 8:16 PM
  To: Walter Yankauskas; ehotline; eaa42-list at eaa42.org; govt at eaa.org; Lars Gleitsmann
  Subject: Re: [Eaa42-list] FCC Bans 121.5 ELTs

        As a former Alaska ANG search and rescue pilot, I support this ruling.  Why would anyone knowingly place their and their loved one's lives in jeapordy by using an ELT on a frequency that no-one monitors anymore!?!  We all want the latest and greatest in our airplanes, but cheap out on a piece of equipment that is more reliable, more accurate, and is even programmable to transmit your GPS position when activated.  Just because you don't use it every flight doesn't mean it's not important.  Getting a 406 MHz ELT is a no brainer, that is, if you use your brain.  

        Harry DeBruhl

        --- On Mon, 6/21/10, Lars Gleitsmann <larsgleitsmann at gmail.com> wrote:

          From: Lars Gleitsmann <larsgleitsmann at gmail.com>
          Subject: [Eaa42-list] FCC Bans 121.5 ELTs
          To: "Walter Yankauskas" <w at waltery.com>, "ehotline" <ehotline at eaa.org>, eaa42-list at eaa42.org, govt at eaa.org
          Date: Monday, June 21, 2010, 6:55 PM

          Another blow to GA owners! -government running amok!

          FCC Bans 121.5 ELTs

          June 21, 2010
          By Mary Grady, Contributing editor

          The Federal Communications Commission took the general aviation world by surprise when it said in a recent report (http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1103500294837&s=1458&e=001M6yc39mJFVF4-fVIt75XGecNDZbley9ii0QmGoSxeHCJrhR7Zni3UgFXolrO1ImXhsnHndlNQtzTcVcv-UIrwc5r-DKH4P6cT7Lgjv9vb9vjVF0VMtHoCV8SzrHwfoLJzAGEbN-bFISS27c1pfT5p35CZSVeilT-tZaFdBSkMYfxnqdWGTYCTQ==) it will prohibit the sale or use of 121.5 MHz emergency locator transmitters, effective in August. The Aircraft Electronics Association said (http://aea.net/governmentaffairs/regulatoryupdates.asp?ID=42) it just learned of the new rule today, and has begun working with the FAA, FCC and others to allow for timely compliance without grounding thousands of general aviation aircraft. The 121.5 ELTs are allowed under FAA rules. The FCC said its rules have been amended to "prohibit further certification, manufacture, importation, sale or use of 121.5 MHz ELTs." The FCC says that if the 121.5 units are no longer available, aircraft o
           wners and operators will "migrate" to the newer 406.0-406.1 MHz ELTs, which are monitored by satellite, while the 121.5 frequency is not. "Were we to permit continued marketing and use of 121.5 MHz ELTs ... it would engender the risk that aircraft owners and operators would mistakenly rely on those ELTs for the relay of distress alerts," the FCC says. AOPA said today (http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2010/100621elt.html) it is opposed to the rule change.

          The entire article may be viewed at http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/FCCBans1215ELTs_202760-1.html

          -----Inline Attachment Follows-----

          _______________________________________________
          Eaa42-list mailing list
          Eaa42-list at eaa42.org
          http://eaa42.org/mailman/listinfo/eaa42-list_eaa42.org

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  _______________________________________________
  Eaa42-list mailing list
  Eaa42-list at eaa42.org
  http://eaa42.org/mailman/listinfo/eaa42-list_eaa42.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://eaa42.org/pipermail/eaa42-list_eaa42.org/attachments/20100623/926f0019/attachment-0001.html>