Posted on 06/22/2010 6:09:03 AM PDT by pabianice
The Federal Communications Commission took the general aviation world by surprise when it said in a recent report it will prohibit the sale or use of 121.5 MHz emergency locator transmitters, effective in August. The Aircraft Electronics Association said 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 owners 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 it is opposed to the rule change.
"The FCC is making a regulatory change that would impose an extra cost on GA operators, without properly communicating with the industry or understanding the implications of its action," said AOPA Vice President of Regulatory Affairs Rob Hackman. "There is no FAA requirement to replace 121.5 MHz units with 406 MHz technology. When two government agencies don't coordinate, GA can suffer." The AEA said dealers should refrain from 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."
I’m wondering if it wasn’t related to this conference.
I’ll keep digging in my aviation feeds.
Aviation Search and Rescue Forum concludes in Abu Dhabi
2010-06-22 19:31:38
WAM Abu Dhabi, Jun 22nd, 2010 (WAM) — The Search and Rescue (SAR) Forum organised by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and hosted by the General Civil Aviation Authority of the United Arab Emirates concluded in Abu Dhabi today.
The two-day conference was opened on Monday by the UAE Minister of Economy and Chairman of the General Civil Aviation Authority (GCAA) Sultan Bin Saeed Al Mansouri.
According to Omar Bin Ghaleb, Deputy Director General of GCAA, it was the first time such a high level gathering of global SAR experts had ever been convened by ICAO.
The Forum created opportunity to find solutions to long standing issues of insufficiency that compromise effective worldwide SAR coverage, both technical and procedural.
ICAO is the aviation executing agency of the United Nations and administers the Convention on International Civil Aviation to which the United Arab Emirates is a Contracting State.
Search and rescue (SAR) is one of the aviation support services that is mandated by ICAO.
WAM/AB
“Sounds to me they want to track movement of people better.”
They can’t track anything with these.
They only activate in a crash.
In October 2000 the International Cospas-Sarsat Program, announced at its 25th Council Session held in London, UK that it plans to terminate satellite processing of distress signals from 121.5 and 243 MHz emergency beacons on February 1, 2009. All mariners, aviators, and individuals using emergency beacons on those frequencies will need to switch to those operating on the newer, more reliable, digital 406 MHz frequency if they want to be detected by satellites.
The decision to stop satellite processing of 121.5 / 243 MHz signals is due to problems in this frequency band which inundate search and rescue authorities with poor accuracy and numerous false alerts, adversely impacting the effectiveness of lifesaving services. Although the 406 MHz beacons cost more at the moment, they provide search and rescue agencies with more reliable and complete information to do their job more efficiently and effectively. The Cospas-Sarsat Program made the decision to terminate 121.5/243 MHz satellite alerting services, in part, in response to guidance from the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). These two agencies of the United Nations are responsible for regulating the safety on international transits of ships and aircraft, respectively, and handling international standards and plans for maritime and aviation search and rescue. More than 180 nations are members of IMO and ICAO.
NOAA, along with the U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Air Force, and NASA (the four Federal Agencies who manage, operate, and use the SARSAT system) are strongly advising users of 121.5/243 MHz beacons to make the switch to 406. Meanwhile, anyone planning to buy a new distress beacon may wish to take the Cospas-Sarsat decision into account.
The problem is almost no one in civil aviation has tracking or monitoring equipment to locally monitor the higher frequency. With 121.5, any aircarft could monitor and report, and the fact that it was aircraft identified help to locate the signal. Supposedly, the new signal has digital location information available, but I am not sure what the source of this would be if the aircraft is not GPS equipped.
The real source of this issue is that RF bandwidth is being reallocated, like the switch to digital TV, so that more channels will be available for use by an ever increasing number of customers/govt agencies. This is possible with modern communication techniques and better radio "crystals". The down side is, like TV, eventually you can no longer use your old radios as they "bleed" over the adjacent, now narrower, frequency bands.
Have you seen/heard/read this yet?
As I indicated in an earlier post, the 121.5 MHz channel cannot and will not be reallocated - it is also used for voice emergencies and urgencies, such as MAYDAY and PANPAN.
Also, while your point about civil authorities not having monitoring equipment for 406 MHz may or may not be accurate, new 406MHz ELTs are mandated to transmit a lower power signal on 121.5 MHz precisely to allow ATC and overlying pilots to continue helping in the SAR operations.
The 406MHz ELT is primarily about improving satellite-based detection and reducing false signals.
I cut my teeth in a 1946 Aeronca Champ. It had
to be pulled for a “top end” job, so my instructor
moved me to a Cessna 150. After 3 takeoffs and
landings with my instructor, he signed my cert
and turned me loose for my first solo. That
was a great time!
From what I understand, all transponders are tracked by ground and probably satellite. Sounds more to me like the federal government wants to monitor communications as well, ie. having a record of everything that is said. Though that sounds like a good idea, I'm sure they have nefarious reasons for doing so.
Thanks, I did not know that. But I do know that early 406MHz units were exclusively 406MHz, so those that purpchased early will also be upset about how this has been handled.
Let’s all put the tin foil hats away.
This announcement is about ELTs - Emergency Locator Transmitters that only automatically activate in the event of a crash or hard landing.
You’re thinking of transponders, which are devices that almost all aircraft carry to enable them to be individually tagged and tracked by air traffic control surveillance radar for purposes of aircraft separation and sequencing. Whole ‘nother discussion...
Here’s a link to a good article from the AOPA on ELTs:
http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/regulatory/elt.html
No problemo.
Now what is interesting is the point that is made in the last paragraph of this AOPA article, namely that the 406MHz units still transmit on 121.5 to aid SAR ops, and that may conflict with the new FCC regulation. This really sounds like the FCC wanted to push this due to the SAR conference that just concluded and didn’t think it through and/or didn’t coordinate with the FAA.
http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2010/100621elt.html
You have no problem with most of general aviation being grounded? There are not enough 406 ELTs, not to mention sufficient radio shops to install them.
“They backed an effeminate poser over a former naval pilot for President?”
Unfortunately, that Navy pilot was rather verbal about not liking GA and wishing its demise. Of course, that still places him higher than the effeminate poser.
I consistently said that while I approve of the technology, I do not agree with the abrupt mandate as opposed to letting the market take it's own course, by that meaning let the aircraft owners, such as myself, determine when and how they upgrade, if at all.
To continue my reply, I am especially sensitized to the abruptness of the 406MHz mandate. In my earlier posting, I mentioned that the governemtn (FAA / Coast Guard in this case) pulled the plug suddenly on the LORAN-C navigation system, when previous indications were that it would be kept around and enhanced as a backup to GPS.
It cost us $5K to pull our IFR certified LORAN-C installation and replace it with an IFR certified GPS. While we had intended to do it eventually, the suddenness of the announcement and timetable wreaked havoc on our budget.
I’m having a hard time seeing the return for my AOPA membership, too.
The primary reason I keep it is to qualify for their insurance program. (I rent)
Care to further explain your statement annie?
I happen to be the AOPA Airport Support Network rep for our local GA airport, but I understand your point. The NRA is taking heat at the moment over a position that it took on a 1st amendment issue that has riled some of its membership. Unfortunately, both the NRA and the AOPA are what is referred to as “single issue” organizations, and as such, they occasionally take sides on issues or support candidates that make our hair hurt. Personally, I would rather that they take a pass in those circumstances.
Having said all that, my AOPA membership provides me with access to excellent flight planning products, such as weather, airpport information and instrument approach procedures, plus the optional insurance coverage. The world is not perfect and I’ve learned not to cut off my nose to spite my face.
I bought renter’s insurance through another company. I paid in 2005 $250 for a million dollar policy. I am lucky we have a employee program that pays owner insurance for everyone instead of needing renter’s insurance.
“The world is not perfect and I’ve learned not to cut off my nose to spite my face.”
Funny that you use that phrase as AOPA did exactly that when they suported Obama to teach McCain a lesson. Also, anything AOPA has there are alternatives. They may cost more but you get what you pay for.
And, oh yeah, he owns the states too....because they have one hand out to him, and their other hand in our pockets to raise taxes.
Having said all that - don't post back about how I've "given up." I am the resistance & refuse to stop standing for what is right. In fact, I'm likely to get myself killed over it. I'm just a realist.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.