Use of 121.5 ELTs to be illegal in U.S. in about 60 days.

[Jim Logajan]

Within 60 days of being published in the Federal Registry, use of 121.5
MHz ELTs will be forbidden by a re-write and re-title of
47 CFR section 87.195:

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-103A1.pdf

"The manufacture, importation, sale or use of 121.5 MHz ELTs is prohibited."

The original text of 47 CFR section 87.195 may be read here:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/get-cfr.cgi?TITLE=47&PART=87&SECTION=195&YEAR=1998&TYPE=PDF

Two issues:
1) There are ELTs that support both 121.5 and 406 MHz, yet the
one-sentence regulation doesn't acknowledge their existence, so it can
be interpreted to mean their use too is prohibited.

2) There are going to be a lot of seriously annoyed and ****ed owners of
"older" equipment.

[Jim Logajan]

Jim Logajan > wrote:
> Within 60 days of being published in the Federal Registry, use of
> 121.5 MHz ELTs will be forbidden by a re-write and re-title of
> 47 CFR section 87.195:
>
> http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-103A1.pdf
>
> "The manufacture, importation, sale or use of 121.5 MHz ELTs is
> prohibited."

More news of that type just in:

"People of Earth, your attention, please. This is Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz of
the Galactic Hyperspace Planning Council. As you will no doubt be aware,
the plans for development of the outlying regions of the Galaxy require the
building of a hyperspatial express route through your star system. And
regrettably, your planet is one of those scheduled for demolition. The
process will take slightly less than two of your Earth minutes. Thank you."

....

"There's no point in acting surprised about it. All the planning charts and
demolition orders have been on display at your local planning department in
Alpha Centauri for 50 of your Earth years, so you’ve had plenty of time to
lodge any formal complaint and it's far too late to start making a fuss
about it now. ... What do you mean you’ve never been to Alpha Centauri? Oh,
for heaven’s sake, mankind, it's only four light years away, you know. I’m
sorry, but if you can't be bothered to take an interest in local affairs,
that's your own lookout. Energise the demolition beams."

....

"I don't know, apathetic bloody planet, I've no sympathy at all."

[Brian Whatcott]

Jim Logajan wrote:
> Within 60 days of being published in the Federal Registry, use of 121.5
> MHz ELTs will be forbidden by a re-write and re-title of
> 47 CFR section 87.195:
>
> http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-103A1.pdf
>
> "The manufacture, importation, sale or use of 121.5 MHz ELTs is prohibited."
>
> The original text of 47 CFR section 87.195 may be read here:
>
> http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/get-cfr.cgi?TITLE=47&PART=87&SECTION=195&YEAR=1998&TYPE=PDF
>
> Two issues:
> 1) There are ELTs that support both 121.5 and 406 MHz, yet the
> one-sentence regulation doesn't acknowledge their existence, so it can
> be interpreted to mean their use too is prohibited.
>
> 2) There are going to be a lot of seriously annoyed and ****ed owners of
> "older" equipment.

The basis for banning the sale of ordinary 121.5 ELTs (one exception) is
that there is no sattelite facility to listen on this frequency and
(apparently) the uch better success rate of locating 406.0 406.1 ELTs.

It seems evident that any ELT which can offer an emission which is
listened for (on 406.0/ 406.1) will be encouraged.

Brian W

[Jim Logajan]

brian whatcott > wrote:
> Jim Logajan wrote:
>> Within 60 days of being published in the Federal Registry, use of
>> 121.5 MHz ELTs will be forbidden by a re-write and re-title of
>> 47 CFR section 87.195:
>>
>> http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-103A1.pdf
>>
>> "The manufacture, importation, sale or use of 121.5 MHz ELTs is
>> prohibited."
>>
>> The original text of 47 CFR section 87.195 may be read here:
>>
>> http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/get-cfr.cgi?TITLE=47&PART=87&S
>> ECTION=195&YEAR=1998&TYPE=PDF
>>
>> Two issues:
>> 1) There are ELTs that support both 121.5 and 406 MHz, yet the
>> one-sentence regulation doesn't acknowledge their existence, so it
>> can be interpreted to mean their use too is prohibited.
>>
>> 2) There are going to be a lot of seriously annoyed and ****ed owners
>> of "older" equipment.
>
> The basis for banning the sale of ordinary 121.5 ELTs (one exception)
> is that there is no sattelite facility to listen on this frequency and
> (apparently) the uch better success rate of locating 406.0 406.1 ELTs.

They didn't just ban the sale, they have also banned all "use." I quoted
the regulation in its (brief) entirety. The one "exception" appears to
exist as an official interpretation.

(Satellites were never the only entities that listened for 121.5 ELT
transmissions anyway.)

> It seems evident that any ELT which can offer an emission which is
> listened for (on 406.0/ 406.1) will be encouraged.

The regulation doesn't encourage 406, it mandates it. By August 15.

[[email protected]]

Jim Logajan > wrote:
> Within 60 days of being published in the Federal Registry, use of 121.5
> MHz ELTs will be forbidden by a re-write and re-title of
> 47 CFR section 87.195:
>
> http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-103A1.pdf
>
> "The manufacture, importation, sale or use of 121.5 MHz ELTs is prohibited."
>
> The original text of 47 CFR section 87.195 may be read here:
>
> http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/get-cfr.cgi?TITLE=47&PART=87&SECTION=195&YEAR=1998&TYPE=PDF
>
> Two issues:
> 1) There are ELTs that support both 121.5 and 406 MHz, yet the
> one-sentence regulation doesn't acknowledge their existence, so it can
> be interpreted to mean their use too is prohibited.
>
> 2) There are going to be a lot of seriously annoyed and ****ed owners of
> "older" equipment.

Yep, this was proposed in 2006 and nobody involved seemed to notice.

What most likely will happen is the FCC will go ahead with the ban on the
certification, manufacture, importation, or sale of such ELTs and delay
the ban on use to some future data, which will likely be the same date the
FAA eventually mandates everyone get a 406 MHz ELT.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Jim Logajan]

wrote:
> Jim Logajan > wrote:
>> Within 60 days of being published in the Federal Registry, use of
>> 121.5 MHz ELTs will be forbidden by a re-write and re-title of
>> 47 CFR section 87.195:
>>
>> http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-103A1.pdf
>>
>> "The manufacture, importation, sale or use of 121.5 MHz ELTs is
>> prohibited."
>>
>> The original text of 47 CFR section 87.195 may be read here:
>>
>> http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/get-cfr.cgi?TITLE=47&PART=87&S
>> ECTION=195&YEAR=1998&TYPE=PDF
>>
>> Two issues:
>> 1) There are ELTs that support both 121.5 and 406 MHz, yet the
>> one-sentence regulation doesn't acknowledge their existence, so it
>> can be interpreted to mean their use too is prohibited.
>>
>> 2) There are going to be a lot of seriously annoyed and ****ed owners
>> of "older" equipment.
>
> Yep, this was proposed in 2006 and nobody involved seemed to notice.

It looks like the aviation alphabet groups were caught unaware - at least
with the nearness of the effective date:

http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2010/100621elt.html

http://www.eaa.org/news/2010/2010-06-21_conflicting.asp

> What most likely will happen is the FCC will go ahead with the ban on
> the certification, manufacture, importation, or sale of such ELTs and
> delay the ban on use to some future data, which will likely be the
> same date the FAA eventually mandates everyone get a 406 MHz ELT.

I'm inclined to think they'll make no change.

I've already seen a distributer of ELTs say they were caught by surprise
too. You'd think they would be more astute to these things. I don't know if
121.5-only ELTs are still being sold or in sales pipelines (looks like it,
though,) but they would now only be useful as bricks even if "use" is still
allowed.

Given the brevity of the regulation and speed of implementation, the cynic
in me thinks someone in the FCC has a pecuniary interest in seeing the
price of 406 Mhz ELTs temporarily spike as demand outstrips available
supply.

[[email protected]]

Jim Logajan > wrote:
> wrote:
>> Jim Logajan > wrote:
>>> Within 60 days of being published in the Federal Registry, use of
>>> 121.5 MHz ELTs will be forbidden by a re-write and re-title of
>>> 47 CFR section 87.195:
>>>
>>> http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-103A1.pdf
>>>
>>> "The manufacture, importation, sale or use of 121.5 MHz ELTs is
>>> prohibited."
>>>
>>> The original text of 47 CFR section 87.195 may be read here:
>>>
>>> http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/get-cfr.cgi?TITLE=47&PART=87&S
>>> ECTION=195&YEAR=1998&TYPE=PDF
>>>
>>> Two issues:
>>> 1) There are ELTs that support both 121.5 and 406 MHz, yet the
>>> one-sentence regulation doesn't acknowledge their existence, so it
>>> can be interpreted to mean their use too is prohibited.
>>>
>>> 2) There are going to be a lot of seriously annoyed and ****ed owners
>>> of "older" equipment.
>>
>> Yep, this was proposed in 2006 and nobody involved seemed to notice.
>
> It looks like the aviation alphabet groups were caught unaware - at least
> with the nearness of the effective date:
>
> http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2010/100621elt.html
>
> http://www.eaa.org/news/2010/2010-06-21_conflicting.asp
>
>> What most likely will happen is the FCC will go ahead with the ban on
>> the certification, manufacture, importation, or sale of such ELTs and
>> delay the ban on use to some future data, which will likely be the
>> same date the FAA eventually mandates everyone get a 406 MHz ELT.
>
> I'm inclined to think they'll make no change.
>
> I've already seen a distributer of ELTs say they were caught by surprise
> too. You'd think they would be more astute to these things. I don't know if
> 121.5-only ELTs are still being sold or in sales pipelines (looks like it,
> though,) but they would now only be useful as bricks even if "use" is still
> allowed.
>
> Given the brevity of the regulation and speed of implementation, the cynic
> in me thinks someone in the FCC has a pecuniary interest in seeing the
> price of 406 Mhz ELTs temporarily spike as demand outstrips available
> supply.

Speed of implementation?

There is stuff in there proposed 1998 and the ELT stuff was proposed in
2006.

The bottom line is nobody in aviation was paying any attention to what
the FCC has been proposing to do for the past twelve years.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Jim Logajan]

wrote:
> Speed of implementation?
>
> There is stuff in there proposed 1998 and the ELT stuff was proposed
> in 2006.

The time period within which a proposal is placed before the public for
consideration is distinct from the grace period between when a regulation
is announced and when it becomes effective. I'm not sure why you think
there should be a correlation.

Four years under consideration doesn't seem to merit two months grace
period, given the likely cost involved. It could have mandated the
prohibition for the end of the year, for example. Or twelve months. They
didn't.

> The bottom line is nobody in aviation was paying any attention to what
> the FCC has been proposing to do for the past twelve years.

Vogons.

The FCC, like all government agencies, is supposed to be a servant of the
people. It should not be up to civilian aviation to look out for its best
interests in this case because it should be an operational imperative of
the FCC to accept the demands of the people since it is allegedly servant,
not master.

Shouldn't an agency that purports to be a servant of the people do a better
job of alerting the affected parties? Why is it considered the people's
fault that they didn't pay attention to the minutia of proposed regulation
and never the fault of the agency in question?

Lastly, the FCC document is interesting in that the rationale uses appeals
to authority based on internal dialogs with other government agencies.

[[email protected]]

Jim Logajan > wrote:
> wrote:
>> Speed of implementation?
>>
>> There is stuff in there proposed 1998 and the ELT stuff was proposed
>> in 2006.
>
> The time period within which a proposal is placed before the public for
> consideration is distinct from the grace period between when a regulation
> is announced and when it becomes effective. I'm not sure why you think
> there should be a correlation.

The point is that there has been at least 4 years for people to point out
the problems with the proposal and fix the final rule.

Nobody did until the final rule was announced.

The bottom line here is everyone in aviation, including the so called
aviation news sources, dropped the ball by paying no attention what so
ever to proposed FCC regulations effecting aviation.

At least a few people are paying attention to what the EPA is doing which
could mean the end of 100LL.

Aviation is effected by the rules of more than the FAA.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 18:52:32 -0500, Jim Logajan >
wrote:

>brian whatcott > wrote:
>> Jim Logajan wrote:
>>> Within 60 days of being published in the Federal Registry, use of
>>> 121.5 MHz ELTs will be forbidden by a re-write and re-title of
>>> 47 CFR section 87.195:
>>>
>>> http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-103A1.pdf
>>>
>>> "The manufacture, importation, sale or use of 121.5 MHz ELTs is
>>> prohibited."
>>>
>>> The original text of 47 CFR section 87.195 may be read here:
>>>
>>> http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/get-cfr.cgi?TITLE=47&PART=87&S
>>> ECTION=195&YEAR=1998&TYPE=PDF
>>>
>>> Two issues:
>>> 1) There are ELTs that support both 121.5 and 406 MHz, yet the
>>> one-sentence regulation doesn't acknowledge their existence, so it
>>> can be interpreted to mean their use too is prohibited.
>>>
>>> 2) There are going to be a lot of seriously annoyed and ****ed owners
>>> of "older" equipment.
>>
>> The basis for banning the sale of ordinary 121.5 ELTs (one exception)
>> is that there is no sattelite facility to listen on this frequency and
>> (apparently) the uch better success rate of locating 406.0 406.1 ELTs.
>
>They didn't just ban the sale, they have also banned all "use." I quoted
>the regulation in its (brief) entirety. The one "exception" appears to
>exist as an official interpretation.
>
>(Satellites were never the only entities that listened for 121.5 ELT
>transmissions anyway.)
>
>> It seems evident that any ELT which can offer an emission which is
>> listened for (on 406.0/ 406.1) will be encouraged.
>
>The regulation doesn't encourage 406, it mandates it. By August 15.

Jim
I dont know why you object so strongly. the new 406 machines are
encoded so that the rescue people can look up who's elt has gone off.
this allows a phone call to find out if the elt is in expected use or
just tipped over in the hangar.
the elt also sends the gps coords so the rescue effort isnt fly to an
area and do a hit and miss grid search, which may take ages, it is to
fly directly to the accident scene.

the reason why 121.5 elt's are banned is that the receivers are still
actually in place and the sar people cant tell if they are just a
nuisance from a thrown out unit or someone desperately in need of
help. by banning their use the signals can then be ignored as
spurious.

Stealth Pilot

[Brian Whatcott]

Jim Logajan wrote:
/snip/
> the plans for development of the outlying regions of the Galaxy require the
> building of a hyperspatial express route through your star system. And
> regrettably, your planet is one of those scheduled for demolition. The
> process will take slightly less than two of your Earth minutes. Thank you."
/snip/

Above all: Don't panic.

Brian W

[Brian Whatcott]

Jim Logajan wrote:
....
> Lastly, the FCC document is interesting in that the rationale uses appeals
> to authority based on internal dialogs with other government agencies.

Amusing to read about the effects on small users. It sees they had
difficulty defining who a little user is. I wonder just who that could be?

Brian W

[Jim Logajan]

Stealth Pilot > wrote:
> I dont know why you object so strongly. the new 406 machines are
> encoded so that the rescue people can look up who's elt has gone off.

The issue isn't with regard to technical aspects of 406.0/.1 vs 121.5, but
that the grace period between the required-by date and announcement date is
so short. It seems probable there simply wouldn't be enough 406 ELTs on
hand in the U.S. to cover the short term demand, among other problems.

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 17:37:50 -0500, Jim Logajan >
wrote:

>Stealth Pilot > wrote:
>> I dont know why you object so strongly. the new 406 machines are
>> encoded so that the rescue people can look up who's elt has gone off.
>
>The issue isn't with regard to technical aspects of 406.0/.1 vs 121.5, but
>that the grace period between the required-by date and announcement date is
>so short. It seems probable there simply wouldn't be enough 406 ELTs on
>hand in the U.S. to cover the short term demand, among other problems.

well Jim it happened just recently in Australia as well and the
manufacturers seemed to ramp up production of some beautiful units in
time for the demand.

I bought a superb GME brand MTS410 GPS version.
It cost more than my years flying but if needed in the middle of the
nullabor in summer heat it will pay for itself in an instant.

sometimes you guys just think too much.

Stealth (still no transponder) Pilot

[Roger[_6_]]

On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 17:55:16 -0500, brian whatcott
> wrote:

>Jim Logajan wrote:
>> Within 60 days of being published in the Federal Registry, use of 121.5
>> MHz ELTs will be forbidden by a re-write and re-title of
>> 47 CFR section 87.195:
>>
>> http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-103A1.pdf
>>
>> "The manufacture, importation, sale or use of 121.5 MHz ELTs is prohibited."
>>
>> The original text of 47 CFR section 87.195 may be read here:
>>
>> http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/get-cfr.cgi?TITLE=47&PART=87&SECTION=195&YEAR=1998&TYPE=PDF
>>
>> Two issues:
>> 1) There are ELTs that support both 121.5 and 406 MHz, yet the
>> one-sentence regulation doesn't acknowledge their existence, so it can
>> be interpreted to mean their use too is prohibited.
>>
>> 2) There are going to be a lot of seriously annoyed and ****ed owners of
>> "older" equipment.
>
>The basis for banning the sale of ordinary 121.5 ELTs (one exception) is
>that there is no sattelite facility to listen on this frequency and
>(apparently) the uch better success rate of locating 406.0 406.1 ELTs.
>
Hey, If the FAA doesn't care if I have a 121.5 ELT, neither do I.

Roger
>It seems evident that any ELT which can offer an emission which is
>listened for (on 406.0/ 406.1) will be encouraged.
>
>Brian W

[Peter Dohm]

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 17:55:16 -0500, brian whatcott
> > wrote:
>
>>Jim Logajan wrote:
>>> Within 60 days of being published in the Federal Registry, use of 121.5
>>> MHz ELTs will be forbidden by a re-write and re-title of
>>> 47 CFR section 87.195:
>>>
>>> http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-103A1.pdf
>>>
>>> "The manufacture, importation, sale or use of 121.5 MHz ELTs is
>>> prohibited."
>>>
>>> The original text of 47 CFR section 87.195 may be read here:
>>>
>>> http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/get-cfr.cgi?TITLE=47&PART=87&SECTION=195&YEAR=1998&TYPE=PDF
>>>
>>> Two issues:
>>> 1) There are ELTs that support both 121.5 and 406 MHz, yet the
>>> one-sentence regulation doesn't acknowledge their existence, so it can
>>> be interpreted to mean their use too is prohibited.
>>>
>>> 2) There are going to be a lot of seriously annoyed and ****ed owners of
>>> "older" equipment.
>>
>>The basis for banning the sale of ordinary 121.5 ELTs (one exception) is
>>that there is no sattelite facility to listen on this frequency and
>>(apparently) the uch better success rate of locating 406.0 406.1 ELTs.
>>
> Hey, If the FAA doesn't care if I have a 121.5 ELT, neither do I.
>
> Roger

Good point, Roger,

A similar discussion came up some time ago, at a live seminar rather than on
usenet, and the result was that the FAA had better uses for their time and
manpower than to enforce FCC rules. That was then and...

Deja vu is never exact and the use of cell phones (both then and now) would
generally work for the mutual convenience of both pilots and controllers
while alarms from parked aircraft and ELT use by back packers and cliff
climbers appear to have caused a lot of serious problems for various
agencies including FAA; so this could well be different--especially when
false alarms are involved.

Just my $0.02
Peter

>>It seems evident that any ELT which can offer an emission which is
>>listened for (on 406.0/ 406.1) will be encouraged.
>>
>>Brian W