FCC bans 121.5/243 ELTs

[Brian Whatcott]

The title says it all - a 60 day notice of intended rule making from
FCC. Drawn up as ineptly as you have come to expect, but with its heart
in the right place.

Brian W

[[email protected]]

brian whatcott > wrote:
> The title says it all - a 60 day notice of intended rule making from
> FCC. Drawn up as ineptly as you have come to expect, but with its heart
> in the right place.
>
> Brian W

The original NPRM was in 2006 so you've had 4 years to comment on how
inept the rule is before adoption.

Did you?



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Ron Lee[_2_]]

wrote:

>brian whatcott > wrote:
>> The title says it all - a 60 day notice of intended rule making from
>> FCC. Drawn up as ineptly as you have come to expect, but with its heart
>> in the right place.
>>
>> Brian W
>
>The original NPRM was in 2006 so you've had 4 years to comment on how
>inept the rule is before adoption.
>
>Did you?

Who knew of this? I never heard of it and do not check NPRMs for
matters impacting me. I did comment on the ADS-B Out NPRM because I
heard of it.

Ron Lee

[[email protected]]

Ron Lee > wrote:
> wrote:
>
>>brian whatcott > wrote:
>>> The title says it all - a 60 day notice of intended rule making from
>>> FCC. Drawn up as ineptly as you have come to expect, but with its heart
>>> in the right place.
>>>
>>> Brian W
>>
>>The original NPRM was in 2006 so you've had 4 years to comment on how
>>inept the rule is before adoption.
>>
>>Did you?
>
> Who knew of this? I never heard of it and do not check NPRMs for
> matters impacting me. I did comment on the ADS-B Out NPRM because I
> heard of it.
>
> Ron Lee

The real blame in this belongs with AOPA, EAA, NAFI, and every other aviation
organization for failing for 4 years to notice there were proposed rules
which were badly written and alerting the aviation community so rational
changes could be made before the rule was adopted.

Amateur radio operators have an organization called the ARRL which serves
much the same function as the AOPA doees for pilots.

The ARRL is able somehow to find proposed legislation at the state, federal,
and international level that would effect amateur radio operators and inform
the membership and other amateur radio organizations about the proposals in
advance of adoption.

FYI, another ball dropped by the aviation groups is California AB 48, which
also has already been passed.

This law treats all flight instruction, including independent CFIs as though
they were big trade schools and requires to the tune of a $50,000 fine,
among other things, registration, restrive requirements, and very hefty fees.

If this law is not changed, as of August 1, almost all flight instruction
in California will have to shut down as only a very large flight school
will be able to meet the requirements of this law.

http://www.calpilots.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1871:more-on-ab-48&catid=43:aviation-regulation&Itemid=78





--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Brian Whatcott]

wrote:
> brian whatcott > wrote:
>> The title says it all - a 60 day notice of intended rule making from
>> FCC. Drawn up as ineptly as you have come to expect, but with its heart
>> in the right place.
>>
>> Brian W
>
> The original NPRM was in 2006 so you've had 4 years to comment on how
> inept the rule is before adoption.
>
> Did you?
>
>
>
Four years ago - I could care less.

Then, I bought a plane. Suddenly, little issues like a Cessna price tag
of $1000 on a C-150 door latch seemed somehow more important.
Why would that be, would you think? :-)

I was one of many who were hoping the Cessna Pilot Association, the AOPA
and other GA organizations would have kept up, while I was away!
Wrong...

Brian W

[Brian Whatcott]

wrote:
> Ron Lee > wrote:
>> wrote:
>>
>>> brian whatcott > wrote:
>>>> The title says it all - a 60 day notice of intended rule making from
>>>> FCC. Drawn up as ineptly as you have come to expect, but with its heart
>>>> in the right place.
>>>>
>>>> Brian W
>>> The original NPRM was in 2006 so you've had 4 years to comment on how
>>> inept the rule is before adoption.
>>>
>>> Did you?
>> Who knew of this? I never heard of it and do not check NPRMs for
>> matters impacting me. I did comment on the ADS-B Out NPRM because I
>> heard of it.
>>
>> Ron Lee
>
> The real blame in this belongs with AOPA, EAA, NAFI, and every other aviation
> organization for failing for 4 years to notice there were proposed rules
> which were badly written and alerting the aviation community so rational
> changes could be made before the rule was adopted.
>
> Amateur radio operators have an organization called the ARRL which serves
> much the same function as the AOPA doees for pilots.
>
> The ARRL is able somehow to find proposed legislation at the state, federal,
> and international level that would effect amateur radio operators and inform
> the membership and other amateur radio organizations about the proposals in
> advance of adoption.
>
> FYI, another ball dropped by the aviation groups is California AB 48, which
> also has already been passed.
>
> This law treats all flight instruction, including independent CFIs as though
> they were big trade schools and requires to the tune of a $50,000 fine,
> among other things, registration, restrive requirements, and very hefty fees.
>
> If this law is not changed, as of August 1, almost all flight instruction
> in California will have to shut down as only a very large flight school
> will be able to meet the requirements of this law.
>
> http://www.calpilots.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1871:more-on-ab-48&catid=43:aviation-regulation&Itemid=78
>
>
>
>
>

What's the problem? Hop a plane to Brazil for GA flight instruction -
that's where numerous US schools have already migrated... Apparently,
the authorities there don't think that putting big fences around little
country GA strips is quite so vital to national security ...

Brian W

[Jim Logajan]

wrote:
> brian whatcott > wrote:
>> The title says it all - a 60 day notice of intended rule making from
>> FCC. Drawn up as ineptly as you have come to expect, but with its heart
>> in the right place.
>>
>> Brian W
>
> The original NPRM was in 2006 so you've had 4 years to comment on how
> inept the rule is before adoption.
>
> Did you?

Was the date the proposal was to go into effect announced 4 years ago in
that NPRM?

So far as I can see, the main issue is the exceedingly short 60 day grace
period between when the proposal was announced as having been adopted (not
all proposals end up that way, hence the word "proposal") and the date it
was to become effective.

[Ron Lee[_2_]]

I talked to APOA this morning and they were caught by surprise. I do
not know all the facts but the normal NPRM process "may not" have been
followed. Apparently the FAA was as well. Sounds like very poor
communication between the FCC and people impacted by this.

Ron Lee

[[email protected]]

Jim Logajan > wrote:
> wrote:
>> brian whatcott > wrote:
>>> The title says it all - a 60 day notice of intended rule making from
>>> FCC. Drawn up as ineptly as you have come to expect, but with its heart
>>> in the right place.
>>>
>>> Brian W
>>
>> The original NPRM was in 2006 so you've had 4 years to comment on how
>> inept the rule is before adoption.
>>
>> Did you?
>
> Was the date the proposal was to go into effect announced 4 years ago in
> that NPRM?

Normally the adoption date depends on how many comments are received on
the proposal and how many times it has to be redone because of comments.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.