The International Cessna^® 170 Association

gahorn wrote:Doubtless, it is merely an unfortunate choice of wording in the new FCC policy. I am sure that there is no FCC intent to re-allocate 121.5 for any other purpose than emergency purposes and aviation emergency/guard use.
The intent of the new policy is to prevent/discourage the new mfr, certification, sale, installation, and use of ELTs which primarily use 121.5 as their broadcast frequency. The intent is to encourage everyone to transition to the new 406/243/121.5 ELT units.

This is an opportunity, in my opinion, for us to lobby for the complete revocation of the ELT requirement on aircraft. ELT's should be optional equipment. History has proven them to be unreliable and troublesome, with the vast majority of "alerts" to be false. Few actual saves have resulted from their installation/activation which would not have occured without them. General Aviation has been the group burdened with them primarily, not airlines or military.

It's TIME to DUMP this stupid regulation requiring them.

I know the KC-135's have ELT's. Probably other airframes, too.
They transmit on 121.5, 406.025, and 243.
The data transmitted is serial #, country code, and manufacturer.

ronjenx wrote:

gahorn wrote:Doubtless, it is merely an unfortunate choice of wording in the new FCC policy. I am sure that there is no FCC intent to re-allocate 121.5 for any other purpose than emergency purposes and aviation emergency/guard use.
The intent of the new policy is to prevent/discourage the new mfr, certification, sale, installation, and use of ELTs which primarily use 121.5 as their broadcast frequency. The intent is to encourage everyone to transition to the new 406/243/121.5 ELT units.

This is an opportunity, in my opinion, for us to lobby for the complete revocation of the ELT requirement on aircraft. ELT's should be optional equipment. History has proven them to be unreliable and troublesome, with the vast majority of "alerts" to be false. Few actual saves have resulted from their installation/activation which would not have occured without them. General Aviation has been the group burdened with them primarily, not airlines or military.

It's TIME to DUMP this stupid regulation requiring them.

I know the KC-135's have ELT's. Probably other airframes, too.
They transmit on 121.5, 406.025, and 243.
The data transmitted is serial #, country code, and manufacturer.

I did not say other aircraft do not have them, I was only referring to the fact that FARs only require GA aircraft to have them.

Excuse my post, then. It was more just informational.

Am I not making myself clear? The 121.5 system is terribly flawed. With GPS, my thought is that a (spot) or other system is more applicable. Richard, I never have had any thing bad to say about the CAP...In fact I just finished a glider for them this winter. A wonderful bunch of pilots, and instructors in my neighborhood. The problem in my mind is..... why use a frequency that is for broad band when a GPS freq. could be used? And the cost will be substantially cheaper when the item is personally owned and not run by the government!....Just a thought.

N9149A wrote:Karl,

Like so many 406 ELTs that model ELT will be illegal because it broadcast on 121.5 as well.

That is a very cynical - and IMO incorrect - reading of the proposed rule.

We can parse words all day but it is fairly obvious what they are trying to do here and grousing about potential collateral ramifications that will never, ever come to pass to indicate our unhappiness about having to spend a few bucks, obscures the true intent of the rule which is to target 121.5-only ELT units for elimination. No one including the FCC wants to stop 121.5mhz AM transmissions from the new 406mhz units

We should have seen this coming from a million miles away when the FAA was successfully lobbied to ignore the issue.

I'm not picking on you by the way, yours was simply the best post to quote And I guess others have said what I just said but why let that stop us from beating a dead horse

futr_alaskaflyer wrote:
We can parse words all day but it is fairly obvious what they are trying to do here and grousing about potential collateral ramifications that will never, ever come to pass to indicate our unhappiness about having to spend a few bucks

Well I guess a thousand dollars might be just a few dollars for some but I consider it a substantial outlay for a piece of equipment I would just as soon not have.

I recently installed a 406, tough to say who needs one but I'm all for improving my odds of being found. The terrain in BC is very unforgiving, but having said that if I lived and flew only locally in Kansas I doubt I'd buy one.

http://www.aea.net/governmentaffairs/re ... .asp?ID=43

The August date listed in the AEA Regulatory Update June 21, is the absolute earliest date the FCC rule could have become effective. Thanks to the efforts of the AOPA, the AEA and other trade associations, the final rule has not been submitted to the Federal Register for publication; therefore, the 60-day clock for implementation of the rule has not begun. As such, at this time, there is no way of knowing if or when this rule will become final.

The FCC has clarified that the rule is targeting legacy TSO C91a type ELTs, which operate primarily on 121.5 MHz, not the general use of frequency 121.5 MHz as the rule implies. Current TSO C126 ELTs are not affected by this ruling.

Brad Brady wrote:........Richard, I never have had any thing bad to say about the CAP...In fact I just finished a glider for them this winter. A wonderful bunch of pilots, and instructors in my neighborhood. The problem in my mind is..... why use a frequency that is for broad band when a GPS freq. could be used? ...................

Brad-
We have to work with the system that we have and it does work. And I sure want someone to come looking for me if I don't come home sometime. My 121.5 ELT WILL be on. I have personally found several people and the CAP in general has found hundreds if not thousands in distress with the 121.5 ELTs. Not all are in airplanes either. Campers, hikers, boaters, and others who carry the small personal ELTs will be out of luck if 121.5 is outlawed. It is outdated technology for sure and not very efficient but it does work and anyone can locate a signal with minimal training.

I agree it is time to consider newer technology such as you suggested, a GPS signal which would directly take us to the distressed persons would be a huge improvement.

I'm also not too pleased when the government mandates using an ELT, then turns around and says buy a different kind. If the gov't mandates the use of something, then send me some Obama Bucks to pay for it. Supporting viable companies would do a lot more good than bailing out failed companies with the money.

I guess I should patent this instead of gripe about it publicly, but.....

Why do we have to buy super-duper-ELTs when.....
.... FAA is going to spend a fortune on NexGen, then require US to buy into it with special equipment...so they can keep track of us even when we're below radar coverage, somewhere way out in the boonies.

But they and the FCC have apparently not considered the fact that if a super-transponder can show them where I am and where I'm operating... with a software-patch it could just as well tell them I've come to a sudden-stoppage at a particular GPS-identified area in the wilderness !

DOH!

hilltop170 wrote: If the gov't mandates the use of something, then send me some Obama Bucks to pay for it. Supporting viable companies would do a lot more good than bailing out failed companies with the money.

There you go, Richard....apparently we're on the same page...If there is something better out there...then why aren't we using it? just my thought.

I read a report this morning that the FCC has apparently not taken the necessary step of publishing this rule (as final) in the federal register. Following this step, a rule takes effect 60 days later. The report went on to say that the FAA is making a formal objection to the FCC rule. If true, it is unlikely this rule will happen after all.

Good point George....apparently we were posting at the same time...I missed your very good point.