What concerns me is not just banning the future sale of 121.5 ELT's; I think we all knew it was just a matter of time until they were phased out by the FAA. What bothers me is that the FCC is restricting the USE of the 121.5 frequency band as I read it. As far as I know, the only change is that the SARSATs do not monitor it, and are on 406.0 now to pinpoint a beacon better than they could on 121.5. This is pretty confusing, since the airlines are still FEQUIRED to monitor 121.5 en-route as an emergency and/or interception frequency. ATC still monitors 121.5 as well. Bottom line is that 121.5 is still a valid emergency frequency, so I'm not sure what their logic is on restricting it. I recently installed an AmeriKing 406 beacon, so I'm covered there, but all the new 406 beacons I've seen still have 121.5 and 243.0 broadcast capability. So now am I restricted from using that capability by the FCC if I need to activate it? How do I coordinate my rescue if I can't use 121.5 anymore?
Some idiot in the FCC has overstepped their authority. I can't wait for the sh*tstorm between AOPA, FAA, and FCC on this one. Who's really calling the shots for Obama in this brain-dead agency anyway? I thought they were too busy trying to regulate the Internet using 75-year old telecommunications laws to worry about aviation! Later, Dave --- In [email protected], William R. Bayne <ercog...@...> wrote: > > > Hey Tommy, > > Ya done good! > > I'll send something off soon to "back you up". > > Can you give us the addresses for all the "cc"s? > > WRB > > -- > > On Jun 23, 2010, at 17:40, JThomas Terry wrote: > > > > > > > After a couple of days, there doesn't seem to be much new information > > on the supposed banning of 121.5 ELTs in August. The FCC, as far as I > > know at this time, has not denied the alleged ban, but they have not > > admitted it either. Either way, I really do not think it can be done > > quite as quickly as the first reports indicated. Given the lack of > > comment by the FCC, I feel that they are up to something. With that > > in mind, I wrote the following letter to the FCC. I'm sure it isn't > > perfect but feel free to use it as is or as food for thought to write > > your own. > > Tommy > > N93929 > > > > > > > > Chairman Julius Genachowski > > Federal Communications Commission > > 445 12th Street SW > > Washington, DC 20554 > > > > Sir: > > Recent reports concerning the FCC's decision to prohibit use of > > Emergency Locator Transmitters on 121.5 MHz are alarming. We all know > > that these ELTs are not tremendously dependable or accurate and I do > > not think anyone will argue that the potential of the 406 MHz Elts > > promises to be far superior. However, the reports being circulated, > > and to my knowledge not denied by your agency, are indicating a very > > short time for the retirement of the 121.5 ELTs. Sir, this is not > > practical in many aspects: > > 1. Production and delivery. > > Can the manufacturers of the 406 ELTs produce 100,000 units in time to > > meet the rumored retirement date of August? > > 2. Installation. > > Given the down turn in general aviation maintenance facilities; can > > 100,000 units be installed by the retirement date? > > 3. Cost. > > Currently an ELT operating on 121.5 MHz can be bought for as little as > > $200.00. However, the cheapest 406 MHz ELT I have personally been > > able to locate will cost approximately $800.00 by the time it is > > delivered and another $200 for installation. This is a minimum cost > > of $1000.00 for each and every general aviation aircraft in the > > country. This will mean an outlay of approximately $100000000.00 (One > > Hundred Million Dollars) from a segment of our economy that is already > > struggling if not dying. If so, to what or who's benefit? > > 4. Triple frequency units. > > In recent years there have been many triple frequency units sold and > > installed. These units operate on 121.5 MHz, 243.0 MHz, and 406 MHz. > > Does this new regulation ban those new units because they transmit on > > 121.5? > > 5. Search equipment. > > Who will be responsible for re-equipping all search aircraft and > > ground teams with new radio signal direction finding equipment? > > 6. Reliability. > > Even with all of its short comings and problems 121.5 or some other > > ground based and ground searched signal must be maintained. As good > > as the satellite systems are; there are times and places where the > > satellites just cannot be "seen." > > Even when the 121.5MHz ELT's were being monitored by satellite, many > > signals were reported by other aircraft that were later or never heard > > by the satellites. > > On the subject of cost: Does the FCC plan on issuing vouchers for the > > replacement units, similar to those issued for television converters > > boxes? That is only logical since this change will apparently be > > mandated without any concern for those it affects. Personally, I > > would be willing to meet half way as my ELT is not new and I would > > eventually have to replace it anyhow. > > > > All things considered, from my perspective and probably that of about > > 600,000 others; this new proposal is extremely short-sighted and it is > > clear your commission has not thought this new regulation completely > > through. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any > > questions concerning my comments. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Copies: > > Hon. Henry Cuellar, U.S. House of Representatives > > Mr. Craig Fuller, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association > > Mr. Tom Poberezny, Experimental Aircraft Association > > Mr. Skip Carden, Ercoupe Owners Club > > Commissioner Michael J. Copps > > Commissioner Robert McDowell > > Commissioner Mignon Clyburn > > Commissioner Meredith Attwell Baker > > >
