AOPA on FCC ELT action

[wsuffa]

The FCC can specify every aspect of ELTs except mandating them to be installed in aircraft.

I would argue that in this case the FCC is mandating that they not be installed in aircraft. That may not be true in the strictist sense (e.g. they can be installed, but they can't be turned on or set for operation), but the exceptions I mentioned would require other actions under FAA rules such as placarding that something is disabled and potentially removal.

The FCC can, in theory, impose non-spectrum related requirements subject to their authority under USC. And that's precisely why there is an issue involving broadband internet right now. If they exceed their authority, it's up to a Federal court (as opposed to the adminitrative law kangaroo court) to decide.

Suffice it to say that the FCC believes it is within their bounds to say what can be used where and how it is to work. What they cannot do is require an airplane to have the equipment on board and deem the airworthiness of aircraft. That is up to the FAA.

The really funny thing is that the FCC does not get the final say in one area of radio propagation that has the most to do with interference and radio coverage. That would be tower heights. The FAA gets to tell non-aviation industries where and how they can build radio towers.

Actually you are incorrect as to tower heights. The FAA analyzes the obstruction and issues a determination of hazard or no hazard with respect to a tower (or building). The FCC is the final say on whether the tower is approved or not.... and if it is approved, the FAA must modify procedures to accomodate.

That is specifically the crux of the issue over electromagentic compatibility between broadcast and aviation services. The FAA started doing EMI (primarily intermod and brute-force) analysis of proposed FM facilities and issuing determinations of hazard if their computer program showed a potential problem. The FCC had the ability to issue construction permits anyway (and did so in a few cases).

Same thing goes for tower heights.... the USA Today building that I'm looking at out my office window originally was opposed by the FAA for it's impact on inbound air traffic to DCA. It was built anyway.

Now, as a practical matter, the FCC doesn't usually override or ignore the FAA's determination. But they do have the authority to do so. And the licensee (or permittee) that constructs in the face of an FAA objection will have a real burden in terms of getting insurance.

 

[wsuffa]

Of course, as we've seen, they *can* do exactly what they've done. THey just cannot do it without having their choice to do so called out as arbitrary and capricious.

The FCC would argue that the proposal went through a rulemaking and comment process. And comments were submitted. Ergo, it would be a very tough argument to make that this was "arbitrary and capricious".

It's a much different situation than the deep water oil drilling moratorium.

 

[ScottM]

This isn't EPIRB's. This is ELT's.

Understood. I supplied that as an example to show you that the FCC can specify more than just "frequency tolerance"

The FCC can specify the tech specs for the 406 signal, and the tech specs for the 121.5 signal,

Glad you are finally seeing the like and agree that you were incorrect and that I was correct.

but they can't say that some ELT's can transmit on 121.5 but others can't, unless those others don't meet the signal spec for 121.5, which the TSO's 121.5 units do.

Depends on how they structured the regulation on ELTs. most of the time dual banded devices allow for optionality in whether they will have to support both bands or not. The FCC has in past mandated dual mode devices and capabilities on some services.

That's like saying they won't allow 2 meter rigs in the amateur bands unless they also transmit on the 6 meter band -- just not within their power to say.

There are no type approval or certification regulations in Part 97, the Amateur service. That is why you do not see that type of requirement for ham radio.

 

[ScottM]

I would argue that in this case the FCC is mandating that they not be installed in aircraft. That may not be true in the strictist sense (e.g. they can be installed, but they can't be turned on or set for operation), but the exceptions I mentioned would require other actions under FAA rules such as placarding that something is disabled and potentially removal.

It is a thin distinction, I agree.

The FCC can, in theory, impose non-spectrum related requirements subject to their authority under USC. And that's precisely why there is an issue involving broadband internet right now. If they exceed their authority, it's up to a Federal court (as opposed to the adminitrative law kangaroo court) to decide.

Yep, but there is no theory about it. The FCC often imposes non-spectrum requirements upon devices in different services.

Actually you are incorrect as to tower heights. The FAA analyzes the obstruction and issues a determination of hazard or no hazard with respect to a tower (or building). The FCC is the final say on whether the tower is approved or not.... and if it is approved, the FAA must modify procedures to accomodate.

Really? I'll take your word on it. But I have seen lots of letters from the FAA stating that they do not approve of a tower construction plan.

That is specifically the crux of the issue over electromagentic compatibility between broadcast and aviation services. The FAA started doing EMI (primarily intermod and brute-force) analysis of proposed FM facilities and issuing determinations of hazard if their computer program showed a potential problem. The FCC had the ability to issue construction permits anyway (and did so in a few cases).

Same thing goes for tower heights.... the USA Today building that I'm looking at out my office window originally was opposed by the FAA for it's impact on inbound air traffic to DCA. It was built anyway.

Must have been some good string pulling for that.

Now, as a practical matter, the FCC doesn't usually override or ignore the FAA's determination. But they do have the authority to do so. And the licensee (or permittee) that constructs in the face of an FAA objection will have a real burden in terms of getting insurance.

That might be the issue is that the FCC will not override the FAA on towers.

 

[ScottM]

The FCC would argue that the proposal went through a rulemaking and comment process. And comments were submitted. Ergo, it would be a very tough argument to make that this was "arbitrary and capricious".

Yep

It's a much different situation than the deep water oil drilling moratorium.

FCC wanted a moratorium on deep water drilling? Wow that is really outside of their bounds.

 

[dmccormack]

...and then hit the FCC with, "How are you going to answer when we can't locate the next downed politician or business VIP?"

There are usually plenty of high-end cell phones on those flights....

 

[Palmpilot]

This isn't EPIRB's. This is ELT's. The FCC can specify the tech specs for the 406 signal, and the tech specs for the 121.5 signal, but they can't say that some ELT's can transmit on 121.5 but others can't, unless those others don't meet the signal spec for 121.5, which the TSO's 121.5 units do. That's like saying they won't allow 2 meter rigs in the amateur bands unless they also transmit on the 6 meter band -- just not within their power to say.

Do you have any citations to the Communications Act to support that?

47 CFR 87.199(b) says that an ELT can't transmit on 406.0 - 406.1 MHz unless it also transmits on 121.5 MHz.

47 CFR 95.1402 says the same thing about PLBs.

47 CFR 80.1061 says the same thing about EPIRBs.

Yes, EPIRBs and PLBs are not ELTs, but they are very similar devices, and it shows that the FCC can and has done what you say they can't do.

And the only reason there is no reg saying that 2 meter ham rigs must also transmit on 6 meters is that the FCC doesn't have any reason for wanting to do it. It might not survive the NPRM process though, because unlike the AOPA (apparently), the ARRL pays attention to FCC NPRMs.

You ought to browse 47 CFR Part 76 some time. The FCC has lots and lots of regs on television service that have nothing whatever to do with tech specs. "Must carry" rules, for example, and cable rate regulation rules, and on and on.

 

[wsuffa]

Really? I'll take your word on it. But I have seen lots of letters from the FAA stating that they do not approve of a tower construction plan.
....
That might be the issue is that the FCC will not override the FAA on towers.

The FAA doesn't "approve" or "disapprove" towers. The tower/building proponant must file a notification to the FAA and the agency will issue "Determination of No Hazard" or "Determination of Hazard" to air navigation. Those determinations are advisory, not regulatory. It is up to the FCC (in the case of towers) or local authorities (in the case of buildings and other structures) to decide whether to approve or disapprove the actual construction. FAA can file an objection, but they don't have the authority to decide on construction.... all the FAA can do is to impose airspace requirements (such as higher enroute or approch minimums) on aircraft.

Heck, as I noted, the FAA even looks are electromagentic compatibility and issues "Determinations of Presumed Hazard" if they find possible intermod or front-end swamping.

BTW, the FCC had a proceeding at one point to regulate the performance of aviation NAV receivers (look up Proceeding 93-199 in the FCC's proceedings database sometime). Enough questions were raised about the FCC's ability to regulate receivers that the rule never made it into the books. Theoretically, the FCC could have regulated the receivers through a type-acceptance process, but that would have been pretty cumbersome. That's not a good analogy for the ELT issue, however, as ELTs are transmitters and are fully within the FCC's regulatory purvue.

As for closing off the market for the current 406 ELTs that have a beacon on 121.5, I don't see anything in the new rule that contramands FCC Rule Section 87.199(b), which requires a 121.5 beacon in a 406 ELT. So the current crop is OK under the FCC rules.

 

[Palmpilot]

The FCC has now clarified what they meant. Thanks to "Auburntsts" on the Purple Board for finding this.

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. [emphasis added]
​

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

 

[SCCutler]

Point of clarification:

The timing of implementation can be arbitrary and capricious, even where the underlying ruling, itself, is not.

 

[TMetzinger]

What I heard today:

The publishing of the final rule will be "delayed", meaning the clock doesn't start ticking until it's actually published in the federal register.

The rule will be targeting C91a ELTs, NOT ELTs that transmit on 121.5 MHz, so the C126(?) 406 MHz ELTs will be unaffected.


Now, what I'd really like to see happen is:

FAA issues rule changes removing the requirement for aircraft ELTs unless those airplanes are used in air commerce or flight instruction. My reasoning for this is that student pilots and folks paying for air travel have a reasonable expectation that if they crash a "Beacon" will help SAR find them.

FAA requires all ELTs meeting the "new" rule above to be 406MHz with GPS position data. This will require those airplanes to re-equip (and charge their customers accordingly). This requirement becomes final in two years from publication.

The FCC requirement "outlawing" C91a ELTs becomes effective two years after the FAA rules are published.

Result - folks operating under 91 can equip with a 406 MHz ELT, a 406 MHz PLB, or nothing, depending on their own risk management philosophy. Air commerce airplanes should be found relatively quickly as a result of the 406/GPS ELT.

Cost is minimized for GA - 91 owners can rip out their ELT and no longer pay for the inspections.

 

[AdamZ]

Scott or Bill I have one question if the rule is enacted and we can't use 121.5 but we go ahead and have an ELT that transmits on 121.5 while at the same time having a wardrobe malfunction is the fine doubled?:wink2:

 

[ScottM]

Scott or Bill I have one question if the rule is enacted and we can't use 121.5 but we go ahead and have an ELT that transmits on 121.5 while at the same time having a wardrobe malfunction is the fine doubled?:wink2:

You pose and interesting question. In the interests of flight safety I think we should petition the FAA to require the use of high adhesive tape to be attached to the PIC's nipples prior to take off. The tape should be TSO'ed and needs to be applied by an A&P with an appropriate entry into the pilot logbook. Removal of the tape, post flight, can be done by the PIC who is in the possession of a valid tape removal endorsement in their logbook.

This will prevent the catastrophic event that you have postulated form occurring.

 

[wsuffa]

Scott or Bill I have one question if the rule is enacted and we can't use 121.5 but we go ahead and have an ELT that transmits on 121.5 while at the same time having a wardrobe malfunction is the fine doubled?:wink2:

Only if you land in a highway construction zone.

 

[RyanShort1]

Actually, right now, if you are flight instructing within the "local" area of less than 50 miles away from the airport, you are NOT required to have an ELT. That's true for the Cub I've been flying and a few other aircraft. Of course, most of the local flying like that would have someone looking for you very quickly if you didn't show up at the flight school, and at least around here, if you are with flight following or radar coverage, they will most likely have a good idea of where to look for you as well.

Ryan