AOPA on FCC ELT action

The good thing is that if we call our representatives and make our thoughts known, there is no opposition group of likely voters who are gonna push back. The FCC, maybe... Voters... No.

So, in an election year, your representative(s) will be very motivated to help on this issue.
 
Here's the problem: since the FCC has already enacted the rules (they haven't taken effect yet), the hurdle is much higher to get things changed. It will take a petition for reconsideration and a stay of the action to make this go away. And I'd place money on it not going away: instead, I'd bet that the effective date just gets pushed out.

This is what happens when you get an activist government that's more interested in administrative convenience (note that they made a big deal about the other federal agencies that want to push folks to 408) in order to "protect" you. Part of the higher burden will come because few commented during the regular comment period.

I'll also surmise that the FAA really wasn't much involved. Based on past history, there's been a bit of a turf war between the agencies over regulatory authority. And that goes back 20+ years.
 
Unless there's been a final rule published (and I don't believe they have), the rule isn't enacted yet.
 
TMetzinger said:
Unless there's been a final rule published (and I don't believe they have), the rule isn't enacted yet.
Click to expand...
I was under the impression that the publication of the "final rule" was scheduled for this week.
 
TMetzinger said:
Unless there's been a final rule published (and I don't believe they have), the rule isn't enacted yet.
Click to expand...

Report and Order = final rule, even if it's not published in the Fed Reg yet. You are correct, though, that the clock doesn't start until it's published in the Federal Register. Sometimes it takes 30-60 days to get into the Federal Register.
 
wsuffa said:
Report and Order = final rule, even if it's not published in the Fed Reg yet. You are correct, though, that the clock doesn't start until it's published in the Federal Register. Sometimes it takes 30-60 days to get into the Federal Register.
Click to expand...
You're right Bill. The report and order makes mention of this and that the effective date is after publication in the FR.
 
Time for emails to your congresscritters....
 
As of 10:30 this morning, AOPA is working with the FAA on this. Apparently, the FAA was blind-sided, and is not happy. Like I said, real mess in the sausage factory.
 
Thank you for your monitoring, and reporting, on this for us, Ron. Your attention and knowledge of the "system" are very helpful in better understanding what's going on here.

---

PS - Gotta love the whole tenor of the discussion over at the Red Board. Red=Hot - more heat than light!
 
Ron Levy said:
Apparently, the FAA was blind-sided, and is not happy. Like I said, real mess in the sausage factory.
Click to expand...

Situation normal.

As I noted, there has been "turf" battling for years between the two agencies on several topics.... Broadcast & aviation radio compatability is one I have personal knowlege of. In that skirmish, the FAA got itself into disapproving broadcast tower locations based on electromagnetic compatability (not just tower heights)...
 
OK, so now we have a dilemna...I just spoke with the A&P and he's estimating a day's installation for each new 406 ELT (one's that don't just slip in). For example, I'll need the wire run from the ELT up to the panel for the switch, and a new antenna (with wiring) and writing up the 337. Personally, I'm thinking a day is really optimistic.

So for me, this is about $1500 (antenna, ELT, installation & paperwork).

Of course I was also forced into Digital TV without representation. Even the local TV stations were not happy to go that route.
 
ScottM said:
The whole 'They can have my 121.5 ELT when they pry it out of my cold dead hands discussion' or the 'y'all is stupid' one?

Maybe both :cornut:
Click to expand...

Both.

I try to look at it pragmatically - it is a fundamentally better ELT paradigm, but the procedural and operational issues surrounding the issuance and timing on the rule, stink.
 
murphey said:
OK, so now we have a dilemna...I just spoke with the A&P and he's estimating a day's installation for each new 406 ELT (one's that don't just slip in). For example, I'll need the wire run from the ELT up to the panel for the switch, and a new antenna (with wiring) and writing up the 337. Personally, I'm thinking a day is really optimistic.

So for me, this is about $1500 (antenna, ELT, installation & paperwork).
Click to expand...
Think about how all 200,000(?) aircraft can get the new ELTs if the avionics shop needs a day to do it. There are only 365.25 days per year, not counting weekends and holidays.

Gonna be a lot of unairworthy aircraft.

murphey said:
Of course I was also forced into Digital TV without representation. Even the local TV stations were not happy to go that route.
Click to expand...

I thought of that, too. I still can't believe the killling of analog TV went as smoothly as it did.
 
Go AOPA! Win me back.

Wait, does this have anything at all to do with user fees?
 
Anthony said:
As Tom Downey reminded me, the FCC does not determine airworthiness.
Click to expand...

I'm only worried about complying with the 14CFR. The FCC can suck a big one. Until 91.207 or whatever it is gets changed, I am not going to worry about it.
 
Trivia for Colorado.

There are 8072 aircraft registered in Colorado and 5970 spam cans (single engine, fixed wing, piston engines), most of which were manufactured before 2000. How many of them do you think already have 406 ELT? Assuming there are enough ELTs on the shelf/in the pipeline, how long before all of them can be installed?

Everyone I've talked to clearly intends to go 406ELT, just not in the next 6-12 months (or until the FAA mandates it). This will not be a windfall for the ELT manufacturers, because they know that sooner or later everyone would be their customer. It isn't a true windfall for the shops, because the window for installs is now very short, to the exclusion of much of their other work, hence annoying everyone.

So who is really winning with this? I can't see anyone on the aviation side as coming out a winner.
 
murphey said:
OK, so now we have a dilemna...I just spoke with the A&P and he's estimating a day's installation for each new 406 ELT (one's that don't just slip in). For example, I'll need the wire run from the ELT up to the panel for the switch, and a new antenna (with wiring) and writing up the 337. Personally, I'm thinking a day is really optimistic.

So for me, this is about $1500 (antenna, ELT, installation & paperwork).

Of course I was also forced into Digital TV without representation. Even the local TV stations were not happy to go that route.
Click to expand...
Don't go spending that money now. First of all, AFAIK, every 406 ELT on the market also transmits on 121.5, and that would be illegal under this rule. Second, I'm pretty sure that if you wait a week or so, you'll find you have five or ten years, not five or ten weeks, to put a 406 ELT in your plane. IOW...

:chill:
 
EdFred said:
I'm only worried about complying with the 14CFR. The FCC can suck a big one. Until 91.207 or whatever it is gets changed, I am not going to worry about it.
Click to expand...


That's exactly where I am with this, don't panic.

AS far as I can tell there are no ELTs that meet the FAAs idea of Approved, under this rule.

I'm hoping the FAA simply deletes the ELT requirement.

or goes the path of the Canadian's to see what they did see CAR 605.38, it depends upon where and what you fly, as to what equipment you are required to have.
 
Tom-D said:
That's exactly where I am with this, don't panic.

AS far as I can tell there are no ELTs that meet the FAAs idea of Approved, under this rule.

I'm hoping the FAA simply deletes the ELT requirement.
Click to expand...

...and then hit the FCC with, "How are you going to answer when we can't locate the next downed politician or business VIP?"
 
Ron Levy said:
First of all, AFAIK, every 406 ELT on the market also transmits on 121.5, and that would be illegal under this rule.
Click to expand...

I'm surprised to see that you buy that argument.

Take a look at the FCC's new regulation 87.199, which requires 406 MHz ELTs to comply with RTCA/DO-204. That specification has existed since 1989. I don't blame anyone for not wanting to spend $100 or so to get a copy, but it's really far-fetched to think that the 406 MHz ELT manufacturers have all been violating the specification through their inclusion of a low power 121.5 MHz output. And the version of TSO-C126 that existed as of 1992 refers to a 121.5 MHz requirement in the RTCA document.

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulator...0F451B230D34559F86256DAC0068F32A?OpenDocument

I also have not found anything in the explanatory text or notes of the FCC's Report and Order that suggests that they intend to obsolete existing 406 MHz ELTs.
 
Last edited:
Palmpilot said:
...it's really far-fetched to think that the 406 MHz ELT manufacturers have all been violating the specification through their inclusion of a low power 121.5 MHz output.
Click to expand...
Read their ads and marketing material, like in the Aircraft Spruce catalog:
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/elt406.php
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/ameriKingpackages.php
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/ameriKingpackagesGPS.php
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/artexme406.php
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/1103492.php
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/artexg.php
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/artexC406-1.php
...and a whole bunch more by EBC, Kannad, and Pointer, all of which are dual channel (406/121.5) or triple channel (406/121/5/243.0). As I read the new FCC rule, since these transmit on 121.5, they would be illegal. Maybe that wasn't their intent, but it is the effect of the rule as I read it.

There is only one that is listed as 406-only:
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/aircraftspruceelt.php

All in all, I think this rule is going in the toilet.
 
I don't know why one would be stunned by the feds taking action which is inconsistent with logic and common-sense.
 
Ron Levy said:
Read their ads and marketing material, like in the Aircraft Spruce catalog:
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/elt406.php
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/ameriKingpackages.php
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/ameriKingpackagesGPS.php
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/artexme406.php
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/1103492.php
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/artexg.php
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/artexC406-1.php
...and a whole bunch more by EBC, Kannad, and Pointer, all of which are dual channel (406/121.5) or triple channel (406/121/5/243.0).
Click to expand...

Yes, I've seen all those. That's part of what I'm saying.

Perhaps I was being unclear. Here is what I'm trying to say:

1. The FCC's 87.199(a) says that 406 MHz ELTs must meet RTCA/DO-204, dated in 1989.

2. TSO-C126 has also required meeting that spec since 1992, so it is highly likely that the makers of 406 MHz ELTs are aware that they have to meet that spec.

3. The fact that almost all the 406 MHz ELTs you and I have found incorporate 121.5 MHz beacons tells us that the RTCA spec contains provisions for 121.5 MHz beacons in 406 MHz ELTs. (Otherwise you would have to believe that the manufacturers of 406 MHz beacons are all fools.)

4. The fact that manufacturers don't usually like to spend money if they don't have to suggests that they are including the 121.5 MHz capability because the spec requires them to.

I'm guessing that neither you nor I have the inclination to spend $100 or so to get a copy of the RTCA specification, so it seems the best we can do for now is to infer what's in it by the behavior of the manufacturers who are bound by it.

As I read the new FCC rule, since these transmit on 121.5, they would be illegal. Maybe that wasn't their intent, but it is the effect of the rule as I read it.
Click to expand...

Did you read 87.199(a)?

There is only one that is listed as 406-only:
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/aircraftspruceelt.php
Click to expand...

I notice that is the only one that has an internal GPS receiver. All of the others listed above have at most an interface to the aircraft GPS. Maybe the built-in GPS is why they are allowed to leave out the 121.5 MHz homing beacon.
 
Last edited:
I asked about this on a CAP-oriented message board, and got some useful information.

First, regarding the 406 MHz ELT that Ron found that doesn't have any mention of a 121.5 MHz output in its description on the Aircraft Spruce website; someone found the manual online, and if you check section 2.1 on page 20, you will find this:
2.1 Operational Frequencies
406 ELT transmits on both 406.037 Mhz which is monitored by the Cospas/Sarsat system and a homing beacon on 121.5 that is currently unmonitored.
​
http://www.elt406.net/pdf/ELT_Install_Manual.pdf

Second, and more important, is that FCC regulation 47 CFR 87.199(b) REQUIRES 406 MHz ELTs to have integral 121.5 MHz homing beacons. The current Report and Order did not amend this section, so it is still in effect.
b) The 406.0–406.1 MHz ELT must contain as an integral part a homing beacon operating only on 121.500 MHz that meets all the requirements described in the RTCA Recommended Standards document described in paragraph (a) of this section. The 121.500 MHz homing beacon must have a continuous duty cycle that may be interrupted during the transmission of the 406.0–406.1 MHz signal only.
​
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/tex...v8&view=text&node=47:5.0.1.1.2.6.96.8&idno=47
 
Palmpilot said:
...

Second, and more important, is that FCC regulation 47 CFR 87.199(b) REQUIRES 406 MHz ELTs to have integral 121.5 MHz homing beacons. The current Report and Order did not amend this section, so it is still in effect.
b) The 406.0–406.1 MHz ELT must contain as an integral part a homing beacon operating only on 121.500 MHz that meets all the requirements described in the RTCA Recommended Standards document described in paragraph (a) of this section. The 121.500 MHz homing beacon must have a continuous duty cycle that may be interrupted during the transmission of the 406.0–406.1 MHz signal only.
​
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/tex...v8&view=text&node=47:5.0.1.1.2.6.96.8&idno=47
Click to expand...

Hence, the FCC is completely off the reservation, in that they are passing a Reg which inherently sounds in flight safety (FAA's province), and which is completely at odds with their area of jurisdiction.

Somebody got paid-off, but good.
 
SCCutler said:
Hence, the FCC is completely off the reservation, in that they are passing a Reg which inherently sounds in flight safety (FAA's province), and which is completely at odds with their area of jurisdiction.

.
Click to expand...
How do you figure that? The FCC is the agency that gets to decide who transmits what where.. This is completely in their purview. Just as it is their purview to regulate the voice part of aircraft radio transmissions and perform the frequency coordination for that.
 
SkyHog said:
Go AOPA! Win me back.

Wait, does this have anything at all to do with user fees?
Click to expand...

Not likely...they've become a one-trick lobby group. The FCC is not proposing a user-fee, so AOPA won't put the A-team on it.
 
The FCC only authorizes frequency use and sets technical standards for equipment (like frequency tolerance). They do not have the authority to set the requirements for ELT's -- that's purely the FAA's purview. Thus, if they ban ELT transmission on 121.5, they must ban all the dual-channel units. If they allow ELT transmission on 121.5 by the dual-channel units, they cannot ban 121.5-only units.
 
Ron Levy said:
The FCC only authorizes frequency use and sets technical standards for equipment (like frequency tolerance). They do not have the authority to set the requirements for ELT's -- that's purely the FAA's purview. Thus, if they ban ELT transmission on 121.5, they must ban all the dual-channel units. If they allow ELT transmission on 121.5 by the dual-channel units, they cannot ban 121.5-only units.
Click to expand...
You're mistaken about that. The FCC gets to set type approval regulations. Those are the regulations of what capabilities are required for each device that is to be used in a frequency band and service. The FCC gets to specify far more than just frequency tolerance. The FCC can specify every aspect of ELTs except mandating them to be installed in aircraft.

Depending on the band/service one is using the type approval process can be simple to arduous. Thankfully the FCC worlks with many industry standard groups to develop these requirements. Granted I have done far more work with the FCC than I have ever done with the FAA. But from my vantage point I have seen the FCC far more intertwined with private and business interests than the FAA which only seems to kow tow to airlines.

http://www.fcc.gov/oet/ea/ has lots more info on type approval.
 
Last edited:
ScottM said:
You're mistaken about that. The FCC gets to set type approval regulations. Those are the regulations of what capabilities are required for each device that is to be used in a frequency band and service. The FCC gets to specify far more than just frequency tolerance. The FCC can specify every aspect of ELTs except mandating them to be installed in aircraft.
Click to expand...
No, they can't. They cannot, for example, specify g-force for triggering. All they can specify are things like the frequency tolerance for the transmissions. While they can specify the frequencies which may be used for ELT's, and all the technical tolerances for those transmissions, they can't require that all ELT's transmit on 406 except by making that the only allowable ELT frequency, and that would effectively ban the dual-channel units. As long as 121.5 is a permissible ELT freq, the FAA can allow the use of 121.5-only ELT's that meet the FCC 121.5 ELT tech specs, because Congress gave the FAA (not the FCC) the authority to set the rules for aviation ELT requirements when they mandates ELT's for aircraft after that Senator got lost in Alaska. It would take an act of Congress to change that.
 
Ron Levy said:
All they can specify are things like the frequency tolerance for the transmissions.
Click to expand...
Nope, you're still not correct. They can and do specify a lot more. The extent is dependent on the device and service. The extent go from nothing, to simple Part 15 type of stuff, to full blown conformity specifications.

For EPIRBs The applicable regulation from the FCC is, 47CFR80

Which specifies that any EPRIB has to meeting technical requirements of: RTCM Paper 77–02/SC110–STD

EPIRBs must meet all the technical
and performance standards contained
in the Radio Technical Commission
for Maritime Services document
entitled RTCM Paper 77–02/SC110–STD,
‘‘RTCM Recommended Standards for
406 MHz Satellite Emergency Position-
Indicating Radiobeacons
Click to expand...
The spec costs $50 and you can buy it hear: https://ssl29.pair.com/dmarkle/puborder.php?show=7

The high level description shows all kinds of stuff beyond "Frequency tolerance"
When activated, the satellite EPIRB transmits in short bursts at approximately 50 second intervals. The transmission consists of an unmodulated carrier followed by a digital message format that provides stored information (identification, nationality, type of user, etc.), and optionally, current information such as the type of emergency and estimated location. The stored information is encoded in the satellite EPIRB by the manufacturer. The stored message includes the satellite EPIRB's identification, which, when decoded into its 15 character hexadecimal representation becomes the satellite EPIRB's unique identifier number, or 15 -Hex ID. This number is used by the SAR forces to identify the specific vessel in distress when the satellite EPIRB is activated. For satellite EPIRBs carried on USA vessels, it is also the number which is used by the satellite EPIRB's owner to register the satellite EPIRB in a registration data base maintained by the NOAA, NESDIS United States Mission Control Center (USMCC). The registration data provided by the satellite EPIRB's owner contains important additional information about the vessel on which the satellite EPIRB is installed. It also contains emergency points of contact who could be contacted in the event that the satellite EPIRB is activated. When a distress message is received by the United States MCC, the registry information is automatically appended to the alert message which is sent to the SAR forces.
Click to expand...
That the FCC is requiring.

I can tell you in the telco world that there are tons of FCC regulation that have nothing to even do with transmitting through the air. Take a look at Part 68 which has regulations pertaining to hearing aid requirements. Nothing in there about frequency tolerance at all. In Part 22, up until a few years ago, there was a requirement for analog modulation in the cellphone band of 800MHz. I could go on and on with examples. Suffice it to say that the FCC 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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
ScottM said:
How do you figure that? The FCC is the agency that gets to decide who transmits what where.. This is completely in their purview. Just as it is their purview to regulate the voice part of aircraft radio transmissions and perform the frequency coordination for that.
Click to expand...

But they are not regulating whether 121.5 can be used by ELTs - they are (I'd suggest, arbitrarily and capriciously**) excluding certain devices radiating on that frequency, in favor of others which do the same thing, without a technical basis for so doing.

Ron Levy said:
The FCC only authorizes frequency use and sets technical standards for equipment (like frequency tolerance). They do not have the authority to set the requirements for ELT's -- that's purely the FAA's purview. Thus, if they ban ELT transmission on 121.5, they must ban all the dual-channel units. If they allow ELT transmission on 121.5 by the dual-channel units, they cannot ban 121.5-only units.
Click to expand...

+1.

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.

---

**Magic Words.
 
SCCutler said:
But they are not regulating whether 121.5 can be used by ELTs - they are (I'd suggest, arbitrarily and capriciously**) excluding certain devices radiating on that frequency, in favor of others which do the same thing, without a technical basis for so doing.



+1.

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.

---

**Magic Words.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Won't stand legal scrutiny.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top