FCC Warns Against Foolishness on Guard

onezuludelta

onezuludelta

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Apr 8, 2015
Messages
245
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Display Name
Display name:
OneZuluDelta
"The FAA and FCC want aviators to remember that a specific radio frequency is for emergencies, and that's it. The FCC made clear in a notice Tuesday that the frequency isn't for "false distress or emergency messages, superfluous communications, messages containing obscene, indecent or profane words or meaning, general calls (calls not addressed to a particular station), routine messages, radio tests and transmission of recorded audio (such as music or spoken text)." The FAA said that each one of those kinds of chatter has been "happening quite often" on the frequency meant for real distress situations."

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db0808/DA-17-747A1.pdf
 
onezuludelta said:
"The FAA and FCC want aviators to remember that a specific radio frequency is for emergencies, and that's it. The FCC made clear in a notice Tuesday that the frequency isn't for "false distress or emergency messages, superfluous communications, messages containing obscene, indecent or profane words or meaning, general calls (calls not addressed to a particular station), routine messages, radio tests and transmission of recorded audio (such as music or spoken text)." The FAA said that each one of those kinds of chatter has been "happening quite often" on the frequency meant for real distress situations."

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db0808/DA-17-747A1.pdf
Click to expand...

oonnnn gggguuuaaaarrrrrrdddddd!!!!!
 
That must mean that loss of two-way radio contact between an airliner and Center is an emergency, since Center calling for airliners constitutes 100% of the transmissions I've ever heard on 121.5.
 
iamtheari said:
That must mean that loss of two-way radio contact between an airliner and Center is an emergency, since Center calling for airliners constitutes 100% of the transmissions I've ever heard on 121.5.
Click to expand...

While it could evolve into an emergency, the action of trying to contact an aircraft on guard because of lost commo, isn't by itself an emergency. An action specifically authorized none the less.
 
Velocity173 said:
While it could evolve into an emergency, the action of trying to contact an aircraft on guard because of lost commo, isn't by itself an emergency. An action specifically authorized none the less.
Click to expand...
Not according to the FCC's notice that the OP linked to, which says "Of particular importance, Section 87.173 of the FCC’s rules mandates that 121.500 MHz be used solely for emergency and distress purposes." The footnote to that sentence adds "Frequency 121.500 MHz also is used for maritime distress and search and rescue communications, and for direction-finding with respect to emergency radiobeacons at sea and on land."

None of those specifically authorizes using 121.5 to contact an aircraft except in times of emergency or distress. And, if you read the CFR, the FCC is apparently right. The table at 47 CFR 87.173(b) lists subparts G, H, I, J, K, M, and O for 121.500. Each of those subparts consistently, other than the capitalization of the E in emergency, says "emergency and distress only."

I agree that this is a perfectly good use for 121.5 because all airliners should be listening on it at all possible times (as should the rest of us), but I am not seeing where it is "specifically authorized" and the FCC's notice certainly does not mention it.
 
iamtheari said:
Not according to the FCC's notice that the OP linked to, which says "Of particular importance, Section 87.173 of the FCC’s rules mandates that 121.500 MHz be used solely for emergency and distress purposes." The footnote to that sentence adds "Frequency 121.500 MHz also is used for maritime distress and search and rescue communications, and for direction-finding with respect to emergency radiobeacons at sea and on land."

None of those specifically authorizes using 121.5 to contact an aircraft except in times of emergency or distress. And, if you read the CFR, the FCC is apparently right. The table at 47 CFR 87.173(b) lists subparts G, H, I, J, K, M, and O for 121.500. Each of those subparts consistently, other than the capitalization of the E in emergency, says "emergency and distress only."

I agree that this is a perfectly good use for 121.5 because all airliners should be listening on it at all possible times (as should the rest of us), but I am not seeing where it is "specifically authorized" and the FCC's notice certainly does not mention it.
Click to expand...

It's specifically authorized in the emergency section of the .65:

a. In the event of lost communications with an aircraft under your control jurisdiction use all appropriate means available to reestablish commu- nications with the aircraft. These may include, but not be limited to, emergency frequencies, NAVAIDs that are equipped with voice capability, FSS, Aeronauti− cal Radio Incorporated (ARINC), etc.
 
Velocity173 said:
It's specifically authorized in the emergency section of the .65:

a. In the event of lost communications with an aircraft under your control jurisdiction use all appropriate means available to reestablish commu- nications with the aircraft. These may include, but not be limited to, emergency frequencies, NAVAIDs that are equipped with voice capability, FSS, Aeronauti− cal Radio Incorporated (ARINC), etc.
Click to expand...
So the .65 treats it as enough of an emergency or distress condition to comply with the FCC regulations. That does make sense.
 
iamtheari said:
So the .65 treats it as enough of an emergency or distress condition to comply with the FCC regulations. That does make sense.
Click to expand...

Well, like I said, it's in the emergency section but that doesn't mean it's an emergency or distress. If a controller attempts contact on guard for an aircraft, doesn't mean they're treating it as an emergency with a big fat red "E" on the strip and the sup writing it in the sup's log. I think the best way of looking at it, would be an attempt in preventing a possible future emergency situation. I'm sure the FCC wouldn't have any issue with it.

Now, an unexpeccted loss of comms and radar? That's a full blown emergency and will get treated as such.
 
Last edited:
iamtheari said:
That must mean that loss of two-way radio contact between an airliner and Center is an emergency, since Center calling for airliners constitutes 100% of the transmissions I've ever heard on 121.5.
Click to expand...
Do you believe it is not?
 
Velocity173 said:
I think the best way of looking at it, would be an attempt in preventing a possible future emergency situation. I'm sure the FCC wouldn't have any issue with it.
Click to expand...
That's my point, that the FCC shouldn't have any issue with it but the way they write the regs and talk about them makes it sound like they might have an issue anyhow. They're the Federal Communications Commission and ought to do a better job communicating than this.
 
So "You're on ****ing guaaaarrrrd" would be not allowed anymore???
 
iamtheari said:
That must mean that loss of two-way radio contact between an airliner and Center is an emergency, since Center calling for airliners constitutes 100% of the transmissions I've ever heard on 121.5.
Click to expand...
In my experience, only about 50% of guard transmissions are ATC looking for an airplane. The other half of the transmissions are people who accidentally transmit on guard, which is forgivable, the jokers who repeatedly transmit "ON GUUUUAAAARRRRDDDD", then turn it into a running joke, and the ones who lecture them about it on the frequency. It might have been funny... once. I think the FCC notice is targeting the "ON GUUUUAAAARRRRDDDD" crowd. Yeah, let someone know they are accidentally on guard, but really...
 
Everskyward said:
In my experience, only about 50% of guard transmissions are ATC looking for an airplane. The other half of the transmissions are people who accidentally transmit on guard, which is forgivable, the jokers who repeatedly transmit "ON GUUUUAAAARRRRDDDD", then turn it into a running joke, and the ones who lecture them about it on the frequency. It might have been funny... once. I think the FCC notice is targeting the "ON GUUUUAAAARRRRDDDD" crowd. Yeah, let someone know they are accidentally on guard, but really...
Click to expand...
With the old radio stack I used to occasionally announce 10 miles out on guard...hey, we're supposed to monitor and with that setup monitor meant be on freq.
 
I've made ATC transmissions on guard, ATIS, company, whatever happens to be in the #2 radio because I forgot to flip the switch...
 
iamtheari said:
That's my point, that the FCC shouldn't have any issue with it but the way they write the regs and talk about them makes it sound like they might have an issue anyhow. They're the Federal Communications Commission and ought to do a better job communicating than this.
Click to expand...
An emergency includes, "A condition of being concerned about safety and of requiring timely but not immediate assistance."
 
Last edited:
Everskyward said:
I've made ATC transmissions on guard, ATIS, company, whatever happens to be in the #2 radio because I forgot to flip the switch...
Click to expand...
Then after the radio stack was replaced I'd frequently make calls on the old freq because I didn't flip-flop. Hey, the old radios didn't flip-flop...
 
Departure frequency for Tucson is 125.1. I'm amazed at how many dyslexic pilots there are around here.
 
Everskyward said:
In my experience, only about 50% of guard transmissions are ATC looking for an airplane. The other half of the transmissions are people who accidentally transmit on guard, which is forgivable, the jokers who repeatedly transmit "ON GUUUUAAAARRRRDDDD", then turn it into a running joke, and the ones who lecture them about it on the frequency. It might have been funny... once. I think the FCC notice is targeting the "ON GUUUUAAAARRRRDDDD" crowd. Yeah, let someone know they are accidentally on guard, but really...
Click to expand...

That's my take as well. The silly "on guard!" non-sense might be funny (the first time) when you're cruising along at 30k reading a two-day-old USA Today, but inevitably the guard jokesters pipe up when I'm trying to copy a re-route from ATC and I have to turn the #2 down or off. That's really annoying (mostly because half the time I forget to turn the volume back up later).
 
Timbeck2 said:
Departure frequency for Tucson is 125.1. I'm amazed at how many dyslexic pilots there are around here.
Click to expand...

Same as CHA. When it's not preset, ive had to do a bit of mental math to keep from screwing things up. :D
 
The chances that one of these transmissions actually interferes with a real emergency? Probably less than an iota of a fraction of a percent.
Just more 'regulators trying to regulate'; they can't help themselves. I am 'with them' on this egregious radio issue.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
The chances that one of these transmissions actually interferes with a real emergency? Probably less than an iota of a fraction of a percent.
Just more 'regulators trying to regulate'; they can't help themselves. I am 'with them' on this egregious radio issue.
Click to expand...

Regulators trying to regulate? Not hardly. They'd be handing out fines if that were the case.

It's a safety issue if I issue a "mayday" and nobody hears it because the guard bozos chased everyone off the frequency with their antics. Maybe it's not a problem in West Texas but it is really common on the east coast.
 
Brad Z said:
Regulators trying to regulate? Not hardly. They'd be handing out fines if that were the case.

It's a safety issue if I issue a "mayday" and nobody hears it because the guard bozos chased everyone off the frequency with their antics. Maybe it's not a problem in West Texas but it is really common on the east coast.
Click to expand...

Did someone say regulate???

 
Zeldman said:
But what if the coffee maker quits working..????
Click to expand...

A friend who works a small tower in Australia said this happened last week at his tower and he damn near NOTAMd the tower closed. LOL.

Everskyward said:
In my experience, only about 50% of guard transmissions are ATC looking for an airplane. The other half of the transmissions are people who accidentally transmit on guard, which is forgivable, the jokers who repeatedly transmit "ON GUUUUAAAARRRRDDDD", then turn it into a running joke, and the ones who lecture them about it on the frequency. It might have been funny... once. I think the FCC notice is targeting the "ON GUUUUAAAARRRRDDDD" crowd. Yeah, let someone know they are accidentally on guard, but really...
Click to expand...

Word on the street is they're actually working an enforcement action on someone making false distress calls on the frequency in the Boston area.

Knowing their toys in their tracking vans, by the time they announce warnings like this one, they already have a location and transmitter fingerprinting done. There will probably be the usual administrative law fine of $10,000 per occurrence issued "shortly". However fast "shortly" goes. I've seen that one take years. But it's an interesting piece of law in that it's yet another area you don't get due process. Judge simply agrees and issues the fine. Wage garnishment can start immediately thereafter. Usually whoever is doing it is broke, bored, and on public assistance anyway -- so the collection rate on the fines is extremely low. Stupid people do stupid things and often usually don't have a job or income to fine them from anyway.

Let'sgoflying! said:
The chances that one of these transmissions actually interferes with a real emergency? Probably less than an iota of a fraction of a percent.
Just more 'regulators trying to regulate'; they can't help themselves. I am 'with them' on this egregious radio issue.
Click to expand...

"FCC, Cessna 12345 WITH YOU..." LOL
 
Brad Z said:
That's my take as well. The silly "on guard!" (mostly because ALL the time I INTENTIONALLY forget to turn the volume back up later).
Click to expand...
Fixed it. The way It usually happens when I fly.
 
Brad Z said:
The silly "on guard!" non-sense might be funny (the first time) when you're cruising along at 30k reading a two-day-old USA Today, but inevitably the guard jokesters pipe up when I'm trying to copy a re-route from ATC and I have to turn the #2 down or off.
Click to expand...

I'm WITH YOU on this one.

Last week I flew from Shreveport to Santa Fe and back. The idiots joking around on guard caused me to miss 3 calls that day. More importantly, they interrupt my freakin' music.

It's extremely juvenile BS. F****** grow up.
 
This FCC announcement reminds me of the 'Guard Police' guy that ATCmemes pokes fun at.

While the Guard Nazis are indeed annoying, this just makes the FCC look like fools.

This is about as enforceable as the Coast Guard trying to stop the Filipino Monkeys on CH 16....
 
denverpilot said:
But it's an interesting piece of law in that it's yet another area you don't get due process. Judge simply agrees and issues the fine. Wage garnishment can start immediately thereafter.
Click to expand...

A judge who works for the agency itself. Your first appeal is to the decision maker of the agency. And after that you can finally appeal to the appellate court and get a real judge.

Of course you can then only raise issues that you had raised during the administrative procedure, even though the administrative law judge working for the agency will rule that none of them can be decided on at that level.

Real nice due process in these regulatory actions [\sarcasm]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top