Monitoring 121.5

M

Matt C

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Nov 24, 2016
Messages
204
Display Name
Display name:
Matt C
Decided to listen on 121.5 on comm 2 today while sight-seeing. Heard some odd announcement that sounded urgent and was impossible to understand then quiet. I turned the volume down on comm 1 when I heard it and am quite sure it was on 121.5. Does anybody else monitor and have you heard anything on 121.5? Any reports of incidents/accidents near west Michigan today?
 
I do when I can (dual radios). It's an FAA requirement.
 
UngaWunga said:
Did you report it?
Click to expand...
What could I report. Unknown garbled transmission from who doing what. I guess that's why I posted. I kept listening for a while and there was nothing more.
 
When I can I monitor it while flying. Never know when you need to relay an emergency to ATC with their ground based antennas.

As a controller, it's always monitored. Help when I can. A lot is airline crews briefing the passengers, checking on open gates, request for equipment at the gate, cat calls, etc.
 
I listen frequently but about the only thing that I have heard is center trying to reach airline flights that weren't on their assigned frequency.
 
Thanks for the reminders. I haven't had an airplane with two radios before so I guess it didn't occur to me when I got this one. Will be listening in the future.
 
make sure you can say "oooonnnnnn guuuuaaaaaard" with the correct level of superior, sarcastic attitude prior to listening to 121.5

you primary cfi should have explained this to you.
 
Dumb question, but how long has the requirement been around? I learned to fly in the mid 90s, and I don't remember anyone telling me about monitoring guard on the second radio. Of course I was aware of 121.5 as an emergency frequency, but I don't think I knew anything about monitoring it until my CFI days.

To be fair to my original instructor, it's entirely possible she *did* tell me all about this and I just forgot. I'm about as sharp as a basketball. :)
 
Just a week or so ago, I heard an airliner in Nevada trying to reestablish lost comms on guard. He gave his position (Mustang VOR) and altitude and asked for Center frequencies. I guess that airline doesn't keep enroute charts in the flight deck....and the radios don't tune 122.2.

I hear NorCal and Oakland Center trying to reestablish contact on guard on occasion, but the first time I've heard the other side try that.
 
NoHeat said:
How often do airline pilots use Flight Services?
Click to expand...
No idea. But it's available to high altitude traffic if they don't want to admit their FU on the company frequency.

Or they could just get their frequency off the chart or EFB.
 
I only have 1 radio, and use flight following.... so do not monitor 121.5.... KEMT uses 121.2 for tower.... so the other day I was switching from ground to tower ready to depart... called out to the tower as such, and was told " hit the switch"... all that was said... I looked around not sure what was wrong, then noticed the 121.5 in the active,,,, Opps... hit the switch, entered 121.2 and recalled... was cleared for departure.... it is the little things that make so much of a difference!...
 
I listen all the time now. There has been a few times I've been putting along on flight following and after a long silence I hear something like "N1234. Center is looking for you on frequency ###.##". Switch over and I'm back in the system.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk
 
MAKG1 said:
Someday, read all those NOTAMs in your weather briefing.
Click to expand...

I don't recall seeing mandatory monitoring during a weather briefeing note. I just ran a briefing and did not see anything mandating it. I can see maybe during a presidential TFR or other high profile.
 
Confession - I seldom monitor 121.5, generally having one radio to talk, and one on ATIS, or monitoring other freqs. I'm in the FRZ, so if/if I couldn't raise (or hear) Potomac pretty quick on departure, then I'd switch number 2 to 121.5 right away. Thing is, I like having Unicom up until clear of the pattern, and departure up, as well. Don't have a third VHF, so no 121.5 monitoring. If I'm IFR and talking/hearing ATC enroute, I don't usually monitor guard on number two.
 
Hey you're ooooon guardddddd.

I always monitor, heard a mayday once and a few ELTs over the years. Usually center looking for a missed radio frequency.. I wouldn't be surprised if someone had declared an emergency and the guard police told them "you're onnnnn guardddd"
 
!FDC 4/4386 FDC SPECIAL NOTICE... NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM INTERCEPT PROCEDURES. AVIATORS SHALL REVIEW THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION AERONAUTICAL INFORMATION MANUAL (AIM) FOR INTERCEPTION PROCEDURES, CHAPTER 5, SECTION 6, PARAGRAPH 5-6-2. ALL AIRCRAFT OPERATING IN UNITED STATES NATIONAL AIRSPACE, IF CAPABLE, SHALL MAINTAIN A LISTENING WATCH ON VHF GUARD 121.5 OR UHF 243.0. IF AN AIRCRAFT IS INTERCEPTED BY U.S. MILITARY AIRCRAFT AND FLARES ARE DISPENSED, THE FOLLOWING PROCEDURES ARE TO BE FOLLOWED: FOLLOW THE INTERCEPT'S VISUAL SIGNALS, CONTACT AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL IMMEDIATELY ON THE LOCAL FREQUENCY OR ON VHF GUARD 121.5 OR UHF GUARD 243.0, AND COMPLY WITH THE INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN BY THE INTERCEPTING AIRCRAFT INCLUDING VISUAL SIGNALS IF UNABLE RADIO CONTACT. BE ADVISED THAT NONCOMPLIANCE MAY RESULT IN THE USE OF FORCE.
 
kayoh190 said:
Dumb question, but how long has the requirement been around? I learned to fly in the mid 90s, and I don't remember anyone telling me about monitoring guard on the second radio. Of course I was aware of 121.5 as an emergency frequency, but I don't think I knew anything about monitoring it until my CFI days.

To be fair to my original instructor, it's entirely possible she *did* tell me all about this and I just forgot. I'm about as sharp as a basketball. :)
Click to expand...

... came to be along with TFRs shortly after 9/11.
 
Besides, if you don't listen to 121.5 you can't shout "ON GUARD" anytime anybody transmits on it :)
 
I fly exclusively VFR now, often not talking to anyone. Only one radio, and it goes to 121.5 as soon as I leave the area of my airport.

1) In an emergency, its handy to be a single button push from transmitting my dilemma on 121.5. Radios often have 121.5 shortcuts, but under stress it can be hard to recall the procedure. I had a major engine stumble over pretty rough terrain over S GA and I was glad to already be on 121.5 to declare.

2) When I was over those N GA fires a few months ago, 121.5 was flooded with clowns playing around, making cat noises and groans and the like. Seriously, I don't get the appeal. It's dumb and childish and potentially dangerous.

3) I bet I've heard a dozen or more ELT's over the years and reported them. Many were probably false alarms or previously reported, but such a simple act could save a life someday. So why not "Just Do It"?
 
Matt C said:
What could I report. Unknown garbled transmission from who doing what. I guess that's why I posted. I kept listening for a while and there was nothing more.
Click to expand...
Matt, you're within receiving distance of Camp Grayling? Ever hear their "shenanigans" on guard? Could it have been someone goofing around? I don't think they train much in the winter, but during the summer, they are constantly on 121.5 being silly (at least I've always assumed it was Camp Grayling...sounding military, always loudest when I fly through the Grayling area, which I do once a week during the summer).
 
Remember "if capable" is at the PIC's discretion. If you feel that you cannot monitor 121.5 while still conducting your flight safely including being on other frequencies as needed then you are unable. I frequently monitor guard but when I believe I am unable to, I don't. Simple. People who insist that you must do it at all times, just have no understanding.
 
Improbable, yet not inconceivable, scenario:

Skydog58 is flying along fat, dumb and happy, radio volume turned down all the way since no one can tell him what to do.

He then sees a jet fighter off his wing doing the whole intercept thing and lands at the nearest airport. After being greeted by sherriff's deputies, he finds out there had been an airborn anthrax attack on New York City and the National Airspace System had been shut down for an hour and jets had been scrambled to force down the few remaining planes in the air.

At his hearing, the judge asks him what exactly rendered him incapable of adhering to the pertinent NOTAM requiring the monitoring of 121.5 "when capable". His answer that as PIC he could determine that "at will" doesn't fly - the judges assert in their ruling he was fully capable given his installed equipment - and he gets his license suspended for 6 months.

Farfetched? Maybe. Paranoid? Maybe. Conceivable? Certainly. Just doing what the FAA says is just so easy I don't know why folks go through logical contortions to avoid doing it.

But That's Just Me!™
 
If I read him correctly, said he monitors frequently, and when able. And when he needs other frequencies, he isn't monitoring. Hardly seems like anyone going through logical contortions to avoid doing something?


*I'm a big fan of monitoring the appropriate frequency having been at the mercy of folks relaying my communications to the Coast Guard once when having some boat trouble more miles from shore than my VHF felt like it could transmit...
 
SkyDog58 said:
Remember "if capable" is at the PIC's discretion. If you feel that you cannot monitor 121.5 while still conducting your flight safely including being on other frequencies as needed then you are unable.
Click to expand...
I think that if your position is that you routinely can not monitor Guard due to having ATC on the OTHER radio the FAA may question if your proficiency meets the minimum standards for your certificate.

The "if capable" provision is to allow for aircraft that do not have enough radios to monitor Guard at all times. i.e. a one-comm aircraft talking to ATC, a two-comm aircraft talking to ATC and receiving ATIS, etc. When you're finished with whatever you're doing on the second radio they expect you to put it back to Guard.
 
"If capable" does not equal "at pilot's discretion."

If I am flying around Knoxville's Class C, I may choose to monitor approach control. With only one radio, I am not "capable" of also monitoring 121.5 and I can articulate why monitoring approach takes precedence.

But I think that's the key - if there's a good reason you can't monitor 121.5, you're golden. Otherwise a NOTAM requires it, "when capable".
 
I live vicariously through other people monitoring 121.5.


but I guess I do it on occasion.
 
FastEddieB said:
Improbable, yet not inconceivable, scenario:

Skydog58 is flying along fat, dumb and happy, radio volume turned down all the way since no one can tell him what to do.

He then sees a jet fighter off his wing doing the whole intercept thing and lands at the nearest airport. After being greeted by sherriff's deputies, he finds out there had been an airborn anthrax attack on New York City and the National Airspace System had been shut down for an hour and jets had been scrambled to force down the few remaining planes in the air.

At his hearing, the judge asks him what exactly rendered him incapable of adhering to the pertinent NOTAM requiring the monitoring of 121.5 "when capable". His answer that as PIC he could determine that "at will" doesn't fly - the judges assert in their ruling he was fully capable given his installed equipment - and he gets his license suspended for 6 months.

Farfetched? Maybe. Paranoid? Maybe. Conceivable? Certainly. Just doing what the FAA says is just so easy I don't know why folks go through logical contortions to avoid doing it.

But That's Just Me!™
Click to expand...

:yikes:
You must work at a pretzel factory to twist things that much.

Scenarios when one might consider his situation to render him incapable or unable:

1. One Comm and on CTAF/ATC while operating near the ariport.
2. One Comm and on ATC for IFR or flight following.
3. One Comm, not on IFR or flight following but picking up info from another airport ATIS enroute.
4. Two Comms with ATC on Comm 1 and picking up ATIS on Comm 2.
5. Two Comms with ATC on Comm 1 and listening to CTAF at destination on Comm 2.
6. Two Comms with ATC on Comm 1 and talking to a fellow aircraft on Comm 2.

I could go on and add other scenarios but suffice it to say that those who think they must be listening to 121.5 at all times have no grasp on reality. The absolutists on this board really need to get a better understanding of the reasoning behind what is written.

Heck, maybe we all just need three Comms like the big boys.

And believe me, if I saw a fighter pull up next to me, I would switch over to 121.5 pretty damn quickly. I know the drill.
 
SaltH2OHokie said:
If I read him correctly, said he monitors frequently, and when able. And when he needs other frequencies, he isn't monitoring. Hardly seems like anyone going through logical contortions to avoid doing something?


*I'm a big fan of monitoring the appropriate frequency having been at the mercy of folks relaying my communications to the Coast Guard once when having some boat trouble more miles from shore than my VHF felt like it could transmit...
Click to expand...

Hey someone with reading skills!!

Thank you!
 
FastEddieB said:
Improbable, yet not inconceivable, scenario:

Skydog58 is flying along fat, dumb and happy, radio volume turned down all the way since no one can tell him what to do.

He then sees a jet fighter off his wing doing the whole intercept thing and lands at the nearest airport. After being greeted by sherriff's deputies, he finds out there had been an airborn anthrax attack on New York City and the National Airspace System had been shut down for an hour and jets had been scrambled to force down the few remaining planes in the air.

At his hearing, the judge asks him what exactly rendered him incapable of adhering to the pertinent NOTAM requiring the monitoring of 121.5 "when capable". His answer that as PIC he could determine that "at will" doesn't fly - the judges assert in their ruling he was fully capable given his installed equipment - and he gets his license suspended for 6 months.

Farfetched? Maybe. Paranoid? Maybe. Conceivable? Certainly. Just doing what the FAA says is just so easy I don't know why folks go through logical contortions to avoid doing it.

But That's Just Me!™
Click to expand...

You are basically describing what happened on 9/11. Many aircraft were intercepted that day, including at least two friends of mine. I do not recall hearing of any prosecution of any pilot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top