The cost of flying just keeps going up... so long 121.5 ELTs

warbirdcrew · **Posted:** Mon Jun 21, 2010 9:19 pm

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/FCCBans1215ELTs_202760-1.html

Quote:

The Federal Communications Commission took the general aviation world by surprise when it said in a recent report it will prohibit the sale or use of 121.5 MHz emergency locator transmitters, effective in August. The Aircraft Electronics Association said it just learned of the new rule today, and has begun working with the FAA, FCC and others to allow for timely compliance without grounding thousands of general aviation aircraft. The 121.5 ELTs are allowed under FAA rules. The FCC said its rules have been amended to "prohibit further certification, manufacture, importation, sale or use of 121.5 MHz ELTs." The FCC says that if the 121.5 units are no longer available, aircraft owners and operators will "migrate" to the newer 406.0-406.1 MHz ELTs, which are monitored by satellite, while the 121.5 frequency is not. "Were we to permit continued marketing and use of 121.5 MHz ELTs ... it would engender the risk that aircraft owners and operators would mistakenly rely on those ELTs for the relay of distress alerts," the FCC says. AOPA said today it is opposed to the rule change.

"The FCC is making a regulatory change that would impose an extra cost on GA operators, without properly communicating with the industry or understanding the implications of its action," said AOPA Vice President of Regulatory Affairs Rob Hackman. "There is no FAA requirement to replace 121.5 MHz units with 406 MHz technology. When two government agencies don't coordinate, GA can suffer." The AEA said dealers should refrain from selling any new 121.5 MHz ELTs "until further understanding of this new prohibition can be understood and a realistic timeline for transition can be established."

This is nothing new in Canada, the deadline for switching to a 406 ELT just keeps getting pushed back. Was this foreseen down south? I know from experience that the cost to have a 406 ELT installed in a 182 was way north of pricey. How many warbird operators will be shelling out? I can see this especially hurting low cash-flow museums and up-and-coming restoration projects from non-profit groups.

Kyleb · **Posted:** Mon Jun 21, 2010 9:40 pm

Call your congressman. In an election year (and with no meaningful opposition) your voice will be heard. 600,000 pilots can drive congress to put a lot of pressure on the FCC.

Your talking points can be:

1) There aren't enough 406 ELT's on the shelf, nor is there capacity to make enough to service this need by the stated deadline.

2) Even if there were, there aren't enough people to install 100k+ ELT's in the next 60 days while simultaneously performing routine maintenance on the GA fleet.

3) This is a substantial expense for most aircraft owners, and in a slow economy, it will force the "owner on the edge" out of aviation. If there was a reasonable amount of advance notice (say 2-3-4-5 years), it would be something most owners could put in their budget. But in a down economy, many people don't have $1500-$2000 to spend on a mandate with an arbitrary deadline like this.

4) There is no pressing need (FCC or otherwise) to drive this change in the next 60 days.

RyanShort1 · **Posted:** Mon Jun 21, 2010 10:03 pm

There's certainly plenty of reason for concern. What's disturbing is that it seems the major "alphabet" groups completely missed this one. Hopefully it will be a wakeup call for vigilance. There are those saying that we should be or should have already switched to using the new 406 Mhz transmitters already. That's probably somewhat true, but there are still a LOT of guys out there who aren't very internet savvy, don't always keep up with what's coming down the pipeline, and probably won't be able to just drop $2k for a new unit. That is probably particularly true of folks scraping pennies together to keep warbirds flying, and groups like ours at the Alamo Liaison Squadron, where purchasing the new units will be nearly a tenth of the value of some of the aircraft to begin with and suck up enough funds to keep the plane flying for another year or so.

Ryan

Enemy Ace · **Posted:** Mon Jun 21, 2010 10:19 pm

I just got on the aircraft spruce website, and you can get a 406 compliant ELT for @ $582.00. figure 2 hours of shop labor and paperwork by an A&P and compliance should be well under a grand. Anyone who doesn't have an "emergency fund" for their airplane to cover things like this, or can't afford it, needs to either get a partner in their plane or get out of airplane ownership.
I called an FAA buddy about this and asked about what if you wanted an 406 ELT but couldn't get one, he advised to order the ELT, then if it is back ordered just print out your order showing the item is back ordered and keep it in your plane. He also said it was most likely not going to be something inspectors looked for when doing checks for quite some time, exceptions of course being part 121 and 135 operators.

Hope this helps. Your results may vary.

warbirdcrew · **Posted:** Mon Jun 21, 2010 10:22 pm

In Canada your 406 ELT also has to have a remote activation switch accessible from the pilot's seat. Does anyone know if this is also a requirement in the States?

CAPFlyer · **Posted:** Mon Jun 21, 2010 10:24 pm

Ryan, the big letters didn't miss it. The FCC snuck this one by making a regulatory change instead of creating a new regulation, which would require a notice of proposed rule-making (NPRM). The problem with the FCC is that its powers are much more "instantaneous" and they have ways to change regulations without having to go through the whole rule-making process that the FAA did to mandate the change to 406.

As for the remote switch, it's required for all ELT's in the US. Remember, this regulation doesn't change any FAA regulation on what a 406MHz ELT has to be or do, it just says that the FCC no longer authorizes the 121.500MHz frequency to be used by emergency beacons.

RyanShort1 · **Posted:** Mon Jun 21, 2010 10:32 pm

CAPFlyer wrote:

Ryan, the big letters didn't miss it. The FCC snuck this one by making a regulatory change instead of creating a new regulation, which would require a notice of proposed rule-making (NPRM). The problem with the FCC is that its powers are much more "instantaneous" and they have ways to change regulations without having to go through the whole rule-making process that the FAA did to mandate the change to 406.

I'd say that the big letter groups DID miss this one. The folks at Brietling were paying attention enough to get a specific exemption for their 121.5 watches. Go figure...

Ryan

Matt Gunsch · **Posted:** Tue Jun 22, 2010 3:02 am

I don't know where you come up with 2 hrs to install a ELT. Try 4-6 hours to do it right, if not longer. All new installs must have a remote switch, which mean tearing up the interour and opening the belly panels to allow you to install the new cables, then you have to cut yet another hole in the panel, not to mention having to locate a mount that meets the requirments for loads, and installing a new antenna, then there is putting it all back together and doing the form 337, new W&B and logbook entries.

mustanglover · **Posted:** Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:22 am

The 406 MHz ELTs are nothing new as this change has been known for years. I designed our first 406 MHz ELT installation back in 2003 for the Cessna Citation Series aircraft, doing the installations on field approvals. I finally went ahead and got the STC last year and will soon have Canadian TC approval.

For the bigger and faster jets, yes the ELTs get more expensive......in the range of 4 or 5 grand for an installation kit.

The smaller aircraft ELTs, as noted above, are not very expensive for the unit, cables and antenna.

mustanglover · **Posted:** Tue Jun 22, 2010 8:41 am

And just a note - you do know that they ceased satellite monitoring of 121.5 MHz beacons on February 1 2009. So those of you who still use the 121.5 ELTs, if you have an accident and no one knows about it, the satellite is NOT going to pick up the beacon. The only thing you got going for you is an airplane flying over monitoring 121.5 and he/she hears it and reports it.

Cvairwerks · **Posted:** Tue Jun 22, 2010 9:50 am

IF I've read the stuff correctly, there is going to be a huge problem with this. By the wording, only the Breitling watch ELT can be used besides 406 ONLY units. Which means that all the dual and triple band ELT's are now outlawed....kinda creates a huge problem unless the vendors can come up with a way to go back and modify the multiband units and block all but the 406 opeartions, and get the FAA blessing on the mods...

More bumbling bonehead beauracrats trying to screw us up.

skymstr02 · **Posted:** Tue Jun 22, 2010 5:27 pm

The Civil Air Patrol, who is primarily tasked with finding downed aircraft does not have 406 capability. They still have to home in on you using 121.5.

famvburg · **Joined:** Fri Oct 07, 2005 9:41 am **Posts:** 540

I think this is going to be like the ruling many years ago regarding transmitting on certain 'tighter' frequencies on coms. It's OK to keep it in the a/c, just listen & don't transmit. The coms were declared 'illegal' by the FCC. Problem is, the FCC doesn't regulate aviation, that's the FAA's job & what we were told at several IA seminars by local FSDO guys, after the ruling was just that, the FCC doesn't regulate us & the FAA really didn't care. Now, IF the FCC caught you, that's another thing, but at least it had no effect on anybody's tickets. I figured a mandatory change was coming for the 406s, but it should be up to the FAA to mandate it. I've had only 1 or 2 customers (out of more than a dozen) upgrade to the 406.

Enemy Ace · **Posted:** Tue Jun 22, 2010 10:26 pm

"I don't know where you come up with 2 hrs to install a ELT. Try 4-6 hours to do it right, if not longer. All new installs must have a remote switch, which mean tearing up the interour and opening the belly panels to allow you to install the new cables, then you have to cut yet another hole in the panel, not to mention having to locate a mount that meets the requirments for loads, and installing a new antenna, then there is putting it all back together and doing the form 337, new W&B and logbook entries." -Matt Gunsch

Matt I was looking at drop-in replacements. I have an Aztec and Bonanza (N-Numbered) that need these now. My fault, I knew at the last annual that I should have done this but thought I had more time. I already have a remote switch and antennas. Why would you cut a hole in the panel? all the installs I have seen or done the switch is on the side panel. I am not an IA (only an A&P) but I don't think this requires a 337 unless it's a new installation. Who /Why would you buy a completely new sytem when drop in replacements are available?

"chris the american" I don't know what you're banging on about but I am a US Citizen with the US Army in Afghanistan (when not based in germany) so exactly what insulting and nationalistic thing did you want to tell me? PM if you want.

Warbird Information Exchange

The cost of flying just keeps going up... so long 121.5 ELTs

Who is online