Don't make this mistake! Emergency Frequency

Not just a recommendation from the AIM but required (if capable) by FDC NOTAM. ;)
 
Velocity173 said:
Not just a recommendation from the AIM but required (if capable) by FDC NOTAM. ;)
Click to expand...

This is on my list of things to cover on Flight Reviews.

Very few pilots seem to be aware of it.

FDC 4/4386 SPECIAL NOTICE (in part)

ALL AIRCRAFT OPERATING IN UNITED STATES NATIONAL AIRSPACE, IF CAPABLE, SHALL MAINTAIN A LISTENING WATCH ON VHF GUARD 121.5 OR UHF 243.0.
 
FastEddieB said:
This is on my list of things to cover on Flight Reviews.

Very few pilots seem to be aware of it.

FDC 4/4386 SPECIAL NOTICE (in part)

ALL AIRCRAFT OPERATING IN UNITED STATES NATIONAL AIRSPACE, IF CAPABLE, SHALL MAINTAIN A LISTENING WATCH ON VHF GUARD 121.5 OR UHF 243.0.
Click to expand...
Guilty. Thanks for the reminder.
 
FastEddieB said:
This is on my list of things to cover on Flight Reviews.

Very few pilots seem to be aware of it.

FDC 4/4386 SPECIAL NOTICE (in part)

ALL AIRCRAFT OPERATING IN UNITED STATES NATIONAL AIRSPACE, IF CAPABLE, SHALL MAINTAIN A LISTENING WATCH ON VHF GUARD 121.5 OR UHF 243.0.
Click to expand...

My experience has been that when bringing this up during training the student often has a "whatever, I'm not going to do it anyway" type attitude. But you're right, very few people seem to realize they're supposed to monitor if possible.

If they fly IFR long enough and actually monitor like they're supposed to, they'll figure out why it is a good idea to do so. If nothing else, I like monitoring for the entertainment value.
 
Awesome write up. I will have to check out the engine out book.

I've never done it on COM2. I feel I need two radios to keep up with all of the freaks on freqs around me :)

An airplane I rent has a COM3 and guard was always active and the ICS was set to monitor. I liked it because it would be a lot harder for me to accidentally transmit on COM3. I didn't hear much, other than my own ELT test.
 
Agreed, not many pilots bother and not many even know.
The more we can spread the word, the more likely for an ELT to be picked up or for a Com failure to be resolved via guard.

Nice write-up, I was curious why the solo student wasn't happy. It all made sense in the end.
 
Easier just to have a radio that can monitor guard while up another freq. Don't know why that's primarily a military thing.
 
denverpilot said:
Because it requires that the radio have an additional receiver inside of it? :)
Click to expand...

My 480 can monitor another freq but you actually have to select the other freq (121.5). Radios I used in the military, you just select "both" and it automatically monitors guard.
 
With two comms, I'm not "capable" in the FRZ, SFRA, or most of the time in Class B. Enroute, or VFR, sure. . .but I often have other things I need/want to listen to, otherwise.
 
Velocity173 said:
Easier just to have a radio that can monitor guard while up another freq. Don't know why that's primarily a military thing.
Click to expand...
1. Taxpayer funded
2. Group operating environment
3. Other people doing their best to force you to have an emergency
 
Several years ago on a FR the CFI asked if I monitor 121.5 on com 2. I said not normally, I use it mainly for monitoring ATIS, AWOS and other frequencies. He suggested I monitor Guard whenever flying, and said you never know you could help someone in trouble.

Since then I try to monitor Guard on most of my flights.

The CFI was in an incident years ago. He and his wife were landing in a remote strip and were going to camp and moose hunt. The strip was short and not maintained, brushed out on the side of a mountain in SE Alaska. Just before touchdown he experienced a down draft, it pushed him to the ground and he caught the right wheel on a stump at the threshold of the strip. It tore the gear off, they spun to the right with the plane resting on the right wing tip. They were unhurt, he called for help and had the plane airlifted by a helicopter back home before the end of the day.. Took him 6 months to repair the damage. A good ending to a story that could have ended up much worst. A local part 135 pilot reported the incident and was able to get them help almost immediately...:)
 
SkyDog58 said:
Yep and "if capable" is purely a PIC decision and one you will probably never have to defend.
Click to expand...
While I agree that it is unlikely that you'll have to defend it; it is not purely a PIC decision. The FAA or NTSB will make their own determination as to how reasonable your decision that you were not capable was. If a second radio is not actively being used for some other purpose, they are likely to find that you were capable for the purposes of complying with the FDC NOTAM.
 
Larry in TN said:
While I agree that it is unlikely that you'll have to defend it; it is not purely a PIC decision. The FAA or NTSB will make their own determination as to how reasonable your decision that you were not capable was. If a second radio is not actively being used for some other purpose, they are likely to find that you were capable for the purposes of complying with the FDC NOTAM.
Click to expand...

And exactly how will they know with any certainty that you were not monitoring and that you were capable? What would cause them to investigate? I can almost see it if you miss a call from center on an assigned frequency and they try you on guard as a backup but even then I don't think it will be pursued unless it creates an accident or incident.
 
SkyDog58 said:
And exactly how will they know...
Click to expand...
As I said, "I agree that it is unlikely that you'll have to defend it". However, one way they might find out about it is if you fly into restricted airspace, a TFR, etc., despite several calls from ATC or the military on 121.5 warning you. I hear such calls on 121.5 with some regularity.

Is that what this thread is about, though? Deciding if a rule is worth following based on the likelihood of being caught?
 
Larry in TN said:
As I said, "I agree that it is unlikely that you'll have to defend it". However, one way they might find out about it is if you fly into restricted airspace, a TFR, etc., despite several calls from ATC or the military on 121.5 warning you. I hear such calls on 121.5 with some regularity.

Is that what this thread is about, though? Deciding if a rule is worth following based on the likelihood of being caught?
Click to expand...

I guess you missed this portion of my one post.
SkyDog58 said:
Still if you can monitor, please do.
Click to expand...
 
I monitor all the time in my area. There are times ABQ center resorts to 121.5 after failed relay attempts in my area.

For the CFI's out there, you might show students that in the event of a crash they can remove the ELT and use it like a radio as well (121.5). I believe all are on size D batteries.
 
danhagan said:
I monitor all the time in my area. There are times ABQ center resorts to 121.5 after failed relay attempts in my area.

For the CFI's out there, you might show students that in the event of a crash they can remove the ELT and use it like a radio as well (121.5). I believe all are on size D batteries.
Click to expand...
As a former owner of a Narco ELT I can say that there might be D cells in the plastic housing but I think you'd have to break it to find out.
 
Now that the FCC is cracking down on the idiots on 121.5 I will try to monitor it more.
 

Attachments

  • DA-17-747A1.pdf
    84.8 KB · Views: 8
ateamer said:
Having an SL30 makes monitoring guard easy.
Click to expand...
Or an Avidyne IFD box (and an audio panel with the ability to select the extra input, which the SL30 doesn't require).
 
danhagan said:
For the CFI's out there, you might show students that in the event of a crash they can remove the ELT and use it like a radio as well (121.5). I believe all are on size D batteries.
Click to expand...

That's very ELT model dependent. Not all are removable and not all have a mic jack or mic on them or an antenna that will work when disconnected from the aircraft antenna or what's left of it.
 
denverpilot said:
That's very ELT model dependent. Not all are removable and not all have a mic jack or mic on them or an antenna that will work when disconnected from the aircraft antenna or what's left of it.
Click to expand...

Wasn't aware of that ... I've only owned this Tiger (about 9 years) and thought all of them were similar. Guess I got lucky:)
 
danhagan said:
Wasn't aware of that ... I've only owned this Tiger (about 9 years) and thought all of them were similar. Guess I got lucky:)
Click to expand...

Depends. If it's not a 406 MHz you got half-lucky. No satellites monitoring 121.5 anymore. 406 with GPS input will have the cavalry on their way to your exact position the fastest overall, if all goes "right" with the ELT itself.

For those who DO monitor 121.5, a 406 MHz ELT does briefly broadcast a sweep tone every so often on 121.5 and at a MUCH lower power output than the old 121.5 ELTs. If you can hear it, you're most likely line of sight to it. (Obviously at high altitude you're line of sight to quite a bit.)

If you're down low and hear what sounds like a broken ELT that only sweeps every few seconds (or an old school ELT with a VERY dead battery), report it. You're relatively very close to it.
 
My setup has a weirdness in the COMs or intercom where if I monitor COM2 while transmitting on COM1 I get feedback noise.
So I deselect monitoring COM2 when transmitting and hafta remember to click it back.

"Cessna, this is Canadair 355 on Guard, copy. Do you have an emergency?"
 
mikea said:
My setup has a weirdness in the COMs or intercom where if I monitor COM2 while transmitting on COM1 I get feedback noise.
So I deselect monitoring COM2 when transmitting and hafta remember to click it back.

"Cessna, this is Canadair 355 on Guard, copy. Do you have an emergency?"
Click to expand...

"Feedback noise" as in a squeal or as if one transmitter is just completely overloading the receiver front end of the other receiver?

Does it change if you are on different transmit frequencies?

If it's a squeal that's an indication that the mic audio is making it all the way to the earcups and being picked up by the mic again.

Most good intercoms have a setting for this that can be configured which will mute all receivers being passed to the intercom when PTT is active.

If the physical locations of the antennas isn't separated enough for the second receiver to handle the high power RF being smashed into it from the other Comm antenna, sometimes you can't configure the intercom to listen when transmitting. It just won't work. So you mute all receivers during any PTT activation.

That'd be hugely annoying. I'd want it muted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top