Monitoring 121.50 regulation or policy?
11-30-2009, 05:27 PM
#1
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Aug 2005
Position: sitting at computer keyboard
Posts: 135
Monitoring 121.50 regulation or policy?
Taking this discussion out from its hidden spot within the MSP Overflight (the truth comes out)" thread ....
There is a lot of discussion about the requirement to monitor 121.50 if your aircraft is also equipped with ACARS or if it would conflict with published company policy. Some carriers appear to require a company frequency be monitored in the second COM radio while others are either specific about putting in 121.50 and others don't even address the use of the second communications radio.
Starting at the origination point, here's the current FDC NOTAM that is in play:
Personally, I monitor 121.5 whenever I can, but not specifically because of this NOTAM. As a huge supporter of General Aviation I try and look out for those guys as much as I can. The SARSAT system no longer monitors for ELT signals on 121.5 (or 243.0) but only 406 mhz frequency. Therefore, the enroute aircraft have become the defacto SAR system for those aircraft who haven't installed a $1000 406 mhz device. (There is no requirement for GA aircraft to have 406 mhz ELTs installed yet.) So, if I hear an ELT on 121.5 you can bet I'm reporting it! That just might be one of my friends down there needing help ... or it might even be a future airline pilot!
More info on the SARSAT system: www.cospas-sarsat.org
There is a lot of discussion about the requirement to monitor 121.50 if your aircraft is also equipped with ACARS or if it would conflict with published company policy. Some carriers appear to require a company frequency be monitored in the second COM radio while others are either specific about putting in 121.50 and others don't even address the use of the second communications radio.
Starting at the origination point, here's the current FDC NOTAM that is in play:
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.
I can understand the security angle of wanting everyone to monitor 121.5 to provide instant communications link, but it really isn't a well written NOTAM as its use of the term "if capable" opens it up to personal interpretation. (Pilot's Defense: 121.5 was noisy and blocked ATC transmissions so I wasn't "capable" of monitoring it ....)Personally, I monitor 121.5 whenever I can, but not specifically because of this NOTAM. As a huge supporter of General Aviation I try and look out for those guys as much as I can. The SARSAT system no longer monitors for ELT signals on 121.5 (or 243.0) but only 406 mhz frequency. Therefore, the enroute aircraft have become the defacto SAR system for those aircraft who haven't installed a $1000 406 mhz device. (There is no requirement for GA aircraft to have 406 mhz ELTs installed yet.) So, if I hear an ELT on 121.5 you can bet I'm reporting it! That just might be one of my friends down there needing help ... or it might even be a future airline pilot!
More info on the SARSAT system: www.cospas-sarsat.org
11-30-2009, 05:38 PM
#2
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: B-7ER JFK
Posts: 931
Don't know what you are looking for here mister (or madam), but it is NOT a requirement to monitor 121.5, but it is a rquirement to monitor company for a 121 operation. What is right and what is common sense is a totally different ballgame. Our FOM state we monitor guard so we do, my last airline monitor company or Atlanta Radio on #2.
11-30-2009, 05:53 PM
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,001
Originally Posted by FlyingViking
. . . it is NOT a requirement to monitor 121.5, but it is a rquirement to monitor company for a 121 operation.
Originally Posted by Sniper
- there's a NOTAM that you will monitor guard, "if capable".
- there's part of the AIM that compels you to monitor guard, again, "if capable".
- there's no FAR that mentions monitoring guard (right
) - there is a FAR about constant direct communication with dispatch.
- The FAR's are regulatory - compliance is mandatory. The AIM is advisory only (though administrative law judges and chief pilots don't seem to grasp this). NOTAM's are the same - they are not regulatory.
With only 2 radios, you must monitor 2 frequencies to be in compliance with FAR 121.99 (one for "the appropriate dispatch office" and one for "the appropriate air traffic control unit"), thus you are in compliance with the AIM 5-6-2.a.2. as well - your aircraft is not "capable".
11-30-2009, 05:53 PM
#4
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Aug 2005
Position: sitting at computer keyboard
Posts: 135
Originally Posted by FlyingViking
Don't know what you are looking for here mister [...]
I agree that monitoring the freq is a good idea but not necessarily mandatory with the force of law! Others will undoubtedly disagree .......
(Sinper -- you posted while I was writing this one ... yes, it was "sorted out" in the other thread, but who the heck is going to sift through 80 posts in a thread titled "MSP Overflight" to get to the differing opinions on the topic? Thus, the moving of the subject ....)
12-01-2009, 12:54 AM
#8
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Legacy FO
Posts: 4,096
Originally Posted by Sniper
Exactly. Regulatory requirements (FAR's) supersede non-regulatory guidance (NOTAMs, AIM).
If a NOTAM says to do something, how could it not be regulatory? I am fairly certain if you don't do something posted in a NOTAM, the FAA isn't going to be very happy with you. Considering that a NOTAM is the most recent source document, wouldn't it supercede and older FAR?
12-01-2009, 06:34 AM
#10
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,275
Originally Posted by BlueMoon
I am pretty sure FDC Notams are regulatory in nature. They have important things like changes to procedures, airspace, approaches, and departures...etc.
I'm not sure they can supersede part 91 or 121 though. An ATC controller cannot authorize such a violation...do FDC notams carry the authority of the administrator?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
