E.L.T. Aircraft beacon. What would be the penaltity for activating an E.L.T. for a real survival situation that did not involve an aircraft incident? A friend of mine who "practices" the art of survival carries a military aircraft transceiver for the purpose of emergencies. I have told him that it is a possible FAA or FCC violation to use such a device for non aviation emergencies. I was told that it would not be a violation if the emergency was real. I should note that this person is an active law enforcement officer. Am I wrong in this assumption? Thanks. PHIL

Welcome Phil, this is a question Doug should answer. Hes a bit busy with several projects, but I emailed your query and he will hopefully respond soon.

I once read about a solo hunter in Alaska who broke a leg, used an aircraft transceiver to contact a 747 overhead, and gor rescued. No mention in the article about any criminal charges being filed. I would hope that common sense would save the day, but not hold my breath. Still, you gotta be alive to go to court...

Phil,<br><br>It would still be a technical violation, but as long as it is a real emergency, nobody has to worry about the legal issues of using an ELT without the aircraft or a marine EPIRB on land. The problem arises if someone uses one for non-emergency and seriously bogus use, such as getting tired on a hike and deciding a helo ride out might be nice. Bottom line is that the SAR people don't give a hoot as long as it's a real emergency, no matter the degree. In the unlikely event the FAA or FCC found out about it, they have far bigger fish that are far easier to fry. Especially these days when they can make a felony of taking a whiz. Bottom line, I wouldn't hesitate to use one in a real emergency and I wouldn't give even a moment's thought to the legal issues--non-issues really.<br><br>Bear in mind that if a 121.5 MHz beacon goes off on land in a remote area, odds are the CAP are going to come looking and they will be looking for a crashed aircraft, so effective signals, ground or active, becomes especially important.

From a prosecutor's point of view, if anyone in my office filed charges for use of an E.L.T. in ANY emergency, they would probably be fired. I can't imagine any agency recommending prosecution if there was even a colorable emergency. I think you would have to have a completely improper use tantamount to setting off a false fire alarm before anyone would get excited. Remember, the pressure to prosecute would probably have to come from the workers actually involved in the SAR operation. Those guys tend to be very forgiving on the definition of an emergency(no matter how much they might [censored] about it among themselves).

Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6. SURVIVE !!! Is it legal to carry an E.L.T. when not involved with aircraft ? There are many horror stories regarding game law violations in survival situations. SURVIVE !!! Give yourself the "privlege" of dealing with the legal system later.

Thanks one and all for the input. As for the issue of life vs legality I would have to agree. During the rescue of members of the service here in NYC I can honestly say that many regulations and laws were broken in order to save victims and rescuers alike. Thanks again for the input, I will advise my friend. Phil

There are numerous examples of suspension of the rules in SAR. I vividly recall a case at Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument in the 80's. This involved a search for a large group of ollegal immigrants lost in the Monument under horrendous conditions. The Monument staff immediately authorized the use of vehicles within roadless, wilderness areas to find these unfortunates. Unfortunately there were several deaths in the group, who were reduced to drinking urine and cologne. The decision of the rangers was met with universal approval.