Narrative:

We were briefed the other day about the near midair collision that occurred between aircraft X and aircraft Y on mar/xa/99. The overriding problem was the inability of ATC to re-establish contact with either aircraft in a timely fashion, regardless of the circumstances that allowed the aircraft to become 'NORDO.' a practically painless and 'free' procedure exists for this type of event to be prevented, though it's only 'recommended' in the aim, and not 'required' by the FARS: all aircraft that have 2 radios be required to monitor guard (121.5 MHZ), and all aircraft that operate at or above FL180 be required to have at least 2 VHF transceivers (or the ability to monitor 121.5 independent of the main communication radio). Utopia would allow for all aircraft to have 2 transceivers, but this may be a financial and/or panel problem in smaller aircraft. Since VHF is a 'quiet' radio, as compared to having to listen to all the static on an HF rig, monitoring guard is not a distraction or impediment to the flight crew. Other benefits arise from all 'flight lvl fliers' monitoring 121.5: airborne aircraft in distress have a much better chance of being heard should they be out of range of a land based guard site. ELT's would be heard virtually instantly, allowing for much faster response and rescue times -- so critical in an actual crash scenario. And an aircraft that 'flew' out of range from its assigned ATC frequency, or copied the wrong frequency assignment and the controller missed the readback -- whatever the reason for being on the 'wrong' frequency -- could be corrected by either direct ATC-to-aircraft on 121.5 or relayed through another aircraft to cover for the ground based coverage problems. Aircraft that go NORDO are more commonplace than is commonly known. This simple requirement would significantly increase the level of safety that the FAA can provide. Since you no doubt have 'contacts' within the NTSB and upper level FAA, I would appreciate it if you would forward this suggestion to them for consideration -- especially if you agree with it.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: RPTR PRESENTED A SUGGESTION TO HAVE ALL ACFT THAT OPERATE IN THE PCA TO MONITOR GUARD (121 PT 5). RPTR CONTENDS THAT ACFT THAT BECOME NORDO FOR ANY REASON COULD STILL BE CONTACTED ON GUARD.

Narrative: WE WERE BRIEFED THE OTHER DAY ABOUT THE NMAC THAT OCCURRED BTWN ACFT X AND ACFT Y ON MAR/XA/99. THE OVERRIDING PROB WAS THE INABILITY OF ATC TO RE-ESTABLISH CONTACT WITH EITHER ACFT IN A TIMELY FASHION, REGARDLESS OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT ALLOWED THE ACFT TO BECOME 'NORDO.' A PRACTICALLY PAINLESS AND 'FREE' PROC EXISTS FOR THIS TYPE OF EVENT TO BE PREVENTED, THOUGH IT'S ONLY 'RECOMMENDED' IN THE AIM, AND NOT 'REQUIRED' BY THE FARS: ALL ACFT THAT HAVE 2 RADIOS BE REQUIRED TO MONITOR GUARD (121.5 MHZ), AND ALL ACFT THAT OPERATE AT OR ABOVE FL180 BE REQUIRED TO HAVE AT LEAST 2 VHF TRANSCEIVERS (OR THE ABILITY TO MONITOR 121.5 INDEPENDENT OF THE MAIN COM RADIO). UTOPIA WOULD ALLOW FOR ALL ACFT TO HAVE 2 TRANSCEIVERS, BUT THIS MAY BE A FINANCIAL AND/OR PANEL PROB IN SMALLER ACFT. SINCE VHF IS A 'QUIET' RADIO, AS COMPARED TO HAVING TO LISTEN TO ALL THE STATIC ON AN HF RIG, MONITORING GUARD IS NOT A DISTR OR IMPEDIMENT TO THE FLC. OTHER BENEFITS ARISE FROM ALL 'FLT LVL FLIERS' MONITORING 121.5: AIRBORNE ACFT IN DISTRESS HAVE A MUCH BETTER CHANCE OF BEING HEARD SHOULD THEY BE OUT OF RANGE OF A LAND BASED GUARD SITE. ELT'S WOULD BE HEARD VIRTUALLY INSTANTLY, ALLOWING FOR MUCH FASTER RESPONSE AND RESCUE TIMES -- SO CRITICAL IN AN ACTUAL CRASH SCENARIO. AND AN ACFT THAT 'FLEW' OUT OF RANGE FROM ITS ASSIGNED ATC FREQ, OR COPIED THE WRONG FREQ ASSIGNMENT AND THE CTLR MISSED THE READBACK -- WHATEVER THE REASON FOR BEING ON THE 'WRONG' FREQ -- COULD BE CORRECTED BY EITHER DIRECT ATC-TO-ACFT ON 121.5 OR RELAYED THROUGH ANOTHER ACFT TO COVER FOR THE GND BASED COVERAGE PROBS. ACFT THAT GO NORDO ARE MORE COMMONPLACE THAN IS COMMONLY KNOWN. THIS SIMPLE REQUIREMENT WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASE THE LEVEL OF SAFETY THAT THE FAA CAN PROVIDE. SINCE YOU NO DOUBT HAVE 'CONTACTS' WITHIN THE NTSB AND UPPER LEVEL FAA, I WOULD APPRECIATE IT IF YOU WOULD FORWARD THIS SUGGESTION TO THEM FOR CONSIDERATION -- ESPECIALLY IF YOU AGREE WITH IT.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.