[ARRL-OK] re: Using Amateur Radio gear for public service.
Nate Bargmann
[email protected]
Sun, 3 Nov 2002 07:19:37 -0600
* Robert Gillespie <[email protected]> [2002 Nov 03 06:35 -0600]:
> I have been a fireman/paramedic (paid and volunteer) for over twenty years. My equipment in my jeep has been modified, but I have a Motorola Maxon moble and HT for use in the fire service. The only reason my ham equipment has been modified is on the off chance a peice of my COMMERCIAL equipment fails during a call. I saw someone write that using any communications device avalible to gather assistance is right, but not to use it on a regular basis for your fire/EMS duties. Rationalize it all you want it is wrong and against the law to use ham equipment for commercial communications.
Like many other hams I've always been told that in an emergency
"anything goes". While I still believe that I would use all means
available to help someone in need, I think we should all be prepared to
lose our equipment and face penalties because of it.
Some years ago I recall the story of a hiking ham in CA who came across a
hiking accident and a person in desperate need of help. Cell phone
coverage was not available and help was not available through (I think)
the one ham repeater that could be accessed. The ham then used his
modified talkie to call the sheriff's dept. dispatcher and successfully
got help to the scene. As I recall, the injured party was helped in
time, but the sheriff's dept. demanded to know how and why the
individual was using *their* frequency and confiscated the ham's radio.
Although appeals were made with the FCC, the FCC remained strangely
quiet. I don't think the radio was ever returned and I can't remember
if the ham involved paid a fine or anything else. I think the
conclusion to be drawn is that the FCC did not wish to make any kind of
precedent involving the use of non-type accepted equipment on
frequencies where Type Accepted gear is required.
Thus I think it can be assumed that any operation with amateur gear
outside of the defined Part 97 frequencies is taking a chance with
one's gear, license, and good name. The likely hood of being prosecuted
for operation on Part 90 frequencies with Part 97 gear is much less if a
person is already authorized by the agency in question to use those
frequencies (volunteer fire, police/sheriff reserve, etc).
In a most conservative reading of Part 97.111 (a) (2) "Transmissions
necessary to exchange messages with a station in another FCC-regulated
service while providing emergency communications;" I think one has to
admit that there is no provision for operating outside of the
established Part-97 frequencies, at least not in writing. Normally we
are not permitted one-way transmissions intended for reception outside
our service. If we are to communicate with served agencies legally in
an emergency, we should probably consider arrangements whereby a
frequency could be established for hams to transmit information to the
served agency and another frequency available to the agency where they
can transmit to the hams. Utilizing the broadband capability of today's
ham and commercial gear such an odd split can be programmed and operated
with ease. Judicious selection of CTCSS tones should help alleviate
unnecessary traffic for the served agency monitoring the Part-97
frequency.
While my suggestion probably won't be greeted well by many hams whose
ego lead them to believe hams are the Lone Rangers of the airwaves who
can swing to any frequency as soon as the ham defines an emergency exists,
I'm sure there are many who would rather carefully operate within the
confines of Part-97 using an arrangement like I described above.
Hopefully this is some food for thought.
73, de Nate >>
--
Wireless | Amateur Radio Station N0NB | "We have awakened a
Internet | [email protected] | sleeping giant and
Location | Bremen, Kansas USA EM19ov | have instilled in him
Amateur radio exams; ham radio; Linux info @ | a terrible resolve".
http://www.qsl.net/n0nb/ | - Admiral Yamomoto