Transmission by nonlicensed persons in emergencies
Displaying 1-3 of 3
| Jan 24th 2012, 21:05 | |
WA7MCTotal Topics: 0 Total Posts: 0 |
In our church we have organized local ham nets among the members for the day when we have an serious emergency, such as an earthquake or severe weather, so as to enable intercommunicatons between the various congregations in order to identify those who might need aid and assist in providing it. In the recent severe winter weather we had in Western Washington, normal communications were disrupted and we activated our emergency comm net. In this event, two of our leading clergy who would normally be expected to help organize assistance efforts were cut themselves cut off from normal comms. As it turned out they both have 2m band radios, and because the state governor had made an official declaration of emergency, they felt that their role in helping to organize things and the emergency made it OK that they could operate without licenses (normally they merely monitor when we hold our weekly nets). Accordingly, they used their radios in a somewhat limited fashion in order to direct some of our efforts and to keep informed on what was going on. The storm also isolated them physically so they couldn't move to a place where their cellphones would work (AT&T had cell towers down in their vicinity). My question is, were they legally justified in using their radios in this fashion and in this situation? To make it clear, neither of them were physically in danger -- they were merely isolated at their residences. Thanks for any replies. |
| Jan 27th 2012, 13:27 | |
N0NBTotal Topics: 0 Total Posts: 0 |
In my opinion, they were not legally justified to transmit on Part 97 frequencies without a proper license. There has always been this opinion amongst hams that in an emergency that "anything goes" or by "any means necessary". Perhaps so, but one should be prepared to face any consequences and accept any repercussions from such operations. Those who have been licensed a while will recall the case of a hiker out in California who called for assistance on a sheriff's dept. frequency after failing to raise help on the amateur repeaters he could reach. The need was legitimate as his hiking partner had fallen, broken a leg, and was in need of medical attention. The ham who called for help faced a number of legal problems in the aftermath. Many of us expected the FCC to side with the ham but the agency remained mum. That was in the early '90s as I recall and the FCC has never made any statement approaching the level needed for any licensed amateur to presume that operation outside of one's license privileges are allowed at any time, even in emergencies. Does that sound strict? Yes. If pressed would I resort to "by any means necessary"? Perhaps, but I would do so knowing that there may well be legal repercussions as a result of my actions and I cannot count on the FCC to take my side. In fact, I would expect the FCC to support the other side in the matter. All that said, what is done, is done. Have the individuals involved get their licenses so they will be legal "next time". 73, de Nate >> N0NB.us |
| Jan 28th 2012, 17:18 | |
KB0HAEJoined: Apr 4th 1998, 00:00Total Topics: 0 Total Posts: 0 |
I have always understood that an emergency where someone is allowed to transmit on frequencies they are not licensed for was defined as "danger to life, limb or property". By that definition, they were not legally justified in my opinion. I also believe that every other available means of communication must be tried before transmitting. I highly recommend that they be licensed before transmitting again. That said, in a situation where life, limb (or maybe property) was in danger, I would do what had to be done and worry about consequences later. |
Displaying 1-3 of 3