[aprssig] "Emergency!" test convention?
Andreras Junge, N6NU APRS aprs at n6nu.orgWed Jul 21 19:52:17 UTC 2004
- Previous message: [aprssig] "Emergency!" test convention?
- Next message: [aprssig] "Emergency!" test convention?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Why not send a couple of Status beacons Indicating the intended test before triggering it? That way everybody can lookup your station info when the Emergency beacon hits and can relax ... Andreas, N6NU > -----Original Message----- > From: aprssig-bounces at lists.tapr.org > [mailto:aprssig-bounces at lists.tapr.org]On Behalf Of KC2MMi > Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2004 7:07 AM > To: Bob Bruninga > Cc: aprssig at lists.tapr.org > Subject: [aprssig] "Emergency!" test convention? > > > Bob, either I've missed something when reading the APRS specs, or > there's a > glaring omission in them. It would seem that there is no test period > specified for actually testing an APRS unit beaconing the "Emergency!" > status. > > What I mean by this, is that many distress systems put aside five minutes > every hour, and during that five minute period anyone that needs to test a > system--test it under actual conditions--is free to do so. Stations > receiving the emergency beacon will ignore it during that period. The > purpose is simple, there's really no way to test emergency beacons without > activating them and of course, one can't just do that at random without > calling wolf. > > So may I suggest adding a small point to the APRS spec? From two and half > minutes before the hour, to two and a half minutes after the hour, every > hour, that five minute period be set aside for emergency beacon tests. Any > signal received in that window will be treated as a test to be > ignored. Any > signal continuing after that period, or sent before it, would be > treated as > a real emergency signal of course. (If there is a different quiet period, > i.e. from the hour to five past, that you'd prefer to synchronize with, I > don't mind at all.) > > The alternative is bringing equipment into a faraday cage or > sticking a can > over the antenna, etc, and none of that quite allows everything > to be tested > as it really will deploy--including reception in the APRS system. > > Or, as I said, did I miss something and is this already addressed? > > Jared > > > _______________________________________________ > aprssig mailing list > aprssig at lists.tapr.org > https://lists.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aprssig >
- Previous message: [aprssig] "Emergency!" test convention?
- Next message: [aprssig] "Emergency!" test convention?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the aprssig mailing list
