[aprssig] "Emergency!" test convention?
KC2MMi kc2mmi at verizon.netWed Jul 21 21:32:46 UTC 2004
- Previous message: [aprssig] "Emergency!" test convention?
- Next message: [aprssig] "Emergency!" test convention?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
<Somewhere in Part 97 you will find blurbs about properly identifying emergency transmissions. That is all that is required here. No different than identifying your tranmsmissions during the SET as TEST transmissions. The more I think about this proposed quiet time, the more I cringe.> Danny, I understand the cringe and agree with it. On the other hand, there is no way you can "identify" the Mic-E "Emergency!" parameter, except by sending a "Please ignore, testing" message in the body of it. And of course the simple act of doing that, means changing the setup to some extent anyway. Is the better option to simply identify the transmission with a "testing, go back to sleep" message payload? Which will still raise false alarms all the time? I suppose you could try to argue "§97.111 Authorized transmissions. ...(b) In addition to one-way transmissions specifically authorized elsewhere in this Part, an amateur station may transmit the following types of one-way communications: (1) Brief transmissions necessary to make adjustments to the station; " as authorization for the "necessary" testing and adjustment of the station, but that's really pushing things. I found no mention of the phrase "emergency transmissions" at all. IIRC the USCG and international marine policies allowed for this on at least one distress channel, maybe the VHF ELT channel used for aviation? (Anyone remember?) Again, the simple intention is that you can't really test equipment--unless you use it "as is" with no mods.
- 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
