A.J. Farmer (AJ3U)
ajfarmer at spenet.com
Wed Aug 3 13:50:38 CDT 2005
I posted the original message in this thread. Since then, I have come
to an understanding of this issue after re-reading Part 97.113 as was
suggested by another post.
I think this part covers this issue the closest: "No amateur station
shall transmit: Communications, on a regular basis, which could
reasonably be furnished alternatively through other radio services."
Since this was just a one time message, it is permissable. If this
individual were to send out "breaking news" alerts on a regular basis,
and especially in an automated fashion, then I would think that would be
considered breaking the above rule. That is the difference.
Note that dissemination of weather information, even when automated and
on a regular basis, is covered in a different Part 97 section and is
I also want to clarify that my original post was *not* against the
message that the individual sent, I was just trying to understand how
that message fit into the Part 97 rules because I wasn't sure.
A.J. Farmer, AJ3U
Richard Amirault wrote:
> Actually the original poster said that the APRS message said "...200
> feared dead" That was accurate for the time frame when it was sent ...
> later on we learned that there were no fatalities.
> Richard Amirault N1JDU
> Boston, MA, USA Go Fly A Kite
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "VE7GDH" Subject: Re: [aprssig]
>> This thread started when someone mentioned that a particular APRS
>> station had sent an APRS bulletin about a plane crash with hundreds of
>> fatalities which was completely false. A plane skidded off the end of
>> a runway in bad weather and burned, but there was not a single
>> fatality. Let's hope that such false bulletins like this one are never
>> sent again. Bulletins, if an individual deems that there is a valid
>> reason for sending it, should be factual.
> aprssig mailing list
> aprssig at lists.tapr.org
More information about the aprssig