[aprssig] N1547C tracker
k9ij at vx5.com
Thu Oct 20 16:21:23 CDT 2005
At 01:57 PM 10/20/2005, you wrote:
>On Oct 20, 2005, at 2:37 PM, AE5PL Lists wrote:
>>I agree BUT having a tracker turned on and off by a non-licensed
>>person takes that tracker out of the realm of "automatic control"
>>as it is the non-licensed person who is controlling whether that
>>tracker transmits or not. True, once turned on the tracker can be
>>considered under automatic control and therefore placing trackers
>>in vehicles where a ham is not present is legal IF the other
>>requirement in 97.109(d) can be met _and_ if unlicensed person(s)
>>do not control whether the tracker is turned on or not. But when a
>>person specifically turns on a tracker, then they become the
>I disagree completely. The FCC definition
>(6) Automatic control. The use of devices and procedures for
>control of a station when it is transmitting so that
>compliance with the FCC Rules is achieved without the
>control operator being present at a control point.
>makes it clear that automatic control hinges with the decision to
>transmit, not the decision to apply power to the transmit-decision-
>making CPU. Granted, if flipping the switch resulted in immediate and
>continuous transmission, then the power-flipper is the control
>operator. However, you know trackers do not work that way. The
>decision when to key the transmitter is made by the CPU, based on
>rules programmed by both the producer of the device and by the owner
>that entered the parameters to the tracker.
>Furthermore, "procedures" in the above section is not defined to
>exclude hams other than the control operator, non-amateur humans,
>moneys, or well trained gerbils. In the case of a tracker, 99.999% of
>the time you are depending on a CPU to make the decision to transmit
>correctly, but having a non-amateur backup is certainly not excluded
>from the rules.
So, what if the 'procedure' is in it self illegal? In this case, it
is not legal to use a
cell phone from an aircraft in flight.
Along with that, the only reason that APRS has been 'allowed' to continue
is that it has not been 'officially' brought to the attention of the
FCC. If that happens,
it's entirely likely that APRS will be declared not legal and we all
It's 'skirting' the rules in something like this that's likely to
cause that 'official attention'
to be drawn.
To gain some insight, read John Johnsons rules and regs article in
last months World
John - K9IJ
John Rice K9IJ
k9ij at vx5.com
Webmaster, Network Admin, Janitor
More information about the aprssig