Order Tray | Contact Us | Home | SIG Lists

[aprssig] N1547C tracker

Ray McKnight shortsheep at worldnet.att.net
Thu Oct 20 22:41:10 UTC 2005


Actually, cells phones *can* be used on aircraft in flight.
They are specifically permitted at altitudes under 3,500
(or was it 3,000?) ft.  You're confusing airline regulations
with FAA and FCC regs.  The airlines, operating under IFR
rules, can restrict whatever they deem potentially dangerous,
regardless of whether it may be permitted by other regs.  And
they all do prohibit cell phones.  It has a lot to do also with
potential lost revenues from their own installed seat back phones.

Now we're officially off topic!
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John K9IJ" <k9ij at vx5.com>
To: "TAPR APRS Mailing List" <aprssig at lists.tapr.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 14:21
Subject: Re: [aprssig] N1547C tracker


> 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
> >>control operator.
> >
> >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 
> will suffer.
> 
> 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
> Radio News.
> 
> 
> John - K9IJ
> 
> 
> 
> -
> 
> John Rice  K9IJ
> k9ij at vx5.com
> Webmaster, Network Admin, Janitor
> http://www.k9ij.com
> http://www.suhfars.org
> http://www.vx5.com/~teampf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> aprssig mailing list
> aprssig at lists.tapr.org
> https://lists.tapr.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aprssig




More information about the aprssig mailing list