----- Original Message -----
From: "N7MAL" <N7MAL@CITLINK.NET>
>
> Please stop picking and choosing the words that appeal to you and read the
> entire section. The trucker, who was operating illegally with no license
> or authority to operate on the frequency he was on, was not in 'distress'.
> Further §97.405 pertains to the operation of an Amateur Radio Station to
> initiate communications NOT for a non-amateur to initiate communication.
> The trucker was illegally reporting a traffic accident on 10 meters when
> other means of communication § 97.403 were and are readily available.
> There were no "exceptional circumstances" involved.
Yes, maybe there was cellphone coverage and yes, maybe
there was a callbox, and then again, maybe he was between
callboxes, and maybe he didn't have a cellphone, and maybe
he was just nervous and worried that people might be dying
in those wrecked cars. Mal, do you really believe that this guy
was thinking, "oh boy, finally here is my pretense to operate on
the ham bands without a license?" Gimmee a break! And
what is W5KFT supposed to do? Ask him a bunch of questions
about whether or not he has had properly ascertained if other
means of communication were available? Seems like it would
have been (and was) simpler just to ask what his location was
and then call the authorities. Oh, and yes, by the way, you are
correct, the trucker was not in personal distress or danger.
Does that mean that he should have sought out one of the
injured persons in the wrecked cars and asked them to call
W5KFT? Maybe the trucker should have triaged them all first.
That way he could have made sure only people in grave danger
of dying or loosing a limb were allowed to pick up a microphone
and transmit a distress call without an amateur license.
I can't believe we are having this discussion. It seems like
misplaced priorities. There is a nutjob here in Los Angeles
who has been jamming the local repeaters for several years.
The FCC has taken away his license, fined him $10,000, and
yet he still shows up on 2 meters and 440 and plays his profane
political rants. If the FCC can't even shut this guy down, why
on earth are you salivating to go pillory some poor trucker
and the ham who assisted him in their efforts to "do the right
thing"?
In terms of obeying the part 97 rules, what matters is how we
behave the 99.999% of the time when there isn't an emergency.
For those .001% situations, I myself am going to error on the side
of moral rather than legal caution.
73 de Mike, W4EF........................................
>
> UP.SO. I have gained a new respect and appreciation for Riley after
> participating in this conversation.
>
>
>
> MAL N7MAL
> BULLHEAD CITY, AZ
> http://www.ctaz.com/~suzyq/N7mal.htm
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: asciibaron@comcast.net
> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 19:11
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Real emergencies
>
>
> > NO NO NO
> > While what W5KFT did was, maybe, morally correct what he did was very,
> > very, illegal.
>
> re-read Part 97, specifically 97.405 .
>
> http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/
>
>
>
> -steve
> KB3KAQ
>
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|