Legality of Radio Use in an Emergency

[KW4HKY]

Post your zip code. Bet I can find a place closer than 3 hours to take the test

 

[davo51]

This pretty much answers the question, or should......in a life or death situation, you do what you have to do, I have been in law enforcement for 30 years and I can tell you, I would not want to stand in a court room trying to prosecute someone for using a radio they were not licensed to use to save a life, saving a life has no limits, that is the reason law enforcement officers can use deadly force against someone, to protect their life or the life of others. If faced with that kind of situation, use common sense and do what you have to do. This is not directed towards anyone in particular, but I am amazed at some of the questions asked by people that say they are trained fire fighters, EMT's, emergency personnel, etc... I would think they would have been trained to save a life by any reasonable means.

I want to clarify my comment......I in no way encourage, condone, or suggest anyone program radio frequencies into any radio that they are not licensed or authorized to operate on, my comments are directed to someone who has access to a properly authorized radio and that person uses the radio, even though it is not their radio or authorized to operate, to save a life, such as picking up an injured officers radio to call for help or your Amateur radio buddy has his radio, but he cannot use it due to his injuries, like others have said, if you are going to rely on Amateur radio, take the time to get licensed, obviously you have taken the time to get the required training to be a fire fighter, preparing for an amateur license would be much easier and quicker. just my thoughts

 

[mmckenna]

Uh, YES amateurs DO understand this.
Some of us are professionals who also happen to hold an amateur license.

73,
n9zas

I agree. I'm an amateur and a professional. I meant "amateur" in the more general sense of the term, although there are some amateurs that are truly amateurish.

My point was that "amateur radio operators" don't act "professional" when they quote the single line from Part 97 to justify that it's legal to operate in other radio services. It isn't.

 

[kayn1n32008]

My point was that "amateur radio operators" don't act "professional" when they quote the single line from Part 97 to justify that it's legal to operate in other radio services. It isn't.

Well put.

While I am at work, I have my amateur radios programmed for amateur frequencies with me... It enhances my options, as a last resort, when my other options do not work. Options like LMR radio, satellite phone, SPOT beacon and cell phone. It is not there to replace being prepared paired up with good decision making.

Some people, wackers for example, are just itching to use their modified radio programmed for who knows what Part 80, 90, & 95 frequencies to be the hero.

These folks scare me. Mostly because of the harm they do to a hobby I very much enjoy.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[gewecke]

I work in a 1 million sq. foot warehouse facility, and we have CM300's and 1250's all over the place, tuned for 2 watts on simplex with 10ch.

In the spring, during storm season I occasionally take my talkie to work so I have access to NOAA and our weather nets. My boss actually asked me one night, if I could talk to their radios, he was unaware of course it would be illegal.
My co-workers were a bit interested when I tuned into our weather nets, and noaa.

73,
n9zas

 

[ka0nhh]

I want to clarify my comment......I in no way encourage, condone, or suggest anyone program radio frequencies into any radio that they are not licensed or authorized to operate on, my comments are directed to someone who has access to a properly authorized radio and that person uses the radio, even though it is not their radio or authorized to operate, to save a life, such as picking up an injured officers radio to call for help or your Amateur radio buddy has his radio, but he cannot use it due to his injuries, like others have said, if you are going to rely on Amateur radio, take the time to get licensed, obviously you have taken the time to get the required training to be a fire fighter, preparing for an amateur license would be much easier and quicker. just my thoughts

I condone, encourage and suggest that people be properly prepared to survive critical incidents of all types, including ones that take place in rural areas where communications are a problem.

The fact is that it is not illegal to possess a radio programmed on frequencies you do not have a license (or permission) to transmit on under federal law. It may be illegal however under some state laws, particularly New York and New Jersey and other states with "scanner laws" that prohibit the possession of radios that can receive police frequencies. As a side note, HAMs are largely exempt from scanner laws by ruling of the FCC, so getting your Technician's license is a great idea.

It is also true that in any legitimate emergency where either life, limb or property are in imminent danger, according to the FCC, which is the sole arbiter of radio transmissions (not the state) any person may transmit on any frequency, at any power level, using any transmission mode that is necessary to obtain assistance...but once you get assistance you need to stop transmitting.

If one spends substantial time in the back country it seems both prudent and legal to have a radio programmed to use frequencies that are likely to be monitored in those areas in case of a legitimate emergency. Just don't transmit on those frequencies unless you have to and not only will no one be the wiser, but you will not be violating any federal laws.

As for PRBs, they are great, and the newer ones that allow you to send text messages are also great, but then again there's nothing like being able to actually talk to the helicopter pilot who is circling about looking for you or the rescuers on foot who can't find you.

Common sense is the obvious answer here. If you need to survive, do what you have to do to survive and worry about the consequences later. As a 30 year veteran of CAP I know that too often people are reluctant to take actions they need to take when they need to take them because they worry about the legal ramifications and they get hurt or killed because of it.

If I have to kill a grizzly bear in Yellowstone NP, or transmit on an NPS repeater site to save my life or someone else's life, so be it, I'll argue with the National Park Service afterwards. After all, what the NPS, or the FCC can do to you is far less harmful than refusing to use the tools available to you that you need to save your life.

 

[mmckenna]

The fact is that it is not illegal to possess a radio programmed on frequencies you do not have a license (or permission) to transmit on under federal law. It may be illegal however under some state laws, particularly New York and New Jersey and other states with "scanner laws" that prohibit the possession of radios that can receive police frequencies. As a side note, HAMs are largely exempt from scanner laws by ruling of the FCC, so getting your Technician's license is a great idea.

I hear what you are saying, however you are mistaken.

When you program a radio (any radio, amateur or otherwise) to operate on frequencies you are not explicitly licensed for, you are in violation:

§90.427 Precautions against unauthorized operation.
(b) Except for frequencies used in accordance with §90.417, no person shall program into a transmitter frequencies for which the licensee using the transmitter is not authorized.

The confusion that most amateurs have is that once you start transmitting outside the amateur radio bands with -any- radio, you are no longer covered by your amateur radio license OR the FCC Part 97 rules. The rules for the service/frequencies you are operating on apply. In the examples you gave above you'd be operating under FCC Part 90.

 

[Voyager]

Excellent post. Now, let's read one of the exceptions listed in 90.417...

90.417 Interstation communication. (a) Any station licensed under this part may communicate with any other station without restriction as to type, service, or licensee when the communications involved relate directly to the imminent safety-of-life or property.

(emphasis mine)

Amateur Radio Service qualifies as another Service.

Without restriction to license means the one station need not be licensed on the frequency involved (which would be the Amateur or any other station).

So, there is a specific exception to the rule you quoted when it comes to life safety, and that is the case NHH (and I previously) made.

 

[rescue161]

Excellent post. Now, let's read one of the exceptions listed in 90.417...

90.417 Interstation communication. (a) Any station licensed under this part may communicate with any other station without restriction as to type, service, or licensee when the communications involved relate directly to the imminent safety-of-life or property.

(emphasis mine)

Amateur Radio Service qualifies as another Service.

Without restriction to license means the one station need not be licensed on the frequency involved (which would be the Amateur or any other station).

So, there is a specific exception to the rule you quoted when it comes to life safety, and that is the case NHH (and I previously) made.

No, it does not authorize hams to transmit in Part 90 as it specifically states "under this part," i.e., under part 90. Hams fall under Part 97. Hams are allowed to use any ham frequency whether their class allows it or not to save life or limb.

 

[QDP2012]

No, it does not authorize hams to transmit in Part 90 as it specifically states "under this part," i.e., under part 90. Hams fall under Part 97. Hams are allowed to use any ham frequency whether their class allows it or not to save life or limb.

So that I understand, are you saying...

• 1) a Part 90 radio-user can use a Part 90 radio on Part 97 frequencies to talk to a Part 97 radio-user in an emergency;
• 2) a Part 97 radio-user cannot use a Part 97 radio on Part 90 frequencies to talk to a Part 90 radio-user in an emergency,
• 3) a Part 97 radio-user could use a Part 97 radio on any Part 97 frequencies (including beyond their license-level) to talk to a Part 90 user who used a Part 90 radio on Part 97 frequencies?

Are each of the above true?

Just trying to understand, thanks,

 

[rescue161]

A Part 90 radio user can convey emergencies to other Part 90 systems only. Part 90 users are not authorized to use Part 97 frequencies.

The same goes for Part 97 users.

As far as radios go, a Part 97 radio can NEVER be used to communicate with any service outside of Part 97. Part 90 radios can be used on Part 97 frequencies, but only by amateur license holders.

That is why they have separate "parts" for each service.

 

[QDP2012]

A Part 90 radio user can convey emergencies to other Part 90 systems only. Part 90 users are not authorized to use Part 97 frequencies.

The same goes for Part 97 users.

As far as radios go, a Part 97 radio can NEVER be used to communicate with any service outside of Part 97. Part 90 radios can be used on Part 97 frequencies, but only by amateur license holders.

That is why they have separate "parts" for each service.

Now I understand what you meant in the earlier posts.

Thanks,

 

[johnls7424]

There is almost always an exception for Amateur Radio use as long as it was a legit emergency. Same goes for operating a VHF marine radio on land on Channel 16. If you can articulate that it is a actually emergency where it was warranted that this means of assistance via particular radio band your trying to transmit on ( and frequency) then it is always an exception. Of course you must articulate it with just reason and cause.

 

[rescue161]

The letter of the law reads that there is no exception to the rules when it comes to crossing Rule Parts, i.e., 97, 95, 90 etc.

Now, that does not mean that everyone who does it is going to be prosecuted, but they absolutely can/could be.

 

[nd5y]

Notice how 2.405, 90.407, 90.411, and 90.417 all say "The licensee of any station authorized under this part".
They don't say "any person", "any amateur station", "any prepper", "any Baofeng biotch" or "any Wouxun whacker".

 

[DaveNF2G]

ND5Y is correct. In fact, the previously cited Part 90 restriction prohibiting possession of a transmitter capable of transmitting on a frequency for which the user is not licensed or authorized does say "no person shall program..." without any limiting clauses. So the so-called "emergency" exemptions of Part 90 are narrower than the prohibition.

 

[bill4long]

Everyone here would use a radio illegally to save someone's life.

Should you avoid having to do that? Of course.

FCC forfeitures are a civil matter, not a criminal one. It is unlikely the FCC would file a forfeiture notice in the first place for such an event, but in that event, federal case law sufficiently supports citizens using any reasonable means, to rescue those in jeopardy of life.

 

[nd5y]

If some unknown outsider shows up on a public safety frequency claiming to have an emergency the authorities will probably think it's a hoax or setup to ambush first responders.

 

[Kirk]

I'm not sure how things work in the rest of the world, but this is my experience in California:

1. Hams tend to put repeaters up to cover areas where hams live and commute. Solid backcountry coverage is seldom the goal.
2. Public safety tends to put repeaters up to cover the entire area of their jurisdiction, as they must respond and communicate in all of those areas.
3. Ham repeaters don't have people monitoring 24/7 with access to a phone to relay to 911 for you. Some may get no traffic for hours or days, others might be busy during commute hours but silent during the day or late at night. Who knows if someone is monitoring.
4. When I'm not in my home county, I generally have no idea what coverage is like on various ham repeaters. I've got a good feel for things where I live, but putting in a bunch of repeater channels from the ARRL book or Repeaterbook will result in disappointment (at best) during an emergency if I'm relying on that to save a life.
5. On wildland incidents big enough for interagency response, repeater coverage is supplemented by portable repeaters. Comm plans are written and adhered to.

If I were still in public safety, I'd feel FAR more comfortable with my agency-issued radio than any ham rig when it comes to finding help on the other end. Nowadays, if I were spending time in the backcountry, I'd have a sat phone or EPIRB (or whatever the modern equivalent is, which if I needed one, I would take the time to research and understand as part of my preparation process).

Ham radio is really a pretty poor choice in an emergency. It's better than nothing, but sometimes not by much or at all. There are so many variables that the possibility for failure are endless. Plus, if you're not a ham, it's not like you're going to get on these repeaters to ask how the coverage is or test them prior to your moment of critical need.

If you're into radio, study up and go take the test. It's a fun hobby, but it's not for everyone. You don't seem to want to bother with the studying and test taking stuff, but you want the perk of a radio that will get you help from anywhere. I'm here to tell you that the perk you seek doesn't really exist. Look elsewhere. It might save your life.

 

[ecps92]

Ugh and I thought we would avoid the annual beatings of the dead horse.
Peanuts - Popcorn - Reynolds Wrap

Doing it, if it is your Only Option is One Thing
Planning/Preparing to Do it.... well.... is Premeditation :roll:

Everyone here would use a radio illegally to save someone's life.

Should you avoid having to do that? Of course.

FCC forfeitures are a civil matter, not a criminal one. It is unlikely the FCC would file a forfeiture notice in the first place for such an event, but in that event, federal case law sufficiently supports citizens using any reasonable means, to rescue those in jeopardy of life.