Interpretation of FCC Part 97 Emergency Distress Operations Rules

[AK9R]

This is totally different from what this whole thread has been about.

Agreed. So, please stay on topic.

 

[N8OHU]

Which is EXACTLY true

Part 97 only pertains to a licensed amateur radio operator. Part 97 only governs amateur radio frequencies.

If you read Part 90, there is also a similar provision in its rules, that provides for a Part 90 licensee emergency provision, in similar fashion.

Part 97 also prohibits a licensee from communicating with an unlicensed individual. It also forbids someone from communicating without a license.

Part 90 also has similar provisions.

It is unfortunate, the "Whacker, Prepper and Tinfoil Hattist" movement(s) encourage this illegal behavior...... but then again, consider the source.

I think the problem is that it doesn't plainly say "In an emergency, the normal limitations on your Amateur Radio Service operating privileges do not apply", even though that's what the legalese boils down to.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk

 

[MTS2000des]

I work in fire dispatch now, on a system without radio ID's, but for the sake of argument, lets say i was in law enforcement dispatch, and i got a distress call (especially from someone with genuine panic in their voice) from an unknown person, but on a department radio displaying the ID of an officer. My first reaction would be determining where that officer last called out at, and second, deploying the effin' cavalry to that location.

If that person was using an officer's radio, no problem. They are acting in good faith and doing what any reasonable good citizen would do to render aid.

Now "reasonable" person does not mean some whacker with an unauthorized radio setup to access a radio system (trunked or conventional) that belongs to a government entity without authorization by that entity to be on.

I can't wait till the first whacker shows up on my system with a cloned ID and tries to tell me that they were calling in accident or showing up on some scene with their eBay ALT APX radio playing Randy Rescue.

They can quote their buddy at the FCC field office all day long. Maybe he/she will post bond for them when they get arrested for computer network trespass, interference with governmental administration, and anything else our DA/solicitor will throw at them for authorizing themselves on a government radio system on which they had no business being.

Maybe they will come on these forums and tell all of us on the admin side how "wrong" we are. Of course in court it will likely be a different story...

At the end of the day, if one isn't authorized to be on a government radio system, one can quote all this FCC nonsense, none of it will insulate them from being in local/state trouble. And this is the trouble one really needs to worry about if they are going around with radios capable of TRANSMITTING on public safety systems on which they have no valid local/state authorization to be on. Period.

Do as one wishes so long as one can accept the consequences. Fair warning has been given.

(can't believe this thread has droned on this long)

 

[ecps92]

And we can be assured that when this one dies its slow death, another will rise to continue the fight

At the end of the day, if one isn't authorized to be on a government radio system, one can quote all this FCC nonsense, none of it will insulate them from being in local/state trouble. And this is the trouble one really needs to worry about if they are going around with radios capable of TRANSMITTING on public safety systems on which they have no valid local/state authorization to be on. Period.

Do as one wishes so long as one can accept the consequences. Fair warning has been given.

(can't believe this thread has droned on this long)

 

[kayn1n32008]

post bond for them when they get arrested for computer network trespass, interference with governmental administration, and anything else our DA/solicitor will throw at them for authorizing themselves on a government radio system on which they had no business being...

The prepped, whacker, former, Randi Rescue/Franki Firefighter types seem to think that Part 97 applies on Part 90 frequencies...

...At the end of the day, if one isn't authorized to be on a government radio system, one can quote all this FCC nonsense, none of it will insulate them from being in local/state trouble. And this is the trouble one really needs to worry about if they are going around with radios capable of TRANSMITTING on public safety systems on which they have no valid local/state authorization to be on. Period.

Do as one wishes so long as one can accept the consequences. Fair warning has been given.

Honestly can't wait to read about the next one... Those idiots are a blast to watch on the forums.

(can't believe this thread has droned on this long)

You can than the hamsters that think a ham license give them carte Blanche to TX where ever they feel, when an 'emergency' happens... Even the example that kicked this discussion off was not a genuine life or death emergency.

 

[kk6696]

This may (unintentionally) step on some toes, but out of all the Part 97 rules to pay attention to, I often wonder why this little section of the regulations is of such great interest and importance to so many, but most importantly, whackers. I spent 15 years of my life in the driver's seat of one of those shiny large black and white sedans, with red and blue (not amber) strobe lights on the roof, in the employ of a large, government agency. Like many others on here, I had thousands of hours of specialized training and experience, and knew how to handle an actual emergency. The comparison between a Good Samaritan using a downed emergency worker's radio to get help for that person, and an amateur operator who breaks onto a governmental system, because he has preprogrammed the transmit frequencies for the local fire, EMS, or police into his/her radio, without their blessing is [IMHO] completely fallacious. Citizens often DO come on police/fire radios when an officer or paramedic is laying in the street bleeding, and no fool would argue with them doing so. In fact, the affected emergency service would likely be exceedingly thankful to that person and give them some recognition for their effort. It makes sense. Not so much for the squirrely ham who breaks onto the police patrol dispatch channel with their call sign, to report an accident, because they deem it an "emergency".

Outside of an apocalyptic event, as an amateur radio operator (and I am one) what "emergency" role are you going to be handling anyway, where you need to come up on emergency government frequencies, with your own pre-programmed equipment? To be an amateur radio operator means you are A) a regular citizen who is B) licensed by the FCC to push the transmit button on a two-way radio and communicate with others, using a variety of transmission modes on Part 97 bands. We are not first responders, and at best are either private citizen communicators (when assisting EOCs, RACES events, etc.), or private citizen observers and observers, as in the case of storm spotting. Generally, the amateur "emergency" function is limited to providing communications and it stops there, unless you have other specialized training and skills to perform another recognized role. I just wonder what "emergency" so many whackers feel they need to have all of the state police (transmit) frequencies programmed into their personal radio for? I'm not attorney, but can all but guarantee you, you will have some serious legal hurdles to overcome if you pop up on a government system, with anything but an extremely dire situation (like complete devastation and all systems down), where there is absolutely NO other means to obtain help, including the phone system. Just my two cents, because whackers made me cuh-razy and embarrass us all. End rant...

Like everything else, folks need to use common sense and be able to provide articulable, detailed facts to justify why they did something.

 

[jonwienke]

The only non-EOTWAWKI scenarios where I could imagine private citizens using public safety freqs without being charged criminally would be a backcountry medevac/rescue scenario where there is no cell service, and a call is made on a SAR frequency to inform search personnel where to look, or to call in a medical emergency.

But even then I'd exhaust all other options before trying such a thing.

 

[N0IU]

Like everything else, folks need to use common sense...

If common sense was that common, more people would have it!

 

[DaveNF2G]

There is a guy of Facebook who is selling cloth patches that say, among other things, "Amateur Radio Search and Rescue." No such thing. Hams don't get called out to perform search and rescue. They get called to talk on the radio.

 

[kayn1n32008]

There is a guy of Facebook who is selling cloth patches that say, among other things, "Amateur Radio Search and Rescue." No such thing. Hams don't get called out to perform search and rescue. They get called to talk on the radio.

I completely agree. Hams do not get called out to search. However
where I grew up many of the SAR members are amateur radio operators, and non hams are encouraged to get their license. Their repeaters are just outside the 2m ham band, thus allowing them to dual use their LMR radios. The local ham infrastructure has vastly superior coverage to their LMR repeaters. That being said ham at user radio is just another tool in the tool box. They maintain a very fat, black line between ham radio and SAR.

Another SAR group I know of in BC, PGSAR, has an excellent relationship with The Prince George Amateur Radio Club. They train together and on complex searches, where communications are difficult, they imbed amateur radio operators and use the amateur radio club to cover the gap when their own comms are not adequate for the task.

Their relationship is exceptional, to the point where they actually have a PGSAR LMR repeater co-located at one of their ham sites. The club told them what to buy, and they built and maintain it.

PGSAR has a jurisdiction that can take hours to respond in. They take their comms seriously, but as a volunteer organization, they do not have the expertise, nor can they afford to build, license or maintain a repeater system that covers their search jurisdiction. PGARC has a very large linked repeater system.

SAR and Hams can, and do work very closely together. But as stated hams are not SAR.

 

[kayn1n32008]

The only non-EOTWAWKI scenarios where I could imagine private citizens using public safety freqs without being charged criminally would be a backcountry medevac/rescue scenario where there is no cell service, and a call is made on a SAR frequency to inform search personnel where to look, or to call in a medical emergency.

But even then I'd exhaust all other options before trying such a thing.

Even then, the first question I would ask is why they were not prepared when they went to the back country. I and others have stated time and again: A modified ham radio, or a LMR radio preprogrammed with local Public Safety frequencies in the back country is not being prepared. There are commercially available devices designed to get you help, in a reasonable time frame, on the market.

Many LMR dealers also rent sat phones. PLB's are cheap, and get the job done. There are many stories of SPOT beacons getting people emergency help in places with no cellphone service.

There is IMHO NO excuse to think that a modded hamster radio is needed in the back country.

 

[N8OHU]

Even then, the first question I would ask is why they were not prepared when they went to the back country. I and others have stated time and again: A modified ham radio, or a LMR radio preprogrammed with local Public Safety frequencies in the back country is not being prepared. There are commercially available devices designed to get you help, in a reasonable time frame, on the market.

Many LMR dealers also rent sat phones. PLB's are cheap, and get the job done. There are many stories of SPOT beacons getting people emergency help in places with no cellphone service.

There is IMHO NO excuse to think that a modded hamster radio is needed in the back country.

Agreed; especially in an "end of the world as we know it" scenario, going straight to the Public Service frequencies is an extremely bad idea, as they would actually be more likely to ignore you or put you somewhere you couldn't cause problems than they usually would. I stay on ham frequencies unless I have authorization to be on other ones, either because I've joined a specific organization (like MARS) or because I'm sitting in the EOC and have authorization to use the EMA/Public Service communication system (not necessarily an employee of theirs).

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

Comments of Mr. Riley Hollingsworth Retired FCC..

This thread has run its course and has drifted way far afield of the title subject.

However I did promise that I would post Mr. Hollingsworth's comments on the subject. They are below; This is my last contribution/response to the thread.


"-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: Interpretation of FCC Part 97 Emergency Distress Operations Rules
Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 12:13:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: askriley w5kub.com <askriley@w5kub.com>
Reply-To: askriley w5kub.com <askriley@w5kub.com>
To: Joe xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Usually such questions are loaded, but here's the deal. It's the rule of common sense. "Free picnic table" signs on the side of the highway do not mean you can stop with a van and get one. "Bridge ices before road" signs can be ignored in the summer.

Any frequency isn't the issue, the emergency is the issue. IF the person making the call is right at a genuine emergency, say, at an air port and a skydiver falls with no open chute and there s a taxi or electric utility truck sitting there, who ever can get there first can and should put out an emergency call to anyone listening. Frequency, service, license all are irrelevant. The operative phrase is "genuine emergency."
That's about the best it can be described--it's just the rule of common sense and what you would want any citizen, licensed ot not, to be able to do.

"On October 4, 2016 at 1:49 AM Joe xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

Mr Hollinsworth;
Thank you for responding.

Regarding 97.403 and 97.405.

The definition of: "any means of radiocommunication at its disposal" seems to cause conflict with some folks sensibilities. For reference, I have attached a section from the ARRL General Class Q&A study guide, 5th edition, supplement G2 page 10, question G2B11. This document implies that in an bona fide emergency, an amateur station may use "any frequency and any power level".
The range of opinions span from "you are limited to the use of only those frequencies in Part 97" to "You are not operating a Amateur radio station any longer-- you are now operating an unlicensed station in a dire emergency, which is allowed under both FCC and international regulations." .

The debate seems to be focused on whether the statement "any means of radiocommunication at its disposal", ("any frequency, power level"), excludes the use of frequencies outside of Part 97 such as those of Part 90. Secondly that Part 90 frequencies cannot legally be programmed into a personally owned Part 97 or Part 90 radio at the moment of the emergency.

My interpretation is that in cases where these rules apply, an amateur operator becomes an ordinary civilian utilizing whatever tools are at his/her disposal to mitigate a bona fide emergency situation and that the FCC is not concerned with punishing that person for taking necessary and extraordinary measures, even if it requires the use of Part 90 frequencies.

I am most interested in your perspective. I also understand that some state laws may differ in their treatment of this issue.

Thank you

Joe xxxxxx
On 10/3/2016 11:05 PM, askriley w5kub.com wrote:

Hi Joe. Tell me specifically what your question is and I'll go from there. Thanks!"

--------------------

 

[N8OHU]

This thread has run its course and has drifted way far afield of the title subject.

However I did promise that I would post Mr. Hollingsworth's comments on the subject. They are below; This is my last contribution/response to the thread.


"-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: Interpretation of FCC Part 97 Emergency Distress Operations Rules
Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 12:13:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: askriley w5kub.com <askriley@w5kub.com>
Reply-To: askriley w5kub.com <askriley@w5kub.com>
To: Joe xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Usually such questions are loaded, but here's the deal. It's the rule of common sense. "Free picnic table" signs on the side of the highway do not mean you can stop with a van and get one. "Bridge ices before road" signs can be ignored in the summer.

Any frequency isn't the issue, the emergency is the issue. IF the person making the call is right at a genuine emergency, say, at an air port and a skydiver falls with no open chute and there s a taxi or electric utility truck sitting there, who ever can get there first can and should put out an emergency call to anyone listening. Frequency, service, license all are irrelevant. The operative phrase is "genuine emergency."
That's about the best it can be described--it's just the rule of common sense and what you would want any citizen, licensed ot not, to be able to do.

"On October 4, 2016 at 1:49 AM Joe xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

Mr Hollinsworth;
Thank you for responding.

Regarding 97.403 and 97.405.

The definition of: "any means of radiocommunication at its disposal" seems to cause conflict with some folks sensibilities. For reference, I have attached a section from the ARRL General Class Q&A study guide, 5th edition, supplement G2 page 10, question G2B11. This document implies that in an bona fide emergency, an amateur station may use "any frequency and any power level".
The range of opinions span from "you are limited to the use of only those frequencies in Part 97" to "You are not operating a Amateur radio station any longer-- you are now operating an unlicensed station in a dire emergency, which is allowed under both FCC and international regulations." .

The debate seems to be focused on whether the statement "any means of radiocommunication at its disposal", ("any frequency, power level"), excludes the use of frequencies outside of Part 97 such as those of Part 90. Secondly that Part 90 frequencies cannot legally be programmed into a personally owned Part 97 or Part 90 radio at the moment of the emergency.

My interpretation is that in cases where these rules apply, an amateur operator becomes an ordinary civilian utilizing whatever tools are at his/her disposal to mitigate a bona fide emergency situation and that the FCC is not concerned with punishing that person for taking necessary and extraordinary measures, even if it requires the use of Part 90 frequencies.

I am most interested in your perspective. I also understand that some state laws may differ in their treatment of this issue.

Thank you

Joe xxxxxx
On 10/3/2016 11:05 PM, askriley w5kub.com wrote:

Hi Joe. Tell me specifically what your question is and I'll go from there. Thanks!"

--------------------

Ah, but he doesn't say that you can use a ham radio modified to transmit on public service frequencies to make the call for help; he says that whoever gets to a radio first, no matter what frequency it transmits on, can use it to call for help in a genuine emergency.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk

 

[KK4JUG]

Ah, but he doesn't say that you can use a ham radio modified to transmit on public service frequencies to make the call for help; he says that whoever gets to a radio first, no matter what frequency it transmits on, can use it to call for help in a genuine emergency.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk

But he did say "...whatever tools are at his/her disposal."

 

[AK9R]

However I did promise that I would post Mr. Hollingsworth's comments on the subject.

Thank you for posting the current opinions of a retired FCC attorney.

I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with Mr. Hollingworth's comments, but I think we should acknowledge the context in which he made them.

 

[kayn1n32008]

Thank you for posting the current opinions of a retired FCC attorney.

I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with Mr. Hollingworth's comments, but I think we should acknowledge the context in which he made them.

This is important. Mr. Hollingworth is retired, and therefore can not speak to the FCC interpretation.

At the end of the day, if one isn't authorized to be on a government radio system, one can quote all this FCC nonsense, none of it will insulate them from being in local/state trouble. And this is the trouble one really needs to worry about if they are going around with radios capable of TRANSMITTING on public safety systems on which they have no valid local/state authorization to be on. Period.

This is really important to keep in mind. Someone may face felony charges as a result.

Do as one wishes so long as one can accept the consequences. Fair warning has been given.

The whacker/hero wannabe types will insist on hiding behind the 97.403, but will forget they may face charges under local/state laws.

At the end of the day those with modified radios/radios programmed for unauthorized public safety frequencies will do what they want, rules be damned.

 

[N8OHU]

But he did say "...whatever tools are at his/her disposal."

Yes, and most whackers use that as justification for modding their radios so they can talk on public service frequencies, even though it simply means whatever radio frequency band is available to you in the closest radio.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk

 

[KK4JUG]

Yes, and most whackers use that as justification for modding their radios so they can talk on public service frequencies, even though it simply means whatever radio frequency band is available to you in the closest radio.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk

I think that's a stretch. People modify their radios to talk on public safety frequencies because they're crazy. I would think that the emergency would have to already exist for anyone to legitimately avail themselves of "whatever tools are available."

 

[SCPD]

Thank you Joe (EMI-RFI-GUY) for posting Mr. Hollingsworth's response to this 'delicate' subject. Yes, I know, I came back-(I'm exercising Rule #12-see below*) though I swore I'd give this subject a long, long rest-- But Joe's efforts merit a positive response from someone... (laffing- however I did not expect the responses to be any different than the one's Joe got-- if Moses had brought this decision down from the Mount, as an addendum to the 10 Commandments, I am sure he would have met with the same reception )
.
.....And as Joe so aptly said, this topic has drifted so far afield and so deeply talked into the earth, that I too can't, or won't, add any further fuel to its fire. Let me step to the side of the "97.403" debate a metre or so---- actually, stepping a year back, when I had dinner with an old college friend--
My friend is a now a private practice attorney, a former states' attorney, and one with a lot of prosecution experience. Our conversation turned to concealed weapon laws** - when their use is legal and justified and when people get into trouble. My friend was quite clear; she said that if you act as any responsible person would be expected to, under the law, in a life or death--bigger than life situation,- it would "stand up in court."
.
"Remember Lauri, that in order for you to get into trouble, someone is going to have to charge you with acting inappropriately, a prosecutor is going to have to indict you, a judge is going to have to agree to hear your case, and a jury may be called in to decide your fate"
"If you have acted correctly under the law, any smart prosecutor is not going to do a stupid career ruining thing like bring trivial cases before reasonable judges.... just be sure you know the law, you acted accordingly- as any reasonable person would be expected to- under similar circumstances"
.
This is exactly what Mr. Hollingsworth was saying.
.
And yet, despite all the other's reasonable similar Postings -- (RF Guy- excellent!... and the others too) -we still have this divide running here, running on technical, nit-picky little details that infuriates those like me. As I said before, it seems (to me) to boil down to the people that can size up a situation, and act responsibly in emergencies,---- and then there are those that have to be 'right' no matter if it is a good response or not.....first having to pull out their rule books, dotting every 'i' crossing every 't'... before they do ++Anything++.
.
I live where people do things by the 'Code of the West.." we don't carry EPIRB's, PLB's, SPOTs, cel'fones, LMR's, CB's, 'ham radio's,' Flare guns, signalling mirrors...... geeez - at least not all together- all in one pack like some people here seem to think of as what it is to "be prepared." I surround myself with people that know the territory, the dangers, know how to take care of themselves and others without acting the pseudo-rescue want-a-bee's-- those people are as whacky as the ones they accuse of being 'radio hackers' weirdo's. We know bad things happen, and if the right tool isn't available to effect a fix, we are confident of our abilities to improvise. Life in the Lower 48, in the US in general has been so softened by Home Owner's associations telling people what colour to paint their front doors, bosses telling employees when they can take bathroom breaks, you can, please!- add to the list; it makes me too weary to continue-- the Frontier Spirit in America- let me call it the "97.403 Mentality"-- is fading, fading oh-so-fast.
.
"Okay, Coyote" you are all by now asking, "where is this going???!"
Ahhh!--- back to the original subject. And, what was it? the legality of 'hacking' a ham radio to operate on non-ham frequencies?...Part 90 seems to have been thrown in there a lot.... ah that sacred Part 90 !..............
.
Well-- I am over due to make a field trip to a place far away from the confines of Home Owner's Associations, the nit-pickers -- about as far North and West- and away from Suburbs "as you can travel without a Passport" - as the people up there are fond of saying. I have slated it for some time in the late winter (a really lovely time to go there , BTW ) and while there I have placed it on my list of "To-Do's"- to devote a few minutes to ...what was it all been called?... why, I am going to:
.
'Hack, whack, jack,' some ham radio and operate it on a Part 90, Part-whatever's- frequency- I am going to use my "Ham" callsign and I am going to do it Boastfully! And legally !- I will have modified a ham radio to do this... I will have 'cut the diode', " programmed the memory, the whatever, and put it on a non Part 97 frequency... and in so doing, I will have slipped the bonds of this now trite discussion!
.
Read about-- I will be operating, if only for signal reports and system tests, under FCC Parts 97.401,
90.253-- and others. I have already set up several non''ham' stations to contact...
.
So, let my Hacking begin! (I may even make a Tin Foil hat to wear on this 'whacking' wacky occasion... if I can get someone to take my photo I will post it here!)
.
.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Smiling... please remember-- I say this all with smiles!, and, well, this may or may not be the last of me on "97.403"... (remember Rule 12....
Now, off to a very late lunch...........Cheers!!.....
.....................................................CF

_______________________________________________
.
* From the Big Rule Book of the Genders-- Rule #12- "a woman's prerogative- she can change her mind at will"

**we both have CCW permits BTW