Legality of Radio Use in an Emergency

[Voyager]

Of course the whole "live and limb" thing plays in. I'd hope someone would do whatever it took to save my life.

Exactly. And in that case, to extend your example, would you give your 9-year old son the keys to drive even if he isn't licensed? (assuming he knows how to drive, and is tall enough to reach the pedals)

The FCC's answer is the equivalent of "9 year olds aren't eligible for licenses" when that really doesn't answer the question of whether the FCC would prosecute if you violated the rules to save a life. (nor would I expect the FCC to officially answer that since they don't want the liability of the answer).

To compound the issue is the ambiguous Part 97 rule that allows use of "any frequency available" to summon help. When a law is ambiguous, it MUST be interpreted in favor of the defendant no matter how many people have different interpretations - including the FCC.

 

[mmckenna]

Exactly. And in that case, to extend your example, would you give your 9-year old son the keys to drive even if he isn't licensed? (assuming he knows how to drive, and is tall enough to reach the pedals)

Personally, for me, YES! If it was that or dead, yes. However I'd prefer he called 911. I'd prefer someone else did the driving. I'd prefer the emergency never happened in the first place. There are ways to properly prepare for emergencies, and that should be done. Relying on a "9 year old driving" scenario would not be proper planning or would it be very responsible. If you are asking these questions ahead of the emergency and looking to use it as permission to not plan properly, then that is foolish.

The FCC's answer is the equivalent of "9 year olds aren't eligible for licenses" when that really doesn't answer the question of whether the FCC would prosecute if you violated the rules to save a life. (nor would I expect the FCC to officially answer that since they don't want the liability of the answer).

And that's the FCC saying "maybe you should plan appropriately". Let us hope none of us ever have to find out.

To compound the issue is the ambiguous Part 97 rule that allows use of "any frequency available" to summon help. When a law is ambiguous, it MUST be interpreted in favor of the defendant no matter how many people have different interpretations - including the FCC.

I don't interpret it as ambiguous at all. Part 97 rules apply to Part 97 frequencies. That is all. Expecting Part 97 rules to apply to Part 90 has been established by the FCC as being wrong. That's like expecting the rules in your house to be the rules in my house just because you are visiting my house. Doesn't work that way. 97 rules apply in the 97 house, not the 90 house.
If you want to operate on Part 90 frequencies in an emergency, now is the time to properly prepare. Not wait until there is an emergency and expect the rules to change to fit your needs.

 

[mmckenna]

If you read the OP's post, you will see he is a first responder and a fire fighter. He was asking how he should plan for an emergency, not how should the rules be bent to make it easy for him not to plan ahead.

We've established that there are "right tools for the job".
We've established that the FCC says that amateur radio operators don't have any privileges on part 90 frequencies. FCC has also established that amateur radios are not type accepted for part 90 frequencies.

The OP was doing this right. He has training to do something other than operate a radio and hope for the best. He established he was looking for the right solution to the expected/possible emergency. He wasn't looking for loop holes in the rules to allow him to not properly plan ahead.

Public safety and military train people how to respond to an emergency, not just pick up a radio. We should all take a page from that book. Don't expect a radio to be the only tool you need to carry.

 

[mmckenna]

"§97.403 Safety of life and protection of property.
No provision of these rules prevents the use by an amateur station of any means of radiocommunication at its disposal to provide essential communication needs in connection with the immediate safety of human life and immediate protection of property when normal communication systems are not available."

I think where the confusion arises is the phrase "No provision of these rules…"
The interpretation of "these rules" seems to be the issue.
These rules seems to apply to the Part 97 rules only. If you think this applies to other rule parts, then read this:

§2.405 Operation during emergency.
The licensee of any station (except amateur, standard broadcast, FM broadcast, noncommercial educational FM broadcast, or television broadcast) may, during a period of emergency in which normal communication facilities are disrupted as a result of hurricane, flood, earthquake, or similar disaster, utilize such station for emergency communication service in communicating in a manner other than that specified in the instrument of authorization

"EXCEPT AMATEUR".
Amateur operators are governed under the Part 97 rules. Part 97 rules say that in emergencies "no provision of THESE RULES…"

2.405 says the rule that allows operation in an emergency specifically does NOT apply to amateurs.

There is NOTHING in Part 90 that gives amateurs the privileges to operate on those frequencies.
There is also NOTHING in Part 97 that gives amateurs permission to operate under any other rule parts.
Claims that this single rule in Part 97 gives access to any/all spectrum for use in a real or perceived emergency is taking a -whole-lot-of- liberties with the meaning, and completely ignoring 2.405.

Amateur radio operators should read and fully understand all the rules that apply to them. That includes Part 2, Part 15 and Part 97.

Seems pretty clear and unambiguous to me. It's well documented, so I'd suggest planning ahead and not expecting a perceived loop hole in the laws to cover you. Today is Saturday, and we do seem to have a lot of time to spend on the internet. I'd recommend researching a PLB and purchasing one. It is the right tool for the job and is perfectly legal to use.

 

[N2JDS]

Sure would have sucked to be Aron Ralston, with his arm trapped for 127 hours in a climbing accident, and a fully functional radio in the other hand programmed to call the fire department or sheriff for help, having to decide if he could use it or not. I think I'll take the risk of prosecution vs. cutting off my own arm.

 

[mmckenna]

Sure would have sucked to be Aron Ralston, with his arm trapped for 127 hours in a climbing accident, and a fully functional radio in the other hand programmed to call the fire department or sheriff for help, having to decide if he could use it or not. I think I'll take the risk of prosecution vs. cutting off my own arm.

Exactly, and I would have used the radio to call anyone/everyone I could to preserve my own hide. I'm not arguing against that. What I'm says is that if your emergency plans are to not make plans, not be properly equipped, not be properly prepared, and to actively plan on operating outside the rules is foolish.

We are talking about planning for possible/expected emergencies. No planning ≠ good planning.

 

[SCPD]

Common sense and human decency overides all when someone is dying and needs help. Screw the rulebook and the guy that wrote it if it dosent allow for saving a life!

 

[mmckenna]

Common sense and human decency overides all when someone is dying and needs help. Screw the rulebook and the guy that wrote it if it dosent allow for saving a life!

And no one in their right mind would disagree with you, me included.

Common sense also says you should be prepared and properly equipped for the job at hand, which is what the whole thread was about. Professionals understand this. Amateurs do not.

 

[timberfaller]

Thanks McKenna. I believe you have gotten the full gist of what I'm trying to do. I am just trying to plan for what tools I should and could legally have. Radios in reality are very limited too.. Can't tell you how many times I've had a 5W BK in a drainage that wont call out. The big things that get you through are your training and understanding of the situation. A radio is not a cure all and not what I was planning on doing. But if I have the ability to legally get help out to a site I will (which is why the PLB is a great suggestion). It is not only 100% legal it would work in almost all the same places the radio would. You do sometimes have to think about how things would be seen. That is why I was asking the actually legality. I know if I had it in front of me for some reason, say I came upon a down Forest Ranger, I would of course pick it up. But knowingly taking it out if I knew I shouldn't really use it... No I'm not gonna bother with it. Like I am also a First Responder.. I'm not going to buy a trach tube since I can't use it. But if there happens to be one there at the time, I'll probably give it a shot since they would die if I didn't. To me I want to stay inside the law as best as I can. I find when you do this kind of stuff as a profession and as a federal employee these days, people tend to overly watch what you do. So I do think about CYA as well.

But ultimately the training and skill is the main tool in the box. PERIOD..

PS.. (and apologies since it seems horribly written) And Hooten you were right... Although I do not think you have a right to have an attitude about not wanting to have a license because you perceived I had attitude when I asked. I looked again and that question clearly wasn't pointed at me, but at the other individual. So I sincerely apologize. My only beef, whether I seemed arrogant about it or not (which I did not mean to) is asking please of individuals three times in my post and still having to hear it. But either way, that still gave me no right to be childish.

 

[mikewazowski]

I was wondering about a PLB or a sat phone myself.

I carry a cell phone with SIM cards for two separate networks but I've also got a work issued SPOT device to use as well. I can activate it when entering a remote area and dispatch will contact me if I don't respond within a certain timeframe. I can also trigger an emergency alert if I run into trouble.

The only drawback is you need to have a view of the sky for it to track you and send messages.

 

[jhooten]

And Hooten you were right... Although I do not think you have a right to have an attitude about not wanting to have a license because you perceived I had attitude when I asked. I looked again and that question clearly wasn't pointed at me, but at the other individual. So I sincerely apologize. My only beef, whether I seemed arrogant about it or not (which I did not mean to) is asking please of individuals three times in my post and still having to hear it. But either way, that still gave me no right to be childish.

Accepted, water under the bridge.

(Given my druthers I'd rather be called by my given name, BTW)

 

[mmckenna]

I was wondering about a PLB or a sat phone myself.

I carry a cell phone with SIM cards for two separate networks but I've also got a work issued SPOT device to use as well. I can activate it when entering a remote area and dispatch will contact me if I don't respond within a certain timeframe. I can also trigger an emergency alert if I run into trouble.

The only drawback is you need to have a view of the sky for it to track you and send messages.

Thankfully I haven't needed to use the PLB yet, but the areas we ride are often well out of cell phone coverage. While I am a ham, and so is just about everyone I ride with, I don't want to rely solely on what is by design a hobby radio service.
The cost of a PLB is very similar to what a decent hand held amateur radio costs. For the safety of my family, we chose to go that route in addition to everyone having a hand held, each machine having a mobile and everyone having a cell phone. Human lives are just to precious to ignore spending $250 on a PLB.

One of the guys who rides with us does have a Spot! unit, and I seriously considered buying one of those instead of the PLB. The check in feature is pretty nice, but since most of my family is with me when we ride, it seemed like I wouldn't use it as much as I thought.

One thing to consider is that a true PLB is waterproof/submersible and only needs its battery changed every few years. Most two way radios can't match that. We keep it in a pelican case on one of the machines that houses the trauma kit we carry.

I do have an Iridium phone at work, and while it's nice, I wouldn't want to rely on it. It's really temperamental with tree cover. Great resource when it's needed, but for pure emergency use, the PLB would be much cheaper.
The Iridium phone was about $1200, and the service plan with no minutes is about $45/month. Calling rates are around $1.50/minute.

 

[Jay911]

I am aware of 2 and involved in 1 circumstance in which -Illegal- use of a radio was used for true emergency situations.

First was a SAR job I worked,the lost party was keying up on a UHF handheld and local PD/HAM operator heard. It saved them from exposure or worse in the Ozarks...At no point did anyone even have the thought to contact the FCC, or drop in the found parties lap that they should have had,or should get
a license. Was not the time,place or propper when rescue was putting them in a bus to get warm and checked out.

The other,a coworker that doubled as an EMT mentioned a instance where a hunter found a environmental police officer downed behind his truck. Before wide spread cellphone use. He grabbed the the radio,keyed up and(without formality) hollered for whoever could hear his voice. Another unit
heard him,hunter gave the location and the officer was found and treated for having a heart attack.

The second instance has occurred a couple of times here in my recall, once for a downed PD member and a civilian used the radio to call it in. I think the OP is looking more along the lines of a ham tuning in to a forestry repeater or FD/PD channel. I haven't ever encountered that personally. I've called in incidents when "off duty" using my department radio, but that doesn't really apply, because by virtue of the fact I am issued that radio for my job, I am essentially 'licensed'. (Spare me the FCC chapter and verse since I'm not in the USA.)

As a first responder, if I had someone "unauthorized" on my radio system reporting an emergency, I would happily enter into communications with them and deal with the situation. I wouldn't really care about the intrusion, so long as it was a true emergency. As a dispatcher (which is my paying job) - same thing. If it's to report a fender-bender or something else that's clearly not a dire, life-or-death situation, all bets are off, though.

If I were the "civilian", say for example if I was camping in the backcountry and took my radio with me, and encountered an emergency, I would not hesitate to use the radio to report it. However, I'd be identifying myself as an off-duty first responder, and the people who would be on those radio channels know me and my department well enough to know I'd be calling in something legit.

I would not advocate a "regular civilian" carry radios into the howling wilderness with an explicit plan to use them to call for help on public safety channels. As an example I dissuaded a few off-roaders last year from buying ham radios and programming them OOB to those forestry channels mentioned above. "Regular folk" wouldn't have the training to use the radio system properly, recognize when to call or not call, etc. If you are that confident you'll be getting into trouble, get a SPOT device or satellite phone.

 

[DaveNF2G]

To compound the issue is the ambiguous Part 97 rule that allows use of "any frequency available" to summon help. When a law is ambiguous, it MUST be interpreted in favor of the defendant no matter how many people have different interpretations - including the FCC.

The "ambiguity" has already been dealt with.

The second sentence above is legally incorrect.

The settled standard in the courts is to give deference to a reasonable interpretation by an involved agency of its own rules, and then to a reasonable interpretation by regular users of those rules.

 

[kldimond]

I enjoyed this...

As a ham (Extra) and as a commercial licensee (GROL/RADAR), I've been under the impression that if you had it you could use it if: 1. other means were down; and 2. it was a true emergency involving risk of life and major property.

I had never gone to the trouble of delving into 47 CFR. Today, I did that, and was a bit shocked at what I found. McKenna, you nailed it. In every way.

I've been through a ton of licensing and radio training, and my understanding was as above; yet it was not complete enough. Just goes to show ya, gotta research a thing, not just take someone's word for it, no matter how credible that someone may be.

I would be VERY interested to know the full details of the man prosecuted for using SO freqs. Anyone have the case name or a link to more complete details than have been revealed here? I hope that I learn that he was in some way remiss about trying other things; I'd hate to think that an SO would defy decency by prosecuting for that usage.

 

[mmckenna]

I had never gone to the trouble of delving into 47 CFR. Today, I did that, and was a bit shocked at what I found. McKenna, you nailed it. In every way.

Thanks Kldimond,
Again, if it was a true life or death situation, I'd use whatever I had to save a life. If that resulted in legal issues, I'd deal with that later with the clear conscience of having saved a life.

However, what I have an issue with is amateurs that pick a single line of the rules, interpret it incorrectly, and then try and use that to justify illegal operation. This is far to common in society, people either ignore the rules, or pick and choose which ones they think apply to them and which ones don't.

The other issue is what constitutes and emergency. Most have no clue and let fear or ignorance dictate their decisions. This is the place where a good 911 dispatcher can determine the true nature of an emergency and dispatch accordingly. By bypassing the emergency response system and transmitting where we don't belong, we put first responders lives at risk. There is no shortage of fire fighters, police officers and emergency medical teams that have been injured or killed responding to an emergency.
I've worked in and around radio and dispatch systems for a long time, and I've heard 911 calls where there was obvious panic. Listening to a good dispatcher work through that is an amazing thing.

Whackers/wannabees that want to use their amateur radios to play first responder frighten me.

 

[N4DES]

"§97.403 Safety of life and protection of property.
No provision of these rules prevents the use by an amateur station of any means of radiocommunication at its disposal to provide essential communication needs in connection with the immediate safety of human life and immediate protection of property when normal communication systems are not available."

I think where the confusion arises is the phrase "No provision of these rules…"
The interpretation of "these rules" seems to be the issue.
These rules seems to apply to the Part 97 rules only. If you think this applies to other rule parts, then read this:

§2.405 Operation during emergency.
The licensee of any station (except amateur, standard broadcast, FM broadcast, noncommercial educational FM broadcast, or television broadcast) may, during a period of emergency in which normal communication facilities are disrupted as a result of hurricane, flood, earthquake, or similar disaster, utilize such station for emergency communication service in communicating in a manner other than that specified in the instrument of authorization

"EXCEPT AMATEUR".
Amateur operators are governed under the Part 97 rules. Part 97 rules say that in emergencies "no provision of THESE RULES…"

2.405 says the rule that allows operation in an emergency specifically does NOT apply to amateurs.

There is NOTHING in Part 90 that gives amateurs the privileges to operate on those frequencies.
There is also NOTHING in Part 97 that gives amateurs permission to operate under any other rule parts.
Claims that this single rule in Part 97 gives access to any/all spectrum for use in a real or perceived emergency is taking a -whole-lot-of- liberties with the meaning, and completely ignoring 2.405.

Amateur radio operators should read and fully understand all the rules that apply to them. That includes Part 2, Part 15 and Part 97.

Seems pretty clear and unambiguous to me. It's well documented, so I'd suggest planning ahead and not expecting a perceived loop hole in the laws to cover you. Today is Saturday, and we do seem to have a lot of time to spend on the internet. I'd recommend researching a PLB and purchasing one. It is the right tool for the job and is perfectly legal to use.

Nice job with this...kudos! Now not to doubt it as I really like the way you put it together, but I wonder if sending it to the FCC for their, lets just say, concurrence is in order? Maybe Mr. Cross as a follow up to his email?

 

[rfradioconsult]

Something else to consider. Why not carry an air band handheld if you will be exploring areas where communications would not be available by conventional means. By International Treaty the frequency of 121.5 is a recognized emergency/distress frequency and as such is monitored by commercial carriers. Plus it would allow searchers to DF (direction find) you and actually communicate with you. That would be my choice.

 

[davo51]

Distress calls are exempt from the licensing requirement. (97.405)

But regardless, if you're about to die, grab the radio, any radio, and make your distress call. What you're asking is would you rather potentially get fined from the FCC or instead die. I would advise against the latter. Do whatever it takes to get the help you need.

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.

 

[gewecke]

And no one in their right mind would disagree with you, me included.

Common sense also says you should be prepared and properly equipped for the job at hand, which is what the whole thread was about. Professionals understand this. Amateurs do not.

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

73,
n9zas