[CQ-Contest] Real emergencies

[Michael Tope]

Arguments over the minutia of part 97 aside, you also have to 
consider the realities of enforcement. Even if what W5KFT did 
was actually illegal, I seriously doubt that the FCC would have 
revoked W5KFT's license had they monitored the situation. 
In a worst case scenario, they might send him a notification of 
violation and ask him for a written response explaining his 
actions, but I can't imagine them moving directly to a license
set-aside when you consider the kind of sustained malicious 
misbehavior that is normally required to cause the FCC set
aside a ham ticket. 

If you decide to knowingly violate part 97 rules because you 
have good reason to believe lives are at stake and not doing 
so might result in loss of life or grave injury, I just can't imagine 
that the FCC would move directly to a revocation. Just read
the enforcement letters on the ARRL website. Usually the 
FCC notifies the offending party that they have been observed 
doing something bad and that they should refrain from that illegal 
behavior. Maybe I have it all wrong, but I think you really have to 
try hard to get your license taken away in the U.S. 

BTW, my reading of 97.405 is that W5KFT did nothing illegal. 

73 de Mike, W4EF............................

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <asciibaron at comcast.net>
To: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 11:11 AM
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
> 
>