[CQ-Contest] Real emergencies

[Kenneth E. Harker]

On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 10:42:54PM -0000, N7MAL wrote:
>  ?97.405 Station in distress.
> (a) No provision of these rules prevents the use by an amateur station in distress of any means at its disposal to attract attention, make known its condition and location, and obtain assistance. 
> 
> (b) No provision of these rules prevents the use by a station, in the exceptional circumstances described in paragraph (a), of any means of radiocommunications at its disposal to assist a station in distress. 
> 

     I think Mal believes that W5KFT should be capable of reading minds.

> 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'. 

     He's at the scene of a major automobile accident.  Presumably there
are injuries.  Perhaps there is debris on the road representing hazards
to other drivers.  Whether or not the trucker himself is on the very brink
of death, a serious vehicular accident would most certainly count as a 
situation of 'distress'.  And, in any event, how and why would W5KFT want to 
second-guess the report of an emergency situation?

>              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. 

     W5KFT didn't mention what year this was, but I'm guessing it might 
have been the previous solar cycle peak - perhaps 1990-1992.  Cellular
phones were not very common then (I still don't have one myself.)  Even
if the trucker had a cell phone, perhaps the battery was dead.  Assume
he tried CB - perhaps nobody answered or he got someone who thought he
was faking it or maybe was doped up or whatever and wouldn't or couldn't 
help.  I think it's fair to say that anyone who has a choice will certainly
dial 911 or pick up a roadside emergency phone before they try to get 
someone perhaps thousands of miles away to help out.  Unless you're 
clairvoyant, I don't see how you can second-guess that you're being asked 
to help as a last resort.

>                             There were no "exceptional circumstances" 
> involved. 

     Mal must be using his crystal ball here.


> 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 at comcast.net 
>   To: cq-contest at 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 at contesting.com
>   http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

-- 
Kenneth E. Harker WM5R
kenharker at kenharker.com
http://www.kenharker.com/