Q. Our club has several members who hold
Technician Class operator licenses and are studying to upgrade to General Class. Can we allow them to operate
on more than their tiny Tech 10 meter HF segment in the upcoming DX phone contest as long as there is a control operator present?
A. Heretofore, the answer would have been the unequivocal: “No, they should first
earn those privileges by upgrading their operational and technical skills to that of the higher class operator.”
That was the basis of a 1960s era incentive licensing rule making. Nowadays, however, the practice
of persons enjoying higher class control operator privileges without passing the required examination is obviously gaining
momentum in places where the FCC regulates our amateur service. The objective is apparently to enlarge
the ULS data base by encouraging people to
experience talking over ham radio. If it is to their liking, they 1) engage in a phone operation apprenticeship;
2) purchase some import radios, antennas, etc.; 3) get a call sign; and then hopefully 4) learn something about amateur radio
from veteran hams over the air.
Q. Where’s the rule that authorizes such a major change?
A.
There is the mystery. Many of the questions are about Field Day GOTA Rule 4.1.1.3, which says:
As per FCC rules, this station must have a valid control operator present if operating
beyond the license privileges of the participant using the station. GOTA rule 4.1.1.2 says
that a GOTA station may be operated by any person licensed since the previous Field Day, regardless of license class.
Non-licensed persons may participate under the direct supervision of an appropriate control operator. Field
Day 2011 rule 4.1.1, moreover, says that a GOTA station may operate on any HF or VHF Field Day band. These Field Day Rules,
however, do not cite any such FCC rule upon which they proclaim to be based. Nor does Part 97 mention anyone being authorized to operate an amateur station, other than
in the context of the control operator. Section 97.7(a), moreover, says that when transmitting, each amateur station must have
a control operator.
Our regulator is obligated under Article 25 of the international
Radio Regulations. Therein, Section I Amateur Service 25.6
2) says that administrations shall verify the operational and technical qualifications of any person wishing to
operate an amateur station. Guidance for standards of competence may be found in the most recent version of Recommendation
ITU-R M.1544. (WRC-03). The FCC has delegated
the responsibility to our amateur service community for determining what it is that the examinee should know in order to perform
properly the duties of an amateur service licensee. It is embodied in some 1600 questions contained in
three pools maintained by our 14 Volunteer Examiner Coordinators. Read Section 97.523.
Note that the international authorities
concerns go far beyond those of simply operating an amateur station; they expect verification for those even wishing to do
so.
Q. What, then, is the basis for GOTA Rule 4.1.1.3?
There are
three possibilities: First, a Third Party Message-Stating Participant conjecture may come from a partial reading of Section 97.115. That FCC rule, however, carries a lot of conditions omitted from
GOTA Rule 4.1.1.3. There is much more to it than the control operator simply being present.
Read BE Informed No. 7.
The second possibility is the VPOD (verbalizing person or device) theory, but that is based upon what the rules do not
say. Thirdly, even though they provide exception to the entire Part 97, providing emergency communications Section 97.403 and Section 97.405 do not appear to be the basis for GOTA Rule 4.1.1.3.
So,
unless and until the basis for GOTA Rule 4.1.1.3 is explained satisfactorily, your club should not make it possible for non-
and under-licensed persons to operate your amateur station.
Q. Allowing non-licensed
and under-licensed people to get on the air is a great way to bring new people into the hobby on the path toward taking the
exam and upgrading. It is also totally legal as I read the rules. I have had probably several thousand
cub scouts speak over my radio and we have had hundreds of hams and unlicensed people operate our club’s FD GOTA station.
In none of these instances is there any aspect that suggests to the individual that this is a way to avoid taking a license
exam. It is also great publicity for amateur radio, educating the public as to what ham radio is all about, even if the individuals
do not go on to get licenses. We have had many high level government folks speak over our radios at field day, and I feel
that the educating them is invaluable to the sustenance of the amateur service.
A. Enlarging the licensee data base may be advantageous for
some; maintaining a high level of licensee competencies is advantageous for all. There is considerable
disparity between someone speaking over your radio and someone operating it. Interchanging those terms
seems to be one source of much of the confusion. It is often the cause of the many questions from those
in our amateur service community that advocate compliance. They are asking for that missing link to the
claimed enabling FCC rules. You should share with our amateur service community, and your high level government
officials, your enlightened legal reading of our regulator’s rules that enable non- and under-licensed person to operate
amateur stations.
Q. Opportunities for non-licensed and under-licensed folks to speak over the radio are very special
situations. (GOTA rules even forbid the same person to do GOTA a second year). I know of no individual ham or ham club willing
to provide control operators for people who want to operate regularly, but who do not want to get a license. However, there
are many (thank goodness) who are willing to allow young people and newcomers to have the experience of amateur radio under
the supervision of a properly licensed ham. Likewise, I have trouble believing that anyone interested enough to want to operate
regularly would be satisfied with a situation where they had to seek out licensed ham every time they want to operate.
A. That could become problem as non- and under-licensed
operators grow more commonplace, they eventually might not bother to seek out a qualified control operator.
Q. “Speaking over the radio,” “get on the air,” “operating,” “using the
station,” etc., are just code words for unauthorized apprentice control operators. Some people
use those terms to avoid calling it by its right name: third party communication so as to ignore the requirements
of, and exploit, Section 97.115.
A. That could
be the explanation; that rule provides our safeguards. Those other terms are not used in the rules.
Any person speaking over amateur radio compliantly is either:
1) the station control
operator,
2) a third party message-stating participant,
3) a VPOD,
4) a person using the station as the only means
of radiocommunication at his or her 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, or
5) a person using the station when in distress to attract attention, make known its condition and location, and obtain
assistance or assisting a station in distress.
Q. Which are the rules that authorize us to allow a non-or under license person to speak over our
club station?
A. Under Section 97.115, your station is authorized to transmit messages for a third party to any
station within the jurisdiction of the United States and to any station within the jurisdiction of any foreign government
whose administration has made arrangements with the United States to allow amateur stations to be used for transmitting international
communications on behalf of third parties.
Section 97.115(b), moreover, authorizes the third party to participate in stating the message where
the SCO is present at the control point and is continuously monitoring and supervising the third party's participation, and
the third party is not otherwise ineligible to participate in stating his or her third party message.
Section 97.115(d) says that at the end of an exchange of international third party communications,
the station must also transmit in the station identification procedure the call sign of the station with which a third party
message was exchanged.
Nothing is said about third-party operating.
Q. Who are the persons who are ineligible to be third party participants?
A.
They are prior amateur service licensees having had serious compliance issues with our regulator.
Q. How can our club station SCO make that determination?
A. When your third party has an FCC-issued amateur operator/primary station grant shown on the ULS, there probably is no prohibiting compliance issue. Otherwise,
the most expedient way is to require the third party to sign for, the station log, this statement (Read Section 97.115(b)):
I certify that I am not a prior amateur service licensee whose license was revoked or not
renewed after hearing and re-licensing has not taken place; suspended for less than the balance of the license term and the
suspension is still in effect; suspended for the balance of the license term and re-licensing has not taken place; or surrendered
for cancellation following notice of revocation, suspension or monetary forfeiture proceedings. I am not
the subject of a cease and desist order which relates to amateur service operation and which is still in effect.
Q. Is there any regulation requiring that we maintain the name or copy of the license of those who
speak over our club station under the auspices of the SCO?
A. No.
You may have in mind a former rule that required keeping a record of all third party message traffic sent and received.
There should, however, be a record of the duty SCO because Section 97.103(b) says that the FCC will presume that the station licensee is also the SCO, unless
documentation to the contrary is in the station records.
Q. Don’t the rules require that the SCO be in a position to insure that the rules are complied
with?
A. Yes. Section 97.109 says the SCO must be at the control point and Section 97.105 says that the SCO must ensure the
immediate proper operation of the station.
Q. When a visitor who is a licensed ham wants to operate as the SCO, we need to see his license.
We need to record his information in the extremely remote chance that we are cited for some infraction while he or she is
operating. We should go online and check to see that the license is valid. We should also ask for some
ID to insure ourselves that our visitors are who they say they are.
A.
The SCO must establish that the person is whom he or she claims to be and is eligible to be the SCO under Section 97.7, i.e., a person for whom an amateur operator/primary station license grant appears
on the ULS or who is authorized for alien reciprocal operation by Section 97.107. The only certain way
to verify the ULS appearance claim is to consult the ULS directly online.
To
confirm that the person is authorized for alien reciprocal operation by Section 97.107, you must determine whether or not the person is a citizen of the United
States. If so - even when the person also holds other citizenships - he or she is ineligible for reciprocal
operating authority in any place where the FCC regulates communications.
Next, you should consult the ULS to establish that the alien does not hold a FCC license grant.
No person holding an FCC amateur operator/primary station license grant is eligible for the reciprocal operating authority. Then you should inspect the alien’s license document. Under
Section 97.107, it must have been issued by the alien’s government and there must be in
effect a multilateral or bilateral reciprocal operating arrangement, to which the United States and the alien's government
are parties, for amateur service operation on a reciprocal basis. Consult the FCC webpage Reciprocal Arrangements for listings of the applicable countries.
Q. What would replace the exams?
A. As one reader
pointed out, nothing is more important than safety of human life. If signing a certification is the right
way to determine whether the person has actually read and truly understands something as vital as the RF safety rule, it must likewise be the right way to determine whether the person has read and
understands all of the rules.
Q. I would hate to see the exams go away. Our sessions are enjoyable social events.
The only occasionally bad part is when an examinee must be told that he or she has failed.
A. Some teams have one VE who is very good at doing that, much to the relief of everyone else.
Q. Our new hams are pretty creative. They must have figured out that they can
do anything they want because no one not at the control point, not even our monitors - can determine exactly who is speaking
into the station microphone.
A. Nor can a listener determine if there is a legitimate control operator at the control point.
Q. In the spirit of the GOTA Rules, the ULS data base could be vastly enlarged with a new Apprentice
Class operator license. That would get our amateur service community back on track by bringing the rules
into alignment with our current practice. Just authorize phone privileges on all of our Amateur Extra Class
analog bands. No exams. Just register via the Internet by checking an agree statement:
I certify that I have read - and understood at least 74% of - the applicable
rules in Parts 0, 1, 2, 17, 97 and 214 of the Commission’s Rules regarding the amateur radio service.
A. That would really be something - probably nothing like amateur radio as we have known it - but
still something some hams believe they want. You should, however, rethink your operator privileges proposal;
the other operator classes also want to talk on those frequency segments. It would benefit the multi-multi
phone contest stations that must sometimes run shorthanded or confine their transmissions to the lower operator class bands.
Just say the word if you need help
drafting a Petition for Rule Making.
●▬ ▬
●●●▬ ▬ ▬●●● ●
November 10, 2011
Supersedes all prior editions