First and foremost, in a situation involving the immediate safety of life and/or the immediate protection of property, and where no normal means of communication are available, the rules permit amateurs to use any means to send essential information [97.403]. This rule is straightforward and needs little interpretation. If someone's life or property is immediately threatened and no telephone is available, the last thing you want to do is waste precious time worrying about government regulations. But, be prepared in the aftermath of an incident to justify your action in a possible FCC or local law enforcement inquiry. If other means of communication such as an emergency call box telephone or public communication system are available, they should be used first, before "anything goes."
Another FCC rule states that "an amateur station in distress [is not prohibited from using] any means at its disposal to attract attention, make known its condition and location, and obtain assistance" [97.405(a)]. Also, it states that an amateur station may use any means of radio communication at its disposal to assist another station in distress.
The rules say "When normal communication systems are overloaded, damaged or disrupted because a disaster has occurred, or is likely to occur, . . . an amateur station may make transmissions necessary to meet essential communication needs and facilitate relief actions" [97.401(a)]. This rule is also straightforward: the FCC encourages the use of Amateur Radio for disaster communications.
If a disaster disrupts normal communication, the District Director of the FCC Field Office for the area may restrict certain frequencies for use by stations assisting the stricken area only. All amateur transmissions with, or within, the designated area conducted on the FCC-designated emergency frequencies must pertain directly to relief work, emergency service or the establishment and maintenance of efficient networks for handling emergency traffic. If warranted, the FCC will declare a communications emergency. This usually happens several times each year, generally in connection with a severe hurricane, earthquake or other major event. The FCC may also set forth further special conditions and rules during the communication emergency. Only the FCC or its authorized representative can lift the conditions. Authorized amateurs desiring a declaration of a communication emergency should contact the FCC DD of the area concerned [97.401(c)]. There is an extensive discussion of this rule in Level II of this course. A word of caution about requesting a declaration by the FCC: the rules suggest that such protective declarations are intended to prevent or alleviate interference to emergency communications. If no interference is likely to occur, don't waste the FCC's time with a request for protection.
When a large California forest was destroyed by wildfire, causing the evacuation of tens of thousands of mountain residents, hundreds of ham operators provided support communication for the US Forest Service, the California Department of Forestry, the American Red Cross and other relief agencies. This was a widespread emergency and normal fire and rescue channels were overloaded. Amateurs were called to provide assistance. Once the fires were out, several hams were heard asking, "were we legal?"
Of course they were legal, under both sections 97.401(a) and 97.403 discussed above.
The fact that this question was asked at all, under these circumstances, illustrates the confusing interpretations of the FCC rules within the amateur fraternity. As ARES and/or RACES leaders, you need to discuss these issues with your members as part of your planning efforts.
The confusion stemmed from some old FCC rules. Around 1970, when amateur repeaters first became popular, concerns about possible abuses by non-amateur and business interests led the FCC to prohibit amateur communications "to facilitate the business or commercial affairs of any party" or "as an alternative to other authorized radio services."
Over time, the interpretations of these rules became progressively more literal until they had a chilling effect even on meritorious public service activities. Something had to be done to put things back on track.
In 1993, the FCC dropped the rather broad "no business" language, and replaced it with a more specific prohibition on communications for compensation, on behalf of one's employer, or in which the amateur has a financial interest [97.113(a)(2)(3)]. In place of the flat prohibition on providing an alternative to other radio services is a less restrictive one against doing so on a regular basis [97.113(a)(5)].
These changes meant a great deal to public service-oriented amateurs. They removed the ambiguities that plagued amateur public-service communications for years, and silenced the endless hair-splitting discussions about whether particular communications were permitted.
The focus now is on whether the amateur, or his or her employer, stands to benefit financially, rather than on the content of the communication. If so, then the communication is still prohibited. If not, then the remaining question is whether the communications need is one that ought to be met by some other radio service. Here, the rule of reason applies. Amateur Radio should not meet a need that arises on a regular basis, and for which other communications services are reasonably available. The FCC declined to define "regular," but this shouldn't pose much of a problem for us since abuses will tend to be self- limiting. Volunteers don't like being taken advantage of, and if they are, they should just say no. One popular activity for which there is no practical communication alternative available, collecting data for the National Weather Service, was singled out by the FCC as an example of what is permitted under the new rules. The new rules do not represent a philosophical departure from our "roots." In fact, they are almost identical to the regulations in effect prior to the "no business communications" rule. They provide latitude in our operating and especially in our public service communications, just as we had for decades before the onset of over-regulation in the early '70s. This is one of those rare times when we get to return to the "good old days."
For a more general discussion of the business rules, see Chapter 2 of the ARRL's The FCC Rule Book.
Tactical call signs are often adopted during an emergency, or during large public-service activities. Names like "Med Tent," "Fire 1," "Shelter 2," and "Red Cross Staging" quickly identify each function, and eliminate confusion when working with other agencies for whom amateur call signs are meaningless. They also help prevent confusion when several operators may take turns at a position.
The use of tactical call signs is a good idea, but it in no way relieves you of the obligation to identify your operation under the FCC's Rules for normal station identification. You must still give your FCC-assigned call sign at the end of your communication, and at least every 10 minutes during the contact [97.119].
In a disaster situation where the immediate safety of lives and/or property is at stake, amateurs may provide related communications to the broadcasters for dissemination to the public when no other means of communication is available. Otherwise, under normal conditions, amateurs are prohibited from assisting in program production or news-gathering. [97.113(b)].
During a Florida hurricane disaster a few years ago, a serious accident at a rural site brought an ARES response. A paramedic was already administering first aid. Because of the extent of the injuries, the paramedic asked to confer with a physician who happened to be in the vicinity of the amateur net control station at a hospital 10 miles away.
Strangely, the net control operator refused to allow the physician to speak directly over the radio. In spite of complicated medical terminology and the potential for mistakes, the net control operator insisted on verbally relaying each message. The control operator questioned whether it was would be legal for the paramedic to speak directly with the physician.
Not only would this have been legal as communications in connection with the immediate safety of human life when normal communication systems are not available, but it would also have been permitted under normal circumstances by the third party traffic rules as long as the control operators continuously monitored and supervised the doctor's and paramedic's participation. [97.115(b)(1)].
In this case, the ARES operators should have immediately handed over their microphones to the physician and paramedic.