[aprssig] "Emergency!" test convention?

[Danny]

I think setting a quiet time is dangerous.  An emergency WILL happen during that quiet time, will be ignored, and could result in loss of life.  

Somewhere in Part 97 you will find blurbs about properly identifying emergency transmissions.  That is all that is required here.  No different than identifying your tranmsmissions during the SET as TEST transmissions.

The more I think about this proposed quiet time, the more I cringe.

Danny Messano
KE4RAP



Wednesday, July 21, 2004, 10:47:14 AM, you wrote:

K> Danny, I think you misunderstand me. The purpose of a quiet period for
K> emergency testing is very real and specific, and as far as I remember, Part
K> 97 does not establish any such quiet zone. I've just searched it and didn't
K> find anything there. I'm not proposing redundancy, I'm asking if this issue
K> has already been addressed and your reference to Part97 seems only to
K> confirm that it has not.

K> Consider, if you are monitoring a system to receive an emergency
K> transmission....Would you want to get alerted every time someone wanted to
K> deploy a new system and test it? Redundancy? Hardly. It only needs one
K> sentence, i.e. "A period of...shall be established for...and Mic-E
K> "emergency!" transmissions in this period shall be considered tests to be
K> ignored."


K> [The internet is running out of vowels, please cut-n-paste and don't quote
K> wholesale messages.<G>]




-- 

Danny