HAM Radios and CAP

[Holding Pattern]

http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/emergency_services/communications-blog/?ham_radio_and_cap&show=entry&blogID=1700

I like this article. The only things missing are the justification regulations/laws on either side of the FCC/NTIA boundary.

And on that note, can someone quote for me which section excludes CAP from use of FCC Amateur radio frequencies?

Obviously, not "which cap regulation" as the regs are quite clear.
http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/R100_001_162D77B8183A1.pdf

CAPR 100-1

11-2. Use of Amateur Radio Service by CAP. CAP members acting in any CAP capacity may
not use amateur radio frequencies on behalf of CAP.

a. When the Civil Air Patrol conducts operational missions for the Air Force, it functions
as an "instrumentality of the United States", IAW CAPR 20-1, Organization of Civil Air Patrol,
paragraph 4. Because CAP uses federal frequencies managed by the NTIA and assigned to the
Air Force, CAP is defined as a federal frequency user, regardless of the "customer." Under
federal law and regulation, instrumentalities of the United States and federal frequency users are
prohibited from encroaching on civilian frequencies regulated by the Federal Communications
Commission, including amateur radio frequencies.
b. FCC rules prohibit conducting the business of any organization on amateur radio
frequencies for pecuniary (financial) interest. Because CAP members receive Federal Tort
Claims Act (FTCA) insurance and Federal Employee Compensation Act (FECA) insurance,
CAP members have pecuniary interest while signed in to Air Force tasked missions and have the
status of a federal employee.
c. Where amateur radio "third party" traffic is needed to support a CAP mission, CAP
communication managers may seek the support of local amateur radio clubs and organizations.
CAP members who are licensed amateur radio operators and who are not acting in any CAP
capacity (e.g. not signed into a mission) are not prohibited from exercising their amateur
privileges and supporting affiliated amateur organizations using privately owned amateur
equipment.
d. Amateur radio frequencies shall not be programmed into corporate radios, including
those purchased with local assets, except as provided in paragraph 9-14.

I THINK it revolves around a couple of sections here, and this makes sense to me now if I'm reading this right, as to why we used to, and why we now can't:

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2002-title47-vol5/pdf/CFR-2002-title47-vol5-sec97-113.pdf

I saw this, and I thought... so this seems to say we can...

97.111 Authorized transmissions.

(a) An amateur station may transmit
the following types of two-way communications:

[snip]

(2) Transmissions necessary to exchange
messages with a station in another
FCC-regulated service while providing
emergency communications;
(3) Transmissions necessary to exchange
messages with a United States
government station, necessary to providing
communications in RACES; and
(4) Transmissions necessary to exchange
messages with a station in a
service not regulated by the FCC, but
authorized by the FCC to communicate
with amateur stations. An amateur
station may exchange messages with a
participating United States military
station during an Armed Forces Day
Communications Test.

Looks good, right?

Then I read the next section:

97.113 Prohibited transmissions.

(a) No amateur station shall transmit:

(1) Communications specifically prohibited
elsewhere in this part;
(2) Communications for hire or for
material compensation, direct or indirect,
paid or promised, except as otherwise
provided in these rules;
(3) Communications in which the station
licensee or control operator has a
pecuniary interest, including communications
on behalf of an employer.
[snip]
(5) Communications, on a regular
basis, which could reasonably be furnished
alternatively through other
radio services.

Oh.

So when the AF bought us a stack of shiny new radios (We appreciate them! We do!), 97.113a(5) appears to have kicked in, kicking us OUT.

This makes more sense to me than the "pecuniary interest" argument, especially since my initial reading of the WAWG/WSDOT MOU seems to indicate that we DON'T enjoy those protections here. (I could be reading it wrong.)

That being said, I've yet to dive into the NTIA rules to see exactly what it says about Federal Frequency Users. Anyone here versed on that willing to give me the nickel tour?

[lordmonar]

We can't use amateur freqs....because we are not amateurs....as far as radio comms go.   We use military freqs.
So just like the military can't use amateur freqs for military comms....we can't.

It kind of a no brainer.

Hams get freqs and are told to stay off the military freqs.   We get a military freq and are told to stay off the ham freqs.

[arajca]

Way back when, according information I've been told, CAP approached the FCC for a nationwide set of frequencies. The FCC said they did not have any frequencies available nationwide that CAP could use. They had plenty of different frequencies available on a region-wide basis, but nothing on a nation-wide basis. The DoD did have some so that's what we went with.

[Holding Pattern]

We can't use amateur freqs....because we are not amateurs....as far as radio comms go.   We use military freqs.
So just like the military can't use amateur freqs for military comms....we can't.

It kind of a no brainer.

Hams get freqs and are told to stay off the military freqs.   We get a military freq and are told to stay off the ham freqs.

Just because something is a no brainer doesn't mean that we shouldn't understand the legal underpinnings behind it. That is what I am looking at here.

[Holding Pattern]

Way back when, according information I've been told, CAP approached the FCC for a nationwide set of frequencies. The FCC said they did not have any frequencies available nationwide that CAP could use. They had plenty of different frequencies available on a region-wide basis, but nothing on a nation-wide basis. The DoD did have some so that's what we went with.

If by any chance you can dig up some information on this, I'd appreciate it!

[jdh]

I will ask the ARRL guy that is teaching the HAM courses to our squadron and let you know what he says. We are in the process of getting several of our people HAM licenses with the help of ARES.

[Brad]

To the OP, you asked and answered your own question. To quote CAPR 100-1 same as you:

11-2a. When the Civil Air Patrol conducts operational missions for the Air Force, it functions as an "instrumentality of the United States", IAW CAPR 20-1, Organization of Civil Air Patrol, paragraph 4. Because CAP uses federal frequencies managed by the NTIA and assigned to the Air Force, CAP is defined as a federal frequency user, regardless of the "customer." Under federal law and regulation, instrumentalities of the United States and federal frequency users are prohibited from encroaching on civilian frequencies regulated by the Federal Communications Commission, including amateur radio frequencies.

So we are precluded from using FCC frequencies for CAP business either through A.) when we're an instrumentality of the United States, such as  on an Air Force assigned mission, or B.) because we have federal NTIA frequencies assigned to us, and to shirk those and use FCC frequencies just because we felt like it would be encroachment.

Why is it this way? Because that's the way the government has divided communications into this two-sided coin.

More information:

NTIA Redbook (particularly Chapter 7):  http://www.ntia.doc.gov/page/2011/manual-regulations-and-procedures-federal-radio-frequency-management-redbook

Radio Spectrum Management and Allocations: http://wiki.radioreference.com/index.php/Radio_Spectrum_Management_and_Allocations

NTIA Website: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/

[SarDragon]

Expressed a little differently, the entire frequency spectrum in the US belongs to the federal government, under control of the NTIA. All of it.

They parcel out some frequency bands to various user groups - commercial, aviation, amateurs, and broadcast radio and TV, among others - that are under purview of the FCC. The remainder are mostly assigned to government users and are directly controlled by the NTIA. Since our frequencies and usage are considered under the federal government, we operate by NTIA rules. CAP ceased operations under the FCC around 2003.

[FW]

Way back when, according information I've been told, CAP approached the FCC for a nationwide set of frequencies. The FCC said they did not have any frequencies available nationwide that CAP could use. They had plenty of different frequencies available on a region-wide basis, but nothing on a nation-wide basis. The DoD did have some so that's what we went with.

Actually, it was the Air Force which had us make the switch.  It coincided with our larger reorganization, funding status, etc.

[arajca]

Way back when, according information I've been told, CAP approached the FCC for a nationwide set of frequencies. The FCC said they did not have any frequencies available nationwide that CAP could use. They had plenty of different frequencies available on a region-wide basis, but nothing on a nation-wide basis. The DoD did have some so that's what we went with.

Actually, it was the Air Force which had us make the switch.  It coincided with our larger reorganization, funding status, etc.

OK. Dredging up information from 10+ years ago from the depths of my organic storage unit does not always mean it's 100% accurate.

[sardak]

Review of Part 87 of the [Federal Communications] Commission's Rules
Concerning the Aviation Radio Service

WT Docket No. 01-289

NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING

Adopted:  October 10, 2001              Released: October 16, 2001


H.   Removal of References to Civil Air Patrol (CAP)
3.     Part 87 contains several references to the Civil Air Patrol (CAP).  While we have licensed CAP stations in the past, these licenses have expired.  At this time, we have no formal relationship with the CAP, which is currently authorized by the Air Force and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA).  Moreover, the CAP, similar to other aviation licensees, can obtain any necessary Part 87 licenses under our general licensing procedures.  We seek comment on whether we should eliminate the specific references to the CAP that appear in Part 87. 
--------------
The rule was adopted and published in the Federal Register on June 14, 2004.  There were a lot of other changes made in this rule making, not just the CAP sections. Again, this change simply removed all the CAP references, because as the docket states, CAP had already stopped using the frequencies.

All of CAP's VHF and HF frequencies for "land and mobile stations" were authorized under Part 87, Subpart R, of the FCC rules, even though Part 87 is Aeronautical Services. CAP transmitters were not required to be type accepted and the VHF freqs were at either end of the ham 2 meter band. This is why ham radio radios were sold with either an easy mod, or no mod needed, to transmit on CAP frequencies.

Subpart R included this "When engaged in training or on actual missions in support of the U.S. Air Force, Civil Air Patrol stations may communicate with U.S. Air Force stations on the frequencies specified in subpart E."

Each wing was required to submit its own license application for land and mobile stations. The license didn't have to be updated each time the number of transmitters changed (what a job that would have been) but the current number of transmitters had to be listed when a license was renewed.

Mike

[JoeTomasone]

Most of the objections stated in the blog post are fantasy.

There is no prohibition in Part 97 that:

1. Precludes USG stations from communicating with hams.  In fact, it says that this is PERMISSIBLE, as was pointed out above.

2. Prevents a ham from using amateur radio to pass third-party (CAP, for example) traffic.  The fact that the ham is also legally authorized to use another radio service (CAP, land mobile, public safety, etc) does not change the fact that he is a licensed ham.  The FCC doesn't care if you are "signed in to the mission", they would care if CAP was wholesale using amateur radio for their internal purposes.  But a ham signed into a DR mission that relays to an EOC that a CAP aircraft just spotted a damaged bridge is doing exactly what the Amateur Service exists for.  He may be the same guy, but the CAP member and the ham are legally different. The CAP member is no more using the HAM frequencies illegally than the HAM is using the CAP frequencies illegally.  Notice there's no requirement for a HAM to be signed in to a mission to act as a CAP communicator.  Part 97 makes no statement concerning what OTHER services an individual may be licensed to use - even in conjunction with third-party traffic.

3. Prevents USG stations from being on/using Amateur frequencies.  The difference between a non-ham using the frequencies under Part 97 versus other legal authorization is lost on Mr. Marek.  For example: http://www.arrl.org/news/amateur-radio-federal-government-engaged-in-joint-5-mhz-communication-exercise


The assertion in 100-1 that because CAP members are covered by insurance when on an AFAM that somehow they are precluded from using ham radio since ham radio cannot be used for "pecuniary interest" is ridiculous on its face.   The Part 97 prohibition concerns using ham radio in connection with one's employment or for pay, which the CAP member/ham is clearly not doing, since we are neither employees of the corporation nor is insurance coverage - especially when not used - considered payment, and even if one did receive such a payment, it would not be as compensation for operating the radio.

[lordmonar]

That's a recipe for getting someone's wrist slapped.

100-1 says....don't do it.
So...don't do it.
If AERS is up and running....let some other AERS HAM handle that traffic.
Don't cross the streams.

[JoeTomasone]

I'm not saying to violate 100-1 - just that the reasoning behind that part of it is false.

[Holding Pattern]

I'm not saying to violate 100-1 - just that the reasoning behind that part of it is false.

I've also been curious if using that someone could provide the inverse reasoning on an insurance claim: They were using a radio on a CAP activity and were therefore on a de facto AFAM, because that was the justification of using those mil freqs.

[Fubar]

The CAP comm folks have repeated this a number of times:

• An enormous amount of capital was invested in CAP comm equipment (millions?)
• We look bad if we use non-CAP equipment after spending all that money

Therefore, CAPR 100-1 says only use CAP equipment. The issue of course is when CAP comm equipment can't get the job done and then we're told we're SOL.

[arajca]

The CAP comm folks have repeated this a number of times:

• An enormous amount of capital was invested in CAP comm equipment (millions?)
• We look bad if we use non-CAP equipment after spending all that money

Therefore, CAPR 100-1 says only use CAP equipment. The issue of course is when CAP comm equipment can't get the job done and then we're told we're SOL.

Yes, millions. 20+ IIRC.
It's not using non-CAP equipment that causes heartburn. I use non-CAP equipment for VHF almost exclusively (personal). It's using non-type accepted equipment that causes problems. Ham gear is not certified for CAP frequencies. The old way of modifying the radio to operate on CAP frequencies worked, but the equipment was never designed, tested, or approved for that. It was technically illegal, even though many members did it because it was cheap.

If CAP equipment can't get the job done, write a proposal for equipment that will. Don't say you need a specific piece of equipment, define the problem you're trying to solve. The equipment CAP has does have more capabilities than we typically use, so it may be just a matter of training to use some of the the unused functions.

CAPR 100-1 does not say to use only CAP equipment. It says to use equipment that is accepted for use on CAP frequencies. There is a difference.

[Fubar]

CAPR 100-1 does not say to use only CAP equipment. It says to use equipment that is accepted for use on CAP frequencies. There is a difference.

Ok, I guess I should have said we spent millions on CAP equipment for CAP frequencies, using non-CAP frequencies makes us look bad because then we're not using the equipment we spent millions on.

[sardak]

Ham gear is not certified for CAP frequencies. The old way of modifying the radio to operate on CAP frequencies worked, but the equipment was never designed, tested, or approved for that.

Ham gear doesn't have to be certified. That's why hams can build and use their own radios.

It was legal to use ham gear to transmit on CAP frequencies, and the manufacturers noted in specs and advertisements that their equipment was CAP capable. As I noted in my previous post, CAP land and mobile frequencies, including VHF and HF were authorized in Part 87 of the the FCC rules and CAP radios did not have to be certified.

§ 87.145 Acceptability of transmitters for licensing.
(a) Each transmitter must be certificated for use in these services, except as listed in paragraph (c) of this section.
(c) The equipment listed below is exempted from certification. The operation of transmitters which have not been certificated must not result in harmful interference due to the failure of those transmitters to comply with technical standards of this subpart.
(1) Development or Civil Air Patrol transmitters.

Mike

[lordmonar]

No...it is not legal to use "HAM" gear on CAP freqs.

Only those on the approved list can be used.

The FCC does not have anything to do with CAP Comm.  NTIA is our rules maker.