Out of cell phone range

[Eclipse]

If something bad happens whereby we need to call in the calvary I will use that radio. Otherwise, yes it will stay in the pack.

Remember Major, we are talking about what to do when a cell phone doesnt work; when mine doesnt work, I go for my Kenwood... and ILWG does have an MOU for statewide.

The "Armageddon Scenario" that members like to use as an excuse for everything does not justify breaking CAP, NTIA, FCC, or other rules and regs.

I would love to see that MOU, because to my understanding no such document or agreement exists.  Please post a link or forward me a copy.

[isuhawkeye]

Not to but in,  But most all communications regulators have clauses in regulation that allows for communication by any means necessary in the event of emergency.  That is explicitly true of the FCC. 

[davedove]

In TX, we have DPS frequencies available on our radios for emergencies. However, the areas where our cell phones blank out are also areas where we can't get good line of site with our radios. Down in canyons and areas where there's just nothing.

That's the same situation we have in the mountainous areas of western Maryland.  In fact, cell phones tend to be more reliable than radios.

[RRLE]

All CAP planes should have marine radio freqencies programmed into them so that they can work with units on rivers and lakes from the Coast Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary, state fish and wildlife agencies, local sheriff departments, etc.

With the possible exception of "immediate danger to life or property" where does CAP get authorization to use Marine VHF radios in aircraft?

I can find nothing in the FCC Maritime Mobile Service Rules that allows it. The USCG Auxiliary installs radios in planes and vehicles but they can only be used when under CG orders and activing as a public vessel, aircraft, vehicle of the US.

Good intentions are not enough when it comes to the FCC. Without specific authorization, CAP cannot transmit on Marine frequencies from aircraft unless there is 'immediate danger'. Could you enlighten us as to where the specific authorization comes from?

[SAR-EMT1]

If something bad happens whereby we need to call in the calvary I will use that radio. Otherwise, yes it will stay in the pack.

Remember Major, we are talking about what to do when a cell phone doesnt work; when mine doesnt work, I go for my Kenwood... and ILWG does have an MOU for statewide.

The "Armageddon Scenario" that members like to use as an excuse for everything does not justify breaking CAP, NTIA, FCC, or other rules and regs.

I would love to see that MOU, because to my understanding no such document or agreement exists.  Please post a link or forward me a copy.

Eclipse you can ask IceNine about that authorization; specifically its for some USCG channels and the statewide freqs for PD and Fire. (I just dont understand why we have the CG freqs)

[RRLE]

I just dont understand why we have the CG freqs

After my post, I did some research and found CAP (or anyone else in a plane) could use Marine VHF Ch6 or 16 for safety reasons. No other channels or freqs are authorized - at least none that I could find.

First - CFR Title 47: Telecommunication PART 80—STATIONS IN THE MARITIME SERVICES Subpart B—Applications and Licenses

§ 80.47   Operation during emergency.
A station may be used for emergency communications when normal communication facilities are disrupted. The Commission may order the discontinuance of any such emergency communication service.

Notice this emergency use authorization is different then aeronautical or even the amateur bands. It does not authorize use do to 'immediate danger'. It only authorizes use if normal comms are disrupted. That would mean that Marine VHF is not allowed in an aircraft if the aero radio is working. However I did find two exceptions to that.

United States National Search and Rescue Supplement to the International Aeronautical and Maritime Search and Rescue Manual May 2000

Footnote 4 to Figure 3-3. Alerting, SAR Operations, and Maritime Safety Frequencies states:

Frequencies 156.3 and 156.8 MHz may also be used by aircraft for safety purposes only.

156.3 = Marine VHF Ch 6
156.8 = Marine VHF Ch 16


Note the authorization is only for two channels (6 and 16) and for "safety purposes only". It is debatable whether that would cover using the channels to conduct an entire SAR case. What seems very clear is that CAP has no authorization to use the regular CG channels (22, 81,82, 83 etc.)

[cap235629]

anyone else wondering if CCSE and RRLE might be the same person?  Always looking for errors or supposed violations?

[SarDragon]

Nah. The mods keep pretty close track of dupe accounts.

They seem similar, but there are more than a few folks out there with a penchant for being pedantic, myself included, each in our own area(s) of concentration.

[airdale]

... when you're in a CAP uniform you are not allowed to use that radio as a transmitter.

You rules-worshipers crack me up.  In an emergency then, would you take off your clothes before transmitting?

[PHall]

... when you're in a CAP uniform you are not allowed to use that radio as a transmitter.

You rules-worshipers crack me up.  In an emergency then, would you take off your clothes before transmitting?

Please do, and get pictures too!

[SSgt Rudin]

I just dont understand why we have the CG freqs

After my post, I did some research and found CAP (or anyone else in a plane) could use Marine VHF Ch6 or 16 for safety reasons. No other channels or freqs are authorized - at least none that I could find.

First - CFR Title 47: Telecommunication PART 80—STATIONS IN THE MARITIME SERVICES Subpart B—Applications and Licenses

§ 80.47   Operation during emergency.
A station may be used for emergency communications when normal communication facilities are disrupted. The Commission may order the discontinuance of any such emergency communication service.

Notice this emergency use authorization is different then aeronautical or even the amateur bands. It does not authorize use do to 'immediate danger'. It only authorizes use if normal comms are disrupted. That would mean that Marine VHF is not allowed in an aircraft if the aero radio is working. However I did find two exceptions to that.

United States National Search and Rescue Supplement to the International Aeronautical and Maritime Search and Rescue Manual May 2000

Footnote 4 to Figure 3-3. Alerting, SAR Operations, and Maritime Safety Frequencies states:

Frequencies 156.3 and 156.8 MHz may also be used by aircraft for safety purposes only.

156.3 = Marine VHF Ch 6
156.8 = Marine VHF Ch 16


Note the authorization is only for two channels (6 and 16) and for "safety purposes only". It is debatable whether that would cover using the channels to conduct an entire SAR case. What seems very clear is that CAP has no authorization to use the regular CG channels (22, 81,82, 83 etc.)

That makes perfect sense, I don't know how many of you are familiar with Operation Southeast Watch, with out going into great detail (OPSEC) our aircraft fly more than 3 miles out over water. If I were flying on one of these missions, regardless of what the FCC says, if we are going down I'm calling the Coast Guard on CH16. I would rather pay what ever fine the FCC slaps me with and get the Coast Guard bird in the air before we hit the water than wait the extra 5 minutes for the FAA, NTSB or who ever to call the Coast Guard.

On another point, lets say a CAP Flight is near the water, they see a red flare from a boat. It is hard for me to believe that the FCC is going to through a hissy fit if said CAP Flight attempts to hail the vessel on 16 and if not possible sends out a "Pan Pan" message to the Coast Guard or even a "Securitay" to get another boat in the area to go help them out.

[Eclipse]

If you have special mission needs, then steps should be taken in advance to insure everyone is safe and the mission can be executed effectively, that includes MOUs for comms, additional equipment, etc.

All of that is possible within our rules, with proper planning.

Anything more than that is the same spurious "safety" argument that members who wore Gore-Tex before it was approved repeated constantly.

Our organization has rules, and interacts with others that have rules, and we all live in a country with rules.

We're supposed to follow them, and plan accordingly so our operations stay within them.

[airdale]

Our organization has rules, and interacts with others that have rules, and we all live in a country with rules. We're supposed to follow them ...     ...spurious "safety" argument...

Wow.  I'll bet that you won't find a single organization (other than religions) that has "Making our members follow the rules." as a primary mission statement or organizational objective.

The reason, of course, is that the rules are a means and not an end.  Other things, like safety and operational exigencies, can and should be cause for rules to be broken.  The guy shooting flares from Rudin's theoretical boat would certainly  be better off if it were Rudin or SAR-EMT1 in the airplane and not you.  And making him better off is an objective of the organization.

The FAA "gets it:"  Sec. 91.3 - Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.

(b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency.

Maybe CAP needs a rule like this to make the real objective clearer to some.

[Eclipse]

The end does not justify the means, however the logic that it does is generally what causes most issues for members in CAP.

Take a look at a web site like Hamsexy.com and see the ultimate road where this thinking can takes you.




CAP has a very specific set of allowable missions and activities, is rarely in a first responder mode on anything but an ELT, and even more rarely do members find themselves in a position where standard CAP comm gear and cel phones are inadequate (in which case they probably shouldn't be there).

Remember, the consequences for this kind of activity are not limited to you, the collateral damage of screwing with CAP's reputation with outside agencies gets all over all of us.

[KyCAP]

Coming to the thread late..

Ky Wing has an MOU with the Department of Military Affairs which addresses the use of their statewide VHF microwave linked system.  It's built out to provide coverage in the nooks and crannies where cell coverage DOESN'T work in E. KY.   I was IC of a mission where that Verizon, Sprint, Cingular and T-mobile all didn't work plus the local cell company (yes they still exist) didn't work.. but I had Crystal clear VHF comms to the state EOC and my air ops branch director was calling the EOC 800 number and they were patching his voice calls to me and I was only using EF Johnson handheld.

* I am on digital Roam on EvDO in my hotel room in Santa Ana, CA with Sprint.. What's that about?  Thought I was coming TO civiliation...

[Ricochet13]

All CAP planes should have marine radio freqencies programmed into them so that they can work with units on rivers and lakes from the Coast Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary, state fish and wildlife agencies, local sheriff departments, etc.

With the possible exception of "immediate danger to life or property" where does CAP get authorization to use Marine VHF radios in aircraft?

I can find nothing in the FCC Maritime Mobile Service Rules that allows it. The USCG Auxiliary installs radios in planes and vehicles but they can only be used when under CG orders and activing as a public vessel, aircraft, vehicle of the US.

Good intentions are not enough when it comes to the FCC. Without specific authorization, CAP cannot transmit on Marine frequencies from aircraft unless there is 'immediate danger'. Could you enlighten us as to where the specific authorization comes from?

You may want to check with your wing DC about programming USCG channels 21, 22, 23, etc into your corporate communications assets.  In our wing, VHF mobile and aircraft VHF are all programmed with USCG VHF marine frequencies.  No need to have a separate VHF marine transceiver.  If I remember correctly, there was an MOU with the USCG regarding use of these frequencies.  We've had several occasions in which communications with USCG helos has been necessary during both ELT and actual searches.

[Tubacap]

^ditto

[Eclipse]

In land-locked states the USCG is rarely involved in CAP missions.

Even in IL, there isn't even a CG station in the Chicago area, they come down from Milwaukee, and the few times we've done something on the lakefront, it for EPIRBS and the CPD Marine unit was more involved that the USCG.

[RiverAux]

Don't forget that there are CG Aux units in many inland areas that could be potential cooperators.... NC Wing has worked with them lately on lake patrols.  Also, it isn't terribly unusual for CAP to be asked to help look for missing boaters and having marine frequencies programmed in CAP planes can allow communication with boats searching down on the water.