Comm - How to talk with event organizers at Airshows

[Eclipse]

Though not a lawyer, I woudn't worry about that law being applied in a case like this.  It appears that you're good to go so long as you don't have some nefarious purpose.  Elsewise GoogleEarth would have been shut down and thousands jailed years ago for distributing aerial photos of military installations.

Few, if any military bases are "secret" in regards to their location, and if they are, they aren't visible from the sky.  Further, most Google earth and similar other photos are a year+ old before they are posted, so not much use beyond general terms.

I encourage you to walk up the gate and start taking photographs and see if you receive any..."reaction".

[JoeTomasone]

Few, if any military bases are "secret" in regards to their location, and if they are, they aren't visible from the sky.  Further, most Google earth and similar other photos are a year+ old before they are posted, so not much use beyond general terms.

Yup.   Google Earth's photos of the FOB that I am on in Iraq are from 2004.

[RiverAux]

Though not a lawyer, I woudn't worry about that law being applied in a case like this.  It appears that you're good to go so long as you don't have some nefarious purpose.  Elsewise GoogleEarth would have been shut down and thousands jailed years ago for distributing aerial photos of military installations.

So the message here is "it's OK to violate the law as long as you think you won't be punished"?

No, my reading of the code you cited is that the legaility of the action depends on the intent with which it was taken. 

[Eclipse]

No, my reading of the code you cited is that the legaility of the action depends on the intent with which it was taken.

Yes, by all means let's split Supreme-Court-level hairs on a regulation designed to protect us and the people we are trying to help... 

[RiverAux]

No, my reading of the code you cited is that the legaility of the action depends on the intent with which it was taken.

Yes, by all means let's split Supreme-Court-level hairs on a regulation designed to protect us and the people we are trying to help... 

The law is all about splitting hairs.  If one read the part of the law regarding photographs of military aircraft the same as some apparently want to apply it towards CAP radio frequencies, most of CAP would be thrown in jail for taking photos of AF jets at airshows. 

I'm not advocating making CAP radio freqs easy to find, but before someone starts making noise about getting such information suppressed from the internet, and not just CAP web sites, they might want to know what kind of legal force is available for such a campaign.

[RedFox24]

Ok I am glad I got the over react that I wanted to prove a point.  You guys are taking all of this way to seroius.  Eclipse, Joe and a2capt take a deep breath.........PLEASE.

Read the last sentence of my post.  Sarcasm font.........get it.

As for air shows, yes they are fun if you like that kind of stuff.  I don't.  I guess having to stand in the middle of a field 20 some years ago as a cadet burning up in a pickle suit parking cars and getting yelled at on why people couldn't park closer or if there was a spot that was not in the mud left a bad impression on me.  I hated air shows ever sense and I don't to to them, CAP or as a civilian.  And I didn't allow my units or people to participate in car parking or marshaling as a commander either. 

Now back to comms......we have regs and we must follow them.  And the regs do not allow for us as CAP to talk to ANYONE other than CAP on CAP radios.  And the regs are pretty clear that we cant talk on others radios when we are CAP.  We also don't work with served agencies in a comms capacity because we don't have any. 

And as some of you like to point out regularly, we don't need comms anyway because we have phones and email and text and other ways to talk to those we don't serve. 

[RADIOMAN015]

My point, perhaps made a bit obscurely, is that any CAP member who comes across a web site posting our frequencies should be actively working to notify NHQ and have that content removed.

In cases where it can be shown that posting is illegal something is illegal Google is very good about removing those page from their searches.

Also, though I'm not being naive about this, a quick check of the first 10 results from the link above provides one page with WB numbers (that have been in use and public for years and before FOUO), and then a lot of discussion of the transition with no detail posted.  So if you, or anyone else, can find a site with the new freqs posted, please cite.

There's at least two major (well known national) radio monitoring websites, that are posting current actual monitoring results about our network to include frequencies found, net schedules, and repeater locations.

There also was (and probably still is) some wings' websites that had current channel plans & communications operations plans (which included repeater sites, station callsigns locations, etc.) to the publically accessible side of the websites.

I think some radio monitoring hobbyists see CAP's new radio communications network as the "forbidden fruit" that needs to be found.  It's relatively easy for those dedicated radio monitoring hobbyists to search for new frequencies, especially repeater output frequencies.  (The simplex frequencies will be a bit more challenging )  Additionally some radio scanner equipment has a technical function called "close call capture", which depending upon effective rated power at the transmitter site (and relative noise level at the receiver site), allows instant display of frequency as well as analog access tones (ctcss/dcs) & Digital P25 CAC NAC (network access code), about a mile from the source, even with a portable receiver with a rubber duckie antenna in a moving vehicle!!!   

As far as removal of information by request.  The USAF already tried that with one nationwide hobby website via a "request".   However, apparently the website owner got legal advice that basically stated that the information could remain on the site.
RM

[JoeTomasone]

Ok I am glad I got the over react that I wanted to prove a point.  You guys are taking all of this way to seroius.  Eclipse, Joe and a2capt take a deep breath.........PLEASE.

To quote the inestimable Will Smith: "Don't start nuthin', won't BE nuthin'"..

I'm pretty serious on CAPTALK when it appears that someone may be posting misinformation, yes.    Sarcasm, as you obviously realize, does not translate too well on the Internet.

Now back to comms......we have regs and we must follow them.  And the regs do not allow for us as CAP to talk to ANYONE other than CAP on CAP radios.

But again, here you are wrong.   I could tell you why, but at this point I am compelled to suggest a thorough re-read of 100-1 because I am not convinced that you have a firm grasp of its contents.   

  And the regs are pretty clear that we cant talk on others radios when we are CAP.  We also don't work with served agencies in a comms capacity because we don't have any. 

Unless this is more masked sarcasm, refer to the above. 

[JoeTomasone]

Additionally some radio scanner equipment has a technical function called "close call capture"

Actually a LOT of it exists at this point.  And yes, it does all of the above quite well.   

Want one?  $100. 

http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2501194&filterName=Brand&filterValue=Uniden%C3%82%C2%AE


The frequencies WILL get out there, no matter how CAP or USAF feels about the matter.  There's too many people who enjoy monitoring radio as a hobby and who have this very sort of equipment for it to remain secret too long.    After all, most units post their activities on public web sites along with the location; it's not terribly hard to figure out where the radios will be.     However, despite what I feel is a futile position, CAP and USAF want the frequencies protected, so protect them we must.

Chalk it up to one more thing required of us that just doesn't make sense.

[PHall]

Knowing how often most Wings update their websites the only frequency info posted are the old wideband frequencies.

[SarDragon]

Um, no - the sites where our frequencies are posted. Saying you can Google for them, and actually presenting sites with that information are two different things.

Try this.

For the most part, that info is bovine excrement, particularly the VHF freqs. I especially like this paragraph:

CAP and NTIA have just begun installing the new 26 MHz AM radio gear in CAP vans, so right now, there is very little activity on those channels, as well as the 419 MHz channels.

What a crock!

[JoeTomasone]

CAP and NTIA have just begun installing the new 26 MHz AM radio gear in CAP vans, so right now, there is very little activity on those channels, as well as the 419 MHz channels.

<giggle><snort>