Got to wonder IF CAP is missing the opportunity to gear up for performing other radio DF missions. The new L-Tronics model LL16 allows DF in the range 108-174 mhz. It wouldn't take much work for the radio technical folks & ES folks to build & use a simple yagi type antenna with a radio scanner and/or amateur radio (wide band receiver with signal strength indicator) to be available for such missions e.g. aid the USCG in finding Hoax distress calls
> PORTLAND, Maine- Coast Guard crews are asking the public for help today to
> trace the source of several probable hoax distress calls received in Maine
> and Massachusetts in the past few weeks.
http://www.uscgnewengland.com/go/doc/778/230876/
Of course, this type of "covert" DF activity means using cellphones and "undercover vehicles" & from the air perhaps text messaging from that cellphone. Not sure sure the orange reflective vest along with the BDU's would fit in. Definitely a different type of mission.
Comments?
RADIOMAN
Quotee.g. aid the USCG in finding Hoax distress calls
That would be a law enforcement mission and as such we wouldn't be able to do it.
Be vewy, vewy quiet. We are hunting tewwowists. Heh, heh, heh..... :D
Your right does sound a little too undercover for a public service organization. In my neck of the woods, dark police type vehicles creeping around at night tend to draw attention if not incoming.
that would be an FCC tasking. Just because we have a skill set doesn't mean we use it for every possible application. The skill set is not actually important, the reason we have it is what's important. More specifically, we do UDF in order to support the AF support of civil aviation. If we don't have as many ELTs to find, we don't look for other UDF applications; we look for other ways to help the AF in it's domestic missions. If that means a different skill set/mission, then that's what we adapt to.
I tend to disagre -- Actually the USCG was asking for the public's help in this mission. Refer to my original post for the USCG new release and also the actual recordings of the false distress calls attached to that press release. The length of transmission time of the signal would make it VERY difficult for DF gear to lock onto -- a significant challenge. CAP with its' aircraft does a lot of other missions that are different than our prime misson e.g. Bird Study in GA. Also in the midwest they strapped another antenna on the aircraft & used it as a test for tracking down a "Project Lifesaver" device http://sheriff.snoco.org/Sheriff_Services/Project_Lifesaver.htm
on the ground and the test seemed to work well. (See the pilots want to fly and really don't care what the mission is for that matter) (I sense The ground teams side is wrapped in a regulatory nightmare of thou shall not rather than looking into leveraging skills into similiar activities (DF'ing is DF'ing whether it's an ELT or another signal)).
There's just not that many organizations in the country that have ground & airborne DF gear. IF there's someone sending false distress signals and WE in CAP have DF capability on that frequency (ies) why not VOLUNTEER to the USCG to assist? There are some innovative people in CAP who are willing to try different challenging missions that maximize the use of CAP air/ground assets for worthwhile missions. At least in the Northeast, none of the wings are that stressed with ELT signal finding or other Missions for America, that they couldn't get involved in these types of activities. Sometimes these people are found just by the pure luck of being at the right place, at the right time, monitoring the right frequency!!! I hope the squadrons in that geographic area consider briefing their personnel and at least monitor that frequency randomly.
RADIOMAN
Quote from: DNall on October 07, 2008, 01:45:48 AM
that would be an FCC tasking. Just because we have a skill set doesn't mean we use it for every possible application. The skill set is not actually important, the reason we have it is what's important. More specifically, we do UDF in order to support the AF support of civil aviation. If we don't have as many ELTs to find, we don't look for other UDF applications; we look for other ways to help the AF in it's domestic missions. If that means a different skill set/mission, then that's what we adapt to.
I'll say it again, finding a signal that is illegally broadcasting a false distress call is a law enforcement mission that CAP is precluded from participating in, no matter how well suited we and our equipment might be to the task. We just can't do it.
Seems like more of a task for hams - one that they have performed many times before.
well that is not true, we as CAP are actually fullfilling an FCC requirement with bogus ELTs going off, yet nothing is done!!! but people have been busted and paid fines because of CAP ELT missions. or a device that is interferring with SARSAT (on 121.5, 243, or harmonics).
Sending CAP out to look for an ELT is a SAR mission. If it later turns out to have been activated illegally and the FCC or other law enforcement agency wants to do something about it, that is their business. However, sending CAP out to locate the source of what is known to be an illegally broadcast hoax distress call would be a direct law enforcement mission and outside the scope of what we are allowed to do.
Quote from: RiverAux on October 10, 2008, 01:09:27 PM
Sending CAP out to look for an ELT is a SAR mission. If it later turns out to have been activated illegally and the FCC or other law enforcement agency wants to do something about it, that is their business. However, sending CAP out to locate the source of what is known to be an illegally broadcast hoax distress call would be a direct law enforcement mission and outside the scope of what we are allowed to do.
I don't agree, River, and think it ultimately depends on the discovery/intent. If the activation is confirmed to have intentional malice and enforcement agencies have resources available, the argument that it's not ours might be made. But I counter that argument with the point that we are DF'ing a signal in free space, not people, and it falls under the same category as CD. But that is for better qualified folks to define. I'm just a technical guy.
A few years ago, we took on a mission for the FAA to help track down a source of unintentional interference to one of their center frequencies. It was highly experimental in nature - more of a "can we do this" test, but we got some great datapoints. I had an ICOM PCR-1000 with laptop audio recording and screenshot capability. We also had a copy of the PIREP RFI log. From the descriptions, it sounded like Intermodulation Distortion from a city repeater.
I had plotted the position of each RFI PIREP on a chart. We worked out a route through the area to best capture it. I fed the PCR-1000 with the airborne repeater antenna with audio recording all the time (hoping to catch good verbage when the intermod occurred).
Murphy's law engaged on takeoff and we heard absolutely nothing - but I thought it was pretty cutting edge for CAP.
Not too many members can brag about doing SIGINT. :)
QuoteBut I counter that argument with the point that we are DF'ing a signal in free space, not people, and it falls under the same category as CD.
It doesn't have anything to do with air space, it has to do with the fact that we would be trying to locate the source of an known illegal activity for the purpose of prosecution or other law enforcement action. CD is an entirely different ballgame since there is a specific exception to the posse comitatus act that allows the military (and by extension, CAP) to participate in certain counterdrug operations.
Quote from: RiverAux on October 10, 2008, 08:24:51 PM
[It doesn't have anything to do with air space, it has to do with the fact that we would be trying to locate the source of an known illegal activity for the purpose of prosecution or other law enforcement action. CD is an entirely different ballgame since there is a specific exception to the posse comitatus act that allows the military (and by extension, CAP) to participate in certain counterdrug operations.
Negative. In my non-legal opinion, transmitting a signal into free space (not airspace), is no different than planting Mary Jane in open fields. It is the transmission that is the target, not the individual. Adding to the fact that the transmission is of a distress nature, you further push the line into "public domain" status.
I recommend you revisit your CD training. CAP is allowed to survey property (fields), but not individuals. The target of a DF mission is the eminated signal, not the individual. You could also make the argument of the Communication Act of 1939.
We're not talking a normal ELT mission -- the signal in that case is considered a distress call unless proven otherwise, so it is very obviously a SAR situation.
The reason we can do CD missions isn't that we're looking at property, we can do it because Congress specifically allows the military to do that mission.
If the USCG suspects that someone is broadcasting a hoax distress signal, which is an illegal act, then it doesn't matter how they are broadcasting, what matters is that they would be requesting assistantce in finding someone who is breaking the law. If you don't think that this is a law enforcement mission, you're crazy.
If the CG wants to call us to help find distress calls they believe to be real, start the engines, thats a SAR case.
QuoteIf the USCG suspects that someone is broadcasting a hoax distress signal, which is an illegal act, then it doesn't matter how they are broadcasting, what matters is that they would be requesting assistantce in finding someone who is breaking the law. If you don't think that this is a law enforcement mission, you're crazy.
CG Auxiliarists are authorized to have DF gear as Comm Facilities (ComFac), very few do. In fact there are so few that neither the Aux nor the CG tracks them in the database. DF capability is something that although allowed has never been a factor so far as the Aux is concerned. A bigger problem then hoax calls is stuck mics which can block channel 16 for hours - yet the CG nor the Aux ever saw that as a mission worth pursuing for the Aux. I doubt they would be interested in turning it over to CAP.
Then Resuce 21 makes the whole discussion academic. The USCG will never task either the Aux or CAP with DF when it has a multi-billion dollar system to justify.
If someone is broadcasting a ELT signal inadvertantly or the signal is the result of electronic interference of one type or another that is one thing. The signal is illegal but the intent of the person responsible is not. In these cases, the FCC wants the signal stopped but is not interested in prosecuting the responsible party. When we go out in these circumstances we have no clue as to the "intent" of the responsible party who often have no intent cause they didn't realize they were the "responsible" party. In these cases when we go out and DF the signal we have no direct knowledge of the intent of the responsible party.
However, if we go out and DF a signal that is a purposeful "Hoax" and we know that, we are performing a law enforcement mission. This would be no different than trying to run down someone who is setting off fire alarms because they like to watch the shiny red trucks. We might have the capability to do this mission but it just is not our job. I joined CAP to help people and not to be a law enforcement officer. I do that in my paying job.
So if we go out and find a hoaxter when we thought we were running down a distress or inadvertant signal it is one thing. To knowingly go look for them is another.
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on October 09, 2008, 10:46:02 PM
I tend to disagre -- Actually the USCG was asking for the public's help in this mission.
In the same way the police come on TV with a description & ask for the public's assistance in locating a suspect. That doesn't mean the public forms a posse & goes out after the guy. It means, if you happen to have information related to this person the call us. It certainly doesn't mean a govt agency should take that up as a tasking, even less so the Air Force, and by extension CAP.
USCG has the same DF capability as CAP. We do work with them on a semi-regular basis for SaR missions.
Beyond the VERY narrow focus of that specific example (which is clearly a law enforcement matter), what other DF missions do you see out there. And more importantly, in what way are they part of CAP's purpose?
Again, just because we have a capability for one purpose doesn't mean we can or should apply it to every purpose. We have a DF capability because the AF desires our help in supporting civil authorities for air/ground search. If at some point the govt needs us to do something else, then we'll stop doing DF work & start doing the other thing. The work isn't who we are, the assignment of that work is.
Quote(See the pilots want to fly and really don't care what the mission is for that matter) (I sense The ground teams side is wrapped in a regulatory nightmare of thou shall not rather than looking into leveraging skills into similiar activities (DF'ing is DF'ing whether it's an ELT or another signal)).
Respectfully, that's absolutely dirtbag. If anyone is in CAP cause they want to fly & don't particularly care why, then they are absolutely worthless human beings that shouldn't even stand near a recruiting booth after we throw them the hell out.
Recreational flying is a hobby. If someone wants to have that as a hobby then I highly support that. However, using CAP to further that hobby is downright low. When CAP crosses out of our purpose so we can get someone else to fund our member's hobby flying, that's a betrayal of the public trust and unacceptable.
The purpose of CAP is not to fly, it is not to conduct SaR, and it is not to DF signals. It is to help the country thru support to civil authorities, and with the specific capabilities & skill sets assigned and subsidized by the Air Force.
QuoteIF there's someone sending false distress signals and WE in CAP have DF capability on that frequency (ies) why not VOLUNTEER to the USCG to assist?
Because we don't volunteer to do anything. CAP is not a volunteer organization. It is an organization whose members are volunteers. There's a clear distinction between the two.
A Volunteer organization exists for the volunteers, and to allow them an outlet to do community service. CAP is a quasi-agency of the federal govt which utilizes the services of volunteers to accomplish the purposes of the federal govt as defined by federal law. We aren't here FOR our members. Our members are here for the mission, which is whatever congress defines it to be, and we are to stay within that lane.
QuoteThere are some innovative people in CAP who are willing to try different challenging missions that maximize the use of CAP air/ground assets for worthwhile missions. At least in the Northeast, none of the wings are that stressed with ELT signal finding or other Missions for America, that they couldn't get involved in these types of activities.
I love that we have innovative people that are out there working hard to find new applications for our capabilities, and to increase our capabilities. There is an enormous amount we can do with what have to service a wide range of needs. That said, some discipline has to be applied in that process to find ways to use those things for those "missions for America" that are within the matrix of support to civil authorities, not just anything you can come up with.
You aren't out there flying your own airplane doing your own thing. The govt spent almost a quarter billion dollars on our current resources & training. You don't get to do whatever you want with that. If you want to volunteer your time to some worthwhile thing or another as a private citizen then you can do that. But, you don't get to volunteer govt subsidized equipment & training to further your hobby or make you feel good about yourself.
Quote from: desertengineer1 on October 11, 2008, 01:04:59 AM
I recommend you revisit your CD training. CAP is allowed to survey property (fields), but not individuals. The target of a DF mission is the eminated signal, not the individual. You could also make the argument of the Communication Act of 1939.
It doesn't matter. All activities with the purpose of aiding enforcement of criminal law are not permissible, with the specific & highly restricted exception of counter-drug. Id doesn't matter if the target is an individual, signal, or property. The individual vs property aspect is part of those restrictions on counter drug activity. It is absolutely not allowed outside counter-drug.
Issues like intentional activation of an ELT are referred by AFRCC at their discretion to FCC for prosecution. If it is known in advance to be non-distress then it belongs to FCC, be it criminal or otherwise.
Quote from: desertengineer1 on October 10, 2008, 02:29:02 PM
A few years ago, we took on a mission for the FAA to help track down a source of unintentional interference to one of their center frequencies.
While outside our normal mission set for sure, that is absolutely inside our purposes under federal law. That's the kind of thing I hope those innovative members will be able to adapt & apply our capabilities to help aid civil aviation on behalf of the military and federal govt.