On Nov 7, 2007, at 4:36 PM, MCH wrote:
> But again, the question is: Are EITHER of these required?
>
> Can the repeater be run strictly with Automatic Control? Part 97 seems
> to indicate it can.
I think from a purely "legalese" point of view, you can get away with
not having either one.
Then you'd have to look a step further at what the FCC would do if you
received a "take it off the air right now, it's interfering with X"
request made urgently, and what they'd think of you (and Ham Radio) if
you told them you couldn't control it remotely.
("Bunch of yahoos and cowboys" is probably not the image we're looking
to portray to others, eh?)
A real-world example that happened right here on the RB list would be
the guy who was unintentionally interfering with a local airport's ATC
communications.
I wouldn't feel very good sleeping at night if I didn't have a way to
keep my transmitter from putting another pilot's life in danger, if I
were to get a similar request for the systems I maintain.
That's where the rubber really hits the road... Who cares if it's
legal, is it smart not to have a secondary way to control the
transmitter? I personally say no. It's not smart at all.
It just falls into the "having some pride and doing it right"
category, if you can't find a law about it... right?
> I seem to recall a part in the rules which required some means of
> control in addition to Automatic Control. I cannot find that now.
I haven't found it either.
--
Nate Duehr, WY0X
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
