Agreed. I fully concur with the assertion and general consensus this activity should not be deemed a routine and regularly activity occurring on our behalf per part 97. However, It seems this is only a single instance of our demonstrated goodwill intended to serve in the interests of raising public awareness of our highly capable technical abilities. Since this was a limited demonstration, it may be considered acceptable and perhaps an agreeable exception could be considered in this particular case.
Please read my posts. If any ham, or any NON-ham wants to assist in non- Part 97 DFing, that is an individual's choice. But it is not a mission of the ARRL, and not prescribed in Part 97. Part 97 refers to a (tele)COMMUNICATIONS service. This is NOT telecommunications, is NOT Part 97, and does NOT require the privilege of Part 97. So don't pretend that it is some obligation of Part 97 licensees, nor a mission of the ARRL. This activity IS prescribed as an FCC activity.Their failing to do THEIR job is the real message of this thread, and we should not be diverted by that imperative. If my 12 year old, non-ham neighbor wants to help the police snoop out (DF) a bad power supply, or an errant 2.4 GHz drone, well, fine! I dont see him putting out a press release, claiming warm and fuzzies for hams, nor the ARRL in particular. Nor does it make sense to do so. Same here. Look: if the local police came to me to fix an 'Icom', the first thing to say is he should check with an authorized Icom repair person. Not me as an ARRL member, not me as a ham. In this DFing case, other options were available, but the ARRL made no effort beforehand to find out who else could do it--their list has only one entry on it. At best, that is naive. At worst, its not dealing with the reality of information in the internet age. As a ham, I do feel an obligation to assist, when viable and possible, in (tele)communications for the police, fire, and others. But I am not going , as a ham, to snoop out drones (the real issue nowadays--not fobs interference). Not my job. Why? Because OTHERS HAVE THAT job and we should enable and let them do it. BTW I have been awarded an ARRL Public Service Award, so please don't lecture me on my Part 97 obligations on this matter. 73 Chip W1YW
Charles, I think you're right. This was a great opportunity to accrue goodwill with law enforcement and the public. I'm glad it was done. 73, Bernie
WOW , Chip ...... I liked your old call .... It appears that you are upset with the fact that W1AW was already taken AND that the closest you could get is your current call ..... Of course , you ( obviously ) have an issue with the ARRL ........ This is just MY observation from your myriad of anti-everyone posts ...... Good ' fracktles ' to you ....... JB
I have read this thread , thus , my last post .... You have a ' beef ' with what the ARRL did to assist ..... Sheesh ! JB
No, I do not have a beef with the ARRL position. Just accurate calling out of a minor cat cluster. Stop making up fantasies and false claims about others.
Is anyone else reminded of the 'Big Bang Theory' television series character, 'Sheldon Cooper'? Apparently it is possible to be so self absorbed that you become... an assassin of your own public image. <facepalm> Have a better day, folks.
I did not like my old calls. WN1HBX, for example, is the world's longest call on CW. Dumb non sequitar you bring up. I like W1YW. I have had it more than 10 years. I have had ample opportunity to pursue other calls, including W1A- versions. I didn't see the appeal. In fact, I would very much object to any callsign that could be easily confused with W1AW. Why? Because I think Hiram Percy Maxim was more rabble-rouser and enthusiast than innovator. We tend to idolize him, for reasons that are not bent in fact. He was a minor inventor (yes, I know he invented mufflers and silencers), and occasional, amusing and spirited writer. His overly short biography of his dad is limited but interesting. Sir Hiram Maxim, his dad, was in contrast, an extraordinary inventor, but capricious and a poor family man. His invention of the machine gun had consequences he apparently did not bother to perceive. OTOH, his work on the incandescent lamp, and evidence for the first airplane (albeit tethered--driven by steam engine!) are not appreciated, as they should be. I suggest you do some reading on the real 'old man', Sir Hiram. HPM and Sir Hiram are occasionally confused, stupidly, by historians. Even PBS has a web page on Sir Hiram, and shows a pic of HPM! See: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/theymadeamerica/whomade/maxim_hi.html Your comments are just plain silly in the face of the facts. 73 Chip W1YW
Who is this 'Sheldon ' person: Is he a ham radio operator? I thought that was Tim Allen...I do not watch episodic network television. Watsis gotta do with the thread? I hardly think Kermit is akin to this assertion. I also think you should not defame him or anyone else and use QRZed to propagate it. MO, yours may differ.
Dumb fractal allusion... When defamation is the defense of the ignorant(those who choose to be unaware of the facts), where does that leave us? Don't play into gray areas. Much of life is simply reduced to deontological imperatives. And that IS the point of this thread: do what is privileged as a service, leave the rest to others to do their job. No gray.
