[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] - [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index]

Re: Need some help . . .



Hello guys,

    I'm caught in mid-thread here, but just FYI, there is a COMNAVCOMTEL
instruction that covers authorization for use of Amateur Radio aboard Naval
installations.  Keep in mind:
                    1)  This is a NavSecGru installation.  Special
                         rules/authorization apply.
                    2)  The CO has the final yea/nay.

If this is a repeat, sorry for the bandwidth. just trying to help.

                                        73,
                                                Tracy  KC5RBQ

-----Original Message-----
From: Hare, Ed, W1RFI <ehare@arrl.org>
To: Martin Davidoff <AA65@catmus.cat.cc.md.us>; AMSAT <amsat-bb@AMSAT.org>;
Bob Bruninga <bruninga@nadn.navy.mil>; Dave Finley <dfinley@aoc.nrao.edu>;
David Gordon <dgordon@sadira.gb.nrao.edu>; Hare, Ed, W1RFI <ehare@arrl.org>;
Kanode, John (Roanoke Dir) <Jkanode@visuallink.com>; kp4ffw
<kp4ffw@compuserve.com>; Michael Rupen <mrupen@aoc.nrao.edu>; Jeffrey S
Austin <n8vna@gte.net>; Steven Bible <srbible@gate.net>; Butler, Frank
(Southeast Dir) <w4rh@arrl.org>
Date: Monday, March 23, 1998 9:07 AM
Subject: RE: Need some help . . .


>
>I had sent this answer earlier this month.  Perhaps it got lost into the
bit
>bucket.
>
>73,
>Ed
> ---------------------------------------
>Hello, Jeff,
>
>It sounds like they do not fully understand amateur radio.  Dave offered a
>number of excellent suggestions.  They are taking a "just in case" approach
>that will ensure that there is no risk that either your transmitter may
emit
>spurious signals or their receiver may be subject to overload.
>
>There is not anything "illegal" about an overloaded receiver.  OTOH, it is
>still a deficiency in the reciever that is would be the root cause of a
>problem.
>
>If it were me, I would do the following:
>
>As technical info, obtain the test data on the equipment you intend to use.
> The ARRL Lab files contain more info than is published in the Produt
>Review, so we should be able to help.  I do note that your ARRL membership
>expired a few months ago, but perhaps now that you are interested in being
>active again, you would like to rejoin.  If you would like to, I will
>arrange to send you photocopies of the ARRL Lab's test data as a thank you
>for joining. This test data would include the results of our measurements
of
>harmonics and other spurii.
>
>Obtain a copy of the FCC Rule Book.
>
>Then, approach the Person In Charge of These Things to discuss this.  You
>can explain about the long history of cooperation between Amateur Radio and
>the US military, discussing MARS, the National Traffic System, the
>cooperation between the FCC and NTIA.  You can even use the Rule Book to
>demonstrate that Amateur Radio shares a number of bands with the military!
>
>You can then point out that we share frequencies with the military on a
>secondary basis and that you do indeed understand their concerns about
>possible interference.  Miltitary receiving equipment is rather well built
>and it is very unlikely that legal amateur operation would cause
problems --
>otherwise, most of our potential foes would probably  give all of their
>military permission to operate ham radio. :-)
>
>Let them know that the FCC regulates amateur radio and that no special
>pemission from them is needed to operate, so only the necessary
>administrative approval of the base is needed.  Then, offer to
>demonstrate,perhaps with a handheld, that no harmful interference will
>result.  Offer further that, if interference does occur, even if it their
>recievers instead of your transmitters, you are fully prepared to stop
>operating immediately on whatever frequencies cause problems.  You could
>also offer that the Person In Charge of These Things approve any and all
>equipment, antennas, frequencies, modes, etc., and that any changes to your
>station be authorized by him/her.
>
>You can point out, too, that althoug FCC regulations permit 1500 watt
>operation by hams, your operation is well below that limit.
>
>These are a bit extreme, and would not be necessary (or appropriate) in a
>civilian environment, but under the circumstances, I would presume that a
>military command structure has absolute authority.  In these cases, I have
>generally found that by demonstrating to them that they still have complete
>control, you will increase the likelihood that they will let you do what
you
>want.
>
>Good luck,
>
>73 from ARRL HQ,
>Ed Hare, W1RFI
>ARRL Lab
> ----------
>>From: Dave Finley
>>To: n8vna
>>Cc: ehare; dfinley
>>Subject: RFI
>>Date: Wednesday, March 04, 1998 9:51AM
>>
>>------------------Internet Headers------------------
>>Received: from arana.aoc.nrao.edu by mgate.arrl.org [451] with smtp
>>    for <ehare@arrl.org>
>>    id m0yAHP4-000Zn2C; Wed, 4 Mar 98 11:52 EST
>>X-MailAuth: arana.aoc.nrao.edu, arana.aoc.nrao.edu, dfinley@aoc.nrao.edu,
>>146.88.1.7
>>X-MailAuthTo: ehare@arrl.org
>>X-Authenticated-Timestamp: 11:52:22(EST) on March 04, 1998
>>Received: from orion.aoc.nrao.edu (orion.aoc.nrao.edu [146.88.4.10]) by
>>arana.aoc.nrao.edu (8.6.12/8.6.10) with ESMTP id JAA22257; Wed, 4 Mar 1998
>>09:51:59 -0700
>>Received: (from dfinley@localhost) by orion.aoc.nrao.edu (8.7.3/8.6.10) id
>>JAA10983; Wed, 4 Mar 1998 09:51:57 -0700 (MST)
>>Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 09:51:57 -0700 (MST)
>>From: Dave Finley <dfinley@aoc.nrao.edu>
>>Message-Id: <199803041651.JAA10983@orion.aoc.nrao.edu>
>>To: n8vna@gte.net
>>Subject: RFI
>>Cc: ehare@arrl.org, dfinley@aoc.nrao.edu
>>X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII
>>----------------------------------------------------
>>
>>Hi, Jeff:
>>
>>I'm a bit unclear on just who is objecting to your transmitting.
>>Is it the NW Security Group Activity, the USCG or the USN?  What
>>type of receiving activity will you supposedly interfere with?
>>
>>And I presume that your problem is that you reside on base and need
>>permission of the base CO and these objections are preventing your
>>getting that permission.  As you probably know, transmitting of any
>>kind from a military base requires permission of the CO, so you won't
>>get around that.
>>
>>Still, I wonder what basis they (whomever they may be) have for objecting.
>>Is it based on experience from transmissions coming from you or some
>>other ham, perhaps in the past?  If it's based on the past, do they
>>know whether or not the equipment in use actually met FCC standards?
>>Are they objecting just on "general principle," without any actual
>>technical basis?
>>
>>Without knowing the answers to these questions, I would suggest that
>>doing the following would probably help your case.
>>
>>If you're using homebrew equipment, you may have to find someone with
>>a lab and spectrum analyzer to prove you are "clean."
>>
>>I'll presume, however, that you're using commercial equipment.  The
>>manual for the equipment probably has a certification somewhere that
>>it meets FCC specs for the Amateur bands.  Part 97 will tell you what
>>those specs are for the frequencies in use.  Combined, these two
>>documents serve as proof that any out-of-band emissions are below
>>levels which can be calculated, knowing the distance from your
>>transmitting site to the receiver in question.  These levels probably
>>are even lower, since, for working satellites, you're probably using
>>antennas aimed in a different direction than the receiving antennas
>>they're using.  After going through this calculation, you can show
>>just how weak any potentially interfering signals would be.  This will
>>almost certainly assure them that you won't interfere.  They might still
>>insist on some power limits for you.
>>
>>You might also contact the manufacturer(s) of the equipment you're using
>>to get more detailed information.  Your equipment may well have far
>>lower levels of out-of-band emission than the FCC specs require.  That
>>would make your case even better.
>>
>>Even with all this, you might still have to put your equipment to a lab
>>test to prove beyond all doubt that your calculations are correct.
>>
>>You could offer to do an on-the-air test to show that you won't
>>interfere.
>>
>>In sum, I think your best chance lies in showing just how unlikely it
>>is that your ham-band transmissions will interfere with their activity.
>>Now, if they are actually trying to monitor the ham bands, that's
>>another story...
>>
>>If all this fails, you may indeed have to buy the off-base property
>>and operate from there.
>>
>>I'm sending a copy of this to Ed Hare at ARRL Headquarters, who may
>>have some further suggestions.
>>
>>I hope this helps.
>>
>>73,
>>
>>Dave Finley, N1IRZ
>>
>>
>>
>>----- Begin Included Message -----
>>
>>From n8vna@gte.net Tue Mar  3 18:20:32 1998
>>Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 20:17:51 -0500
>>From: Jeffrey S Austin <n8vna@gte.net>
>>MIME-Version: 1.0
>>To: dfinley@NRAO.EDU
>>Subject: RFI
>>Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
>boundary="------------E725691311EE6B0C1747FB00"
>>Content-Length: 1814
>>X-Lines: 50
>>Status: RO
>>
>>David-
>>
>>I'm a Coastie stationed at CAMSLANT which is a tenant activity at
>>Northwest Security Group Activity in Chesapeake VA. Our (USCG/USN)
>>site is a receiver site, the Navy's transmitter is in Suffolk and
>>ours is at Pungo. Both are approximately 15-25 miles away.
>>
>>My problem is that their claim is if I transmit on any of the ham
>>bands I will interfere with their operation, they're not interested
>>in the fact that the FCC says if they can receive my signal they have
>>an illegal receiver. What I'm looking for is some very heavy duty
>>technical info to blow them out of the water. My interest is in the
>>satellites, currently FO-20 and 29. When P3D goes to space, then I'll
>>be 1.2 up and 2.4 dn. The frequencies that we currently use are in
>>the HF band and between 240 and 300MHz. If I can't reason with them,
>>I'm prepared to purpose some land next to NSGA and put my antennas
>>there, where they can't be touched. But I'd rather not have to go
>>that extreme. Can you help?
>>
>>                                                            -73's de
>>Jeff N8VNA
>>
>>
>>
>>----- End Included Message -----
>>
> ----------
>>From: Jeffrey S Austin
>>To: Bob Bruninga; AMSAT; Steven Bible; Butler, Frank (Southeast Dir);
>Martin Davidoff;
>>Kanode, John (Roanoke Dir); Hare, Ed, W1RFI; Dave Finley; David
>>Gordon; Michael Rupen; kp4ffw
>>Subject: Need some help . . .
>>Date: Saturday, March 21, 1998 1:19AM
>>
>>------------------Internet Headers------------------
>>Received: from smtp1.mailsrvcs.net by mgate.arrl.org [976] with smtp
>>    for <ehare@arrl.org>
>>    id m0yGHdA-000ZnpC; Sat, 21 Mar 98 01:19 EST
>>X-MailAuth: smtp1.gte.net, smtp1.mailsrvcs.net, n8vna@gte.net,
>207.115.153.30
>>X-MailAuthTo: ehare@arrl.org,w4rh@arrl.org
>>X-Authenticated-Timestamp: 01:19:44(EST) on March 21, 1998
>>Received: from gte.net (1Cust48.tnt2.princess-anne.va.da.uu.net
>>[153.37.228.48])
>>    by smtp1.mailsrvcs.net  with ESMTP id AAA08181;
>>    Sat, 21 Mar 1998 00:19:32 -0600 (CST)
>>Message-ID: <35135BF3.E95574D3@gte.net>
>>Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 01:19:32 -0500
>>From: Jeffrey S Austin <n8vna@gte.net>
>>Organization: N8VNA
>>X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U)
>>MIME-Version: 1.0
>>To: Bob Bruninga <bruninga@nadn.navy.mil>, AMSAT <amsat-bb@amsat.org>,
>>        Steven Bible <srbible@gate.net>,
>>        "Butler, Frank (Southeast Dir)" <w4rh@arrl.org>,
>>        Martin Davidoff <AA65@catmus.cat.cc.md.us>,
>>        "Kanode, John (Roanoke Dir)" <Jkanode@visuallink.com>,
>>        "Hare, Ed, W1RFI" <ehare@arrl.org>, Dave Finley
>><dfinley@aoc.nrao.edu>,
>>        David Gordon <dgordon@sadira.gb.nrao.edu>,
>>        Michael Rupen <mrupen@aoc.nrao.edu>, kp4ffw@compuserve.com
>>Subject: Need some help . . .
>>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>>----------------------------------------------------
>>Bob-
>>I need some help here. I've got a ham radio problem that's more
>>political than technical but I'm going to win with a technical knock
>>out.
>>
>>Here is what I wrote to Steve, N7HPR:
>>
>>>Steve-
>>>Just a quick QSO here, I'm active duty Coast Guard and currently
>>>work/live at Naval Security Group Activity Northwest in Chesapeake
>>>VA. The situation is that the base commander, based upon rules made
>>>by the former base commander, feels that amateur radio is going to
>>>interfere with the receivers here on base. The Navy's transmitters
>>>are in Suffolk and the Coast Guard's are in Virginia Beach. What I'm
>>
>>>hoping to do is show her, with facts and figures generated within
>>the
>>>Navy/Coast Guard, that her fears are unfounded. I believe she thinks
>>
>>>that ham radio will cause interference, especially to the satcom
>>>units on base (CAMSLANT is one the units). My plan is to put my
>>>eggbeaters up and use about 50 w eirp to hit the birds (FO-20/29 and
>>
>>>AO-27). Can you send me as much as you can, so that I can put
>>>something in a "report" and send it to her. Otherwise, my 970 will
>>go
>>>back in the box and I will not be a happy camper for the next four
>>>years!
>>>
>>>Jeffrey S Austin
>>>1021 Osprey Ct
>>>Chesapeake VA 23322-4202
>>>757 421 0138 home
>>>757 421 6240 work
>>>
>>>                                               -73's de Jeff N8VNA
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>So, what I'm looking for is what guidance the Navy gives to it's base
>>commanders in regards to amateur radio use on its bases, in terms of
>>both MWR and technical considerations. If it helps you, you can send
>>whatever you can to me as an HTML file.
>>
>>                                                 -73's de Jeff N8VNA
>>
>>




AMSAT Top AMSAT Home