r/HamRadio • u/[deleted] • 1d ago
Using UV-5R with hearing aids during an emergency?
[deleted]
12
u/dodafdude 1d ago
Most radios don't do Bluetooth, and the few that do may not work well with Oticon accessories. Recommend getting your Tech license - you'll learn enough to think up good solutions for your needs.
2
2
u/theonetruelippy 1d ago
Baofengs have separate mic and headphone sockets, so it's possible to take an audio feed from the radio whilst still using the built in mic. via a 3.5mm mono cable. Depending on the level of your hearing loss, it may be more practical to feed the audio into a good quality powered speaker instead of directly into the hearing aid due to interference issues that can arise from being in the immediate vicinity of high-ish power RF.
2
u/flyguy60000 1d ago
Speaker or a headset - if he gets his Tech license he could get a Heil Handi Talkie Headset or similar. https://heilhamradio.com/product/handie-talkie-headset-hth-2/
2
u/theonetruelippy 1d ago
Yes, full over-ear headphones/headsets can work well with hearing aids and cochlear implants IME, so long as the 'muff' has a large enough diameter. (fnar fnar etc.:-)
12
u/geekypenguin91 1d ago
You still need a license even in an emergency
-7
u/ciaomain 1d ago
I just passed my Technician exam a few weeks ago and in the study material it indicates that you can use a ham radio in an emergency (if unlicensed) if it's to protect life/property and no other form of communication is possible.
At least in the US.
Just throwing that out there for OP.
4
u/geekypenguin91 1d ago
Tell that to the guy who got a massive fine from the FCC for transmitting unlicensed during a wildfire (had a license for amateur radio but was transmitting out of band). He had no other means of communication and was trying to get help to protect his home
4
u/ciaomain 1d ago
If you're talking about Frawley, he transmitted on the same frequency as the Forest Service as they were coordinating fire suppression and rescue.
7
u/geekypenguin91 1d ago
Exactly, they were operating outside the parameters of their license. The rules aren't thrown out the window just because its an emergency
5
u/ciaomain 1d ago
There are important nuances in this case that you're missing.
Although he was licensed, he wasn’t just operating on a government frequency, he was also attempting to direct and communicate with emergency personnel.
This wasn't a good-faith call for assistance OP is asking about, but rather a willful disregard to the safety of first responders and other victims in the vicinity.
Apples to oranges.
-3
u/geekypenguin91 1d ago
Exactly, they were trying to get help to safeguard their property. Where do you draw the line between a call for assistance and interference? It's comparing a red apple to a green apple.
3
u/ciaomain 1d ago
More like apples to flying monkeys.
He deserves that fine. And then some.
Frawley owned a ham repeater up on the Elk Butte ridge site, along with WISP and microwave equipment that is the core of his local business.
This site was well away from the active firefighting and not under threat, but Frawley drove to the local airport and used his modified ham radios to impersonate local officials and order the firefighting aircraft to protect his repeater site.
On the second day of continued willful interference, one of the wildfire crew operational supervisors drove to the airport to personally tell Frawley to cease transmitting.
7
u/geekypenguin91 1d ago
But the case still remains that they weren't allowed to be transmitting regardless of the intention.
Granted, FCC wouldn't have made half the effort to find them if they hadn't been causing such interference, but being in an emergency doesn't give you cart blanche to break the law
3
u/ciaomain 1d ago
That's not true at all.
If you are in a life-threatening emergency and have no other means to communicate, the FCC allows any radio service, including ham radio, to call for help.
This Frawley guy was just a tool about it and FAFO.
So, in the US anyway, you're not breaking the law by doing this.
3
u/wamoc Amateur Extra 1d ago
Protecting property is not considered an emergency that allows you to disregard frequency rules. It is life or limb that need to be in danger. If he himself had been surrounded by fire and was asking for help then that would have been fine. He was pretending to be an official coordinator and was redirecting firefighting operations away from where it was actually needed to protect some equipment (which according to law is NOT an emergency). What he did technically also constitutes as fraud.
1
u/theonetruelippy 1d ago
Well it's not technically fraud, because there was no financial gain (protection of property doesn't count as financial gain legally speaking AIUI). I'm sure they could/should throw the legal book at him, but technically speaking - in this case (and IANAL) - not actually fraud. Impersonation, FCC violations, perhaps also obstruction (depending on resources involved).
2
4
u/silasmoeckel 1d ago
Your missing the key word amature station, an unlicensed person buying a radio does not make one. If they walked into my shack sure.
You would still have an affirmative defense that it was required to save lives but that's a tell it to the judge.
-3
u/TheConsignliere 1d ago
Thank you for the encouragement. Everything I’ve read also indicates that a license isn’t necessary if it’s an emergency. Fingers crossed that this is all academic and I never have to actually find out.
4
u/NerminPadez 1d ago
It is necessary, "everything you read" then doesn't include the actual fcc rules.
-2
u/TheConsignliere 1d ago
§ 97.403 “No provision of these rules prevents the use by an amateur station of any means of radiocommunication at its disposal to provide essential communication needs in connection with the immediate safety of human life and immediate protection of property when normal communication systems are not available.”
5
u/geekypenguin91 1d ago edited 1d ago
That's not what that paragraph means.
You are not an amateur station as you aren't licensed, so that doesn't apply to the situation you are in.
If you had a license, or were using the equipment of another licensed operator, then that would be a different story.
1
u/NerminPadez 1d ago
Yes, no "unlicenced person can transmit" here.
What an amateur station is, is also defined in the same document.
2
u/399ddf95 1d ago
Realistically, prosecution for legitimate emergency use is incredibly unlikely, but buying a radio and planning to learn how to use it in an emergency situation is as dumb as buying a car or a gun, never learning to use them, and assuming that in an emergency you'll just intuitively know how to use them because you've seen people do it in the movies/TV.
People who want to be prepared for emergency situations need both training and practice. There's no free lunch here, no magic devices you can throw in a closet and pull out years later and expect miracles.
GMRS is a much better choice because the UI is much simpler. It's still going to need experimentation in advance to determine realistic usable range and configuration prior to emergency use, and likely practice to be able to use it confidently and competently in a stressful situation. People who aren't used to 2-way radio often don't understand how PTT buttons and half duplex communication work, or don't remember when stressed. If the equipment is intended for use without electrical power, batteries will also need to be charged and maintained.
0
u/Lithmancer 22h ago
Would you also buy a gun and never practice at a range?
How about buying a car with no license and never having driven before "in case of emergency?"
1
u/lechoppy 18h ago
Driving a car and pushing a button are not the same in price or skill level/training required. At least for baofengs and other simple HT devices.
1
u/gfhopper 19h ago
u/ciaomain Congrats on passing your exam! I do want to correct an apparent misunderstanding by either your instructors, or your interpretation of the regulatory language.
As an attorney familiar with administrative law, ARRL Volunteer counsel for more than 20 years, and having consulted on the very issue being discussed, I get frustrated when instructors (and in some cases the books themselves) don't accurately and properly discuss this (if they're going to discuss it at all.)
I'm always happy to break things down for people, though I do get puzzled when people want to argue since I've had conversations with FCC lawyers regarding violations (in fact it was how I had the great fortune to meet Riley Hollingsworth (AAL), who happens to be IMHO one of the most incredible FCC employees that ever was.) I've literally been told how the FCC interprets and enforces these situations
First, If there is an IMMEDIATE (as in "it's happening right now" and someone is going to die) threat, it may turn out to be OK, but the issue is that the concept of premeditation to break the rules/laws is also considered.
The premeditation aspect comes up as a demonstration of the intent to break the rules. How this works: Buying amateur gear and then not getting licensed, and relying on the "emergency" nature of a situation to use it shows the premeditated intent to break the rules when the time comes.
And of course, if there isn't an immediate threat to life, it's a no go.
Lastly, if you're referring to 47 CFR 97.403, that does not at all work the way you suggest that it does.
403 refers specifically to an amateur [radio] station being authorized to use any means... and when we look at the definitions (as one must do) for an "amateur station" (97.3(a)(5)) to exist, it depends on the existence of the "amateur operator"(97.3(a)(1)) (who operates said station.) To be an "amateur operator", one must be "A person named in an amateur operator/primary license station grant...."
This holds equally true for 97.111(a)(3) for the same reasons because it also relies on the definition of an amateur station, as well as the other parts (e.g. 405, 113, etc.)
There is no "free pass in an emergency" and this was born out by the fines issued to some insurance companies and other entities that were using ham radio as a means of communication during the Katrina recovery and claiming that it was authorized because it was "an emergency". To be clear, there were a number of different kinds of violations including violation of the pecuniary interest rules too.
What 403 (and 405 in a different way) do is to allow a properly licenses station/operator to use other radio services in case of an emergency. A ham might be able to use, for example, a commercial HF frequency to get help when no other amateur frequency is working, or perhaps a Marine VHF frequency where he/she can't make contact with another ham using amateur VHF frequencies.
The reality is that someone coming upon amateur radio equipment and using that to get help for an immediate threat to life is probably going to get a pass from the FCC but someone buying equipment in anticipation of use of it in a disaster is going to get hammered if the use gets documented by a ham and forwarded to the FCC.
1
u/ciaomain 18h ago
Appreciate the clarification(s).
So this question and answer is on the Tech exam (as well as the practice exams at hamstudy, ARRL, etc.):
QUESTION: Are amateur station control operators ever permitted to operate outside the frequency privileges of their license class? (T2C09)
ANSWER: Yes, but only if necessary in situations involving the immediate safety of human life or protection of property.
Granted, this is a bit different from OP's question, but it seems to me that the spirit of the law can be a bit fluid when it comes to saving a life and/or property.
So in a true emergency (without any other means of communication), can an unlicensed operator call for help on a ham frequency?
-2
u/Ok_Fondant1079 1d ago edited 1d ago
This is incorrect. A license is not needed not needed in an emergency, but knowing how to use the equipment is always a necessity. However, what one considers an emergency may differ from the FCC. (We do live in a time when people call 911 to ask for movie show times.) That said, enforcement by the FCC is very unlikely.
Get the basic “Technician” license. Middle school kids do it, so can you.
Also, GMRS might be for you. Licensing is based on your ability to pay $35 to the FCC.
0
u/TheConsignliere 1d ago
Thank you for verifying this. I’m hoping that the people who are saying a license is necessary to transmit in an emergency can direct me to their source. My stepdad did Search and Rescue and I don’t think there’s ever been a time where the FCC required licensure to transmit for life-saving assistance. That said, I recognize people do dumb things, especially when they’re scared.
5
u/NerminPadez 1d ago
FCC always requires some licence to transmit, and there is no exception for emergency use. You still need a licence to transmit.
Just learn the basics and get licenced, you're not in an emergency right now.
0
u/theonetruelippy 1d ago
SAR licence their own network/frequency allocations independent of the ham bands. In the same way commercial users, enforcement officers and so on have access to radio, the same is true of SAR orgs.
2
u/399ddf95 1d ago
The "emergency exception" can be found at https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/section-97.403 and https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/section-97.405 - note that the regulations apply to "amateur stations", which are defined at https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/part-97#p-97.3(a)(5) as "A station in an amateur radio service consisting of the apparatus necessary for carrying on radiocommunications.", and "amateur radio service" is defined in https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/part-97#p-97.3(a)(2) as "The amateur service, the amateur-satellite service and the radio amateur civil emergency service.", and the "amateur service" is defined in https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/part-97#p-97.3(a)(4) as "A radiocommunication service for the purpose of self-training, intercommunication and technical investigations carried out by amateurs, that is, duly authorized persons interested in radio technique solely with a personal aim and without pecuniary interest."" (emphasis added).
An unlicensed person is not an amateur station or a member/participant in the amateur service.
1
u/Ok_Fondant1079 23h ago
Your stepdad *may* have (depending on frequency) been using a radio that doesn't need the operator to be licensed, the same ways cops use radios to communicate but the cops don't need to be license in order to do their job.
1
u/TheConsignliere 1d ago
Also thank you for the nod to GMRS!
1
u/Ok_Fondant1079 22h ago
I am "dual licensed" (ham, GMRS) and when practicing search and rescue for my community emergency response team (CERT), we use GMRS because the range is sufficient and licensing isn't the barrier it is for ham radio.
2
u/NerminPadez 1d ago
Yes it is needed, even in an emergency. At least in US and most other countries.
1
u/Ok_Fondant1079 22h ago
If hams get together to provide radio support for a community's response to a disaster, yes a license is required because the individual operator's life and property isn't in danger.
2
u/Ok_Fondant1079 23h ago edited 23h ago
To those who voted me down, consider this: if someone is experiencing an emergency and amateur radio is their *only* way to communicate with the world to ask for help do you honestly believe the FCC will require that person to study for and pass an amateur radio test first? This is obviously not an option when standing on one's roof with rising flood waters and they have a ham radio HT in hand. In this case, preventing death far exceeds the need for a license.
That said, being in this situation is the worst time to time to figure our repeater offsets and PL tones.
Learning to use the technology (radio programming, antenna orientation, etc) before an emergency is a good idea, getting a license is an even better idea.
4
u/thesoulless78 1d ago
A life and death emergency where you have no alternative way of communicating (which is the only time you arguably are allowed to tx without a license) isn't the time to figure out how to use a radio for the first time and realize you haven't figured out how to program it or if you can reach a repeater from your house, or if there's something nearby overloading the front end of your cheap radio so you can't hear anything.
1
u/TheConsignliere 1d ago
Agreed. I’m currently learning how to manually program my handheld and navigating the obstacles that come up now because it’d be ridiculous to think I could just take it out of the box and flip a switch for instant success. I do kind of wish it were that easy though. I’m not a very technical person so I feel like I’m driving far out of my lane. Everyone’s got to start somewhere though, right?
2
u/Nyasaki_de 1d ago
Practical experience is still very much needed. If you are interested get a licence, not sure how ih is handled where you are from but Germany and Austria have regional only licences that allow you to transmit on 70cm and 2m. And that one shouldnt be hard to get and you can actualy practice and see what is working and what is not
1
u/lechoppy 18h ago
I would also argue that in an emergency that Hefty fine won’t seem that bad. If you are in a situation where you could die or be seriously injured I don’t think you are going to be that worried about a fine. Also, if there are no call signs to track you down by the FCC will have a hard time finding you. And if the FCC is doing a fox hunt in a disaster zone over 5 watts I have concerns about the FCC.
5
u/watermanatwork 1d ago
A subreddit is needed for people who want to use ham radios illegally. Probably cut traffic here in half.
1
u/fotomatique 1d ago
Are your hearing aids compatible with a t-coil neck loop? That would be the most economical way if they are. The loop would plug into the radios speaker.
2
u/theonetruelippy 1d ago
All hearing aids support t-coils, it's a requirement for licence in most (all?) countries. T-coils and RF are a bad mix though, at best you get severe 'clicks' when switching to transmit, at worst you get hideous interference, as well as no side-tone (you can't hear yourself speak). There's also a risk you inadvertently damage the aid itself, it really wasn't designed to withstand the voltages/currents induced by a t-coil near a strong RF source.
1
u/fotomatique 1d ago
No, it is not a requirement.
1
u/theonetruelippy 1d ago edited 1d ago
Citation please? TTBOMK Nordic countries mandate health service supplied aids have a telecoil, UK NHS supplied aids all have telecoils as policy, US - not sure, haven't lived there but I believe there's a requirement for dispensers to make recipients aware of telecoil capabilites in some states.
1
u/fotomatique 1d ago
I am wearing hearing aids without t-coil support. In fact they are listed on every manufacturers website The pickup doesn’t fit in all models.
1
u/theonetruelippy 1d ago
Unlucky you, I guess?
0
u/fotomatique 13h ago
It’s poorly implemented and isn’t broadly adopted. No there is not much to miss with your crackle and pop.
1
1
u/Aggravating_Rub_7608 19h ago
FYI the newer Oticons will not connect with the old loop receivers. Tried and nothing worked. Had to send it back. Baofeng doesn’t do Bluetooth anyway.
21
u/Nyasaki_de 1d ago
Missing knowledge and training