FCC Fines Alaska Man for Interfering with Air Traffic Using CB Radio

[ARRL]

On July 17, the FCC announced that it had issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order (NAL) in the amount of $12,500 to Glenn S. Yamada, of Kenai, Alaska. Yamada is accused of “apparently willfully and repeatedly violat[ing] Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 95.409(a) and 95.411(a)(1) and (b) of the FCC Rules by operating his CB radio “wi...





More...

 

[Robb]

I read the above complaint by the FCC posted on the ARRL site.

In it, they claim that the person in question 'willfully' did this act. The alleged act was transmitting on 21.964mhz and had been interfering with air traffic communications. The FCC claim showed no evidence that this person knew he was 'willfully' transmitting on any other freq other than CB ch. 6/27.025mhz. They didn't warn him that he was doing that; nor did the defendant know that he was interfering until the FCC made him aware of that fact. They said that it was 'willful'. Had he known that he was doing that, the question remains: would he continue to interfere? There is no way of determining that now.

Using that term and the law that describes the crime in question, the FCC have failed to take into account the full letter of the law. There has been absolutely no forethought demonstrated to commit this crime - whatsoever. Had they warned him once and he repeated the same event; then it would have been a 'willful act'. Based on the info given in this article, it looks more like a 'sneak attack on a CBer' by the FCC and nothing more.

Maybe a sensational press story on the ARRL site that is hungry to squash a CBer (because of the extent of the possible damage to property or human life); but certainly not a proper charge in their complaint and their attempt to uphold the law.

Not that such interference isn't potentially harmful - and possible life-threatening as it was in this instance. But they are beating a grape with a sledge hammer for this charge. Bottom line is, the FCC over-reacted and improperly charged him. Rush to judgement.

He will need a lawyer to deal with this FCC charge in court. He may well beat this charge if his lawyer doesn't oversleep and miss the court date. But the FCC might re-file for an amended charge. Such as operating a modified CB with an illegal amp. Those charges he won't beat - IMO.

Since the interference occurred on ~21mhz and not on 54mhz; then I will guess at this point that it was the amplification of IMD products that was the cause. Is he responsible for that? Yes. Was he aware that he was interfering with air communications? No. The charge does not stand. Amend the complaint and re-file for the correct charges . . .

 

[Mudfoot]

Sounds like Mr. Yamada was getting down and dropping the hammer.

 

[Se7en]

Didn't know 21mhz is the " aeronautical band " ? I sure like reading these articles.

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk 2

 

[Robb]

200 watts is a pretty small hammer. Think the radio must have been 'Super Whack Packed' and gave off lots of IMD harmonics/'splatter'. Such is what happens when the AM Limiter is removed and/or 100% modulation is exceeded. But we know this only too well; eh? Then amplified into a bigger mess by using a DaveMade amp - or something similar. Just a guess . . .

 

[Mudfoot]

I didn't think the Sparkman shipped to Alaska.

 

[Robb]

Maybe a local did it. Maybe he did. Maybe a shop in the lower 48 did ship a modded radio and an amp to him.

Maybe he was interfering with HAARP - lol!

Kinda surprised that the FCC had an active field office up there. Someone must have been sent there as punishment. Unless you like to hunt or fish - of course!

 

[Se7en]

Maybe he was interfering with HAARP - lol!

LOL
If you really want to interfere with HAARP, a small single engine plane and 10 gal. Of mercury in a spray gun, or powder form over the array of antennas.

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk 2

 

[Rb30]

Wow talk about bent over, the FCC really did step over the mark. Educated guess is that he was wiping out something a little more important than what they claim- DoD twisting some long arms maybe ;-)

 

[RatsoW8]

A dirty CB amplifier? Preeeeeeeposterous.

 

[oldslowchevy]

i would like to know how they know it was this guy or if they just saw a cb antenna and said it has to be him. i know of a few pople that run crap amps and hacked radios running well over 800 watts and they only bleed maybe 1 band higher or lowwer, nothing like they claim this guy is bleeding. there has to be more to the story.

 

[Shioda]

I will represent him if he wants. Easy case to win.

 

[Beetle]

A 200 watt CB station in Alaska generating a spur strong enough to interfere with control of air traffic in the North ATLANTIC...that's prima facie evidence of wrongdoing, AFAIC.

 

[Robb]

I will represent him if he wants. Easy case to win.

Just a disclaimer, Shioda. I work with a law office but I am not an attorney. I briefly read the complaint, so it is possible I may have missed a point. Do some Fed stuff; but nothing with the FCC. I know that you have dealt with the 'men in black' more than a few times. Perhaps you can locate this fellow and offer your services. Maybe that case has already gone to trial too.

Just couldn't resist giving it my best shot/opinion - though.

 

[Shioda]

Just a disclaimer, Shioda. I work with a law office but I am not an attorney. I briefly read the complaint, so it is possible I may have missed a point. Do some Fed stuff; but nothing with the FCC. I know that you have dealt with the 'men in black' more than a few times. Perhaps you can locate this fellow and offer your services. Maybe that case has already gone to trial too.

Just couldn't resist giving it my best shot/opinion - though.

Just an FYI. In order to cite someone for violating rules which do not involved licensed activity, one must first be given a written warning, called a citation. If after receiving the citation, one repeats the conduct, it is considered wilfull conduct. If no citation is given, the court will strike down the fine if the conduct involves unlicensed activity. The FCC agent went to great lengths to construe the CB rules as requiring a license, so he could dispense with the requirement of a citation. It is not going to work. Just another example of the bullying tactics of the FCC. In this case, I would represent the guy because I know that the FCC will be required to reimburse his attorney fees. What the FCC agent has done is what we, in the legal profession, like to call BS.