The unattended terminology is mostly semantics since the effect of allowing automatic operation does permit the station to operate without a control operator present or even performing this duty from a remote base.
Although the FCC does not use the term semi-automatic, we hams often use it as a shorthand term for having human to machine connections and with the machine only being permitted to operate when queried by the human control operator. It is clearly covered under 97.22 Automatically controlled digital station. (c) A station may be automatically controlled while transmitting a RTTY or data emission on any other frequency authorized for such emission types provided that: (1) The station is responding to interrogation by a station under local or remote control; and (2) No transmission from the automatically controlled station occupies a bandwidth of more than 500 Hz. Otherwise, if the station is over 500 Hz, or if the station is operated machine to machine, such as the old Winlink network, current NTS/D network, packet networks, etc., (even if they were 500 Hz and under, they must operate inside limited frequency segments on the HF bands. 73, Rick, KV9U jgorman01 wrote: > Hey! I'll call and raise you two! > > Unattended operation is not just "not prohibited", it is specifically > allowed. > > 97.3(a)(6)Automatic control. The use of devices and procedures for > control of a station when it is transmitting so that compliance with > the FCC Rules is achieved without the control operator being present > at a control point. > > 97.109(d) When a station is being automatically controlled, the > control operator need not be at the control point. > > As you say each of these rules do require a control operator for the > station AND neither of these rules have verbiage relieving the control > operator of meeting all the requirements you have listed. However, > they do not require the control operator to be present. In other > words, if someone claims harmful interference and you are operating > unattended, I don't see where you would have a leg to stand on when > claiming you didn't interfere. At the very least, you couldn't have > followed 97.101(b) and you are putting yourself at a large risk for > not being able to meet 97.101(c). > > By the way, the claim for semi-automatic operation is a joke. The > rules very plainly delineate three types of control, local, remote, > and automatic. That's it, end of story. The rules also plainly > detail what an auxiliary station station is when using an RF link to > control your station remotely, and a winlink client simply doesn't > meet the requirements for an aux station or a telecommand station. > > Jim > WA0LYK > >
