okcradioguy wrote:Stuff like this happens more often that we realize. One fatal error this guy made, other than not "taking care of business" in the first place, was to admit he didn't have a working box for six years. I would have told them that "it appears our unit has failed and we have taken steps to become in full complience of the rules." I wouldn't give them any more info to chew on. If they demand logs up to two years or less, give them what you have. Otherwise, too damn bad FCC. They can get him for the two years of wilful and repeated, but nothing more at that point. People need to be real careful what they offer the FCC anymore. Try to admit nothing if at all possible.
This bothers me on several levels: the most relevant is that this is poor advice. Pragmatically speaking, the FCC can and will consider how responsive and forthcoming station personnel are in dealing with problems; when I read this post, the phrase "lack of candor" immediately came to mind. As some have discovered
, this is a dangerous and potentially expensive way to go.
On a more personal level, it runs counter to the very ethos of the licensed broadcast engineer that I grew up with (both of my parents were broadcasters as well). You work hard to learn your craft, study to pass all of the elements for the first phone with broadcast endorsement, make diligent effort to run a clean station, and prepare yourself for the inevitable problems. And when problems do happen, you figure them out, fix them, and try to prevent them from happening again. It seems to me that trying to ignore or conceal noncompliance defeats the purpose of being an engineer in the first place (but it might be a useful attribute for a lawyer