With all due respect, Ron, you missed my point completely. If anyone is
armchair lawyering, it's those who are nitpicking that a person's presence
in the operating room constitutes "assistance" or multiple operators, even
if hands never touch the radio. I'd say that's splitting hairs mighty thin.
Again, debating terminology is what the armchair lawyers do. I prefer to
look at reality: the actual impact on the competition.
73, Dick WC1M
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ron Notarius W3WN [mailto:wn3vaw@verizon.net]
> Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2012 4:14 PM
> To: 'Dick Green WC1M'; cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] KP2MM Disqualified in ARRL CW 2012
>
> If you come over to my house to operate, as an Extra Class operator, I
> do not need to be present as a control operator. So in the unlikely
> event that this would happen, yes, my presence would not necessarily
> indicate that I am there to be a legal control operator.
>
> On the other hand, when my friend Ben KB3ERQ comes over to my house to
> operate, as a Technician Class operator, I MUST legally be present as a
> control operator, UNLESS he is operating within the limits of a Tech.
> (Or someone of a higher license class must be present as the designated
> control op, if you really want to split hairs that thinly.) Therefore,
> my presence WOULD indicate that I am there as a legal control operator
> (when Ben is operating outside of Tech privileges). Not, to me, a
> hypothetical situation either, since Ben is a member of my multi-single
> team for multiple contests.
>
> So, Dick, with all due respect, you can split the proverbial hairs
> however you like. I really don't feel like playing arm-chair lawyer
> (that's what I have K3AIR for, anyway). To me, the unfortunate
> situation is cut-and-dried... Yuri operated KP2MM outside of General
> privileges. So either he was in violation of the rules for doing so; or
> if he did so with a legal control operator (Herb) present, then he was
> legally operating Multi-Single & entered in the wrong entry class. It's
> either one or the other, and no arm-chair lawyering will change that.
>
> And again, we don't know the full story. Yuri hasn't amplified his
> original public post that I am aware of (outside of some indicated PM's
> which have remained private), nor is the ARRL Contest Committee saying
> anything (not that I would have expected them to). So there may be more
> to the story that we are not aware of.
>
> Granted, it's no fun to have your fingers burned in a situation like
> this, which is why he has my sympathies.
>
> 73, ron w3wn
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dick Green WC1M [mailto:wc1m73@gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2012 2:43 PM
> To: 'Ron Notarius W3WN'; cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] KP2MM Disqualified in ARRL CW 2012
>
> My problem with your definition is the word "presence". So, if I go over
> to your house, and you sit in a chair in the radio room watching me
> operate a contest, is it multi-op? No, definitely not. Mere presence of
> another person in the room doesn't make it multi-op. I'm sure that
> situation has occurred countless time with guest single-ops and their
> hosts.
>
> I think Brett has a more valid argument, in that the presence of the
> control operator is required in order to transmit on the Extra Class
> frequencies. In fact, a somewhat stronger argument can be made based on
> the wording about 3rd party traffic someone posted earlier. That post
> says the FCC doesn't consider transmissions by a US op on behalf of a US
> control operator to be 3rd party traffic. It's common practice at multi-
> ops to let all sorts of people, like wives, daughters, visitors, etc.
> work DX on the frequencies permitted by the station owner's license. But
> the *on behalf* wording brings us closer to the control op actually
> participating, and thus turning it into a multi-op.
>
> But I still think it's a stretch. This goes back to the earlier
> discussion we had about Skimmer. Relying on difficult-to-define terms,
> like "assistance", "presence", etc., leads to differing interpretations
> of the rules. Looking beyond the syntax to the impact on the competition
> is a clearer and more reliable approach. Basically, it's form versus
> substance, and I think substance is more important than form.
>
> I would be perfectly happy to compete in the Single-Op category against
> a General Class licensee operating under the privileges of an Extra
> Class control operator. I don't think it gives the General Class op any
> meaningful advantage because he/she is the one making the contacts and
> operating decisions. The competition is about my skill versus that op's
> skill. I don't care that the General Class licensee gets 25 KHz more to
> operate in than he/she otherwise would get. I'm perfectly happy to let
> that person compete on the same playing field that I'm on. In fact, I
> prefer it that way.
> Competition-wise, it's a lot less of a problem for me than the fellow
> who "borrows" a station with multiple 4-stacks on 200' towers! The
> impact of that is a lot less about skill than aluminum.
>
> Looking at it this way, we should allow people to have a little more fun
> in contests when the competitive factors are unaffected and there's no
> harm to anyone else competing in the category. Surely, we're talking
> about a victimless "crime" here.
>
> And let's drop the business about the op violating his license
> privileges.
> According to FCC rules and what's been posted here, even an unlicensed
> person can legally make DX contacts in the presence of a control
> operator, using whatever frequencies are permitted by the control
> operator's license, and it doesn't violate the 3rd party traffic rules.
> We can debate what "on behalf of a control operator" means in terms of
> contest categories, and possibly DQing the log, but I haven't seen any
> convincing argument that the op broke the law.
>
> 73, Dick WC1M
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ron Notarius W3WN [mailto:wn3vaw@verizon.net]
> > Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 3:43 PM
> > To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> > Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] KP2MM Disqualified in ARRL CW 2012
> >
> > Dick,
> >
> > With all due respect, I don't think that the problem is the 'vague
> > wording of the rules.' On the contrary, I think "the rules", as a
> > whole, are pretty clear.
> >
> > FCC rules state that you can not operate outside of your own
> > privileges unless there is a control operator present.
> >
> > If a control operator is present, by definition someone who is in
> > physical control of the operation of the station, in a situation like
> > this, it stands to reason that there is more than one operator
> present.
> >
> > Therefore this should have, by definition, been entered as a multi-
> > operator effort.
> >
> > Fairly cut and dried.
> >
> > Yes, it is unfortunate, and Yuri has my sympathies. Yes, one can
> > argue that the DQ ruling, based on what little information we know,
> > has the appearance of being very strict and draconian. (And in all
> > fairness, we do NOT know the entire story, only what Yuri has told us,
> > so there may be more to the
> > story)
> >
> > But I just don't see a need to reword the rules to cover an unusual &
> > near unique situation that actually IS covered.
> >
> > 73, ron w3wn
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
> > [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Dick Green
> > WC1M
> > Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 12:01 PM
> > To: 'W0MU Mike Fatchett'; cq-contest@contesting.com
> > Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] KP2MM Disqualified in ARRL CW 2012
> >
> > I think it's somewhat silly and a bit of a stretch to call the
> > presence of the control operator "assistance". That person isn't doing
> > anything, other than lending the contest operator use of his/her
> > license. That person is also lending the contest operator use of
> > his/her station, QTH, food, bathroom, etc. Why is that different? In
> > no case is the control operator actually doing anything that affects
> > the competition. He/she is not operating, providing spots, fixing
> > broken equipment, etc. (I'm sure the prohibition against that last
> > item has been violated countless
> > times.)
> >
> > Oh, you say operating in the Extra Class sub-band is a competitive
> > advantage? Yeah, so is a 4-stack on 20m. But the latter can be
> "loaned"
> > to the contest operator, while the former cannot.
> >
> > That said, the "angels dancing on the head of pin" interpretation
> > being used is that the control operator must be physically present by
> > FCC rule. That's true. So, since another body has to be in the room,
> > it's automatically multi-op. While I disagree with that strict
> > interpretation, and think the impact on the competition is the better
> > way to look at this, I believe HQ is within its rights to interpret
> > the rule as it has.
> >
> > However, I do not think the log should be DQed. It should be
> > reclassified as multi-op. The op didn't try to cheat. He made an
> > innocent mistake.
> >
> > The real issue here is the vague wording of the rules. If the action
> > is against the rules, and will result in DQ or reclassification, then
> > the rules should explicitly say so.
> >
> > 73, Dick WC1M
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: W0MU Mike Fatchett [mailto:w0mu@w0mu.com]
> > > Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 1:40 AM
> > > To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> > > Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] KP2MM Disqualified in ARRL CW 2012
> > >
> > > I think Yuri understands. I had a couple of off list emails with
> him.
> > >
> > > He is going to shoot for his Extra so this is not an issue again.
> > >
> > > I can understand his pain. He put in the effort and he is probably
> > > not the 1st nor the last that will do this.
> > >
> > > If Herb was there the entire contest or the periods where Yuri was
> > > operating outside his class, we will never know this then why not
> > > make it a Multi OP log.
> > >
> > > Yuri sometimes the best lessons are the hardest ones.
> > >
> > > Get that extra and get back in the contest. Don't let this
> > > discourage you!
> > >
> > > 73
> > >
> > > Mike W0MU
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CQ-Contest mailing list
> > CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> >
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|