Kindasorta reminds me of the news media, following a news conference!
Telling me exactly what I heard, except in this case telling me exactly
what I read.
73, Shelby
On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 11:03 AM, jpescatore--- via CQ-Contest <
cq-contest@contesting.com> wrote:
> Hans, looks like reading the part .105 definition of control operator, If
> I operate W4AAW remotely and Mike W4AAW designates me as control op, I'm
> then both the station operator and the control op, so I can enter SO class.
> If he doesn't designate me as such, he is the control op - then it would
> have to be multi-op per new ARRL rule definition. With the new wording,
> hard to figure out the spirit or the intent.
>
>
> 73 John K3TN
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Radio K0HB <kzerohb@gmail.com>
> To: jpescatore <jpescatore@aol.com>; CQ-Contest <CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> >
> Sent: Thu, Jul 27, 2017 10:34 am
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] ARRL Rule Change for Remote Ops - Always
> Multi-op?
>
>
> John,
>
> I think the key word is “acts”.
>
> If the remote operator completely controls the station then the on-site
> presence of another (non-participating) licensee at the station isn’t
> germane.
>
> However, if the on-site person acts as a participant in the operation
> (adjusts equipment, switches antennas, etc) then it would (from my view) be
> a multiple operator effort.
>
> If the mere presence of another licensee on-site makes you multi-op, then
> I’ll have to send K0CKB (my XYL) to a hotel during every contest that I
> want to single-op.
>
> 73, de Hans, K0HB
> “Just a Boy and his Radio”™
>
> On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 08:06 jpescatore--- via CQ-Contest <
> cq-contest@contesting.com> wrote:
>
> Bart - the wording of the rule change for remote operations ("If another
> operator acts as the on-site control operator of the remote station you are
> using, the entry must be submitted in a multioperator category") implies
> that there is no such thing as a single-op remote entry.
>
>
> How does the control-op issue compare to a physical guest op, where the
> station owner is still physically present during the contest? Should such
> guest operations be considered multi-op as well? If the issue is that the
> local control op *might* be required to take some action, the same is true
> of the station owner with a physically present guest op.
>
>
> 73 John K3TN
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>
> --
>
> 73, de Hans, K0HB
> --
> "Just a boy and his radio"™
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
--
73, Shelby - K4WW
As I don't have an iPad nor iPhone, sent from my PC
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|