The easy solution is that any foreign op who wants to operate a US station
can take the VE exams and get a US license, as many have done. There are
even VE sessions overseas.
73
Ria, N2RJ
On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 7:01 PM Jim Brown <k9yc@audiosystemsgroup.com>
wrote:
> I strongly disagree with this provision of the new rules, the essence of
> which is to discourage remote contest operation of US stations by those
> without a US license. The local "control operator" contributes nothing
> to operation of the station.
>
> Compare this, for example, to me turning my station over to a local
> guest operator. That doesn't make the operation multi unless someone
> else does something during the contest besides make coffee.
>
> Perhaps this rule is the result of some sort of compromise between
> opposing factions. Whatever the reason, I think they got it wrong.
>
> 73, Jim K9YC
>
> On 7/27/2017 7:33 AM, Radio K0HB wrote:
> > 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.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|