Remote stations should never be used in a contest. The length of the
mic/key wire matters. Be on-site or be gone. Charly
On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 11:34 AM, Kelly Taylor <ve4xt@mymts.net> wrote:
> Hi Barry
>
> I contend this rule change does not affect guest operating: in either
> case, a local guest op or a remote guest op, the mere presence of the owner
> does not constitute a class change to multi.
>
> Whether you're in person or via internet, it is my contention that, aside
> from the exception I will get to, if the host does not intervene, he is not
> an operator. Many remote operations happen with no intervention of a local
> operator.
>
> If you're remote or local and the host has to fix something, arguably
> you're now multiop.
>
> The exception for remote is when a remote operation requires a local
> control op, such as when a foreigner who does not also have a US licence is
> remotely operating a US station. In that case, the control operator is an
> op and the operation is now multiop.
>
> You'll note US law allows US-licensed operators to be control ops of US
> stations, even remotely.
>
> A twist here is what this means for Gerry, W1VE, operating remotely via
> VY1AAA. I don't believe this rule change affects him, as I believe his
> operation was legal under Canadian law.
>
> 73, kelly, ve4xt
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Jul 27, 2017, at 06:36, Barry <w2up@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > John makes a very good point.
> >
> > Every guest op has a host taking care of station issues, making meals,
> etc. It makes no difference whether a guest op is on site with a 3 ft long
> connection to the radio, or has a key or mic connection via the internet.
> >
> > This rule is a step in the wrong direction and should be reconsidered.
> >
> > Barry W2UP
> >
> >> On 7/27/2017 04:15, jpescatore--- via CQ-Contest 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
--
Charly, HS0ZCW
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|