John,
I'm not questioning anything. I'm making a statement.
It's clear that the 3 N6NB group vehicles (N6NB, N6ZZ, N6MU), each
using a different callsign is part of a single team effort. Heck, the
team is documented on the N6NB website as such. What you guys did was
orchestrated and coordinated as a team - not as individual operations.
That sort of team operation is clearly different from a "normal" single
rover type operation - like N5AC @ 32k score for example.
The rule states:
"2.3. Rover: One or two operators of a single station that moves among
two or more grid squares during the course of a contest. "
In stark contrast, your operation was: Six operators with 3 stations
moving together in a pre-planned, systematic route among two or more
grid squares during the course of a contest in order to maximize the
qsos on all bands in every grid between each other.
Therein lies the difference.
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with such a coordinated team of
rovers, or that you guys did anything "bad". It sounds like fun to do,
and I enjoyed Wayne's write-up of it on his website. Even so, he
continually uses the term "we" in describing the activities of all 3
stations further confirming that this is a team effort.
Did you guys exploit a loophole in the existing rover rule, you
betcha. It's time to close it.
The solution to this is that there needs to be two rover categories:
1) Single Rover (Like N5AC, et al)
2) Unlimited Rover or Rover Team (Like the N6NB-run team)
The rules need to be changed to address this gross inequity.
73,
Bob W5OV
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|