W1NR said:
>> The enforcement letter you link to was NOT for a multi-op. It was a SINGLE
>> OP by a tech using the extra call sign of the station. Third party don't
>> apply. He was operating illegally out of band. PERIOD. The FCC/ARRL
>> clarification that K1TTT posted shows that lower class licensees CAN operate
>> and third party rules do not apply AS LONG AS THERE IS A DULY LICENSED
>> OPERATOR SUPERVISING! It appears there was no supervisor in this case. You
cannot be a single op if there is someone else there helping you, licensed or
not.
<<
I didn't see anything in this recent account that mentioned whether or not
there was anyone else around.
I think that from my perspective the two circumstances should be the same, and
I was very surprised at the ARRL's explanation.
I do not agree with Hennesey's interpretation of the rules.
97.115(a)(2) says: This prohibition does not apply to a message for any third
party who is eligible to be a control operator of the station.
Further:
? 97.105 Control operator duties.
(a) The control operator must ensure the immediate proper operation of the
station, regardless of the type of control.
(b) A station may only be operated in the manner and to the extent permitted by
the privileges authorized for the class of operator license held by the control
operator.
At the time in question, the lower class licensee is not eligible to be the, or
"a" control operator of that station because he is operating beyond the
privileges of his license class.
If he cannot be the control operator, what is he? A third party perhaps?
It would be so easy to clear this up.
73,
Bob N5NJ
=====================
From: "Mike McCarthy, W1NR" <lists@w1nr.net>
Date: Thu May 12 10:46:28 CDT 2005
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] license class and m-m op's
The enforcement letter you link to was NOT for a multi-op. It was a SINGLE
OP by a tech using the extra call sign of the station. Third party don't
apply. He was operating illegally out of band. PERIOD. The FCC/ARRL
clarification that K1TTT posted shows that lower class licensees CAN operate
and third party rules do not apply AS LONG AS THERE IS A DULY LICENSED
OPERATOR SUPERVISING! It appears there was no supervisor in this case. You
cannot be a single op if there is someone else there helping you, licensed
or not.
Mike, W1NR
-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Gerry Hull
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 10:10 AM
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] license class and m-m op's
The FCC is VERY clear about third party rules and contesting. I'm sure
this FCC Enforcement Letter was what started this thread.
>From the text of the letter, it is VERY clear that a US ham operating
outside his privledges, even with a higher-license-class control Operator
present, is operating in third-party mode... Which is about useless for a
DX contest.
73,
Gerry, W1VE/VE1RM
Quoted from http://www.arrl.org/news/enforcement_logs/2005/0416.html
I removed the callsign... Read the actual web page if you want to know who
this was directed at:
"Furthermore, on October 14, 2004, the American Radio Relay League, to which
you had submitted contest logs, disqualified your KXXX entry, with KCXXXX as
operator, for the 2004 ARRL International DX CW Contest. That action was
based upon logs you submitted that showed your operation of KF0R as a
"Single-Operator Low-Power" entry. At the time of the radio operation,
February 21-22, 2004, you were a Technician Plus class licensee, KCXXXX.
The logs that you submitted to the ARRL for the 2004 ARRL International DX
Contest (CW) show numerous contacts made on 20 meters and 160 meters. Many
contacts on 20 meters were with countries with which we have no third-party
agreement. One contact on 160 meters was also made with a country with which
we have no third-party agreement.
>As a Technician Plus, you would have been authorized to operate on
>10-meter
SSB and all Novice CW frequencies. You could have also participated under
>the direction of a control operator, but you would have been limited to
making contacts as a third party, and any contacts with countries with which
>
>the United States does not have a third-party agreement would have been
>in
violation of our rules.
In summary, if you claim that you were operating under the direction of a
control operator, you apparently violated the third-party agreement rule. If
you claim you did not operate under the direction of a control operator,
then you apparently violated the terms of your Technician Plus privileges,
which do not allow operation on 20 meters or 160 meters. "
_______________________________________________
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
|