CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] ETHICS

To: "'Michael Keane K1MK'" <k1mk@alum.mit.edu>, "'cq contest'" <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] ETHICS
From: "Dick Green WC1M" <wc1m@msn.com>
Reply-to: wc1m@msn.com
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 16:09:39 -0400
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
> How that would work out in a contest is a whole other question.

Right. Having never heard a double call sign ID, I would guess either it's
exceedingly rare for a regular contest station licensee to have less than
Extra class privileges, or people don't know the rules. Or both.

I'll bet most log programs would have trouble with double call sign IDs,
especially in WPX!

> You might be thinking of §97.103(b) which says in part: "The FCC will
> presume that the station licensee is also the control operator, unless
> documentation to the contrary is in the station records."

Yes, that's the section to which I referred. The wording is ambiguous, but I
interpret it to mean that the if the station licensee is not the control
operator, you have to make a note in the station records (which I
interpreted to mean the station log, but I suppose any piece of paper in
your file drawer will do.) If it's not a requirement, what reason would
there be for this sentence? I suspect it's there to draw a distinction
between failing to ID properly, which is one offense, and failing to have a
control operator with sufficient privileges, which is another offense.

73, Dick WC1M

_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>