I don't think so. I think Toni has misinterpreted DXCC rule 9, which reads:
9. All stations must be contacted from the same DXCC entity. The
location of any station shall be defined as the location of the
transmitter. For the purposes of this award, remote operating points
must be located within the same DXCC entity as the transmitter and receiver.
As I read it, this means that his remote-controlled QSOs will not count
for *his* DXCC totals from the Azores. Rule 9 bars claiming DXCC credit
for QSOs made from a remote control point outside *the claimant's* DXCC
entity, but that only affects Toni's ability to claim them, not that of
the stations he worked.
73, Pete N4ZR
The World Contest Station Database, updated daily at www.conteststations.com
The Reverse Beacon Network at http://reversebeacon.net, blog at
spots at telnet.reversebeacon.net, port 7000 and
arcluster.reversebeacon.net, port 7000
On 4/11/2012 9:56 AM, Christian Schneider wrote:
> N4ZR wrote:
>> Every single QSO that Toni made was a legitimate, unsolicited, 100% amateur
> radio QSO from the Azores.
> Well, some subtraction should be made, as OH2UA stated in his 3830-report
> (http://lists.contesting.com/pipermail/3830/2012-April/249492.html) that
> those QSOs do not count for DXCC. I´m not in DXCC-rules but seemingly there
> is a perspective seeing such qsos a bit diffrent than "ordinary" qsos where
> the operator sits at the transmitting site.
> Will be interesting to see what further issues will arise with a growing
> number of such unmanned remote controlled stations - from new forms of
> rental stations to detective work of log checkers whether this stations were
> mis-used by cheaters as receiving sites etc.
> Toys for the Formula One who certainly will claim that it can attract new
> blood. Curious...
> 73, Chris (DL8MBS)
CQ-Contest mailing list