Bob, Pete et Al
I am myself a remote operator. I don't have any problem with that, it keeps me
in the hobby I love. My station is about 150 km from my apartment in Rio.
I think the reason for this wording rule 9 is to protect the spirit of the DXCC.
Otherwise someone could simply drop a remote controlled station with satellite
Scarborough / Heard / wherever, and operate it remotely for a long time. Having
go there and making the QSOs, watching the films and magazine articles is part
magic of the DXCC.
Just my 2 cents.
> Pete, > > Thanks for quoting the pertinent rule.
> > That rule needs to be changed. The "remote operating point
must be located > within the same DXCC entity" doesn't serve any purpose
and this Azores > operation is proof of the need for the rule to be changed.
What would make > all of these Azores QSOs invalid for Tony's Azores DXCC?
Because the rule > says so ? Not good enough reason, in my opinion. >
> It makes no difference where the control point is as long as all >
transmitters and receivers used are within the same DXCC country and for >
contests within the same property limits etc. > > 73, > > Bob W5OV > > > > >> I
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 >>
reversebeacon.blogspot.com, >> 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 >>
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest >> > > >
CQ-Contest mailing list > CQ-Contest@contesting.com >
CQ-Contest mailing list