Well, that's the rub, isn't it?
Understand before I say anything else that recognizing the issue(s) and
potential pitfall(s) does not imply that either do or do not endorse this
mode of operating or any of the potential solutions.
To me, the key question remains... where do you draw the line? Or lines?
Frankly, the idea of a time-shared remote station bothers me on several
levels. That it is now technically feasible and probable is not the
point... is it fair? Is it within the spirit of the particular contest's
rules, regardless of whether or not it's within the strict letter of the
Now I don't claim by any means to be anything near a "big gun," if I'm lucky
my modest station is barely a little pistol. That aside, I can tell you
that the most fun I've had operating the last few years has been when I've
had friends come over to help multi-op. Winning, whatever that means these
days, is not the point. Having fun, and sharing the experience is. That I
can also get some relatively new or inexperienced hams exposed to contest
operating, and possibly get them interested in it as well, is a bonus.
That is something lost in a time shared station.
So what's the answer?
To outright ban a remote station will not work... those ops will no doubt
continue to operate, some under false pretenses, some under the guise of a
check log. And those who for any of a multitude of reasons have no choice
but to operate a remote station get shut out for no good reason.
But to simply ignore the issue invites potential pitfalls. And I don't
pretend to be able to guess more than a few...
A separate entry class for remote stations? I suspect that we may end up
down that road eventually... is it time to consider it, or is that being
And how many remote stations are potentially affected, anyway? How many of
them are competitive? Many such stations are not operated in contests,
after all. So as a practical matter are we talking about 10 stations? 50?
Clearly the lid is being pried off what might be Pandora's box. It behooves
us to hash this out and lay out some groundwork before this becomes a huge
problem that blows up in our faces.
What is the best method or methods to proceed that allows for the technical
advances, without pushing traditional contesting out the window?
[mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of Peter Sundberg
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 3:45 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Remote Control in Contests
Interesting perspective Ron.
So the next thing will be to have a group of top notch operators sitting at
home, operating their favourite band at a multi/multi remote contest
station on the other side of the world.
Maybe the top notch operator can also time share, so that he operates 24
hours for one team and 24 hours for the other team, during prime daytime or
nighttime propagation depending on the band used.
I agree with Albert Crespo - "What a lovely hobby we used to have"
Paul EI5DI is right. When contesting is about having the best and most
reliable Internet connection we are drifting away from ham radio. Rapidly.
Yes, I hear what you vocal Internet advocats and technically skilled
operators are saying, but I am not buying it. I totally disagree with you
73 de Peter SM2CEW
At 16:13 2012-04-11 , Ron Notarius W3WN wrote:
>Lacking a better definition or working theory, at present, I'd say that if
the purpose of the operator is to simply operate the remote station, and
ONLY the remote station (that is to say, he or she is not also a member of
a multi-op team at another site, or is running part of the contest under
the "home" call and part under the "remote" call, or other oddball
situations like that), and is willing to put up with all of the technical
glitches that could occur with a remote station, I don't have a problem.
>73, ron w3wn
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest mailing list