[Top] [All Lists]

[CQ-Contest] KP2MM Disqualified in ARRL CW 2012

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: [CQ-Contest] KP2MM Disqualified in ARRL CW 2012
From: wyc <wycpublic@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 13:24:05 -0700
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
It is an interesting question.  No shame to Yuri for being the subject of a
seeming case of first impression (or maybe he is just the first to report

It sounds like the alleged offense is not violation of the single op rule.  For
ARRL DX, that rule states "3.1  The use of spotting assistance or
multi-channel decoders is NOT permitted."  There's no suggestion that Herb
provided any spotting assistance.

So reclassifying Yuri’s log as Single Op Unlimited wouldn’t seem to help.

Rather, the offense is violation of Rule 3.1, “All operators must observe
the limitations of their operator licenses and station licenses at all
times.”  (It's not clear why ARRL’s general rules 2.1 and 2.2 were also
cited since, e.g., Yuri seems to have been following FCC regulations about
having a control op.)

The conjunction “and” in ARRL General Rule 3.1 is an odd one.  Read
literally, it seems to require that all operators observe the limitations
of *both* their operator license, and the applicable station license.  This
would seem to disqualify a General class op – at an Extra’s multi-op – from
operating below 21025, even under the watchful gaze of the Extra class
control op.  Can this be what is meant?  (Is this the understanding with
which the big multi-ops have historically operated?)

Sometimes, taking things to extreme sheds new light.  What if Yuri was
unlicensed?  (Or what if the operator was Herb’s unlicensed wife?)  What if
it’s Field Day, and the local club puts a visitor in front of a mic to make
a contact (I know – Field Day isn’t a contest…).  Assuming applicable
control op regulations were met, would no such QSO be contest-eligible,
even in an assisted multi-op, since the operator had *no* license?

Perhaps the ARRL group responsible for rules can ask the ARRL’s Contest
Advisory Committee to look into such situations, and recommend whether any
change to the rules is warranted.  (One such change would be to memorialize
Sean’s interpretation as an explicit rule, i.e., in any Single Op entry,
the operator must be the Control Operator.)

/Bill, K2PO

PS - given the novelty of the question, and the potential shame associated
with a disqualification, the ARRL might re-consider its DQ decision, and
instead simply remove the QSOs made in the Extra class sub-bands from
Yuri's log - that's doubtless a considerable penalty.
CQ-Contest mailing list

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