With all due respect, I don't think that the problem is the 'vague wording
of the rules.' On the contrary, I think "the rules", as a whole, are pretty
FCC rules state that you can not operate outside of your own privileges
unless there is a control operator present.
If a control operator is present, by definition someone who is in physical
control of the operation of the station, in a situation like this, it stands
to reason that there is more than one operator present.
Therefore this should have, by definition, been entered as a multi-operator
Fairly cut and dried.
Yes, it is unfortunate, and Yuri has my sympathies. Yes, one can argue that
the DQ ruling, based on what little information we know, has the appearance
of being very strict and draconian. (And in all fairness, we do NOT know
the entire story, only what Yuri has told us, so there may be more to the
But I just don't see a need to reword the rules to cover an unusual & near
unique situation that actually IS covered.
73, ron w3wn
[mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of Dick Green WC1M
Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 12:01 PM
To: 'W0MU Mike Fatchett'; firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] KP2MM Disqualified in ARRL CW 2012
I think it's somewhat silly and a bit of a stretch to call the presence of
the control operator "assistance". That person isn't doing anything, other
than lending the contest operator use of his/her license. That person is
also lending the contest operator use of his/her station, QTH, food,
bathroom, etc. Why is that different? In no case is the control operator
actually doing anything that affects the competition. He/she is not
operating, providing spots, fixing broken equipment, etc. (I'm sure the
prohibition against that last item has been violated countless times.)
Oh, you say operating in the Extra Class sub-band is a competitive
advantage? Yeah, so is a 4-stack on 20m. But the latter can be "loaned" to
the contest operator, while the former cannot.
That said, the "angels dancing on the head of pin" interpretation being used
is that the control operator must be physically present by FCC rule. That's
true. So, since another body has to be in the room, it's automatically
multi-op. While I disagree with that strict interpretation, and think the
impact on the competition is the better way to look at this, I believe HQ is
within its rights to interpret the rule as it has.
However, I do not think the log should be DQed. It should be reclassified as
multi-op. The op didn't try to cheat. He made an innocent mistake.
The real issue here is the vague wording of the rules. If the action is
against the rules, and will result in DQ or reclassification, then the rules
should explicitly say so.
73, Dick WC1M
> -----Original Message-----
> From: W0MU Mike Fatchett [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 1:40 AM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] KP2MM Disqualified in ARRL CW 2012
> I think Yuri understands. I had a couple of off list emails with him.
> He is going to shoot for his Extra so this is not an issue again.
> I can understand his pain. He put in the effort and he is probably not
> the 1st nor the last that will do this.
> If Herb was there the entire contest or the periods where Yuri was
> operating outside his class, we will never know this then why not make
> it a Multi OP log.
> Yuri sometimes the best lessons are the hardest ones.
> Get that extra and get back in the contest. Don't let this discourage
> Mike W0MU
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest mailing list