Maybe...just maybe...all of the instances of stations being 'loaned' even
when it is to an Extra Class need review...guess it just depends on HOW you
want to interpret the FCC rules when contesting...
§97.105 Control operator duties.-
(a) The control operator must ensure the immediate proper operation of the
station, regardless of the type of control.
(b) A station may only be operated in the manner and to the extent permitted
by the privileges authorized for the class of operator license held by the
<http://www.arrl.org/part-97-amateur-radio> §97.103 Station licensee
(a) The station licensee is responsible for the proper operation of the
station in accordance with the FCC Rules. When the control operator is a
different amateur operator than the station licensee, both persons are
equally responsible for proper operation of the station.
(b) The station licensee must designate the station control operator. The
FCC will presume that the station licensee is also the control operator,
unless documentation to the contrary is in the station records.
(c) The station licensee must make the station and the station records
available for inspection upon request by an FCC representative. When deemed
necessary by a District Director to assure compliance with the FCC Rules,
the station licensee must maintain a record of station operations containing
such items of information as the District Director may require in accord
with § 0.314(x) of the FCC Rules.
I ?hope? all those big-gun stations are keeping a log of each time the
station is ?loaned? to a fellow EXTRA class contester (per 97.103 b/c)
One could arguably make the case that whether the station is being operated
by a lower class licensee or an Extra class licensee who is not the primary
station licensee, the primary station licensee (presumed control operator)
should be present when the station is in operation? LOTS of SO efforts in
the records that were by ?guest op?s?
I ?suppose? if you want some wiggle room?97.105 a) says ?Immediate proper
operation? whereas 97.103 a) says ?proper operation?.
Hmmm?station owner turns on the equipment and gets everything ?all tuned up?
and ready to go before the guest op arrives?is THAT assistance?
I remember back around the first year I was a ham (30+ years ago)?my elmer
explaining to me what a control operator was supposed to ?do? (you won?t
find this in the FCC rules or ARRL contest Rules?but I think we?d all agree
that this is the intent)?a control operator is supposed be close enough at
hand to be able to take over/stop the transmitter/or disable the transmitter
should the person who is operating it under the control operators ?watchful?
guidance do something against the rules.
You have FCC rules which are THE rules?that must be followed?then the
contest rules?which must be followed AS LONG AS they don?t cause you to
break any of the FCC rules (this is for US amateurs)
So?does a CONTROL operator really constitute a 2nd operator if all they do
is ?monitor? the operation of the PRIMARY operator at the radio controls?to
ensure that the FCC rules are followed? The control operator doesn?t
(presumably) log, doesn?t (receive to aid the PRIMARY operator), and doesn?t
transmit. What exactly did the CONTROL operator due that a station operator
wouldn?t do to ensure that the station is operated within the rules?
This is all based on the ARRL contest and the specific KP2MM scenario?WW
contests add in the whole 3rd party issue which is a whole ?nother?
[mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of W0MU Mike Fatchett
Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 11:12 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] KP2MM Disqualified in ARRL CW 2012
Clubs stations don't have privileges. It is just a callsign. The control
operator will determine the privileges. There are not Technician class
clubs or Extra Class clubs.
W0MU-1 CC Cluster w0mu.net
On 6/23/2012 7:24 PM, iain macdonnell - N6ML wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 5:46 PM, Randy Thompson K5ZD <
<mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org> email@example.com> wrote:
>> While we dance around the idea of angels, "assistance", and some
>> rules being more rules than others...
>> What if the op had spent many hours running outside the USA phone band.
>> E.g., KP2MM running while transmitting on 7050. Or 14145. Is this
>> different than simply operating outside the ops license class? Would
>> that be an offense worthy of DQ? Or should those out of band QSOs
>> simply be removed as the operator making an innocent mistake?
> That'd be different because he'd have been in violation of FCC rules.
> He was operating under the club station license (KP2MM), not his own.
> The club station license has extra class privileges, but requires an
> extra-class control operator to be present. Since KV4FZ was
> (reportedly) present at all times, no FCC rules were broken. The
> debate is about whether or not KV4FZ counts as an additional operator
> for the contest entry. The ARRL's ruling was that he should have been.
> I tend to agree that reclassification as multi-single would have been
> more appropriate than DQ in this case, especially if it's a "first
> offense", and apparently a misunderstanding of the rules rather than a
> flagrant attempt at cheating.
> ~iain / N6ML
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
>>> <mailto:email@example.com> firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of
Dick Green WC1M
>>> Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 4:01 PM
>>> To: 'W0MU Mike Fatchett'; <mailto:email@example.com>
>>> 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
>>> 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
>>> 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
>>> 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:[mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]>
>>>> Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 1:40 AM
>>>> To: <mailto:email@example.com> 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 you!
>>>> Mike W0MU
>>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>>> <mailto:CQ-Contest@contesting.com> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> <mailto:CQ-Contest@contesting.com> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> <mailto:CQ-Contest@contesting.com> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest mailing list