A number of you have said that KP2MM should have been DQed because he
operated beyond the privileges of his license. I've argued that this isn't
true because a properly-licensed control operator was present. But then I
got to thinking that maybe some of you believe that while it was not a
violation of FCC rules, it was a violation of ARRL contest rules. To wit:
3.1.All operators must observe the limitations of their operator licenses
and station licenses at all times.
This is from the General Rules for ARRL Contests. The thing is, as the rule
says, the requirement applies to *all* operators, not just those who enter
in the Single-Op class. The way this rule is worded, operating under the
control operator's privileges isn't allowed. But how many times have
lower-class licensees or unlicensed individuals operated at our multi-op
stations? Thousands of times? Tens of thousands of times? It's an accepted
practice. So are these multi-ops in violation of ARRL contest rules? Should
those station logs be DQed?
Of course not.
While I don't agree that we should call the presence of a control operator
"multi-op", ARRL can certainly write the rules any way they want. But
clarity is important, as is clearly evident from the example above. Rule 3.1
should say something like:
3.1 All operators must observe the requirements of the local licensing
authority as they apply to the operator and station licenses of the control
operator. Single-op entrants are further restricted to the privileges of
their own operator licenses, and may not operate using any superior
privileges of the control operator. Doing so will automatically reclassify
the log as multi-operator.
Or something like that.
73, Dick WC1M
> -----Original Message-----
> From: W0MU Mike Fatchett [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 9:30 PM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] KP2MM Disqualified in ARRL CW 2012
> In the grand scheme of things operating outside or contrary to or in
> violation of ones privileges should probably be DQed. The issue then
> becomes that the Sponsor now has to know every nuance of every class of
> license for every entity a log is submitted.
> For example: My J6 visitor license has different power and band
> privileges than those who reside on the island. I have no clue why the
> authorities there would do that but they have. Visitors to J6 are not
> allowed to operate 30m.......Not an issue with contesting. Power output
> on 10m was capped at 800w instead of 1500 like the other bands including
> How many years have we looked the other way on power?
> Just sayin....
> Mike W0MU
> W0MU-1 CC Cluster w0mu.net:23 or w0mu-1.dnsdynamic.com
> On 6/23/2012 6:46 PM, Randy Thompson K5ZD 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
> > 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?
> > Randy, K5ZD
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:cq-contest-
> >> email@example.com] On Behalf Of Dick Green WC1M
> >> Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 4:01 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
> >>> 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!
> >>> 73
> >>> Mike W0MU
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> CQ-Contest mailing list
> >> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> >> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> > _______________________________________________
> > CQ-Contest mailing list
> > CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
CQ-Contest mailing list