Nice research work, Brett!
This certainly calls the intentions of the OP (op and original poster) into
question, but I don't think it changes the fact that the ARRL rules are not
clear when it comes to operating Single-Op or Multi-Op under superior
privileges of a station control operator.
If ARRL is going to be a stickler about the presence of a control operator
turning an operation into multi-op, then I think they need to crack down on
multi-ops where operators exceed their own privileges when the control
operator is out of the room. That common practice is a clear violation of
FCC rules. Can't have it both ways.
73, Dick WC1M
> -----Original Message-----
> From: VR2BrettGraham [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2012 8:20 PM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] KP2MM Disqualified in ARRL CW 2012
> Would this discussion have been any different if we had remembered this?
> Or were aware of this?
> And this?
> What's your call? Or should we ask, what's your surname?
> And though not the same, a somewhat similar situation in the past
> concerning the station used:
> That last one I can't find the original on arrl.org, so we might wonder
> if it is really from ARRL. I have in the past found something like
> this, where you can't find the original but because of the "parrot"
> nature of amateur radio "news", it still exists elsewhere. So I suspect
> it's legit.
> Finally, a radiosporting CV of sorts:
> Putting this all together, I wouldn't be very pleased if I were near or
> in the same category as this guy over the years. Could this be an
> example of what I mentioned in a previous post, about what could happen
> if left unchecked & later the participant breaches the threshold of
> 73, ex-VR2BG/p.
> PS: The keen reader might Google the given & two surnames from his
> current K amateur licenses.
CQ-Contest mailing list