Dick -- Thanks for the clarification. So just to be completely clear there
is not any chance that a designated control operator participating as a
single-op would be reclassified as a multi-op based on a similar
technicality of the trustee being the control op?
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 12:23 PM, Dick Green WC1M <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Club station licenses are granted to a “trustee” designated by an officer
> of the club. There are only two requirements: 1) The trustee must be a
> licensed Amateur, and 2) the club must have at least four members and be
> legit (have an organizing document, an appropriate purpose, etc.) ****
> ** **
> When the club call is used, the trustee is the control operator and
> his/her license privileges apply to station operation. For example, only if
> the trustee holds an Extra Class license can the station transmit in the
> Extra Class band. The trustee can designate another licensed Amateur to be
> the control operator, in which case that person’s operating license
> privileges apply. This must be noted in the station log.****
> ** **
> Membership in the club is not required for any of the people mentioned
> above, except the club officer who designates the trustee. The trustee,
> control ops, and operators using the club call do not have to be members of
> the club. ****
> ** **
> 73, Dick WC1M****
> ** **
> *From:* Matt Murphy [mailto:email@example.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, June 25, 2012 3:03 PM
> *To:* firstname.lastname@example.org
> *Cc:* Ron Notarius W3WN; Dick Green WC1M; email@example.com
> *Subject:* Re: [CQ-Contest] KP2MM Disqualified in ARRL CW 2012****
> ** **
> Does anyone know how this pertains to the use of club calls? Suppose an
> extra class single op is a guest operator and uses a club call? Does he
> need to be a member of the club? What if the station owner is a member of
> said club but the guest operator is not? What if the station owner is not
> a member of the club but has given permission for a single op effort, but
> the operator is also not a member of the club but has been given permission
> by a member of the club to use the club call?
> Matt NQ6N
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 4:58 AM, <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:****
> Good morning Ron...thanks for the follow up.
> Lets see...Monday morning...check
> Ok...I can now play Monday morning quarterback... <grin>
> I guess one of the things I was trying to point out (maybe not too
> successfully) was the similarity of the FCC rules as they are written...
> (97.103 Station License vs. 97.105 Control operator function)
> Specifically pointing to 97.103 a&b...
> The way "I" interpret those rules is that even if a guest op has the
> necessary license (Extra in the US for FULL band privileges) the rules
> state that the station owner AND the operator (who is the guest) are both
> EQUALLY responsible for the proper operation of the station...
> So, while an Extra guest op may have the necessary license to operate
> anywhere in the US bands...if he is operating as a guest at another station
> it is STILL the duty of the station owner to ENSURE the proper operation of
> the station while said guest op is actively using the station. To me that
> would indicate that the station owner would need to be PRESENT at the
> station and physically in close proximity to the station equipment (read in
> the room) to ENSURE that the station is being operated correctly. OR...as
> part 'b' of the rule goes on to state, the station license is presumed to
> also be the control operator of the station UNLESS he/she designates
> another as the control operator... Hence my comment (somewhat
> tongue-in-cheek) that I hoped ALL of the former Single Op efforts that were
> Guest Op's had documentation that the station licensee had 'designated' the
> guest op as the CONTROL op for the duration of the contest...something
> tells me there wouldn't be a whole lot of documentation of the sort to be
> found...at least not in the last 30 some odd years...
> Fundamentally, my issue is that there are two trains of thought (in this
> thread) on whether a Control Op constitutes a 2nd operator...AS DEFINED by
> the CONTEST RULES. Unless or Until a control op needs to take control of
> the station due to some mistake or other 'misdeed' by the guest op I don't
> see the control operator as an OPERATOR...he/she is simply a MONITOR.
> As for Yuri's specific predicament...if the ARRL chose to reclassify as a
> Multi-Op, I think the ONLY class that would work would be M/M because M/M
> places no bandchange or timelimit rules on the operation...M/S and M/2 both
> do...and as such wouldn't work.
> ---- Ron Notarius W3WN <email@example.com> wrote:
> > Marty,
> > I appreciate your comments. Clearly we all don't see eye-to-eye on
> > when a control operator is or is not considered an operator for the
> > of the contest.
> > I respectfully disagree with the notion that one can be a Control
> > under FCC rules, yet not be considered an operator of the station while
> > is in the contest. The key, to me, is that the Control Op (in not so
> > words) must be PRESENT, AND must be in CONTROL. To my thinking, the
> > combination implies... in fact, pretty much demands... that the Control
> > MUST be considered a station op for the contest, otherwise, the
> > under-licensed op can not operate outside of his or her license
> > In any event, after reviewing the first link in Brett (ex)VR2BG's earlier
> > post... well, I've said all along that we don't know everything. Now I
> > understand why Yuri's log may have received additional scrutiny...
> > it would certainly appear from that link (scroll down to the FCC
> > section) that this very situation HAS happened before.
> > It certainly does make me wonder why Yuri says he didn't understand why
> > KP2MM was DQ'd, considering what happened with KF0R in the 2004 ARRL DX
> > contest (I believe I have the year right, as it's not explicitly
> > in the article).
> > So... well, I think I've made my position on the rules interpretation
> > I may be wrong (certainly wouldn't be the first time!) but I don't think
> > am. So I am going to bow out of further beatings of the deceased equine
> > this time.
> > 73
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> > [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of Martin Durham
> > Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2012 9:39 PM
> > To: Ron Notarius W3WN
> > Cc: Dick Green WC1M; <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] KP2MM Disqualified in ARRL CW 2012
> > Not 'quite' Ron......Not a lot of difference between control op and
> > licensee requirements when it's your station.
> > Per the part 97 rules from the current ARRL FCC rules page:
> > §97.105 Control operator duties.-
> > (a) The control operator must ensure the immediate proper operation of
> > station, regardless of the type of control.
> > (b) A station may only be operated in the manner and to the extent
> > by the privileges authorized for the class of operator license held by
> > control operator.
> > <http://www.arrl.org/part-97-amateur-radio> §97.103 Station licensee
> > responsibilities.-
> > (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
> > necessary by a District Director to assure compliance with the FCC Rules,
> > the station licensee must maintain a record of station operations
> > such items of information as the District Director may require in accord
> > with § 0.314(x) of the FCC Rules.
> > One could arguably make the case that whether the station is being
> > by a lower class licensee or an Extra class licensee who is not the
> > station licensee, the primary station licensee (presumed control
> > 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
> > 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
> > 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
> > that this is the intent)…a control operator is supposed be close enough
> > hand to be able to take over/stop the transmitter/or disable the
> > should the person who is operating it under the control operators
> > 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
> > is ‘monitor’ the operation of the PRIMARY operator at the radio
> > ensure that the FCC rules are followed? The control operator doesn’t
> > (presumably) log, doesn’t (receive to aid the PRIMARY operator), and
> > transmit. What exactly did the CONTROL operator due that a station
> > 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’
> > discussion…
> > 73,
> > Marty
> > W1Minutuae Discriminator
> > Sent from my iPad
> > On Jun 24, 2012, at 4:13 PM, "Ron Notarius W3WN" <email@example.com>
> > > If you come over to my house to operate, as an Extra Class operator, I
> > > not need to be present as a control operator. So in the unlikely event
> > that
> > > this would happen, yes, my presence would not necessarily indicate
> that I
> > am
> > > there to be a legal control operator.
> > >
> > > On the other hand, when my friend Ben KB3ERQ comes over to my house to
> > > operate, as a Technician Class operator, I MUST legally be present as a
> > > control operator, UNLESS he is operating within the limits of a Tech.
> > > someone of a higher license class must be present as the designated
> > control
> > > op, if you really want to split hairs that thinly.) Therefore, my
> > > WOULD indicate that I am there as a legal control operator (when Ben is
> > > operating outside of Tech privileges). Not, to me, a hypothetical
> > situation
> > > either, since Ben is a member of my multi-single team for multiple
> > contests.
> > >
> > > So, Dick, with all due respect, you can split the proverbial hairs
> > > you like. I really don't feel like playing arm-chair lawyer (that's
> > I
> > > have K3AIR for, anyway). To me, the unfortunate situation is
> > > cut-and-dried... Yuri operated KP2MM outside of General privileges. So
> > > either he was in violation of the rules for doing so; or if he did so
> > a
> > > legal control operator (Herb) present, then he was legally operating
> > > Multi-Single & entered in the wrong entry class. It's either one or
> > > other, and no arm-chair lawyering will change that.
> > >
> > > And again, we don't know the full story. Yuri hasn't amplified his
> > original
> > > public post that I am aware of (outside of some indicated PM's which
> > > remained private), nor is the ARRL Contest Committee saying anything
> > > that I would have expected them to). So there may be more to the story
> > that
> > > we are not aware of.
> > >
> > > Granted, it's no fun to have your fingers burned in a situation like
> > > which is why he has my sympathies.
> > >
> > > 73, ron w3wn
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Dick Green WC1M [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> > > Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2012 2:43 PM
> > > To: 'Ron Notarius W3WN'; email@example.com
> > > Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] KP2MM Disqualified in ARRL CW 2012
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CQ-Contest mailing list
> > CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> ** **
CQ-Contest mailing list