So...If I just show up at your house and you are present and I start
operating...how does that play? And you are sitting in the radio room while I'm
operating...thereby 'enabling me' to operate YOUR station.
How about if I show up at your house and you are NOT there to 'enable' me to
operate the station...? (this case happens all the time when one Extra loans
his/her station to another Extra for the contest as a SO or SOA)
It's not MY station.
I am not the primary station licensee
You as the Primary station licensee are not there to EQUALLY ensure the proper
operation of the station while I operate/control it
Part 97.103 a/b and 97.105 a
---- W0MU Mike Fatchett <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Herb did do something. His presence allowed another operator do operate
> where he did. Without Herb there Yuri operated Illegally and thus is an
> automatic DQ as he violated a different rule.
> I have no idea if Herb was anywhere near the op at all or during the
> entire time.
> Operators do not have to make a contact, tune the rig etc.
> I am amazed that people are trying to legitimize this operation. It is
> wrong in so many ways.
> Mike W0MU
> W0MU-1 CC Cluster w0mu.net:23 or w0mu-1.dnsdynamic.com
> On 6/25/2012 1:03 PM, Dick Green WC1M wrote:
> > Mike, you've gotten right to the heart of the matter by emphasizing the word
> > OPERATOR. To me, this highlights the fact that KV4FZ was an operator *in
> > name only*. As far as we know. he didn't do any of the actions ARRL uses to
> > define Single-Op:
> > 2.1.Single Operator: One person performs all transmitting, receiving, and
> > logging functions as well as equipment and antenna adjustments.
> > The fact that Herb *could* have done these things is irrelevant. Any op in
> > the room *could* have done them, but only Yuri did. That's ARRL's definition
> > of Single-Op.
> > If you take my approach, and ask whether the competition was altered by the
> > way the station was operated, then all you could claim is that Yuri was able
> > to generate a higher score by operating in the Extra Class sub band. I don't
> > think the difference is significant enough to matter, but others might. If
> > that's the case, then ARRL rules need to explicitly state that operating
> > under the superior privileges of a control operator is not allowed.
> > Now, should that be only for Single-Op, or all classes? Again, let's stay
> > away from the specious argument that the control op counts as an operator.
> > Looking at it only from the competitive perspective, lower class licensees
> > using the superior privileges of the control operator at a Multi-Op station
> > also have an advantage they wouldn't otherwise have. Why don't we restrict
> > those ops to using only the privileges of their own license? If it makes a
> > competitive difference in Single-Op, it makes the same difference in
> > Multi-Op. We're going to have to get rid of unlicensed ops at multis, too,
> > because when bodies are needed, that's a scoring advantage, too. Too bad,
> > because it will be a setback to recruiting new hams and new contest
> > operators.
> > This is why I think we need to back off Draconian interpretations of the
> > rules and let people have fun, as long as it doesn't materially alter the
> > playing field.
> > 73, Dick WC1M
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: W0MU Mike Fatchett [mailto:email@example.com]
> >> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 11:08 AM
> >> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> >> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] ARRL single op definition
> >> And if Yuri had operated within the confines or privileges of HIS
> >> license we would not be having this discussion.
> >> KV4FZ was a control OPERATOR. Without this Control OPERATOR Yuri would
> >> have been operating illegally. Without him the results may have been
> >> far different. We will never know.
> >> Mike W0MU
> >> W0MU-1 CC Cluster w0mu.net:23 or w0mu-1.dnsdynamic.com
> >> Http://www.w0mu.com
> >> On 6/25/2012 6:35 AM, email@example.com wrote:
> >>> Simple...go to the source: the RULES
> >>> 2.1.Single Operator: One person performs all transmitting, receiving,
> >> and logging functions as well as equipment and antenna adjustments.
> >>> So...did KV4FZ (or any control op) do any transmitting, receiving,
> >> logging or equipment/ant adjustments? If all he did is turn the stuff
> >> on at the beginning of the contest, I don't think the ARRL's definition
> >> of single op was violated.
> >>> YMMV
> >>> de Doug KR2Q
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> CQ-Contest mailing list
> >>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> >>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest mailing list