I would ask the Contest Sponsors this question.
W0MU-1 CC Cluster w0mu.net:23 or w0mu-1.dnsdynamic.com
On 6/25/2012 1:57 PM, Matt Murphy wrote:
> 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?
> -Matt NQ6N
> 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:
>>> 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.
>>> -----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
>>> (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’
>>> 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
>>>> this would happen, yes, my presence would not necessarily indicate
>> that I
>>>> 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
>>>> 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
>>>> either, since Ben is a member of my multi-single team for multiple
>>>> 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
>>>> 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
>>>> 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
>>>> 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
>>>> 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 mailing list
>> ** **
> CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest mailing list