If you are at my house as my guest and use my call sign, I don't believe I
must physically be there. But if you screw up while acting as control
operator, and a citation is issued, assuming FCC knows you were operating at
my house under my call sign then we would BOTH be liable--me for screwing up
as control operator and you for not making sure I operated your station
properly under your call sign. But if you go away for the weekend, it is
still SO category. As you or someone said, the language of the reg is to
keep the licensee liable. Same applies to club calls.
This whole thing has gotten way out of proportion to poor Yuri's
problem--which he is now solving in the best way by upgrading his license.
Sean's ruling was correct and an unfortunate break for KP2MM.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dick Green WC1M" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: <email@example.com>; "Dick Green WC1M" <firstname.lastname@example.org>; "CONTEST"
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 7:12 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] A smoking gun? (was RE: KP2MM Disqualified in
>I think we agree in principle, but our reasoning is slightly different.
> You referred to the "owner of the station". That's not a factor in this.
> What matters is who is the station licensee. That doesn't have to be the
> owner of the physical station. As I read the rules, it's the person whose
> station/operator license has the *call sign* that's being used. Why?
> Because the station and operating license are granted together under a
> single call sign. When a call sign is used, the default assumption is that
> the holder of that call sign is both the station licensee and the control
> operator. A station licensee may designate someone else to be the control
> operator, in which case the rules require both to be present. But an
> Amateur holding a valid station/operating license may "borrow" a station
> and use his/her own call sign, in which case that Amateur becomes both the
> station licensee and the control operator, and is the only one who must be
> present. The owner of the station is irrelevant in this case.
> The distinction is important because if I use another person's call, or a
> club call, then that person or club trustee is the station licensee and is
> therefore equally responsible with the designated control operator (me in
> this case) for proper station operation. This is what happens in many
> guest operations, and I believe the rules imply that the station licensee
> must be present in this case. But if, as a guest op, I use my own call
> sign, then I am in effect "borrowing" the station equipment and using it
> as my own station. In this case, I am both the station licensee and the
> control operator, and have sole responsibility for proper operation of the
> station. The owner of the physical station has no responsibility at all in
> this case and doesn't have to be present.
> In other words, if I do a contest at your house and sign W1MD, you are the
> station licensee and you have designated that I am the control operator.
> We both have to be there to ensure proper operation. But if I do a contest
> at your house and sign WC1M, I am both the station licensee and the
> control operator, and you don't have to be there.
> I would bet there have been hundreds of Single-Op guest operations in
> which the host's call sign was used, but the host was not always present
> to ensure proper operation of the station. That's a violation of the
> host's station license, and therefore grounds for DQ. And if the host was
> present, then ARRL's logic in the KP2MM case would say that the operation
> is Multi-Op. But I know of no case where this rule has actually been
> 73, Dick WC1M
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
>> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 5:05 PM
>> To: Dick Green WC1M; CONTEST
>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] A smoking gun? (was RE: KP2MM Disqualified in
>> ARRL CW 2012)
>> I guess you didn't really read my note did you Dick... :)
>> This was one of the area's I was calling out...if you read down the
>> looooooong thread.
>> ---- Dick Green WC1M <email@example.com> wrote:
>> > Hmmm. I may have found a smoking gun that kills the argument being
>> > advanced about the presence of the control operator. FCC Part 97 says:
>> > (a) The station licensee is responsible for the proper operation of
>> > 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.
>> > So, if I do a guest Single-Op at K5ZD and use his call sign, Randy
>> > designates me as the control op but he remains the station op. In this
>> > case, by the rule quoted above, the FCC requires both of us to ensure
>> > proper operation of the station. The rules don't specifically require
>> > it, but I would think in order to do the job required by the FCC,
>> > Randy must be present at the control point. Even if he's not required
>> > to be there all of the time, the rule implies that he must be there at
>> > least some of the time to ensure proper station operation.
>> > Since Randy's presence is implicitly required in order to comply with
>> > FCC rules, does this turn my Single-Op into a Multi-Op? If so, we
>> > really do have
>> > 30 years of widespread violations on our hands!
>> > 73, Dick WC1M
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > CQ-Contest mailing list
>> > CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest mailing list