Hi Barry
I contend this rule change does not affect guest operating: in either case, a
local guest op or a remote guest op, the mere presence of the owner does not
constitute a class change to multi.
Whether you're in person or via internet, it is my contention that, aside from
the exception I will get to, if the host does not intervene, he is not an
operator. Many remote operations happen with no intervention of a local
operator.
If you're remote or local and the host has to fix something, arguably you're
now multiop.
The exception for remote is when a remote operation requires a local control
op, such as when a foreigner who does not also have a US licence is remotely
operating a US station. In that case, the control operator is an op and the
operation is now multiop.
You'll note US law allows US-licensed operators to be control ops of US
stations, even remotely.
A twist here is what this means for Gerry, W1VE, operating remotely via VY1AAA.
I don't believe this rule change affects him, as I believe his operation was
legal under Canadian law.
73, kelly, ve4xt
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jul 27, 2017, at 06:36, Barry <w2up@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> John makes a very good point.
>
> Every guest op has a host taking care of station issues, making meals, etc.
> It makes no difference whether a guest op is on site with a 3 ft long
> connection to the radio, or has a key or mic connection via the internet.
>
> This rule is a step in the wrong direction and should be reconsidered.
>
> Barry W2UP
>
>> On 7/27/2017 04:15, jpescatore--- via CQ-Contest wrote:
>> Bart - the wording of the rule change for remote operations ("If another
>> operator acts as the on-site control operator of the remote station you are
>> using, the entry must be submitted in a multioperator category") implies
>> that there is no such thing as a single-op remote entry.
>>
>>
>> How does the control-op issue compare to a physical guest op, where the
>> station owner is still physically present during the contest? Should such
>> guest operations be considered multi-op as well? If the issue is that the
>> local control op *might* be required to take some action, the same is true
>> of the station owner with a physically present guest op.
>>
>>
>> 73 John K3TN
>> _______________________________________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|