I don't think the station owner swapping out an amp for a guest op should
change the category. Nothing was done to find or identify a qso for the
guest op. And, how many station owners are going to let a guest op change
out their amps?
Chuck W5PR
On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 7:34 AM Charles Harpole <hs0zcw@gmail.com> wrote:
> Remote stations should never be used in a contest. The length of the
> mic/key wire matters. Be on-site or be gone. Charly
>
> On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 11:34 AM, Kelly Taylor <ve4xt@mymts.net> wrote:
>
> > 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
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Charly, HS0ZCW
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|