On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 8:51 AM, Ria Jairam <rjairam@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> In a true single op, this wouldn't happen. You would stop and fix the
> problem yourself. IMO, having a "pit crew" to do this presents an
> unfair advantage.
>
>
Postulate three single ops, each want to do very well in a contest, perhaps
even win.
Each has a piece of equipment they fear will fail during the contest, so
they take measures.
The first has a ham friend that is a wizard at amp repair, so he asks the
friend to be at hand in case the amp fails.
The second has a friend with an amp she can borrow for the weekend.
The third has no friends so he crosses his fingers and hopes.
The first two ops have their own advantages, the third op has a
disadvantage of having no backup plan. Is that fair?
Is the first still a single op when his amp fails and his ham friend
springs into action? If you say no, let's say instead his friend was NOT a
ham, is he still a single op?
If you say no, now conduct the same thought experiment, but instead of an
amp, it is a generator. Is the first op still a single op?
If you still say no, how far away from actual operating do you have to go
to say yes? When is the repair person no longer an operator?
What if you are in a wheelchair and you have a neighbor kid who will climb
trees to fix your antenna during the contest? Is that unfair?
What if I just phone a ham friend during a break for advice on repairing
something? Is that unfair?
IMO the rules need to focus on the operating as the definition of single
op.
73 jeff wk6i
--
Jeff Stai ~ wk6i.jeff@gmail.com
Twisted Oak Winery ~ http://www.twistedoak.com/
Facebook ~ http://www.facebook.com/twistedoak
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|