Bob, I don't have any idea what creative bit of mischief ARRL was trying
to head off with that rule. The previous one, Rule 8, clearly harks
back to cases where people claimed to be operating from shore, but were
really maritime mobile at a dock, without licensure from the local
authorities. When that was banned, people started sneaking stuff onto
the dock and saying they had operated mobile, so they had to head that
off too.
I would think most of that nonsense had ended with the rule requiring
licensing documentation and proof of actually being in a place, so it
may be that Rule 9 is strictly an anachronism.
73, Pete N4ZR
The World Contest Station Database, updated daily at www.conteststations.com
The Reverse Beacon Network at http://reversebeacon.net, blog at
reversebeacon.blogspot.com,
spots at telnet.reversebeacon.net, port 7000 and
arcluster.reversebeacon.net, port 7000
On 4/11/2012 12:23 PM, w5ov@w5ov.com wrote:
> Pete,
>
> Thanks for quoting the pertinent rule.
>
> That rule needs to be changed. The "remote operating point must be located
> within the same DXCC entity" doesn't serve any purpose and this Azores
> operation is proof of the need for the rule to be changed. What would make
> all of these Azores QSOs invalid for Tony's Azores DXCC? Because the rule
> says so ? Not good enough reason, in my opinion.
>
> It makes no difference where the control point is as long as all
> transmitters and receivers used are within the same DXCC country and for
> contests within the same property limits etc.
>
> 73,
>
> Bob W5OV
>
>
>
>
>> I don't think so. I think Toni has misinterpreted DXCC rule 9, which
>> reads:
>>
>> 9. All stations must be contacted from the same DXCC entity. The
>> location of any station shall be defined as the location of the
>> transmitter. For the purposes of this award, remote operating points
>> must be located within the same DXCC entity as the transmitter and
>> receiver.
>>
>> As I read it, this means that his remote-controlled QSOs will not count
>> for *his* DXCC totals from the Azores. Rule 9 bars claiming DXCC credit
>> for QSOs made from a remote control point outside *the claimant's* DXCC
>> entity, but that only affects Toni's ability to claim them, not that of
>> the stations he worked.
>>
>> 73, Pete N4ZR
>> The World Contest Station Database, updated daily at
>> www.conteststations.com
>> The Reverse Beacon Network at http://reversebeacon.net, blog at
>> reversebeacon.blogspot.com,
>> spots at telnet.reversebeacon.net, port 7000 and
>> arcluster.reversebeacon.net, port 7000
>>
>>
>> On 4/11/2012 9:56 AM, Christian Schneider wrote:
>>> N4ZR wrote:
>>>> Every single QSO that Toni made was a legitimate, unsolicited, 100%
>>>> amateur
>>> radio QSO from the Azores.
>>>
>>> Well, some subtraction should be made, as OH2UA stated in his
>>> 3830-report
>>> (http://lists.contesting.com/pipermail/3830/2012-April/249492.html) that
>>> those QSOs do not count for DXCC. I´m not in DXCC-rules but seemingly
>>> there
>>> is a perspective seeing such qsos a bit diffrent than "ordinary" qsos
>>> where
>>> the operator sits at the transmitting site.
>>>
>>> Will be interesting to see what further issues will arise with a growing
>>> number of such unmanned remote controlled stations - from new forms of
>>> rental stations to detective work of log checkers whether this stations
>>> were
>>> mis-used by cheaters as receiving sites etc.
>>> Toys for the Formula One who certainly will claim that it can attract
>>> new
>>> blood. Curious...
>>>
>>> 73, Chris (DL8MBS)
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
|