Or, you could write a rule that says (in a more proper format, of course) that
an operator at multi-op station may ALSO operate from his home station (ONLY)
during those times he is not present at the multi-op station.
And for those Multi-ops that are accessed (in full or in part) remotely, a
further clarification the operator may NOT operate the remote station from one
rig (computer) while operating his home station from the other.
If such a rule or set of rules would be necessary, of course.
My thinking is that you don't want to discourage someone from home operating
just because he would visit and/or put in a token amount of operating from a
M/S M/2 or M/M station. Or if for any of a hundred legit reasons, said op
could not be at one site or the other full or close to full time.
In my own case, one of the gang who helps me during ARRL DX SSB only has a few
hours before he has to return home and watch his three kids -- he doesn't want
to leave them unattended while his wife, a nurse, is working a weekend shift
and/or catching up on her sleep. And I think he's very wise to do so, mind
you; I'm quite happy to get whatever time he has to spare. Should the rules be
changed to prevent him from spending a few hours in the evening or late night,
after the kids have gone to sleep, at his own station because he spent part of
the morning at mine?
I understand where you're coming from. But if we are going to write new rules
to cover situations that didn't come up very often in the past, but are
starting to do so more and more these days, let's just be careful that we're
not unfairly penalizing some to try and prevent chicanery from others.
73, ron w3wn
On 02/24/16, Tom Haavisto wrote:
Lets step back a bit, and see what is *technically possible - today*.
A person could operate from all 40 zones in the CQWW - in one sitting, by
connecting to 40 different stations and operating remote.
Six ops - sitting in one room - could operate from six different continents
- at the same time. I think we can all see a bunch of red flags with this,
but it is *technically* possible.
A person could drive to a MM, and operate part of the contest. Drive home,
and operate from home, using his own call.
The one way to address this would be: a person can only operate with one
call/contribute to one station for the duration of the contest.
This way, if you are operating remote - you are committed to that operation
- for the duration of the contest. New contest comes along - you are free
to "move" to a different location.
The downside is - drive to a MM, operate a few hours - you can't go home
Just my two cents worth...
Tom - VE3CX
On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 5:05 PM, Art Boyars <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> I think I broached this subject before, but got no significant response.
> Conversation with some of the other op's at a M-M this past weekend, and
> seeing W1VE's 3830score post for ARRL DX CW prompts me try again.
> Let's say I'm in Winnipeg for RAC Canada Day contest -- VE4VTR (me) and
> VE4EA and a couple of other VE4 friends use VE4EA's station for a M-S
> Let's say that VE4EA also realizes his hope of a concurrent remote
> operation -- say, part time -- of VY1AAA. We're all in the same room.
> It sure would be easy for VE4VTR to know when/where to find VY1AAA. But
> let's keep it honest. 'VTR will go after the YT mult only when it's
> spotted, and 'AAA will not self-spot.
> So, 'VTR sees the spot, pounces on it, and calls VY1AAA. The path is poor,
> and copy is difficult, but thanks to ESP (and maybe copying the transformer
> hum, like I used to do with my ARC-5) they make the QSO.
> Should that count?
> What if the remote worked only VE4VTR. Is that not allpowed? (I did not
> ask "unethical". This question is about the rules as they now stand.)
> What if I operate both the local station and the remote station myself for
> the QSO? Should that count?
> 73, Art K3KU
> CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest mailing list