[CQ-Contest] ETHICS

John Laney k4bai at worldnet.att.net
Fri Apr 3 10:31:49 PDT 2009

Dick Green WC1M wrote:
> Oops. I missed that (and I looked for it.) Do you know if that was added sometime in the last 25 years? I could have sworn there was a time when the FCC didn't require the control op's call to be included in the ID. 
> I'm sure it's a very rare situation in practice, but the double ID would be required if the holder of an Extra class license operates a contest station of a General class licensee, whether or not the Extra class licensee is the offical control op. I can't remember ever hearing an ID consisting of two calls for the situation contemplated by the rules. I would guess that most US hams are unaware of the requirement.
> Speaking of official control ops, the FCC rules also require the control op's call to be clearly indicated in the log. Not clear whether the information is required on each and every contact, or just once in the log. But in either case there's no room for that information in any contest logger I know of! 
> As I said in my earlier post, the vast majority of serious contesters get their Extra class license so all ops using the station can work any part of the U.S. allocation.
> Hadn't considered the 3rd party traffic angle, but it's certainly common practice for unlicensed ops to participate in DX contests under the auspices of a control op with sufficient privileges.
> 73, Dick WC1M
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: kd4d at comcast.net [mailto:kd4d at comcast.net]
>> Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 9:59 AM
>> To: wc1m at msn.com
>> Cc: Tom Haavisto; cq contest
>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] ETHICS
>> Hi Dick:
>> Thanks for sending me back to the regulations - always a fun thing.  I
>> wondered
>> if I had missed a change, but I think not.  I don't think this is quite
>> correct:
>> "In other words, you can't tell from the call sign whether the control
>> operator has sufficient privileges for the person operating the radio to
>> transmit in a particular band segment."
>> You CAN tell from the callsign if the control operator has sufficient
>> privaledges
>> in this case, since the control operator's callsign is part of the required
>> station identification (in this case):
>> See Part 97, Section 97.119
>> (e) When the operator license class held by the control operator exceeds that
>> of the station licensee, an indicator consisting of the call sign assigned to
>> the control operator's station must be included after the call sign.
>> We'll leave the potential "third-party traffic" issues of an unlicensed
>> person
>> for another day... :-)
>> 73,
>> Mark, KD4D
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Dick Green WC1M" <wc1m at msn.com>
>> To: "Tom Haavisto" <kamham69 at gmail.com>, "cq contest" <cq-
>> contest at contesting.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2009 8:20:18 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] ETHICS
>> As for working General class licensees in the Extra band, it's not possible
>> for you to determine whether the operator has sufficient privileges to work
>> in that part of the band. According to FCC rules, the privileges the station
>> may use are those of the designated control operator, who does not have to
>> be the station licensee or the owner of the call sign used for operation or
>> even the person operating the radio. For example, the control operator could
>> have Extra class privileges, the station owner could have Advanced class
>> privileges, the call sign being used for the contest could have General
>> class privileges, and the actual person on the air might not have a license
>> at all (yes, that's allowed). In this case, it's perfectly legal for the
>> unlicensed operator to transmit in the Extra class portion of the band. In
>> other words, you can't tell from the call sign whether the control operator
>> has sufficient privileges for the person operating the radio to transmit in
>> a particular band segment. Bottom line, just work 'em and log 'em.
>> These are my opinions, not anyone's official policy.
>> 73, Dick WC1M
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Tom Haavisto [mailto:kamham69 at gmail.com]
>>> Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 12:36 PM
>>> To: cq contest
>>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] ETHICS
>>> Wasn't me, but I have had something similar happen.
>>> A few weeks ago, I was around 14.125 - well below the U.S. phone
>>> allocation, and I was there on purpose - trying to run Europe.  W_XXX
>>> calls.  I tell him he is out of the band.  I call CQ - he calls again.
>>>  Again tell him he is out of the band.  After the third time, I gave
>>> him a report and he went away.  I did not log the QSO.
>>> A few weeks after the contest, I get a direct QSL from him.  On it, he
>>> indicated the frequency (14.125).  I returned his QSL with a "Sorry -
>>> Not in Log" comment.
>>> My question is this:  I know this person is out of the band (for him).
>>>  Should I log this QSO?  I assume it will re removed as part of the
>>> scoring process - do I get a penalty if I leave it in?  What about
>>> someone from Europe (for example) who may be unaware of this issue?  I
>>> have heard Europeans at 14.148 (just below the U.S. phone band) work
>>> W's, and carry on without comment.  I am not pointing fingers, and I
>>> did not write down the calls of the persons who did this.
>>> Its not so cut and dry as it may seem.  My assumption is that
>>> participants from each country should know their band allocations, and
>>> stay within them.  What happens if a U.S. general class holder wanders
>>> down into the extra class part of the band?  How am I to know what
>>> class of licence he holds?  In these examples, we are using U.S.
>>> stations, but on a broader scale, how do I know what allocations
>>> various countries have for their respective licence classes, and how
>>> do I know they are within their respective allocation?  160 meters
>>> being a good one, where various countries have access to only certain
>>> parts of the band.  Trying to figure out who can operate where is a
>>> problem.
>>> If anyone has some easy answers, I am very interested!
>>> Tom - VE3CX
>>>>  Let me share an example from the last WPX test, although minor,
>>>> shows a disturbing mindset.  A very well known VE contester was
>>>> running on 20m well outside the US band.  A US station called him
>>>> outside his band and the VE station gave him an exchange and
>>>> continued.  I would have told the W station that he
>>>> was out of the band and that I can not work you here.
>> _______________________________________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

A few "serious contesters" have been, for one reason or another, unable 
to pass the Extra class exams, even with no code requirement.  Some of 
you may remember that, after incentive licensing, the famous contest 
station of K2GL was operated under other operators' calls, who had Extra 
class licenses, because Buzz, despite his two-letter call, did not have 
an Extra.

So, does the FCC now require us to keep a log that consists only of 
formal third-party message traffic (for up to, I believe, two years) and 
calls of control operators when the actual operator has a lower class 
license?  I can't remember anything else that we are required to log, 
but I may have forgotten something.

I assume that, for a reasonable period of time after each contest, a 
contest station owner/operator would be able to identify the control 
operator who was in control when the lower license class ham or 
unlicensed person was operating.


John, K4BAI.-

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list