Michael Keane K1MK
k1mk at alum.mit.edu
Fri Apr 3 12:44:16 PDT 2009
On 4/3/2009 10:23 AM, 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.
That's been the ID requirement since Oct 1972.
> 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.
The rule originally read in part "... when a station is operated within
the privileges of the operator's class of license but which exceeds
those of the station license, station identification shall be made by
following the station call with the operator's primary station call sign
The wording of the current rule is a the result of a somewhat more
recent change. When the FCC "simplified" the language of that rule as
part of its 1989 rewrite of Part 97, the FCC did not indicate that it
was expanding the situations under which the two-part ID was required.
The explanation of this rule in the most recent copy of the ARRL's FCC
Rule Book that I have is consistent with the original wording. As the
ARRL explains it, within the General class segments, an Extra class
operator can be the control operator of a General class licensee's
station without any additional ID required. An Extra class control
operator cannot use the General class licensee's call sign outside the
General segments without appending the control operator's call sign.
How that would work out in a contest is a whole other question.
> 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!
There's been no such requirement in the FCC rules for a long time.
You might be thinking of §97.103(b) which says in part: "The FCC will
presume that the station licensee is also the control operator, unless
documentation to the contrary is in the station records."
Keeping accurate station records is therefore a good way to CYA but it's
not an FCC requirement,
> 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.
In in the US at least, participation by unlicensed ops in communications
with countries for which a third-party agreement has always been
considered to be illegal.
The related question of participation by licensed amateurs under the
supervision of a control operator having greater privileges has come up
More information about the CQ-Contest