[CQ-Contest] KP2MM Disqualified in ARRL CW 2012

Ron Notarius W3WN wn3vaw at verizon.net
Sun Jun 24 13:16:14 PDT 2012

Oh, I almost forgot...

The issue of a Yuri's license privileges is significant.  Not in terms of
3rd party rules regarding contacting DX... but in clearer terms that he was
operating on frequencies his is not licensed to operate on.  Again, this is
pretty cut-and-dried.  


-----Original Message-----
From: Dick Green WC1M [mailto:wc1m73 at gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2012 2:43 PM
To: 'Ron Notarius W3WN'; cq-contest at contesting.com
Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] KP2MM Disqualified in ARRL CW 2012

My problem with your definition is the word "presence". So, if I go over to
your house, and you sit in a chair in the radio room watching me operate a
contest, is it multi-op? No, definitely not. Mere presence of another person
in the room doesn't make it multi-op. I'm sure that situation has occurred
countless time with guest single-ops and their hosts.

I think Brett has a more valid argument, in that the presence of the control
operator is required in order to transmit on the Extra Class frequencies. In
fact, a somewhat stronger argument can be made based on the wording about
3rd party traffic someone posted earlier. That post says the FCC doesn't
consider transmissions by a US op on behalf of a US control operator to be
3rd party traffic. It's common practice at multi-ops to let all sorts of
people, like wives, daughters, visitors, etc. work DX on the frequencies
permitted by the station owner's license. But the *on behalf* wording brings
us closer to the control op actually participating, and thus turning it into
a multi-op.

But I still think it's a stretch. This goes back to the earlier discussion
we had about Skimmer. Relying on difficult-to-define terms, like
"assistance", "presence", etc., leads to differing interpretations of the
rules. Looking beyond the syntax to the impact on the competition is a
clearer and more reliable approach. Basically, it's form versus substance,
and I think substance is more important than form.

I would be perfectly happy to compete in the Single-Op category against a
General Class licensee operating under the privileges of an Extra Class
control operator. I don't think it gives the General Class op any meaningful
advantage because he/she is the one making the contacts and operating
decisions. The competition is about my skill versus that op's skill. I don't
care that the General Class licensee gets 25 KHz more to operate in than
he/she otherwise would get. I'm perfectly happy to let that person compete
on the same playing field that I'm on. In fact, I prefer it that way.
Competition-wise, it's a lot less of a problem for me than the fellow who
"borrows" a station with multiple 4-stacks on 200' towers! The impact of
that is a lot less about skill than aluminum.

Looking at it this way, we should allow people to have a little more fun in
contests when the competitive factors are unaffected and there's no harm to
anyone else competing in the category. Surely, we're talking about a
victimless "crime" here.

And let's drop the business about the op violating his license privileges.
According to FCC rules and what's been posted here, even an unlicensed
person can legally make DX contacts in the presence of a control operator,
using whatever frequencies are permitted by the control operator's license,
and it doesn't violate the 3rd party traffic rules. We can debate what "on
behalf of a control operator" means in terms of contest categories, and
possibly DQing the log, but I haven't seen any convincing argument that the
op broke the law.

73, Dick WC1M

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ron Notarius W3WN [mailto:wn3vaw at verizon.net]
> Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 3:43 PM
> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] KP2MM Disqualified in ARRL CW 2012
> Dick,
> With all due respect, I don't think that the problem is the 'vague
> wording of the rules.'  On the contrary, I think "the rules", as a
> whole, are pretty clear.
> FCC rules state that you can not operate outside of your own privileges
> unless there is a control operator present.
> If a control operator is present, by definition someone who is in
> physical control of the operation of the station, in a situation like
> this, it stands to reason that there is more than one operator present.
> Therefore this should have, by definition, been entered as a multi-
> operator effort.
> Fairly cut and dried.
> Yes, it is unfortunate, and Yuri has my sympathies.  Yes, one can argue
> that the DQ ruling, based on what little information we know, has the
> appearance of being very strict and draconian.  (And in all fairness, we
> do NOT know the entire story, only what Yuri has told us, so there may
> be more to the
> story)
> But I just don't see a need to reword the rules to cover an unusual &
> near unique situation that actually IS covered.
> 73, ron w3wn
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Dick Green WC1M
> Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 12:01 PM
> To: 'W0MU Mike Fatchett'; cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] KP2MM Disqualified in ARRL CW 2012
> I think it's somewhat silly and a bit of a stretch to call the presence
> of the control operator "assistance". That person isn't doing anything,
> other than lending the contest operator use of his/her license. That
> person is also lending the contest operator use of his/her station, QTH,
> food, bathroom, etc. Why is that different? In no case is the control
> operator actually doing anything that affects the competition. He/she is
> not operating, providing spots, fixing broken equipment, etc. (I'm sure
> the prohibition against that last item has been violated countless
> times.)
> Oh, you say operating in the Extra Class sub-band is a competitive
> advantage? Yeah, so is a 4-stack on 20m. But the latter can be "loaned"
> to the contest operator, while the former cannot.
> That said, the "angels dancing on the head of pin" interpretation being
> used is that the control operator must be physically present by FCC
> rule. That's true. So, since another body has to be in the room, it's
> automatically multi-op. While I disagree with that strict
> interpretation, and think the impact on the competition is the better
> way to look at this, I believe HQ is within its rights to interpret the
> rule as it has.
> However, I do not think the log should be DQed. It should be
> reclassified as multi-op. The op didn't try to cheat. He made an
> innocent mistake.
> The real issue here is the vague wording of the rules. If the action is
> against the rules, and will result in DQ or reclassification, then the
> rules should explicitly say so.
> 73, Dick WC1M
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: W0MU Mike Fatchett [mailto:w0mu at w0mu.com]
> > Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 1:40 AM
> > To: cq-contest at contesting.com
> > Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] KP2MM Disqualified in ARRL CW 2012
> >
> > I think Yuri understands.  I had a couple of off list emails with him.
> >
> > He is going to shoot for his Extra so this is not an issue again.
> >
> > I can understand his pain.  He put in the effort and he is probably
> > not the 1st nor the last that will do this.
> >
> > If Herb was there the entire contest or the periods where Yuri was
> > operating outside his class, we will never know this then why not make
> > it a Multi OP log.
> >
> > Yuri sometimes the best lessons are the hardest ones.
> >
> > Get that extra and get back in the contest.  Don't let this discourage
> > you!
> >
> > 73
> >
> > Mike W0MU
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list