[CQ-Contest] KP2MM Disqualified in ARRL CW 2012

[Dick Green WC1M]

Nice research work, Brett!

This certainly calls the intentions of the OP (op and original poster) into
question, but I don't think it changes the fact that the ARRL rules are not
clear when it comes to operating Single-Op or Multi-Op under superior
privileges of a station control operator.

If ARRL is going to be a stickler about the presence of a control operator
turning an operation into multi-op, then I think they need to crack down on
multi-ops where operators exceed their own privileges when the control
operator is out of the room. That common practice is a clear violation of
FCC rules. Can't have it both ways.

73, Dick WC1M

> -----Original Message-----
> From: VR2BrettGraham [mailto:vr2bg at harts.org.hk]
> Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2012 8:20 PM
> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] KP2MM Disqualified in ARRL CW 2012
> 
> Would this discussion have been any different if we had remembered this?
> 
> http://www.arrl.org/arrlletter?issue=2005-04-22
> 
> Or were aware of this?
> 
> http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/license.jsp?licKey=2615849
> 
> And this?
> 
> http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/license.jsp?licKey=2788386
> 
> What's your call?  Or should we ask, what's your surname?
> 
> http://www.qrz.co.il/home.php?page=W2/UR5DEM
> 
> And though not the same, a somewhat similar situation in the past
> concerning the station used:
> 
> https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/alt.radio.scanner.fla
> me_fest/FHld-yZ9Jec
> 
> That last one I can't find the original on arrl.org, so we might wonder
> if it is really from ARRL.  I have in the past found something like
> this, where you can't find the original but because of the "parrot"
> nature of amateur radio "news", it still exists elsewhere.  So I suspect
> it's legit.
> 
> Finally, a radiosporting CV of sorts:
> 
> http://qsl.net/kc2llm/contesting.html
> 
> Putting this all together, I wouldn't be very pleased if I were near or
> in the same category as this guy over the years.  Could this be an
> example of what I mentioned in a previous post, about what could happen
> if left unchecked & later the participant breaches the threshold of
> scrutiny?
> 
> 73, ex-VR2BG/p.
> 
> PS: The keen reader might Google the given & two surnames from his
> current K amateur licenses.
>