[CQ-Contest] A smoking gun? (was RE: KP2MM Disqualified in ARRL CW 2012)

[W0MU Mike Fatchett]

or maybe the FCC means the station owner could be vicariously liable 
actions of the control op?    If the control op screws up they *may* 
have a word with the station licensee.  What is the point of a Control 
Op then?  Lawyer time!

Mike W0MU

W0MU-1 CC Cluster w0mu.net:23 or w0mu-1.dnsdynamic.com
Http://www.w0mu.com

On 6/25/2012 1:33 PM, Dick Green WC1M wrote:
> Hmmm. I may have found a smoking gun that kills the argument being advanced
> about the presence of the control operator. FCC Part 97 says:
>
>   
>
> (a)   The station licensee is responsible for the proper operation of the
> station in accordance with the FCC Rules. When the control operator is a
> different amateur operator than the station licensee, both persons are
> equally responsible for proper operation of the station.
>
>   
>
> So, if I do a guest Single-Op at K5ZD and use his call sign, Randy
> designates me as the control op but he remains the station op. In this case,
> by the rule quoted above, the FCC requires both of us to ensure proper
> operation of the station. The rules don't specifically require it, but I
> would think in order to do the job required by the FCC, Randy must be
> present at the control point. Even if he's not required to be there all of
> the time, the rule implies that he must be there at least some of the time
> to ensure proper station operation.
>
>   
>
> Since Randy's presence is implicitly required in order to comply with FCC
> rules, does this turn my Single-Op into a Multi-Op? If so, we really do have
> 30 years of widespread violations on our hands!
>
>   
>
> 73, Dick WC1M
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest