[CQ-Contest] ARRL Rule Change for Remote Ops - Always Multi-op?

[Ria Jairam]

My understanding is that it becomes multi op ONLY If someone assumes
control operator duties under the FCC definition, which is:

(13) *Control operator.* An amateur operator designated by the licensee of
a station to be responsible for the transmissions from that station to
assure compliance with the FCC Rules.

Someone simply present in the shack isn't legally a control operator.

However with regard to remote operations by foreign licensees, it is now
confirmed by ARRL fhat CEPT/IARP reciprocal agreements do not confer
authorization to operate remotely. The way to get around that was to use a
control operator who has a US license and use their call. Now that loophole
has been addressed. If someone wishes to be single op they need to be
authorized under FCC rules to be a control operator and they cannot have
another control operator cover for them. Doing so places the entry in the
multioperator category.

73
Ria, N2RJ

On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 9:06 AM jpescatore--- via CQ-Contest <
cq-contest at contesting.com> wrote:

> Bart - the wording of the rule change for remote operations ("If another
> operator acts as the on-site control operator of the remote station you are
> using, the entry must be submitted in a multioperator category") implies
> that there is no such thing as a single-op remote entry.
>
>
> How does the control-op issue compare to a physical guest op, where the
> station owner is still physically present during the contest? Should such
> guest operations be considered multi-op as well? If the issue is that the
> local control op *might* be required to take some action, the same is true
> of the station owner with a physically present guest op.
>
>
> 73 John K3TN
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>