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

[Kelly Taylor]

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jul 27, 2017, at 05:15, 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.
> 
Not necessarily. If the remote operation doesn't require a control op at the remote site, it's still single op. Not every situation requires an op at the remote site. Presumably, if the on site owner doesn't need to intervene, he's not part of the operation. 


> 
> 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.

Seems to me it comes down to action: if the station owner doesn't intervene, he's also not party to the operation. 

73, kelly, ve4xt 

> 
> 73 John K3TN
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest