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

[Radio K0HB]

John,

I think the key word is “acts”.

If the remote operator completely controls the station then the on-site
presence of another (non-participating) licensee at the station isn’t
germane.

However, if the on-site person acts as a participant in the operation
(adjusts equipment, switches antennas, etc) then it would (from my view) be
a multiple operator effort.

If the mere presence of another licensee on-site makes you multi-op, then
I’ll have to send K0CKB (my XYL) to a hotel during every contest that I
want to single-op.

73, de Hans, K0HB
“Just a Boy and his Radio”™
On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 08:06 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
>
-- 
73, de Hans, K0HB
--
"Just a boy and his radio"™