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

[Kelly Taylor]

Hi Barry

I contend this rule change does not affect guest operating: in either case, a local guest op or a remote guest op, the mere presence of the owner does not constitute a class change to multi. 

Whether you're in person or via internet, it is my contention that, aside from the exception I will get to, if the host does not intervene, he is not an operator. Many remote operations happen with no intervention of a local operator. 

If you're remote or local and the host has to fix something, arguably you're now multiop. 

The exception for remote is when a remote operation requires a local control op, such as when a foreigner who does not also have a US licence is remotely operating a US station. In that case, the control operator is an op and the operation is now multiop.

You'll note US law allows US-licensed operators to be control ops of US stations, even remotely. 

A twist here is what this means for Gerry, W1VE, operating remotely via VY1AAA. I don't believe this rule change affects him, as I believe his operation was legal under Canadian law. 

73, kelly, ve4xt 


Sent from my iPhone

> On Jul 27, 2017, at 06:36, Barry <w2up at comcast.net> wrote:
> 
> John makes a very good point.
> 
> Every guest op has a host taking care of station issues, making meals, etc.  It makes no difference whether a guest op is on site with a 3 ft long connection to the radio, or has a key or mic connection via the internet.
> 
> This rule is a step in the wrong direction and should be reconsidered.
> 
> Barry W2UP
> 
>> On 7/27/2017 04:15, jpescatore--- via CQ-Contest 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest