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

[Ria Jairam]

I think most of you are missing the point in this, in that the rule
regarding control operators turning the entry into a multi-op is aimed
at foreign ops who operate US stations remotely.

If you are a US licensee with the appropriate license class you can be
a control operator of a US station.

If you are not a US licensee, since CEPT and IARP do not apply
(according to ARRL), you cannot be a control operator unless
physically present in the USA. If you then have a control op at the
station and operate as a third party (effectively) then the entry is
classified as a multi-op.

It doesn't need to be more complicated than this, and if you are
licensed in the USA then this really won't apply to you.

73
Ria, N2RJ

On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 11:03 AM, jpescatore--- via CQ-Contest
<cq-contest at contesting.com> wrote:
> Hans, looks like reading the part .105 definition of control operator, If I operate W4AAW remotely and Mike W4AAW designates me as control  op, I'm then both the station operator and the control op, so I can enter SO class. If he doesn't designate me as such, he is the control op - then it would have to be multi-op per new ARRL rule definition.  With the new wording, hard to figure out the spirit or the intent.
>
>
> 73 John K3TN
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Radio K0HB <kzerohb at gmail.com>
> To: jpescatore <jpescatore at aol.com>; CQ-Contest <CQ-Contest at contesting.com>
> Sent: Thu, Jul 27, 2017 10:34 am
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] ARRL Rule Change for Remote Ops - Always Multi-op?
>
>
> 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"™
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest