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

[Ria Jairam]

How far do you go?  Is it okay for the station owner to do things like
adjust the antenna switching while the operator continues to make
QSOs? How about turning the antenna(s) or dealing with computer
glitches?

In a true single op, this wouldn't happen. You would stop and fix the
problem yourself. IMO, having a "pit crew" to do this presents an
unfair advantage.

Ria, N2RJ

On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 8:44 AM, Chuck Dietz <w5prchuck at gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't think the station owner swapping out an amp for a guest op should
> change the category. Nothing was done to find or identify a qso for the
> guest op. And, how many station owners are going to let a guest op change
> out their amps?
>
> Chuck W5PR
>
> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 7:34 AM Charles Harpole <hs0zcw at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Remote stations should never be used in a contest.  The length of the
>> mic/key wire matters.  Be on-site or be gone.  Charly
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 11:34 AM, Kelly Taylor <ve4xt at mymts.net> wrote:
>>
>> > 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
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > CQ-Contest mailing list
>> > CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Charly, HS0ZCW
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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