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

[Barry]

The problem is there's no way to enforce any of this, short of having 
streaming video of the entire station.

Barry W2UP

On 7/28/2017 09:51, Ria Jairam wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest