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

[W0MU Mike Fatchett]

What's new with this?  We have had many rules for years and years that 
have no way of being enforced other than reliance on the integrity of 
the entrant.

W0MU


On 7/28/2017 11:39 AM, Barry wrote:
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest