[VHFcontesting] Multi-op rovers

Ed K1EP k1ep at mgef.org
Mon Aug 1 15:16:35 EDT 2005


At 8/1/2005 02:10 PM, Jimk8mr at aol.com wrote:
>If all that is keeping you on an unlevel playing field is the lack of a  
>second operator, you ought to just go find yourself one.

Using that philosophy, do you draw no distinction between a single op fixed station and a multi op fixed station?  Why then are single op classes and multi op classes for fixed stations?   There is a big distinction between a single op rover and a multi op rover.   It not only allows you to operate more than one band at a time, it allows operation while in motion.  It is not practical to operate and log while driving.  It can be done to some degree, but it usually involves an audio taping device and transcribing the log after the fact.  And on UHF and above, pointing directional antennas becomes problematic in motion.  

>Mixing contest operating with driving, especially when sleep deprivation  
>comes into play, is a very bad idea. While the rules can't stop someone from  
>doing something dumb or worse, I'd not want to be a contest sponsor who had to  
>explain to some trial lawyer, or jury, why we had rules that forbade  someone 
>from having help when out on the road for 31 straight hours.

Exactly.  So if a single op wants to drive safely, he doesn't operate while in motion.  That effectively cuts his operating time in half.  A multi op rover can operate the lower bands with omni antennas while in motion.  A distinct advantage.   I also classify a single operator rover with a non-operating driver as a multi op.  That is my interpretation of multi op.   Some state QSO parties have an operator/driver class for the mobiles just for that reason.



More information about the VHFcontesting mailing list