"Family" Roving (was: [NLRS] June Contest Results)

Sat, 13 Dec 2003 22:00:27 -0600

Forwarding this to the list for John, K9JK, for the reason he describes. 
   I will add a comment of my own to the end.  :)

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: "Family" Roving (was: [NLRS] June Contest Results)
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 19:56:49 -0600
From: John (JK) Kalenowsky, K9JK <[email protected]>
To: John P. Toscano <[email protected]>,    <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> 
<[email protected]>

Hi John and NLRSers,

Earlier I sent a similar message to yours (John) to the reflector but it
ended up getting bounced because some mailserver along the way from
ameritech.net to mailman.qth.net is on a blacklist due to spam. Sorry 
for the double copy to John...I'm hoping that...if my message once again 
fails to get to the Reflector, that John can Post it for me.

I noted one additional Rule clause beyond John's fine analysis,
however...VHF Rule 1.3 "A transmitter, receiver, or antenna used to 
contact one or more stations may not subsequently be used under any 
other call during the contest period, except as provided for in General 
Rules for All ARRL Contests number 3.5." Given that 1.3 is BEFORE 2.3.1, 
"I" interpret THAT as pre-empting the limitation in 2.3.1.

AND...THAT is would be the way that Tim (K0PG) and Pat (K9ILT) are able 
to rove under the 'family station' provisions, sharing ONE 'family' 
station in a SINGLE rover vehicle yet they can make contacts under BOTH 
of their calls (and the few times I have worked them...I have certainly 
appreciated getting TWO contacts times X bands from the SAME roving 
station! so I agree this has GOOD potential rather than being something 
distasteful).

Admittedly, Tim and Pat are only using this for TWO operators/call signs
(and a rover CAN have UP TO TWO operators)...BUT I don't see any limit 
on the NUMBER of operators that may use a "family station" under ALL 
Rule 3.5, just that the 'second' call sign has to be used by a different 
operator. There is not mention of a third or fourth operator but, if I 
would think that, if the ARRL intended to limit the 'family station' 
provision to no more than two operators, that would have been 
specifically stated. Further, I also note that last sentence in 
parentheses..."(The intent of this rule is to accommodate family members 
who must share a rig, and to prohibit manufactured or artificial 
contacts." - weren't Mark's family members 'sharing a rig'?

As far as WHY Mark's family's entry was not accepted for this past June, 
the "rub" may be in HOW they operated and submitted their activity. If
the four of them operated under ONE CALL SIGN, and submitted a SINGLE 
Rover Log, showing FOUR operators...I can see how such an entry would 
not have been accepted. On the other hand, if FOUR separate (though 
substantially identical) logs were submitted, ONE by each of the family 
members, who each made contacts under their own INDIVIDUAL calls (though 
using the same "family station" equipment), "my" opinion (not that such 
is of any great value) is that the FOUR entries SHOULD have been accepted!

That my .0163 Euros anyway.

73, JK

--------------------------------------------------------------

P.S. from W�JT :   In addition to K9JK's analysis above, I have been in
communication off-list with a station who asked the Contest Branch the
question I said I was afraid to ask.  Much to my (very happy) surprise,
they were specifically told that the 2-person family rover team was
acceptable with 2 callsigns.  I am intentionally not naming names
because the last time I asked the Contest Branch for a (different) rules
clarification, they gave me the clarification I sought but told me
specifically to NOT post their reply to any mail reflectors or even to
forward it to individuals.  Although my source said nothing of the sort
to me about his rule clarification encounter, I'm not taking any chances
by naming names.

Ok, now I can put away the acid-supression drugs and breathe a little 
easier!  :)

73 de W�JT