Green Light!
73, Tom - W3TOM
-----Original Message-----
From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of Brian Mileshosky
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2015 12:27 PM
To: arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org
Subject: [arrl-odv:24258] April 14 PSC meeting minutes
Colleagues –
For your situational awareness, please find attached UNAPPROVED minutes
from PSC's April 14 meeting, prepared by Dan Henderson. They will be
approved at our next (TBD) meeting.
Something to bring to your attention. At our meeting in January, the
full Board approved a rule to impose a transmitter and receiver
co-location limitation intended to disallow (by honest people, anyway)
the use of remote receivers if they were further than 500 meters away
from the transmitter.
The approved rule read as such:
"9. All stations must be contacted from the same DXCC entity. The
location of any station shall be defined as the location of the
transmitter. For the purpose of DXCC credit, all transmitters and
receivers must be located within a 500-meter diameter circle, excluding
antennas. QSOs made with legally licensed, remotely controlled stations
are allowed to be used for DXCC credit."
Staff and PSC has received questions and feedback from DXers concerned
that the third sentence of Rule 9 (that beginning with "For the
purpose..."), if read literally, disallows DXCC credit for any QSOs made
from anywhere outside of a 500 meter circle, whether using remote
control, or from previous or additional QTHs. Obviously that was not
the intention of the rule at all.
During its April meeting, PSC decided to tweak/clarify Rule 9 to remove
any further unintended abiguity/confusion/angst. The revised language
is found in the meeting minutes, which leads me to this question:
PSC does not believe the intended fit, form, or function of Rule 9 was
altered by its tweak. Would anyone object to giving staff a green light
to apply this clarification to the official rules as-is, as opposed to
waiting until July to approve it as a full Board?
Thanks and 73,
Brian N5ZGT