What is the proper way to identify control operator

[W0NHH]

Whose call sign does one use when he is completely out of control? Part 97 does not address this issue.

[KC8VWM]

Whose call sign does one use when he is completely out of control? Part 97 does not address this issue.

None.

A technician or general class licensee is not permitted to operate in the extra class portion of the bands without an extra class control operator assigned for the control of the station.

[WA9SVD]

Whose call sign does one use when he is completely out of control? Part 97 does not address this issue.

it's calld "QRT" in CW, or "pulling the plug" on phone. It's implied in §Part 97.

[WA9SVD]

It's in the Part 97 regulations. Easy to look up. I suggest you find and read the actual rule, anyway, so that you'll know what it actually says and help you become familiar with the regulations. Spoon-feeding answers doesn't actually help anyone. You don't learn anything that way. It's your responsibility as an FCC licensee to know what the rules are.

there's a difference between "spoon feeding" answers, and answering valid questions posed by many new operators that have taken the memorization route to licensure; remember, the CURRENT philosophy is that a license is a learner's permit. If a person has a valid question or is confused about a particular aspect of Amateur Radio, I feel it's in ALL our best interest to EXPLAIN the question and answer, rather than merely sending them to some part of §Part. 97. For whatever reason, they may not understand the particular rule, or have gotten (often) erroneous information about some rules or FCC regulations. I believe it's called "Elmering."

[WN9HJW]

there's a difference between "spoon feeding" answers, and answering valid questions posed by many new operators that have taken the memorization route to licensure; remember, the CURRENT philosophy is that a license is a learner's permit. If a person has a valid question or is confused about a particular aspect of Amateur Radio, I feel it's in ALL our best interest to EXPLAIN the question and answer, rather than merely sending them to some part of §Part. 97. For whatever reason, they may not understand the particular rule, or have gotten (often) erroneous information about some rules or FCC regulations. I believe it's called "Elmering."

It's an important responsibility for hams both new and old to be familiar with Part 97. They should at least know how to access Part 97 and then if they can't find a particular rule, or don't understand something, then ask for an explanation.

That's not what happened here. In this case we had a new ham who seemed to have never even heard about the existence of Part 97 - couldn't even find it on the internet! How someone can get an amateur license and not know that, I can't figure out; so clearly the truly important "need" here was to teach the existence of Part 97.

The OP was then directed by an earlier responder to the correct section of Part 97, which was what a real Elmer should have done: Give the new ham the tools to learn something. That poster understood exactly what the underlying need was here, and did the right thing.

Instead, the Elmering moment was sabotaged and lost, and the message sent that new hams don't have responsibilities to know how to find the regulations - they can just pop onto the internet and it's someone else's job to spoon-feed them.

If the OP at least managed to learn from this that ham radio regulations exist, that the FCC is the regulating authority, and that they're called Part 97, then this thread will have accomplished something because he'll then have the right tools moving forward. If not, if all that he got out of it was that it's somone else's responsiblity to give him answers, then we've done a disservice to him and others reading the thread.

To invoke the well-worn cliche: This was an opportunity to teach the man how to fish. You just gave him a fish.

[KC8VWM]

if they can't find a particular rule, or don't understand something, then ask for an explanation.

That's not what happened here.

That's exactly what happened here... Did you read the first original question?

I feel they came to the right place to seek additional clarification on the matter, which is exactly what they did.

[WN9HJW]

That's exactly what happened here... Did you read the first original question?

I feel they came to the right place to seek additional clarification on the matter, which is exactly what they did.

No. You made a partial quote of my post, out of context..

The full quote was:

They should at least know how to access Part 97 and then if they can't find a particular rule, or don't understand something, then ask for an explanation.

This was not a matter of seeking "additional clarification".
The OP could not even find Part 97 in the first place! If he had, he would not have needed to ask that question.
And that is the bigger issue here.

[WN9HJW]

Way too many people in the hobby who think that spoon-feeding answers is "Elmering".

Elmering is providing learning opportunities and guidance, not "giving answers".

[AB1OD]

Reading this thread, I can't help but think that we might have a few participants in the irregular coots nets at the top of the 75m band. Perhaps we should be shipping participants in this discussion a complimentary copy of Part 97 and a complimentary bottle of prune juice.

Or as the surfers say: "Dude, lighten up".

The OP could not even find Part 97 in the first place!
And that is the bigger issue here.

Where did the OP indicate that he couldn't find Part 97? I had assumed that he hadn't thought of looking there and/or wanted to create this thread to provide an easy answer . The former is a mental lapse (it happens), and the latter a public service.

After all, the Part 97 guidance:

When the operator license class held by the control operator exceeds that of the station licensee, an indicator consisting of the call sign assigned to the control operator's station must be included after the call sign.

suffers from being written in bureaucratese.

Someone running a quick websearch to answer the question of what callsign to use when a tech operates under an extra's privileges would find it far more useful to have a discussion such as this return the desired answer: "sign as station-call/control-operator-call, i.e. tech/extra".

And if that answer is accompanied by the text of the FCC rule, and a pointer to where a copy can be referenced, then we will have shown the querant where to seek further wisdom if they wish to read it in the original regulator's cant.

[WN9HJW]

Reading this thread, I can't help but think that we might have a few participants in the irregular coots nets at the top of the 75m band. Perhaps we should be shipping participants in this discussion a complimentary copy of Part 97 and a complimentary bottle of prune juice.

Or as the surfers say: "Dude, lighten up".



Where did the OP indicate that he couldn't find Part 97? I had assumed that he hadn't thought of looking there and/or wanted to create this thread to provide an easy answer . The former is a mental lapse (it happens), and the latter a public service.

After all, the Part 97 guidance:

suffers from being written in bureaucratese.

Someone running a quick websearch to answer the question of what callsign to use when a tech operates under an extra's privileges would find it far more useful to have a discussion such as this return the desired answer: "sign as station-call/control-operator-call, i.e. tech/extra".

And if that answer is accompanied by the text of the FCC rule, and a pointer to where a copy can be referenced, then we will have shown the querant where to seek further wisdom if they wish to read it in the original regulator's cant.

In other words, that's all just a long winded way of rationalizing spoon-feeding.