It is one thing to be " automatic " and " attended " and another to be " automatic " and " unattended ".
The rules say you can't be " unattended " At 11:19 AM 1/5/2008, you wrote: >A station transmitter without a homo sapiens located at a receiver *at >the location of the receiver* is unattended. Some have confused the >issue by claiming that a remote station (i.e. a Pactor station) that is >activated by another station hundreds or thousands of miles away, is >"attended" because it was activated by the distant station. This is >"unattended" transmitting because the distant station cannot check the >channel to see if it is clear due to the properties of skip. > >So Rick's use of the terms was correct. The concept of a distant >activating station "attending" a remote transmitter is incorrect. > >de Roger W6VZV > > > >Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at >http://www.obriensweb.com/drsked/drsked.php > > >View the DRCC numbers database at >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/database > >Yahoo! Groups Links > > >
