John, The FCC Part 97 has no such reference. Could you please explain why you are making such as statement?
73, Rick, KV9U John Becker, WØJAB wrote: > It is one thing to be " automatic " and " attended " > and another to be " automatic " and " unattended ". > > The rules say you can't be " unattended " > > > > Roger, W6VZV had written: > > >> 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 >> >>
