I've been doing a bit of SWLing. I looked up a particular G station on 
QRZ.com. His information contains the following:

My son is also licensed. His call is 2Enxxx. He can sometimes be heard 
operating my station when he wants to work QRO and some DX.

Can he do this? I'm guessing that 'QRO' means a bit more than 50W.
-- 
Ian

Ian Jackson wrote:
> I've been doing a bit of SWLing. I looked up a particular G station on 
> QRZ.com. His information contains the following:
> 
> My son is also licensed. His call is 2Enxxx. He can sometimes be heard 
> operating my station when he wants to work QRO and some DX.
> 
> Can he do this? I'm guessing that 'QRO' means a bit more than 50W.

He can operate his father's station under supervision at higher power 
levels as long as he uses his fathers call sign to identify the station.

If he uses his 2E call sign then he can only use 50W.

Iain

In message <48617bed$0$25950$6e1ede2f@read.cnntp.org>, Iain Kelly 
 writes
>Ian Jackson wrote:
>> I've been doing a bit of SWLing. I looked up a particular G station 
>>on QRZ.com. His information contains the following:
>>  My son is also licensed. His call is 2Enxxx. He can sometimes be 
>>heard  operating my station when he wants to work QRO and some DX.
>>  Can he do this? I'm guessing that 'QRO' means a bit more than 50W.
>
>He can operate his father's station under supervision at higher power 
>levels as long as he uses his fathers call sign to identify the station.
>
>If he uses his 2E call sign then he can only use 50W.
>
>Iain

I suppose you could argue that it's OK, as totally non-licensed people 
can now operate (or at least communicate via) an amateur radio station, 
eg at special event stations.

However, in ye oldenne dayse, to operate an amateur radio station 'under 
supervision', didn't you have to be fully qualified to do so by virtue 
of having passed the RAE and the morse test, even if you hadn't actually 
got your callsign? [Being a G3, I should know this, but I have 
forgotten.]
-- 
Ian

Ian Jackson wrote:

>However, in ye oldenne dayse, to operate an amateur radio station 'under 
>supervision', didn't you have to be fully qualified to do so by virtue 
>of having passed the RAE and the morse test, even if you hadn't actually 
>got your callsign? [Being a G3, I should know this, but I have 
>forgotten.]

Ah, the late lamented Amateur Radio Certificate...


-- 

from
Aero Spike

"Spike" <Aero.Spike@S&T.invalid> wrote in message 
news:bfs364psarqnvo60umb4or7dr0ve1pki6c@4ax.com...
>
> Ah, the late lamented Amateur Radio Certificate...

You can hardly lament something you've never known, despite
having 50+ years to try.

In message <g3stgp$i2l$1@news.albasani.net>, 12 WPM Class A 
<invalid@invalid.invalid> writes
>"Spike" <Aero.Spike@S&T.invalid> wrote in message
>news:bfs364psarqnvo60umb4or7dr0ve1pki6c@4ax.com...
>>
>> Ah, the late lamented Amateur Radio Certificate...
>
>You can hardly lament something you've never known, despite
>having 50+ years to try.
>
Who's 'you'?
-- 
Ian

"Ian Jackson"  wrote in message 
news:9JVLx9IgtfYIFwNO@g3ohx.demon.co.uk...
> In message <g3stgp$i2l$1@news.albasani.net>, 12 WPM Class A 
> <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes
>>"Spike" <Aero.Spike@S&T.invalid> wrote in message
>>news:bfs364psarqnvo60umb4or7dr0ve1pki6c@4ax.com...
>>> Ah, the late lamented Amateur Radio Certificate...
>>You can hardly lament something you've never known, despite
>>having 50+ years to try.
> Who's 'you'?

Mrs.Nugatory   AKA   Binary Era   AKA   RVMJ   AKA NG Coward.

On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 23:15:39 +0100, Ian Jackson
 wrote:

>I've been doing a bit of SWLing. I looked up a particular G station on 
>QRZ.com. His information contains the following:
>
>My son is also licensed. His call is 2Enxxx. He can sometimes be heard 
>operating my station when he wants to work QRO and some DX.
>
>Can he do this? I'm guessing that 'QRO' means a bit more than 50W.

Yes, he can.  Provided he uses his father's callsign and he is under
his father's direct supervision whilst he is operating.

73 de G3NYY

-- 
Walt Davidson                               Email: g3nyy @despammed.com

In message , Walt Davidson 
 writes
>On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 23:15:39 +0100, Ian Jackson
> wrote:
>
>>I've been doing a bit of SWLing. I looked up a particular G station on
>>QRZ.com. His information contains the following:
>>
>>My son is also licensed. His call is 2Enxxx. He can sometimes be heard
>>operating my station when he wants to work QRO and some DX.
>>
>>Can he do this? I'm guessing that 'QRO' means a bit more than 50W.
>
>Yes, he can.  Provided he uses his father's callsign and he is under
>his father's direct supervision whilst he is operating.
>
>73 de G3NYY
>
OK. So can a M3 or an M6 do the same? Some posters on this NG believe 
that this isn't even an amateur licence.
-- 
Ian

"Ian Jackson"  wrote in message 
news:k2I9uCFUrjYIFwNo@g3ohx.demon.co.uk...
> OK. So can a M3 or an M6 do the same? Some posters on this NG believe that 
> this isn't even an amateur licence.

Unlicensed persons (for such are M3 and M6 persons) can now operate the
station under the supervision of the licensee.

On Jun 25, 1:55 pm, "12 WPM Class A" <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "Ian Jackson"  wrote in message
>
> news:k2I9uCFUrjYIFwNo@g3ohx.demon.co.uk...
>
> > OK. So can a M3 or an M6 do the same? Some posters on this NG believe that
> > this isn't even an amateur licence.
>
> Unlicensed persons (for such are M3 and M6 persons) can now operate the
> station under the supervision of the licensee.



Thought you were unlicenced gareth?

"Lurcherman"  wrote in message 
news:36c9137d-d1d4-4def-be6d-81fffd90dcb5@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>Thought you were unlicenced gareth?

G8GGP continues to make a fool of himself by originating a series
of rather silly and infantile remarks.

In message <g3tf80$jld$1@news.albasani.net>, 12 WPM Class A 
<invalid@invalid.invalid> writes
>"Ian Jackson"  wrote in message
>news:k2I9uCFUrjYIFwNo@g3ohx.demon.co.uk...
>> OK. So can a M3 or an M6 do the same? Some posters on this NG believe that
>> this isn't even an amateur licence.
>
>Unlicensed persons (for such are M3 and M6 persons) can now operate the
>station under the supervision of the licensee.
>
I thought that unlicensed persons were only allowed to exchange 
greetings messages and pass relatively short amounts of personal 
information about themselves. I didn't know that they could actually 
operate the station (apart from maybe pressing and releasing the PTT bar 
on the mic).
-- 
Ian

"Ian Jackson"  wrote in message 
news:GzklvBPkpkYIFw4I@g3ohx.demon.co.uk...
> I thought that unlicensed persons were only allowed to exchange greetings 
> messages and pass relatively short amounts of personal information about 
> themselves. I didn't know that they could actually operate the station 
> (apart from maybe pressing and releasing the PTT bar on the mic).

They _CAN_ do it, but _MAY_ they?

On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 06:17:45 -0700 (PDT), Lurcherman
 wrote:

>Thought you were unlicenced gareth?

He is unlicenced, Tim.

However he is not unlicensed.

73 de G3NYY

-- 
Walt Davidson                               Email: g3nyy @despammed.com

On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:49:12 +0100, "12 WPM Class A"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>"Ian Jackson"  wrote in message 
>news:GzklvBPkpkYIFw4I@g3ohx.demon.co.uk...
>> I thought that unlicensed persons were only allowed to exchange greetings 
>> messages and pass relatively short amounts of personal information about 
>> themselves. I didn't know that they could actually operate the station 
>> (apart from maybe pressing and releasing the PTT bar on the mic).
>
>They _CAN_ do it, but _MAY_ they?

They might!

;-)

73 de G3NYY

-- 
Walt Davidson                               Email: g3nyy @despammed.com

"Walt Davidson"  wrote in message 
news:o6k464t3k9619dhv50fehghgfpu61iiog7@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 06:17:45 -0700 (PDT), Lurcherman
>  wrote:
>>Thought you were unlicenced gareth?
> He is unlicenced, Tim.
> However he is not unlicensed.

Amongst others, I have driver's, marriage, road fund  and TV licences and in 
respect
of "hammery", "ploddery", "spawnery", "Britland", "Yankland" and
"RSCB" I have writer's license.

Perhaps in respect of Mrs.Nugatory and The Minimum, I have a baptiser's 
licence?

On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 15:13:38 +0100, "12 WPM Class A"
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>"Walt Davidson"  wrote in message 
>news:o6k464t3k9619dhv50fehghgfpu61iiog7@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 06:17:45 -0700 (PDT), Lurcherman
>>  wrote:
>>>Thought you were unlicenced gareth?
>> He is unlicenced, Tim.
>> However he is not unlicensed.
>
>Amongst others, I have driver's, marriage, road fund  and TV licences and in 
>respect
>of "hammery", "ploddery", "spawnery", "Britland", "Yankland" and
>"RSCB" I have writer's license.
>
From the OED, 2nd edition:
"The spelling 'license', though still often met with, has no
justification in the case of the n. In the case of the vb., on the
other hand, although the spelling 'licence' is etymologically
unobjectionable, 'license' is supported by the analogy of the rule
universally adopted in the similar pairs of related words, 'practice'
n., 'practise' vb., 'prophecy' n., 'prophesy' vb. (The rule seems to
have arisen from imitation of the spelling of pairs like 'advice' n.,
'advise' vb., which expresses a phonetic distinction of historical
origin.) A slight argument for preferring the 's' form in the vb. may
be found in the existence of the derivatives 'licensable' and
'licensure' (U.S.) which could not conveniently be spelt otherwise. 
Johnson and Todd give only the form 'license' both for the n. and the
vb., but the spelling of their quots. conforms, with one exception, to
the rule above referred to, which is recognized by Smart (1836), and
seems to represent the now prevailing usage. Late 19th-c. Dicts.,
however, almost universally have 'license' both for n. and vb., either
without alternative or in the first place."

HTH, HAND, etc., etc.

"Lurcherman"  wrote in message 
news:36c9137d-d1d4-4def-be6d-81fffd90dcb5@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 25, 1:55 pm, "12 WPM Class A" <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "Ian Jackson"  wrote in message
>
> news:k2I9uCFUrjYIFwNo@g3ohx.demon.co.uk...
>
> > OK. So can a M3 or an M6 do the same? Some posters on this NG believe 
> > that
> > this isn't even an amateur licence.
>
> Unlicensed persons (for such are M3 and M6 persons) can now operate the
> station under the supervision of the licensee.

Thought you were unlicenced gareth?

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

ITYWF he said he has not got a license. He may well however have a licence. 
The spelling makes all the difference, if you ask the question with the 
correct spelling you may get a different answer.

73

"Ian Jackson"  wrote in message 
news:GzklvBPkpkYIFw4I@g3ohx.demon.co.uk...
> In message <g3tf80$jld$1@news.albasani.net>, 12 WPM Class A 
> <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes
>>"Ian Jackson"  wrote in message
>>news:k2I9uCFUrjYIFwNo@g3ohx.demon.co.uk...
>>> OK. So can a M3 or an M6 do the same? Some posters on this NG believe 
>>> that
>>> this isn't even an amateur licence.
>>
>>Unlicensed persons (for such are M3 and M6 persons) can now operate the
>>station under the supervision of the licensee.
>>
> I thought that unlicensed persons were only allowed to exchange greetings 
> messages and pass relatively short amounts of personal information about 
> themselves. I didn't know that they could actually operate the station 
> (apart from maybe pressing and releasing the PTT bar on the mic).
> -- 
> Ian

I thought that the licensed person had to do the PTT work so as to keep the 
station under his control. Has it changed or have I been mistaken?

73

"12 WPM Class A" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message 
news:g3tf80$jld$1@news.albasani.net...
> "Ian Jackson"  wrote in message 
> news:k2I9uCFUrjYIFwNo@g3ohx.demon.co.uk...
>> OK. So can a M3 or an M6 do the same? Some posters on this NG believe 
>> that this isn't even an amateur licence.
>
> Unlicensed persons (for such are M3 and M6 persons) can now operate the
> station under the supervision of the licensee.

Unlicensed persons may not operate the station; with a few exceptions.

73
Jeff

"g0dly"  wrote in message 
news:4862621a$0$1349$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere.com...
> "Ian Jackson"  wrote in message 
> news:GzklvBPkpkYIFw4I@g3ohx.demon.co.uk...
>> In message <g3tf80$jld$1@news.albasani.net>, 12 WPM Class A 
>> <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes
>>>"Ian Jackson"  wrote in message
>>>news:k2I9uCFUrjYIFwNo@g3ohx.demon.co.uk...
>>>> OK. So can a M3 or an M6 do the same? Some posters on this NG believe 
>>>> that
>>>> this isn't even an amateur licence.
>>>
>>>Unlicensed persons (for such are M3 and M6 persons) can now operate the
>>>station under the supervision of the licensee.
>>>
>> I thought that unlicensed persons were only allowed to exchange greetings 
>> messages and pass relatively short amounts of personal information about 
>> themselves. I didn't know that they could actually operate the station 
>> (apart from maybe pressing and releasing the PTT bar on the mic).
>> -- 
>> Ian
>
> I thought that the licensed person had to do the PTT work so as to keep 
> the station under his control. Has it changed or have I been mistaken?
>
> 73

 No you are perfectly correct; with a few exceptions.

Jeff

"Ian Jackson"  wrote in message 
news:O0vXendLIXYIFwpP@g3ohx.demon.co.uk...
> I've been doing a bit of SWLing. I looked up a particular G station on 
> QRZ.com. His information contains the following:
>
> My son is also licensed. His call is 2Enxxx. He can sometimes be heard 
> operating my station when he wants to work QRO and some DX.
>
> Can he do this? I'm guessing that 'QRO' means a bit more than 50W.
> Ian
>
He can do what the feck he likes, Ofcom don't give a shite

Steve Terry

"12 WPM Class A" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message 
news:g3tf80$jld$1@news.albasani.net...
> "Ian Jackson"  wrote in message 
> news:k2I9uCFUrjYIFwNo@g3ohx.demon.co.uk...
>> OK. So can a M3 or an M6 do the same? Some posters on this NG believe 
>> that this isn't even an amateur licence.
>
> Unlicensed persons (for such are M3 and M6 persons) can now operate the
> station under the supervision of the licensee.
>
The question is, will M3/6ers actually allow anyone else to go near
never mind touch their FT1000 and SB220s

Steve Terry

Steve Terry wrote:
> "12 WPM Class A" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message 
> news:g3tf80$jld$1@news.albasani.net...
>> "Ian Jackson"  wrote in message 
>> news:k2I9uCFUrjYIFwNo@g3ohx.demon.co.uk...
>>> OK. So can a M3 or an M6 do the same? Some posters on this NG believe 
>>> that this isn't even an amateur licence.
>> Unlicensed persons (for such are M3 and M6 persons) can now operate the
>> station under the supervision of the licensee.
>>
> The question is, will M3/6ers actually allow anyone else to go near
> never mind touch their FT1000 and SB220s

That would depend if someone wants to operate a QRP M3/M6 station!  I 
thought the 8877 or a pair of 4CX800s were the valves of choice for FL 
holders?

"class_a"  wrote in message 
news:-_Gdnctn4_lfNv_VnZ2dnUVZ_ofinZ2d@comcast.com...
> Steve Terry wrote:
>> "12 WPM Class A" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message 
>> news:g3tf80$jld$1@news.albasani.net...
>>> "Ian Jackson"  wrote in message 
>>> news:k2I9uCFUrjYIFwNo@g3ohx.demon.co.uk...
>>>> OK. So can a M3 or an M6 do the same? Some posters on this NG believe 
>>>> that this isn't even an amateur licence.
>>> Unlicensed persons (for such are M3 and M6 persons) can now operate the
>>> station under the supervision of the licensee.
>>>
>> The question is, will M3/6ers actually allow anyone else to go near
>> never mind touch their FT1000 and SB220s
>
> That would depend if someone wants to operate a QRP M3/M6 station!  I 
> thought the 8877 or a pair of 4CX800s were the valves of choice for FL 
> holders?
>
For those who can afford it, you know those on disability with the child 
allowance
of four or more kids.

Steve Terry

Steve Terry wrote:
> "class_a"  wrote in message 
> news:-_Gdnctn4_lfNv_VnZ2dnUVZ_ofinZ2d@comcast.com...
>> Steve Terry wrote:
>>> "12 WPM Class A" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message 
>>> news:g3tf80$jld$1@news.albasani.net...
>>>> "Ian Jackson"  wrote in message 
>>>> news:k2I9uCFUrjYIFwNo@g3ohx.demon.co.uk...
>>>>> OK. So can a M3 or an M6 do the same? Some posters on this NG believe 
>>>>> that this isn't even an amateur licence.
>>>> Unlicensed persons (for such are M3 and M6 persons) can now operate the
>>>> station under the supervision of the licensee.
>>>>
>>> The question is, will M3/6ers actually allow anyone else to go near
>>> never mind touch their FT1000 and SB220s
>> That would depend if someone wants to operate a QRP M3/M6 station!  I 
>> thought the 8877 or a pair of 4CX800s were the valves of choice for FL 
>> holders?
>>
> For those who can afford it, you know those on disability with the child 
> allowance of four or more kids.

So, the majority of M3/M6s who have progressed past puberty then.....