Hello, my english is not good, but is this an activity by car?
Whilst I’m no great expert, I think I can safely say that the photo is not Shining Tor, there is no way you could get those vehicles up there. Why the poster chose that photo, I cannot say!
The picture is not Shining Tor and the article is an alert for an upcoming activation. Thanks for the heads up.
1 Like
Axel, das heisst in deiner Sprache: Bitte mach dir keine Sorgen, im Text wird lediglich eine kommende Aktivierung angekĂĽndigt (Alert) und das Foto stammt von irgendwo.
3 Likes
I must admit that I saw that post this morning on Facebook and had to have a careful look! The guy looks like a hill walker so I think all will be OK.
-Colin
1 Like
I can see what the guy has done taking nice photo of past of something he has done from the portable, but no doubt not posting of the activation of Sota in itself yet to happen.
Normally photos are posted after the event but should serve as minder we do not operate from the motor vehicle nor be connected to it. In any sense such as power from it or antennas supported by it. But fully portable away from the motor as many sites you can drive to the summit such as my local one G/DC-003 But I choose to follow the rule in question and make my portable fully portable away from the motor that took me there in this case could me me car or the Motor cycle. Ok a short distance in comparison to other sota sites that require a LONG walk and said climb at some and have bigger points or even more remote than others.
But end of day chasing or activating ENJOY
KARL M3FEH
Unlike this 
Hmm have to agree with this does break that gen rule as still connected to the motor in this case even with two wheels.
Listen carefully to what commentator says when he questions the ruling at 4.00 into the video he seems to know more than the operators do.
thanks for that interesting video
Karl
That looks indeed like Something Other Than Allowed 
My personal opinion is this is OK, just.
Rig not powered from vehicle.
Antenna not supported from vehicle.
Operator not sat on/in the vehicle.
Operator not using vehicle to shelter from WX. (sun/wind/rain/cold etc.)
Looks like a drive on summit.
The operator has set up the rig / battery on the seat of that motorbike, using it as a shelf. It could have been sat on the ground by the bike and he could have sat by it. As it is he’s standing up which is more effort than sitting. To me, it’s more acceptable than leaving the gear in trunk/boot of a car and sitting on the car or in a char by the car.
I’d advise them to put some separation between the vehicle and operating position next time but I’d let this go.
1 Like
Antenna not supported from vehicle
How does the right rear tire resting on the mast base not constitute “antenna not supported from vehicle”? He’s using the vehicle to effectively guy the mast.
73, Barry N1EU
That’s not the SOTA summit he’s alerting.
sorry, the photo in the link has nothing to do with the activation referenced - a lot of confusion here
That’s all right, it’s nearly beer-o’clock when I will be much more confused!
2 Likes
D[quote=“MM0FMF, post:10, topic:12997, full:true”]
My personal opinion is this is OK, just.
Antenna not supported from vehicle.
[/quote]
Surly “attached to” constitutes “supported by”, take a look at 5:24 onwards. Apart from that I would have agreed with you!
Peter
G1FOA
Yes and no. All of these things are a judgement. Describe the benefit you get from placing the gear on the seat of the bike and standing up next to the bike versus placing the gear on the ground and sitting on the ground.
I can’t see a benefit, can you?
Yes, standing up you are less likely to get cramp. I speak from experience of having sat or crouched down to operate my equipment on over 500 summits (including HuMPs and “alter-ego” activations).
Seriously, to me this looks more like an issue of whether the activation is being carried out within “the spirit of SOTA”. I don’t see that the video demonstrates the final ascent as described in the general rules. Of course they could have walked a mile and then returned to the bikes, but I somehow doubt that.
Quite clear to me.
The Rules say
“Operations must not be in, or in the close vicinity of, a motor vehicle.”
I reckon sitting your radio on top of it is reasonably interpreted as being “in the close vicinity of… a motor vehicle”.
I’m not aware of any provision in the rules sanctioning ignoring them if breaking them doesn’t appear to confer a benefit on the rule breaker.
73 de Paul G4MD
obo Pedant’s Corner
2 Likes
I agree. The rule is:
3.7.1.3 Operations must not be in, or in the close vicinity of, a motor vehicle. No part of the station may be connected in any way with the motor vehicle…
Frankly, your station could not be in closer vicinity to a vehicle than actually sitting on top of it, I really think that this is not a matter of not being in the spirit of SOTA, it is an open and shut case of breaking the letter of 3.7.1.3 and the activation is invalid. It isn’t a matter of whether or not any benefit to the operator occurs, it is a matter of a part of a rule being ignored. I would be more inclined to let it go if the operator was disabled, but this guy is clearly fit enough to walk a few metres further into the clearing.
Brian
When the video was made that rule said something different. We changed the rule as a result of watching this.
EDIT: When the video was made, the rules on vehicles said something different.