Yep, that was my point as well. Seems like a train wreck waiting to
happen for sure. You'd be better off with one guy just manning two rigs
with their own.
Chuck
WB2EDV
Nate Duehr wrote:
>Paul Holm wrote:
>
>
>>In this particular situation, the users don't need to hear each other. This
>>will be used for running a Skywarn net on two repeaters which are not
>>linked. Only the net control station needs to hear everyone. Users will be
>>trained to expect this format.
>>
>>
>
>If there's ever a situation where there's no one at all on repeater #2
>and the Net controller is gabbering away at people on repeater #1...
>
>The Net Controller isn't communicating with anyone on repeater #2, thus
>making multiple one-way transmissions on Repeater #2... thus, illegal.
>
>Unless you're going to claim all of his half-conversation transmissions
>to people on Repeater #1 going out also over Repeater #2 are QST's...
>
>I don't think that'd hold up to any reasonable amount of scrutiny.
>
>I also wouldn't want to be out in the field watching tornadoes wondering
>if the Net controller was going to hear me or the other guy when two of
>us have emergencies on both repeaters at the same time.
>
>Run two proper Nets or link the repeaters. The other way appears to be
>both illegal and dangerous for your participants.
>
>Nate WY0X
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Repeater-Builder/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
