[Dx-qsl] 7O1A Yemen in 1996

Mon Apr 11 14:09:23 EDT 2011

IMHO,
 this is a HOBBY, why does it have to be such a LEGAL nightmare !
 Joey
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ron Notarius W3WN" <wn3vaw at verizon.net>
To: <nt5c at texas.net>
Cc: <dx-qsl at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 1:04 PM
Subject: Re: [Dx-qsl] 7O1A Yemen in 1996
> John,
>> IIRC, the central ministry denied that the license issued by the branch 
> office was proper or legal. So that's one big difference.
>> I have had many long conversations with a former US Air Force officer too 
> and from Dayton over the years, and one of our favorite topics was hashing 
> out the 7O1 situatiions. He told me that when he was active duty and 
> working in that part of the world, it was not uncommon for things to be 
> done on a handshake... and if something became public knowledge that could 
> be embarressing, or worse, could cost someone to have their head separated 
> from the rest of their body, it was thus very easy for any public official 
> to deny everything.
>> In other words, and I'm speculating here, if someone involved with 
> national security took afront to the 7O1A operation, it is easier for the 
> people in San'aa to deny all (and shift the blame) rather than stick their 
> necks out (almost literally) over the license issued in Aden. And IF that 
> is the case -- remember, I'm speculating here, I am not saying that this 
> is fact -- who do you believe, when it comes to determing if the operators 
> had a valid license to operate?
>> And IIRC there have been other situations over the years where a 
> government has retroactively cancelled or otherwise invalidated existing 
> licenses (the 9U situation a few years back comes to mind), so this is not 
> unprecedented. I'm not saying it's right or it's fair, but it happens.
>> 73
>>> Apr 11, 2011 01:26:17 PM, nt5c at texas.net wrote:
>> On Apr 11, 2011, at 11:56 AM, Ron W3WN wrote:
>>> I have been told by a reliable source that, in essence, the hold up
>> on 7O1YGF was the lack of documentation -- ANY documentation -- that
>> showed that they were in the country legally, and/or that they had
>> permission to import the equipment they operated with, either of
>> which would imply that they had permission to operate.
>> That's why I found the rejection of 7O1A odd. I've not heard anyone
> question that Franz and Zorro were legally in Yemen (Aden), or that
> they had permission to operate from the Ministry of Communication
> office there (perhaps it wasn't written?). It's really not our
> problem if, after the fact, the Sana'a central Ministry office
> resented what their Aden branch had done.
>> Ah well - thanks for confirming that I'm not missing one guys!
>> John, NT5C.
> ______________________________________________________________
> DX-QSL mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/dx-qsl
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:DX-QSL at mailman.qth.net
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> ______________________________________________________________
> DX-QSL mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/dx-qsl
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:DX-QSL at mailman.qth.net
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html