W1VE-VE1RM replied (hyphen probably being better than forward
slash ;^):
>Well, actually, it's perfectly valid to sign, for example, VE1/W1VE or
>W1VE/VE1 (Not for me, since I hold a Canadian license also.)
>The W1VE/VE1 is the generally accepted method and arrangement between the US
>and Canada. The VE1/W1VE form is the CEPT method.
>The US still prefers VE1RM/W1, for example. However, I bet the FCC would
>not have a hissy if someone signed the form W1/VE1RM (I might!).
>In fact, I've heard lots of Canadians on the air from the US using the CEPT
>form.
>
>Therefore, these are all valid callsigns, and the contest software is smart
>enough to know what country the station is actually in.
For VEs in W, there is 97.107 & 97.119(g). The FCC explains a bit more
about this at http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/amateur/about/recoperating.html
I didn't even realize that under the the Treaty, station identification must
include some reference to operating location (city, state or whatever name).
Not to be argumentative, but after a quick dig, I see from
http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/internet/insmt-gst.nsf/vwapj/ric3.pdf/$FILE/ric3.pdf
that IC's SITT fairly clearly refers to the old treaty (twice). USA, despite
2002 date of document, is not listed in CEPT section (note date for later).
After reading this, I realize I may have not abided by the rules in my /VE
operations, so my apologies to all my VE friends if I made any QSO &
didn't say where I was in BC at the time (anyone thinking of operating
a contest without section/state/province in the exchange take note ;^).
Looks like non-CEPT countries that participate bless where they allow their
citizens to enjoy that participation (and maybe even whether or not that
enjoyment is allowed in another non-CEPT but participating place) - a quick
search of FCC site suggests ARRL info is current & that is Ws can't operate
under CEPT in VE (FCC's 1999 order says nothing about Canada) & in W,
VEs are specifically dealt with under part 97 - right down to even what
portable prefix must be used (presumably in the Treaty itself - that way of
signing is sooo 1950s). Likewise, IC's SITT only talks about the Treaty
for Ws operating in VE. QED?
This is all off the point, which is that I know the call is somehow dodgy
(like a YU4), but as far as the other guy's concerned & how he's
behaving, he's legit. In CQ WW at least, Pavlov's Op wants to get his
treat, not a zap to his final score.
What to log, when it's clear not to log unless you're absolutely
certain - like if I think I hear AF3/VE3BMV calling me on 40 SSB?
Sorry Yuri, just couldn't resist. But seriously, an important
operating skill is the sanity check - these are just slight twists on
the scenario where one should be wondering about the 7K6 or
something like which is about to be logged.
73, VR2BrettGraham
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|