In my worls Assisted is when I use Packet / Telnet etc.
If I ask someone during a QSO if they have heard a NE station I don't
consider it assisted if they say yes they are on 14.296.00345 . Now I
have done it all on HF and the band that I'm using, SOME pureist would say
WELL he got help with NE .. and YES I did but remember the assisted
class is for use of Packet/ Telnet spotting network not asking a
Question during a contact ???
IS Quack outta Line ???
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dick Green WC1M" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "'Hans K0HB'" <email@example.com>; <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2006 3:22 PM
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Assisted vs Unassisted (was Re: Real Time Scoreboards)
> It's clear from reading posts on this subject over the years that there's
> difference between what the rules require and personal definitions for
> "assisted" and "single-op".
> The rules for single-op unassisted refer only to operating, logging and
> spotting, and specifically forbid the use of DX spotting networks. They do
> not require that I develop all information pertinent to the contest by
> myself, that I gather the information on-the-air, or that the information
> gathered only during the contest. That's a purely personal definition.
> also impossible to enforce such definitions because violations can't be
> IMHO, such narrow interpretations stifle innovation in the single-op
> unassisted category, and would rule out use of new technology and tools.
> example, I should be free to use NG3K's announced DX operations list or
> YCCC contest cookbook, both of which are compiled by others, are posted on
> the Internet, and can be accessed before, during or after the contest. I
> also use WWV propagation forecasts, real-time propagation web sites,
> propagation prediction programs, grayline programs (on my local PC or the
> Internet), etc. The rules simply do not forbid use of these tools.
> Using WWV or Internet propagation information is a far cry from using
> spots. I use propagation information to get an idea of how conditions are
> evolving during the contest. I look at the K index to see if things are
> likely to get better or worse. As we all know, that's not a particularly
> reliable indicator. The information might figure into my decision of
> to take off time, but so do a lot of other factors. It's a crapshoot at
> best: I've missed openings because the propagation prediction was too
> pessimistic and I've waited for openings that never materialized because
> propagation prediction was too optimistic. Perhaps the best information
> gotten has been from real-time auroral plots. But all that does is explain
> to me why conditions are so good or so lousy to northern Europe. A big
> auroral cloud tells me that stations further south are going to kick my
> butt. Other than that, the propagation information isn't reliable or
> real-time enough to tell me, for example, what bands are open to where. I
> like to look at the information because I'm trying to learn more about
> propagation patterns over the long run.
> The rules were designed to specifically forbid use of packet spots, more
> than one person operating the radio(s), and more than one transmitted
> on the air at a time. That's it. The notion that all information must be
> gathered on-the-air during the contest is purely in the minds of some
> 73, Dick WC1M
CQ-Contest mailing list