Hello to everyone after the contest.....I have just gotten my "head
above water" after the Jan VHF contest. I am still beat down, but I am
trying to get some rest.
What Jay has so beautifully said below is exactly what I think that we
need to be working towards. Whenever we get the chance, we need to
recommend to our League officials that the VHF contest rules need to be
very similar to what CQ has adopted. Maybe if they see that the CQ
contest is MUCH better for its new rules, we can get some movement in
the ARRL.
Jay's comments about the rovers is terribly important. The greatest
complaint from the rovers that I hear is that they drive out to some
horribly remote place, set up, and can't attract anyone's attention.
They make a QSO or two(often NONE!!) and then have to move on. Rovers
should be able to announce, "We are here!!! Come work us". There is no
contact information in such a post and other stations still have to
actually work the rover in order to get any contest points. Yes, such
posts need to be limited, but some structure for such a post can surely
be found.
I hope everyone did well in the contest.
73 Marshall K5QE
On 1/23/2013 12:07 PM, Keith Morehouse wrote:
I admit to having been (and still am in some respects) one of those 'HF
contesters" Marshall loves to abuse. I also understand the push to keep a
"pure" single op category where it's man against man with no machine
assistance. I think that is fine for HF contests and would not support any
attempt to allow machine assistance there.
I also do NOT support unlimited use of spotting nets or the ability to self
spot for single operators in VHF contests. The key word in that last
sentence is UNLIMITED. What I do support (and urge the ARRL to implement)
is the LIMITED ability to self spot when a single operator is engaged in
activities that are, by nature, not readily detectable and not subject to
normal terrestrial propagation. Even then, I only support self spotting
that is a basic indicator of such activity.
CQ Magazines VHF contest in July has exactly the kind of rule I support. A
limited ability to self spot when one is engaged in digital meteor scatter
or digital EME (i.e WSJT). No QSO information is being exchanged and no
"conversation" is taking place that could invalidate the contact. It is
simply a "Hello, I am on this frequency attempting to work stations using
very difficult and random methods. Please listen for me."
I might also support this type of self spotting for Rover stations if the
actual format of such a spot was carefully defined, controlled and enforced.
Jay W9RM
Keith J Morehouse
Managing Partner
Calmesa Partners G.P.
Montrose, CO
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 11:43 AM, John D'Ausilio <jdausilio@gmail.com>wrote:
Honestly I can't see any reason why everyone shouldn't be allowed to
self-spot in VHF and up tests .. we're looking to make weak signal
contacts over hard-to-predict paths with rapidly changing conditions,
why wouldn't we want to do everything we can to maximize the chance of
success?
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|