When we operated from C6A in 1998 for ARRL DX CW, the callsign on our
licenses said homecall/C6A. I would have much preferred the CEPT method to
garner more attention from CQs, but we felt the licenses were to be obeyed.
I got a lot of QSLs for C6A/K8CC from that weekend, probably because
certain logging programs required the CEPT method to score correctly.
Since then, I get a chuckle every time I work someone as C6/homecall,
knowing that they're being regulatorially disobedient...
Dave/K8CC
At 10:08 AM 5/18/2005, you wrote:
>Hi Brett,
>
>You said:
>"Of 15423 raw W & VE calls, 17 are Ws in VE or vice versa. Of the
>7 VEs in W, all calls are correct. Of the 10 Ws in VE, half of the calls
>are incorrect (must be call/VE#, not VE#/call)."
>
>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.
>
>73,
>
>Gerry, W1VE, VE1RM, VY2CDX, VE9XDX, VO1WIN
>
>
> >From the rac website, http://www.rac.ca/regulatory/rcip.htm
>"There is no need for paperwork or other formalities when exchanging visits
>between Canada and the United States. Under the terms of the agreement, the
>visitor should give his or her call sign and location, e.g. VE3FRS/W9 or
>N9CFX/VE3. However, it is unlikely that anyone would complain if the form
>VE3/N9CFX were used."
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
>[mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of VR2BrettGraham
>Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2005 9:20 PM
>To: cq-contest@contesting.com
>Subject: [CQ-Contest] What to log?
>
>K5ZD's release of the latest SCP file gave me a chance to look at this.
>
>I go through the file, as there are a lot of duplicates in it (whether USA
>station having to sign /something for some contests, or the apparently
>outdoor-loving SP5s, as seemingly half of them appear a second time as /5
>;^). And there is the occasional N02R (instead of NO2R), too.
>
>Of 15423 raw W & VE calls, 17 are Ws in VE or vice versa. Of the
>7 VEs in W, all calls are correct. Of the 10 Ws in VE, half of the calls
>are incorrect (must be call/VE#, not VE#/call).
>
>What should you do? Some of these are probably like FM/TO4A, but when
>somebody calls you & you know that's not a valid call, what to do?
>
>Closest thing to this I can think of is YU4. VR2BG master log of some 125k
>Qs has 36 YU4s in it, of which 24 were in a contest.
>This is from 1999 to present & I see I still am working the occasional
>YU4 even in 2005. I went through all the log check files I have & I don't
>see loosing any YU4 Qs.
>
>As I understand it, YU4s really shouldn't count - but I still work them.
>Although some may argue that portable front-or-rear is a minor issue, the
>callsign for W<>VE operation is clear - must be portable-on-the-end.
>
>Log what he should be sending or log what he actually sent?
>Interestingly, the best example I can find is 1Z9A - who was flagged as an
>incorrect zone (I logged the 31 sent), but so far, no penalties for
>instances of logging-what-was-sent-although-I-know-better best I can tell.
>
>73, VR2BrettGraham
>
>_______________________________________________
>CQ-Contest mailing list
>CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>_______________________________________________
>CQ-Contest mailing list
>CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|