> DX: QRX de "DX call" (1)
>
> Me: Norway America (2)
>
> DX: Norway America (3)
>
> ME: This is Kilo Echo 9 Norway America. You are 59. QSL? 73. KE9NA (4)
>
> DX: KE9NA Thank you. QRZ de DX call (5)
>
> No more transmissions were made than if I had given my FULL call while
> busting the pileup.
Firstly, this technique is less snappy because you need to repeat
Norway America to make your call understood. Secondly, in this
example you have completed the QSO in five transmissions or "overs".
But consider what happens if on over #5 the DX station instead says
DX: K9NA Thank you. QRZ de DX call (5)
Big problem. Now KE9NA has to crash through the pileup *again* to
straighten things out, and now you have a big mess on your hands.
And thirdly, consider what happens if the DX is not sure of the call
and has to ask
DX: K-9-Norway Alpha? Is that correct? (5)
These are two reasons why the two-letter technique lacks robustness.
---
Here is an annotated example of the best possible contest QSO:
HC8N: Thanks, Hotel Charlie Eight November (1)
(HC8N solicits a call from anyone)
KE9NA: Kilo Echo Nine Norway America (2)
(KE9NA sends his call phonetically one time)
HC8N: Kilo Echo Nine Norway America 59-10 (3)
(HC8N responds with KE9NA's full call and gives the
contest exchange -- in addition, HC8N implicitly
poses the question "Did I copy your call correctly?")
KE9NA: 50-04 (4)
(KE9NA answers with the contest exchange -- by *not*
reiterating his callsign, KE9NA implies "Yes, you
have my call correct.")
HC8N: Thanks, Hotel Charlie Eight November (5)
and so on.
Note that if HC8N blows the callsign as K9NA on over #3, KE9NA still
has a chance to straighten him on over #4, to wit
HC8N: Kilo Nine Norway America 59-10 (3)
(HC8N responds with the full call and gives the
contest exchange -- in addition, HC8N implicitly
poses the question "Did I copy your call correctly?")
KE9NA: Negative. It's Kilo ECHO Nine Norway America, you're 50-04 (4)
(KE9NA answers with the contest exchange -- by
reiterating his callsign, KE9NA is implicity answers
HC8N's question "No, you are *incorrect* -- the
correct call is Kilo ECHO Nine Norway America and I am
raising my voice a little when I say ECHO to emphasize
the part you have wrong.")
HC8N: Kilo ECHO Nine, thanks, Hotel Charlie Eight November (5)
If HC8N made a trivial error in KE9NA's callsign and/or if HC8N hears
over #4 clearly, he will probably make an over like #5 and press ahead
without a positive acknowlegement from KE9NA. However, if KE9NA is
weak, or if there was QRM during over #4, or if for any reason
whatsoever HC8N is uncertain, he will invite additional overs by
saying something like
HC8N: Kilo ECHO Nine Norway America, is that correct? (5)
(HC8N asks for a confirmation of KE9NA's callsign, and
implicitly says "I have been awake for 51 straight hours
and I am really tired.")
KE9NA: Roger roger roger. (6)
(KE9NA implicity states "OK man, like, I dig your vibe and
everything is totally copacetic, ya know?" -- for KE9NA
to reiterate his callsign at this point would cause HC8N
to construe that he still has the call wrong and that the
matter still needs attention)
---
In summary. KE9NA presents his two-letter scenario as being an
effective pileup cracking technique, I can understand his willingness
to use such a slower, less-snappy technique if it gives the apparent
result that calling out two letters rather than five gets him through
a pileup faster.
However, often I find that most of guys who use this technique to
crack pileups get lazy and start using it in non-pileup situations as
well. This is the "bad technique" that savvy operators are
complaining about.
The bottom line is that in the best possible contest QSO, the DX gets
two chances (if needed) to copy the callers callsign in a five over
QSOs rather than just one.
--Trey, N5KO
--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
|