According to the WAZ rules (http://www.cq-amateur-radio.com/wazlist.html),
part of UA9 (S, T) is in Zone 16, and part of UA9 (A, C, F, G. J. K, L. M,
Q. X ) is in Zone 17. Yes, the *name* of zone 16 says Europe, but that is
just a name; surely it is the *list* that matters, not the name, and the
list clearly includes UA9S in zone 16. These rules have been around for
many years and are the basis for a long-standing awards program. There is
not much chance that they will be changed now, or in the future every time
some administrative change results in movement of boundaries.
According to the DXCC list (http://www.arrl.org/awards/dxcc/dxcclist.txt),
all of UA9 (including UA9S) counts for Asiatic Russia for DXCC purposes.
The DXCC list also indicates the CQ and ITU zones and the continents for
each DXCC entity. The list of CQ zones for UA9-0 in the DXCC list clearly
states that part of UA9-0 is in CQ zone 16 (zone footnote (G)); that surely
must mean UA9S (what other possibility is there?).
According to the WAC rules (http://www.iaru.org/wac/), it appears that all
of UA9 (including UA9S, T) counts for Asia, regardless of where the
geographical boundary happens to be (only UA1-4 are included in Europe for
WAC purposes).
According to the WAE rules (http://www.darc.de/referate/dx/xed0wae.htm), it
appears that any part of RA that is in Europe would count as RA for WAE -
that is, if part of UA9S is geographically in Europe, it would count for
WAE, but those parts that are in Asia would not count for WAE.
So according to these presumably definitive sources, a station in the Asian
part of UA9S counts as Asiatic Russia for DXCC, as Asia for WAC, as outside
of Europe for WAE, and as Zone 16 for WAZ (and therefore for CQ WW). If
there is a part of UA9S that is geographically in Europe, it would count as
Asiatic Russia for DXCC, as Asia for WAC, as inside of Europe for WAE, and
as zone 16 for WAZ (and CQ WW).
There is no reason to expect the DXCC, WAC, WAE and WAZ boundaries all to
be the same. There is also no reason to expect any of them to necessarily
match actual geographical, political or administrative designations. There
are other places in the world where the boundaries do not all line up. Some
other examples are: IG9/IH9 (same as Italy for DXCC but different for WAC
and WAZ); UA0Y (same as UA0Z for DXCC and WAC but different for WAZ); and
JD1/m and JD1/o (which are the same for WAZ but different for DXCC and WAC).
ITU zones are another example of this non-correspondence between different
award boundaries. In many places, ITU zone boundaries are based on latitude
and longitude and not on political boundaries. There are 12 states in the
USA which include parts of two different ITU zones (see
http://www.arrl.org/contests/vev0vy.html). It is perfectly possible for
hams who live near each other and in the same state to be in the same CQ
zone but different ITU zones. The same is true in many places in Russia.
The rules may seem illogical, but they have been that way for many years,
and they are not likely to change now. Instead of trying to make everything
nice and neat and boringly logical, why can't we just learn to live with a
bit of variety and complexity? Is it really that difficult to cope with?
73,
Rich VE3IAY
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.12.4/146 - Release Date: 21/10/2005
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|