Living proof of the misunderstanding!
The rule is NO MORE THAN two blocks. Your interpretation after having stated
the rule correctly is that a single 6 hour break is not consistent with the
rule - it is. One block IS no more than two blocks!
The point of the rule is to prevent operating the entire period and meeting the
downtime requirement by stringing together a large number of slow periods to
add up to six hours.
Al
AB2ZY
-----Original Message-----
From: RTTY [mailto:rtty-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Robert Chudek -
K0RC
Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2013 9:40 PM
To: rtty@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RTTY] contest change
This is the first time I have read the CAC recommendation regarding the ARRL
RTTY RU contest. The key area that needed attention in my opinion was making
the "Two off-periods" requirement understandable. Each year there is a
reflector debate about the meaning of the rule. The original wording was this:
*2.2. The six hours of off time must be taken in no more than two blocks.*
The new wording recommended by the CAC is this:
*2.2 Operating Time will be calculated using the elapsed time between the first
QSO and the last QSO logged minus the longest two breaks during this elapsed
time where such breaks are a minimum of 30 minutes
each.*
This new wording appears to eliminate one practice used by some operators. In
the past it has been acceptable to take two 3-hour breaks, back to back with no
intervening QSOs.
The way I read it, the new recommended wording eliminates that possibility. For
example, if I work the first 12 hours and then take a 6-hour break, then work
another 12 hours, I have met the maximum 24-hour operating requirement, but I
fail the "longest two breaks of 30 minutes minimum each" requirement.
It appears I would need to make one QSO between my back-to-back 3-hour blocks
of off-times to satisfy the 2-block requirement.
What do you guys think?
73 de Bob - KØRC in MN
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 7/4/2013 7:47 PM, KC4HW/Jim wrote:
> On 4 Jul 2013 at 17:00, Dick Wilson wrote:
>
>> Your proposal looks a little like info in the Contest Advisory
>> Committee report dated Jan. 2013.
>> It appears these changes were discussed and some dismissed w/o
>> action.
>> Suggest reading.
>>
>> 73,
>>
>> Dick
>>
> Hey Dick, thanks for the information.
>
> I did read the report, it seems that the CAC did consider the
> "UNLIMITED" issue. It was unclear whether those changes will be made
> in the rules. Guess we will just have to wait until the rules for
> each of the contests are published or revised before the next event.
>
> For everyone else, I really did not know that this information was on
> line. Guess I should have--shame on me! Here is a link to the CAC
> reports on this issues/changes, if you are interested...
>
> http://www.arrl.org/files/file/About%20ARRL/Committee%20Reports/20
> 13/January/Doc_28-%20CAC.pdf
>
> Also at the end of that report is the complete list of the CAC
> representatives. So you will know who your contest representative is
> in case you have some items that you would like considered.
>
> Jim/KC4HW
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|