I am by no means an expert....but I have my macros set up in the form:
TEST R1UN R1UN CQ
S2NP S2NP
S2NP 599 123 123 S2NP
599 456 456 S2NP
TU R1UN CQ
I send the exchange twice for verification (I'm low power, so I assume I'm not
loud more often than not). Thrice feels too long, and I get too many AGN? NR?
responses when I've tried sending the exchange only once.
When running I'll send the calling station's callsign before and after, so it's
clear who I'm calling if there was a mini pileup and to reduce the risk of a
garbled single-call making it unclear to whom I'm responding.
When S&Ping I never send the run station's call, but I do resend my call at the
end of the exchange partly to offer one last chance to make sure my call is
correct in their log (e.g. to reduce the risk of a busted call due to
complementary garble), and when running I appreciate that last bit of
verification (for similar reasons).
The two exchange overs feel a little long to me in situations where I'm
attempting to run on two radios. I haven't decided yet whether the risk of
appearing lagged/delayed on the other radio and loss of rhythm is enough to
offset the added repeats or busted calls for the reasons described above.
I could say that, for those of us overseen by the FCC, giving a callsign at the
end of the calling station's exchange makes the transmission blatantly
compliant with regs saying we need to identify at the end of a communication.
But the lack of such final ID in most phone and CW exchanges had me wondering
if I ought to revise my macros for consistency and brevity, in light of the
apparent regulatory tolerance.
I figured I'd just share the above thoughts instead, and see what kind of
reaction resulted. :)
--
Michael Adams | N1EN | mda@n1en.org
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|