>
>Recently I have experienced some monster pileups which have resulted in
>the DX station hardly working a station a minute, and eventually resulted
>in the DX station getting frustrated and going away.
>
>We have all talked about the things the DX station can do to help the
>situation, mainly by working split, but what about the hugh pileups?
>I think they seem bigger than they used to. This morning on 40 meters,
>the band was pretty quiet until a 9K2 showed up. Then all these stations
>came out of the woodwork and pounced on him. I assume that he was announced
>on packet and half the west coast heard their computer beep, grabbed their
>coffee and morning paper and turned on the radio.
>
>I think it is a reasonable conclusion that packet radio has increased the
>size of pileups on rare DX stations significantly. I also think that it
>has reduced the effort required to obtain any of the DX awards thereby
>reducing the prestige of getting one.
>
>I would like to see the sponsers of DX awards recognize the difference
>between a single op and a assisted single op just like we do in contests
>and perserve the prestige of their awards. It might also help discourage
>the use of packet spotting nets which might help reduce the size of the
>pileups. This might even result in people having to copy the DX stations
>callsign again, instead of just looking at their computer screen.
>
>The other day, I heard a friend calling in a high pileup and with the
>disorder of the pileup, I could not hear the DX stations call. I later
>asked him who he was calling and he told me the only reason he knew who
>he was calling was because of packet radio. This is sad.
>
>I know most of you think a DX station should sign his call every QSO.
>I think the DX station might be able to get away with signing his call
>every 30 seconds or so without trying the patience of too many of you.
>This gives him a tool to control the number of stations calling IF
>people do not call before they know the callsign (this is sinful in
>my book) and there are no packet spotting nets.
>
>In summary, I think the packet spotting net has cheapened the DX awards
>as they are presently structured, and this will eventually make them
>less interesting to everyone. Also, I think it promotes poor operating
>habits since people assume that the DX stations call is what is printed
>on their CRT, and that it makes many pileups too big to me managed by
>the average DX operator.
>
>It is really frustrating to sit there listening to a pileup out of
>control and the only way I can find out who the station is, is to
>turn on the two meter rig.
>
>Well, that should generate some flames!! Fire away!!
>
>
>Larry "TREE" Tyree N6TR _. _.... _ ._. _.._. __...
>islabs!ateq!larryt@sequent.com
>work (503) 526-7210 home (503) 658-6012 fax (503) 526-7202
>
>My views are not those of General Motors, IBM, HP or most other sane people.
--------------------------
Tree-
Good points, I couldnt agree more.
I regard packet dxing in the same category as
DXing off a list.
I frankly do not care about the dxing impact, but believe
it is contributing significantly to the contest pileups.
--------------------------
73, Howie K4PQL
|