JARTS H. C. Scores
ron481 at austin.relay.ucm.org
ron481 at austin.relay.ucm.org
Mon Oct 17 11:55:57 EDT 1994
I'm collecting H.C. Scores for JARTS RTTY DX Contest on Oct. 15 & 16.
Pse send your scores to me. I will post them on internet a.s.a.p.
Send- Call, Mults & Score will be fine..
73's
de Ron AB5KD <ron481 at austin.relay.ucm.org>
>From Peter G. Smith" <n4zr at netcom.com Mon Oct 17 20:26:29 1994
From: Peter G. Smith" <n4zr at netcom.com (Peter G. Smith)
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 1994 12:26:29 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Open Logs
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9410171236.A4351-0100000 at netcom>
Not necessarily, but the forms they filed to demonstrate their compliance
with the rules are, and of course the entire competition is often on
videotape so that people can see exactly what happened. At the risk of
beating this analogy to death, decisions to change bands can be compared
to tacking off the "usual" course to the next buoy, in order to pick up
favorable wind that others will miss.
73, Pete
N4ZR at netcom.com
"Better, faster,cheaper -- choose any two"
On Mon, 17 Oct 1994, Dick Dievendorff wrote:
> In a sailboat race, is the winning boat open for inspection by all comers after
> the race?
>
> 73 de Dick, AA6MC, G0MFO
>
>
>
>From Daniel R. Violette" <Daniel_R._Violette at smtpgty.anatcp.rockwell.com Mon Oct 17 23:02:45 1994
From: Daniel R. Violette" <Daniel_R._Violette at smtpgty.anatcp.rockwell.com (Daniel R. Violette)
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 94 14:02:45 PST
Subject: Third Parties
Message-ID: <9409177824.AA782427875 at smtpgty.anatcp.rockwell.com>
As Stan (W7NI) put in his note, it appears third party rules were
broken with N0AX's kids. I was meaning to comment on this and ask
N0AX if the operators held licenses. I had the same dilemma about 4
years ago. The exact problem for me was the rules for the ARRL DX. A
misc rule states the operators cannot exceed their operators license.
This made it against the rules for a Technician to operate multi-op
outside of their privilege, even with an Extra class sitting there
helping. We were going to do this with a couple Techs and canceled
the SSB multi-single operation because of this rule.
I talked with my CAC member and he agreed this was ridiculous and
unenforceable. We both felt FCC rules were met with a control op
present. The rule was removed the next year after I sent in a formal
request for review. The rule then came back the next year and has
been in the last couple of years. I just noticed it last winter again
and sent a note out on the Contest Reflector. The replies were that
it was a third party problem.
I then got a note from the ARRL that included a letter from Regulatory
Information Specialist John Hennessee (KJ4KB) that said that as long
as the operators were eligible to be a control operator it was not
considered third party (emphasis on the ruling was that it did not say
'the' control operator). I also received a hard copy of the letter
and have been meaning to send it along with my other correspondence
and history to the CAC again to get the rule out of the ARRL DX
contest, again. I believe I still have the e-mail version and will
put in on the reflector after this note is sent. Maybe this will
force me to get some time together to get my CAC request out. Figured
it might be too late for the next ARRL DX, but who knows.
73,
Dan KI6X
e-mail: Daniel_R._Violette at smtpgty.anatcp.rockwell.com
>From Daniel R. Violette" <Daniel_R._Violette at smtpgty.anatcp.rockwell.com Mon Oct 17 23:06:18 1994
From: Daniel R. Violette" <Daniel_R._Violette at smtpgty.anatcp.rockwell.com (Daniel R. Violette)
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 94 14:06:18 PST
Subject: Third Parties and Follow-up ARRL Letter
Message-ID: <9409177824.AA782428169 at smtpgty.anatcp.rockwell.com>
Here is the complete letter I received via e-mail (with header and
all) in reference to my multi-op with Technicians note (and more
details were given in my last note 10 minutes ago):
-------------------------------------------------------------
Received: by ccmail from power.amasd.anatcp.rockwell.com
From CQ-Contest-Relay at TGV.COM
X-Envelope-From: CQ-Contest-Relay at TGV.COM
Received: from Cone-Of-Silence.TGV.COM by
power.amasd.anatcp.rockwell.com (4.1/SM
I-4.1)
id AA02456; Tue, 8 Feb 94 21:08:32 PST
Errors-To: CQ-Contest-Relay at TGV.COM
X-Listname: Amateur Radio discussion list <CQ-Contest at tgv.com>
Warnings-To: <>
Errors-To: CQ-Contest-Relay at TGV.COM
Sender: CQ-Contest-Relay at TGV.COM
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 94 19:51 EST
From: Tom Frenaye <0002349723 at mcimail.com>
Reply-To: Tom Frenaye <0002349723 at mcimail.com>
To: Contest Reflector <cq-contest at tgv.com>
Cc: Fried Heyn <0002542030 at mcimail.com>
Subject: Novice/Tech in DX contests
Message-Id: <44940209005144/0002349723PK3EM at mcimail.com>
Last week there were several messages about how people got started in
contesting, and about how it was difficult to get Novice and Tech (and
I
suppose General and Advanced) operators on-the-air contesting
experience
in DX contests. Dan, KI6X, related one frustrating experience.
I thought his interpretation of the FCC rules was not quite correct
and
almost answered him at the time, but in a burst of restraint I decided
to pass it along to someone who would be right. I've attached a copy
of the letter sent to KI6X today because it should be of interest to
anyone wanting to get newcomers involved in contesting, particularly
with the ARRL DX Contests coming up soon.
I don't know if the letter was sent to KI6X electronically - so my
apologies
if you get this one first Dan.
Bottom line: anyone with a valid FCC license can make QSOs from your
station
as long as a control operator is present.
February 8, 1994
Dan R. Violette, KI6X
1122 E. Sail Ave.
Orange, CA 92665
Dear Dan:
ARRL Vice President Tom Frenaye, K1KI, shared your recent
contest reflector comments with us for comment. I am addressing
the legal issues; the CAC issues need to be addressed separately.
First, "A station may only be operated in the manner and to
the extent permitted by the privileges authorized for the class
of operator license held by the control operator." [97.105(b)].
Thus, a Technician isn't eligible to be the control operator of
the station while it is transmitting on twenty meters.
A Technician, however, is eligible to be "a control operator"
of any station. This is true even though he or she cannot act as
THE control operator at times when the station is being operated
on frequencies beyond his or her license class.
The Commission specifically acknowledged in the Part 97
rewrite proceeding in 1989 that messages sent between amateur
stations on behalf of another amateur licensee are not third
party traffic. See, the Report and Order, Docket 88-139, 4 FCC
Rcd. 4719 (1989), at paragraphs 39 and 42. The FCC, at the
League's request, concurred with the prior holding of the United
Kingdom's Department of Trade and Industry, that "the passing of
messages on behalf of other licensed radio amateurs (at home and
abroad) does not contravene the prohibition against third party
traffic..." FCC codified that provision (though not clearly
enough, really), at Section 97.115(a) of the rules, saying that
"The prohibition [on international third party traffic with
countries with which the United States does not have a third
party traffic agreement] does not apply to a message for any
third party who is eligible to be a control operator of the
station." Notice that says "a" control operator, not "the"
control operator.
Therefore, while an unlicensed person operating with a
licensed control operator, is limited to communications only with
the United States stations and with those stations located in
countries with which the United States has a third party traffic
agreement. Any licensed amateur can operate any station and
participate in international communications as long as there is a
control operator on hand who is licensed to operate on the
frequency being used. So, a Technician, for example, could
operate at a contest station on 20 meters and contact any station
in any country as long as there was a control operator present
who is eligible to operate on 20 meters.
I hope this helps clear the air on the legal aspects of the
issue. The CAC issues should be addressed through your
Division's CAC representative. If I can be of further
assistance, please let me know. 73.
Sincerely,
John C. Hennessee, KJ4KB
Regulatory Information Specialist
ARRL
>From Randy A Thompson <K5ZD at world.std.com> Mon Oct 17 20:22:42 1994
From: Randy A Thompson <K5ZD at world.std.com> (Randy A Thompson)
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 1994 20:21:42 +0059 (EDT)
Subject: Coax - inside or out?
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9410172007.C803-0100000 at world.std.com>
In response to my query about running the coax inside or outside the
tower, all of the replies fit the following:
Run inside because
- Looks better
- Makes tower easier to climb
- Might be better if you want to feed tower (RF will be on outside of
tower instead of outside of coax)
Run outside because
- Hardline is too hard to pull up inside of tower
- It doesn't matter
Guess this is a possible Phd subject for some EE grad student in the future.
Randy
k5zd at world.std.com
>From Randy A Thompson <K5ZD at world.std.com> Mon Oct 17 20:32:52 1994
From: Randy A Thompson <K5ZD at world.std.com> (Randy A Thompson)
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 1994 20:31:52 +0059 (EDT)
Subject: CQ WW Team Competition
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9410172000.D803-0100000 at world.std.com>
LAST CALL! Looking for single ops who want to participate in team
entries for the CQ WW Phone contest (see below for details).
Need one more "serious" entry to fill out a team. Also looking for some
single band entrants.
Deadline is tomorrow Oct 18, 2359Z. Join in!
Randy
k5zd at world.std.com
Details:
Last year I "organized" two YCCC teams for the CQ WW Team Competition.
We even "won" for SSB and came in second on CW. Not sure what we won,
but it was fun to know you were on a team and others were depending on
your score.
If you would like to be on a team for CQ WW Phone (you must be single op,
not assisted), please send me your call, the call you will be using in
the contest, the category (all band, single band, high or low power), your
name, and your internet address. Indicate if you want to be considered
as a "Barbarian" (hard core, serious), "Player" (serious but not full
time), or "Doer" (one who does, i.e. one who will be on and having fun). Do
this by October 17, 1994.
I will "draft" teams that will provide some interesting competition
(whether on a regional basis or category basis). Should be fun.
Everyone will know what team they are on before the contest.
73,
Randy
k5zd at world.std.com
>From H. Ward Silver" <hwardsil at seattleu.edu Tue Oct 18 01:44:04 1994
From: H. Ward Silver" <hwardsil at seattleu.edu (H. Ward Silver)
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 1994 17:44:04 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Third Parties
Message-ID: <Pine.3.07.9410171752.B14660-d100000 at bach.seattleu.edu>
OK, OK...before everybody gets too exercised...
W3YQ sent me a letter about the apparent third-party problems and I've
already responded to him and the ARRL editors. Just to give everyone "the
rest of the story", here's the letter.
H. Ward Silver, N0AX
P.O. Box 927
Vashon, WA 98070
15 October 1994
Tim Jellison, W3YQ
Mark Wilson, Editor QST
Trey Garlough, Editor NCJ
Gentlemen;
I am replying to Tim's letter of early October regarding his concerns
about possible Third-Party regulation infractions on my part during
the ARRL DX SSB contest. From the photo in the QST contest results
write-up and the NCJ article, "Rascals on Twenty", I must admit that
it would appear probable that transgressions may have occurred.
In addition, I must also admit that during our operation the FCC Rule
Book was not on my operating desk opened to section 97.115. However,
I am aware of the Third-Party restrictions and in a overall sense
that Europe, Africa, and Asia are largely off-limits. Similarly,
that South and Central America along with the Caribbean are mostly
OK.
Reviewing our log, in which both the boys and myself made contacts, I
am not able to find any obvious cases in which they made a forbidden
QSO. Addressing the question of the VR6 contact, please refer to the
eighth edition of the ARRL's "FCC Rule Book", chapter 13, Table 1
listing countries with which the U.S. has established Third-Party
agreements. Pitcairn Island is specifically called out as a special,
informal agreement allowing "messages concerning...personal matters
of island residents". I would assume that casual contest operating
falls within this category.
Yes, the article in NCJ does mention calling CQ, but that was used
only as an example. I do let them call CQ, but only during low-key
domestic contests like Novice Roundup or NA QSO Party. They have
enough trouble with DX QSOs that I certainly wouldn't want them
trying to handle a pile-up!
In trying to edit down the NCJ article, I left out some
qualifications to various points, such as the countries being "band-
countries" and the continents being Oceania, S. America, N. America,
and a lone European contact with G0SDX on Sunday morning, England
being the only such Third-Party country. Some of the operation also
took place on 10-meters, which I didn't remember while writing the
article. Sixty-three band-countries is then pretty reasonable within
the Third-Party limits.
H. Ward Silver, N0AX
15 October 1994
Summarizing, I certainly do agree with Tim that these are important
restrictions and are not to be trivialized. He is completely correct
in calling attention to the apparent problems and I appreciate his
concern. Even innocent transgressions could create problems for
other amateurs around the world in countries with which no agreement
has been reached.
I have attached a Letter to the Editor following this letter which
should be printed in both NCJ and QST which point out to other
amateurs the issue of casual violation of Third-Party restrictions.
73,
H. Ward Silver
Editors, NCJ and QST
In the October issue of QST and the September/October issue of NCJ
the contest operation of myself and three young, unlicensed,
operators is described in such a way as to create the suspicion of
Third-Party agreement transgressions.
Information about what countries the youngsters contacted was not
given in the interest of brevity, for which I apologize. However,
the boys' contacts were restricted to SA, OC, NA, and a QSO with
G0SDX, the sole EU country with a Third-Party agreement. The VR6 QSO
I assumed to be allowed under the informal agreement listed in the
ARRL's "FCC Rule Book".
We were having fun, but did, in fact, operate within the boundaries
of FCC Part 97.115. All of the lads are enthusiastic participants in
my ongoing Novice class and will be instructed as to what Third-Party
traffic consists of and why it is restricted.
Otherwise, expect to hear them with KC7 calls early next year,
wondering why ten-meters is no longer open and working on that
General-class license.
73,
H. Ward Silver, N0AX
More information about the CQ-Contest
mailing list