CAC, re ARRL-DX

Sat Sep 9 04:07:30 EDT 1995

At the Contest Forum at Visalia last year, there was considerable discussion
regarding a rule change for the ARRL-DX contests.  This change would allow
contest expedition scores to count in club competition if the expedition
participants were otherwise qualified to count their scores for their clubs.
The sentiment expressed in the Forum, and I felt reflected by the CAC
representatives present, appeared to be strongly in favor of making a
recommendation to the Awards Committee in favor of this change.  Realize,
this change is not exactly breaking new territory; it would simply put the
ARRL club competition on the same footing as the CQ club competition.

A couple of months later, there was a poll taken here on the contest
reflector about this as well as several other changes under consideration.
 As I recall, that poll was conducted by CAC representatives, if not
officially sponsored by the CAC itself.

Since that time, I have heard nothing and seen nothing in print about any
decisions the CAC may have reached on these issues.  It is now September, and
the December issue of QST (which is the issue that contains the announcement
of the ARRL DX contests) will be put to bed in a matter of weeks.  My crude
estimate is that any changes to be made would have to be completed in a
maximum of seven weeks from now.  In other words, it appears to me to be
extremely unlikely that anything is going to happen in time for this year's
contests.

During the same time period, the Scarborough Reef operation took place, the
DXAC reviewed the documentation in the application for new-country status,
and it made a recommendation.  In fact, I believe the DXAC made several
recommendations there as well as reaching some sort of decision on Pratas
Island.  The DXers may not like those decisions, and in fact some of them are
absolutely apoplectic about it all, but at least the DXAC did something.  In
contrast, it appears to me that the CAC has become so cautious since the VHF
Rover debates that it won't make decisions.  Or, if there is any action
taking place there isn't much publicity given to the results.  Am I missing
something here, or do others sense the same lethargy on the part of the CAC?

Bruce Sawyer, AA6KX

>From morpheus at kuwait.net ()  Sat Sep  9 16:53:47 1995
From: morpheus at kuwait.net () (morpheus at kuwait.net ())
Date: Sat, 09 Sep 95 15:53:47 GMT
Subject: Multi band vertical summary
Message-ID: <m0srPQ3-0003hjC at access.kuwait.net>

for:all

  thank you for all replies, I received more than 20 msg about vertical ant.
what I can  say now from all these Msgs (mainly) talking about
butternet/Gap/R-7  and I thing the best for me is Gap or butternet because
these can cover the 80M and not so expensive, and in the other hand no need
for redials, and easy to install (I hope that right), and both of them can
handle hi power, that why I'm thinking to have one of them in the coming days.
to work in the 80M band for the first time!! I hope to work you all down there
in the 80m band in the coming days.

thank you again

de 9K2HN

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
9K2HN                     | E-Mail: morpheus at kuwait.net                      |
Hamad Al-Nusif            |--------------------------------------------------<
Kuwait City               |    This space is intentionaly left empty         |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

>From J.P. Kleinhaus" <aa2du at netcom.com  Sat Sep  9 15:55:47 1995
From: J.P. Kleinhaus" <aa2du at netcom.com (J.P. Kleinhaus)
Date: Sat, 9 Sep 1995 07:55:47 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: CAC, re ARRL-DX
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9509090714.A11260-0100000 at netcom19>

Dear Bruce:

I am saddened by your not so veiled insinuations of incompetence 
and cowardice on the part of the CAC. Please indulge me a few moments
to point out the inaccuracies in your message, and give you a
quick update on CAC matters. I will also take this time to point
out that if you have any questions, the person to ask is your
CAC representative. We are all happy to have contact with contesters
in our repsective Divisions, but you must make an effort to speak
with us if you have something to say or ask...we can't divine your
needs by esp!

Since the beginning of the year, the CAC has held 3 official ballots
on various issues.  The first ballot resulted int he following
recommendations, all approved by the ARRL Awards Committee:

1) The ARRL 10 Meter Contest now has an Aggregate Club Competition
Category

2) The ARRL 160 Meter Contest DX WIndow has been adjusted downward
to a more realistic 5 KHz (from 1830 to 1835) rahter than 1830 to
1850 KHz as was the case previously

3)The ARRL UHF Contest now has a Rover category

All of these were announced in an official ARRL Bulletin and news
releases in the appropriate places.

Our second ballot, recently concluded will result in the
following recommendations to the Awards Committee:

1)The CAC will recommend the addition of an "hours on" column
in the results, similar to the one in Sweepstakes, of all ARRL
contests. The idea is of course to allow part-time participants
a way to judge their scores against other like-minded individuals.

2) DX'pedition scores will be recommended as counting for club
competition in the ARRL DX contest.

3) The CAC will recommend the addition of a club competition
to all of the ARRL VHF/UHF contests. We are not sure of how this
would be implemented given costs and space considerations in QST.

4) The CAC will recommend the addition of all bands above 10 GHz
to the 10 GHz contest.

OK...now, what about the rovers?

The CAC, in the 3rd official ballot of 1995, has recommended
a change to the rover rules beginning with the 1996 January VHF
Sweepstakes. While we have made a recommendation to the Awards
Committee, the results of the Awards Committee vote will not be
released until next week...again in an official new release etc.

So you see Bruce, you may have meant what you said, but you
were wrong.  The CAC is among the most active of the ARRL
Advisory Committees to the Board of Directors.  We handle
an enormous amount of correspondance from members every month.
While it may not be necessary for us to personally ask each and
every contester on the planet for their opinion on a certain matter,
it certainly is not indicative of lethargy.  We have worked long
and hard on the rover issue, and received more than our share of
poisoned-pen letters about it.  At this point, some of of us are
merely taking a step back to consider the big picture.  Rest assured
that we are all working hard on whatever issue happens to land in our
lap this week.

For more of an insight as to what the CAC is currently studying,
I encourage you to read my upcoming article in the NCJ September
issue (and please no complaints about slow delivery...it's not my
job :-< ) as well as stay in touch with you local CAC rep.  So you
see Bruce, we have been busy dealing with contesting issues all 
year. The volume of recommendations from the CAC is at least as
large as that of the DXAC, as if volume was a measure of quality.
I would appreciate a full and complete apology to your local CAC
rep, as well as to the entire committee, for that full frontal
assault you made in a public forum...without posession of the facts.

Very 73,

J.P. Kleinhaus, AA2DU
Chairman, ARRL CAC

*********************************************************************
J.P. Kleinhaus, AA2DU
ARRL Hudson Division C.A.C. Representative
E-mail:  aa2du at netcom.com
         aa2du at aa2du.slip.netcom.com
Compu$erve:  74660,2606

TVI?? What TVI??!
*********************************************************************