[CQ-Contest] CQ-Contest Digest, Vol 14, Issue 59

Dave Lawley g4buo at compuserve.com
Sun Feb 29 15:43:51 EST 2004

K3NA wrote:

> In the first scenario, the station whose call ends in "3NA" was obviously
calling CQ (or had just sent TU + his call), and didn't
>get a response that you could hear.
. . . . . . . 
>   The first and third scenarios are what results when the CQing station
ends his transmission with his callsign.  There is NO
>CONFUSION between a "CQ" and a "reply to CQ" scenario.  Since you will
recognize whether you have the opportunity to reply to a CQ
>(i.e., first or third scenario), you can then decide whether to dump in
your callsign.

Sorry Eric, this practice is probably what caused W3LPL to send its
at me last weekend, obliterating the station I had just called (I was in
S&P mode).

I think it's bad operating practice to call someone unless you know
he is calling CQ. If all you hear is the callsign, you cannot know whether
or not he is calling CQ. Just because you can't hear another guy, you
cannot make any assumption about whether one is there or not. You have
heard of skip zone I presume. I know you've heard of directional antennas.

Another reason for sending TEST at the end of a CQ call is to give a little
time to those whose keyboard skills are less than perfect, and that
me, to key in enough of the call to determine whether or not the guy is 
already in the log, and to set themselves up to hit the F4 button if it's a

needed call.

Dave G4BUO

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list