[CQ-Contest] [Bulk] From VO1DD re Interference with emergency traffic

[Bill Coleman]

On Nov 30, 2010, at 3:12 PM, DK Card wrote:

> Good afternoon,
> 
> My name is Doug Card, callsign VO1DD.  During the contest period ,
> specifically Sunday on or about 1235Z , our maritime mobile net was involved
> with a vessel who had declared an emergency on a frequency of 14.122.50.
[ Description of station calling CQ TEST deleted ]

Thank you for bringing to the attention of the contesting community the existence of contest operation interfering with ongoing emergency communications. I'm sure we will all be more vigilant to avoid this sort of thing in the future.

It does not sound like the interference in this case was willful. It is most likely that the contest operator simply did not hear the net communications at all. The incidental interference is regrettable.

> That far up in the band is not primarily a CW portion of 20 mtrs although I
> am well aware that CW is legal anywhere in the ham bands.  Again I am
> primarily a CW op and as such am very careful when operating on CW in the
> phone portion of the band (which does not happen often).

As a US operator, the frequency of 14.122.50 is clearly in the CW / DATA portion of the bands for us. It is by no means the "phone" portion of the band. 

In fact, during CW or RTTY contests, this frequency is very likely to be used, particularly when 20m is very crowded.

No doubt you may have chosen this frequency to avoid the US phone operations from 14150 kHz and higher. If you have taken steps to avoid being in the primary "phone" portion of the band, it doesn't seem proper that you complain about other operators using non-phone modes in that portion of the band.

> However he was technically in the phone
> portion of the band and should have been more aware of the possibility that
> emergency traffic might exist.  Hopefully he was not using a code reader.

Technically, I would disagree with you. He was clearly not in the "phone" portion of the band, although I don't believe Germany makes a distinction of phone subbands.

> I was running 650 watts to the antenna and I am sure he would have been able
> to hear me if not so focused on scoring points!.

Not at all clear that he could hear you. Your signal could be drowned out by other stations he could hear that you cannot.

> I am well aware that CW contesting is not the way it used to be with keyboards/computers used for
> sending as well as decoding.

In CW contesting, virtually no one uses computer CW decoding software. 

> The situation was very serious and could have turned out very badly ending
> in a possible loss of a vessel at sea. For this reason as far as I'm
> concerned , during contests stations should be limited to the CW sub-bands
> so that the possibility of another incident like this occurring is minimized
> as most vessels on the high seas use SSB communications.

The problem with your suggestion is there is no clear CW sub-band defined worldwide. By the US definition of the band, the frequency in question is clearly restricted to CW and DATA communications. Those definitions may be different in Canada and Germany.

I agree that the incident is regrettable, 

Bill Coleman, AA4LR, PP-ASEL        Mail: aa4lr at arrl.net
Web: http://boringhamradiopart.blogspot.com
Quote: "Not within a thousand years will man ever fly!"
            -- Wilbur Wright, 1901