[CQ-Contest] Split operation in CQ WW CW

David Gilbert xdavid at cis-broadband.com
Tue Aug 28 18:18:53 EDT 2012

I have to completely agree with Steve.  A large pileup invariably covers 
more spectrum than a small one as callers tune slightly off frequency in 
order to be heard.  If the DX station jumps to a new frequency every 
time the pileup reaches that state it means that he's trashing a lot 
more bandwidth than if he stayed put and listened up a bit.   It forces 
other running stations to move in a cascading fashion, and because of 
the time lags involved for affected running stations to react the net 
result is probably the second worst scenario I can think of ... the 
worst being for the DX station to vaguely announce that he's "listening up".

Frequency hopping is fine when you're trying to find a frequency clear 
of QRM, but frequency hopping because you can't deal with your own 
pileup is a very bad idea.

Dave   AB7E

On 8/28/2012 12:05 PM, Steve London wrote:
> On 08/28/2012 08:09 AM, Ward Silver wrote:
>> Jukka, there is another option that will surely become more popular: DX QSYs
>> and starts another smaller pileup.
>> Given that we now have the tools to know so much about who is operating
>> where, running strategies must evolve to limit the pileup size to maximize
>> rate.
> "We" have the tools ? Who is this "we" ?
> You mean, those who operate in the multi-op or single-op assisted categories
> that have DX spotting and Skimmer access, right ?
> For the rest of us traditionalists doing S&P, a frequency-hopping running
> station is nothing but a frustrating headache for several reasons:
> 1) If I work the station quickly, before they QSY, I have now marked them in the
> bandmap as worked. I go back on the hunt, and a few minutes later, find another
> pileup. But, alas, it's the same station I just worked. Time wasted, especially
> if they are using the so-called pileup-reducing technique of rarely signing
> their call.
> 2) If I can't easily break the pileup, I mark them in the bandmap as unworked,
> and come back later. But, drat, they are gone. I can only hope I stumble across
> them again.
> Please, let's not promote frequency hopping as a recommended operating technique !
> 73,
> Steve, N2IC

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list