[CQ-Contest] Impact of FT* Modes on DXpeditions

rjairam at gmail.com rjairam at gmail.com
Thu Aug 15 19:27:53 EDT 2019

The DXCC program rules amendment requires a board of directors approval.
Other awards are administered directly by staff in the awards department.

If you seriously think this is a motion that deserves a hearing, please
contact your DXAC rep and/or director of your division (I’ll redirect you
there out of courtesy to them).

there is interest in enhancing DXCC awards to encourage newer operators so
that they see it as an achievable goal. This won’t remove the existing
awards structure and achievements, just likely add new ones or overlays.
This is also not set in stone, it’s just ideas that have been floating

Ria, N2RJ

On Thu, Au

> For various reasons, I'd like the ARRL to issue DXCC awards similar to how
> they handle WAS, with many different endorsements.  At least they could
> provide a general WSJT-X endorsement.  WSJT-X confirmations would still
> count for a Mixed DXCC.
> To make it simple for them, all these endorsements could be based on LoTW
> credits.
> I have no problem with the ARRL making money off their award programs.  In
> any case, it's the 5BDXCC program that changed the DX world, not FT*.  And
> then the clusters and skimmers piled on.
> Also, FT8 is very democratizing for working DX and I don't have a problem
> with democracy, either.
> 73,Ken, AB1J
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mats Strandberg <sm6lrr at gmail.com>
> To: John Crovelli <w2gd at hotmail.com>
> Cc: cq-contest at contesting.com <cq-contest at contesting.com>; Yuri <
> ve3dz at rigexpert.net>
> Sent: Thu, Aug 15, 2019 12:04 pm
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Impact of FT* Modes on DXpeditions
> I tend to agree with Yury.
> CY9 was much more balanced between modes, than the 3D2 (or least that was
> my perception).
> It might be so that at the time of John’s (GD) participation in KP5 and
> KP1, that there was no ambition to maximize the revenue through donations
> (before, during and after the expedition). I don’t question that.
> However, since FT8 appeared as an equal mode for DXCC (along with CW,SSB
> and RTTY), it definitely has changed some expeditions into becoming
> automated QSO/QSL-creating machines...
> John, during KP1/KP5, the FT modes were not available, so comparison might
> not be fully relevant.
> It is maybe good that FT8 will bring new “DXers” to the table, but the
> appearance of this dull mode... has forever changed the feeling of “being
> on the other side of the expedition”, and most likely also, being an
> operator of that expedition as well.
> I question myself, what is the pleasure of being that rare DX, giving out
> the ATNOs and the new band points, when the reality is that NO operator
> skills are required from me to make those “contacts” happen!
> Before, good DX-expeditions we’re separated by less good ones, because of
> operator skills. How wonderful was it not to listen to great operators,
> handling thousand of callers, to maximize the number of contacts and happy
> DXers on the other side?
> Those days were interesting and a memory of our past. The new FT8 euphoria
> has forever changed the perception of DX-big, thanks to ARRL’s greed for
> award revenue ;(
> And, what we now see is the result of the wrong decision to equalize FTx,
> JT and other artificial modes, with RTTY, SSB and CW, and accept them for
> DXCC Mixed.
> The correct way would have been to create FT/JT DXCC separate from Classic
> DXCC...
> DXCC as we all knew it, has been hurt tremendously by ARRL unthoughtful
> decision to accept FT/JT in Mixed!
> 73 de RM2D (Mats)
> On Thu, 15 Aug 2019 at 05:14, John Crovelli <w2gd at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > I want to take a moment to dispel the notion suggested by Yuri that
> > DXpedition operating strategy is all about financial considerations.  It
> > simply isn't for well planned operations.
> >
> > It is the intent of virtually every DXpedition to provide an opportunity
> > for those running 100 watts or more to work an ATNO.  DXpeditions teams
> are
> > constantly considering ways to reach the broadest possible audience while
> > on site.
> >
> > The implication that operating strategy and mode selection is all about
> > post operation donations (to cover costs) is just not true.  Well
> organized
> > teams have these issues resolved well in advance.
> >
> > I've been on some large DXpeditions (KP5 and KP1 - both were top ten
> > world).  Our operating teams NEVER set goals based upon donations, and in
> > fact, this issue was never even discussed since no one felt it to be
> > important.  Again, financing issues were resolved well before we ever
> > departed for the islands.
> >
> > We did however (on a daily basis) take stock of propagation, probably of
> > openings, and how we were providing global coverage ... to prevent
> missing
> > opportunities to those regions traditionally most difficult.  As a tool,
> > FT8 can be useful.
> >
> > FT8 modes are providing options not previously available and for the most
> > part now replaces RTTY activity.  It is my expectation CW and SSB will
> > always be the main modes for DXpeditions.
> >
> > John, W2GD aka P40W/P44W
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: CQ-Contest <cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com> on behalf of Yuri <
> > ve3dz at rigexpert.net>
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 7, 2019 4:57 PM
> > To: 'Jeff Clarke' <ku8e at ku8e.com>; cq-contest at contesting.com <
> > cq-contest at contesting.com>
> > Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] WW-Digi Contest -- Rule Clarification
> >
> > >>> Seems like the last two big Dxpeditions (CY9 and 3D2) are putting FT8
> > first before the traditional CW/SSB modes. I sure hope this isn't the
> > future of ham radio.
> >
> > I might not be politically correct, but why not to mention that one of
> the
> > all of the DXpeditions' goals is to try to maximize the overall QSO count
> > in order to get more donation? That's what hiding behind "best kept
> secret"
> > (that everybody knows) of F/H mode in FT8 in my opinion.
> > I'm not saying it's bad or good, but it's a fact.
> > Multi-channel streams need to be prohibited, otherwise it looks like
> > hypocrisy.
> > I still remember how the rules for M/S in the ARRL Contests were changed
> > under the pressure after PJ4G(?) team managed to have 2 stations on the
> > same band (even not at the same time).
> >
> > Yuri VE3DZ
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list