[CQ-Contest] CQ 160m contest-vs-DXCC rule problem

[robert wa1fcn]

GE Ria

         Well I have been chasing DX for 54 years and I have most likely 
read

         about your report of remote operation being OK for DXCC, tho I

         really do not remember it now.  All I can say is Wow, I think I

         need to reread about this rule. You may remember my previous

         posts of my dissatisfaction with ARRL rules pertaining to  DXCC 
and FT8.  Now this.

         Why did I work so hard to get DXCC of 286 on 40 meters when 
this is

         available and FT8 to boot!  Not cool Ria.

                 73 BoB WA1FCN

On 2/3/2020 1:57 PM, rjairam at gmail.com wrote:
> ARRL declared this type of remote operation OK for DXCC some years ago -
> you can operate from W6, work Macau, minami torishima, Philippines etc then
> hop on a remote on the east coast and work Europe and Africa. Hop on a
> southeast remote and work ZS, PY, LU, CE, CP etc. Owning a station is not
> even necessary.
>
> 73
> Ria, N2RJ
>
> On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 2:48 PM Yuri <ve3dz at rigexpert.net> wrote:
>
>> « +WAE…»- So?
>>
>>
>> Does DARC allow remote receivers within 100 km to be used? And allows such
>> QSO to be claimed towards achieving WAE award?
>> What if the operator used remote receiver to make a QSO on 80 or 160 m,
>> and then he applies such QSO towards award? Will it count?
>>
>>
>>
>> What about others, who don’t use remote receivers? Are they “in the same
>> boat” with remote operators in order to get the award? I often hear West
>> Coast stations using remote site from New England without even signing
>> portable. Will those QSO’s be O.K. with ARRL for DXCC credit? Must be nice
>> to work some rare Pacific countries on 160 from CA and then work EU and AF
>> countries from Maine and get excellent Topband DXCC standing! What’s ARRL’s
>> policy on that?
>> In my HUMBLE opinion (I’m in no way an expert like most people on this
>> reflector) the contest rules must be in line with the award rules, or such
>> contest QSO’s shouldn’t be counted towards the respected awards.
>>
>>
>>
>> 73, Yuri  VE3DZ
>>
>>
>>
>> From: David Siddall [mailto:hhamwv at gmail.com]
>> Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 9:29 AM
>> To: CQ-Contest Reflector
>> Cc: Yuri
>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ 160m contest-vs-DXCC rule problem
>>
>>
>>
>> The country multipliers for the CQWW 160 contest (and DX contest) are
>> based on DXCC + WAE countries.
>>
>>
>>
>> 73, Dave K3ZJ
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 9:20 AM Yuri <ve3dz at rigexpert.net <mailto:
>> ve3dz at rigexpert.net> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> " Why should they be?" - Because multipliers in the contests like CQ WW
>> and ARRL are based on DXCC.
>>
>>
>>
>> <     >
>>
>>
>>
>> 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