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

[rjairam at gmail.com]

Bob,

Please don't misunderstand me - I don't endorse this rule. In fact I
have been always publicly against it, to the point where I have
received angry emails on numerous occasions from owners of remote
radio services for doing so.

I am merely stating fact, as in how the rule stands today.


73
Ria, N2RJ

On Mon, 3 Feb 2020 at 22:50, robert wa1fcn <wa1fcn at charter.net> wrote:
>
>
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest