[RTTY] Waterfall and CQ conundrum

[Bill Turner]

------------ ORIGINAL MESSAGE ------------(may be snipped)

On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 21:50:17 -0000, GM3SEK wrote:

>To anyone else
>who might be listening, you are indistinguishable from that other kind
>of operator who just appears on a frequency without checking at all.

REPLY:

The important thing is to not transmit on a busy frequency. One can
either send QRL? and wait for a response or watch the waterfall long
enough to observe at least one side of the exchange. 

Either way will avoid QRMing someone and the waterfall has the
advantage of not QRMing with the QRL? message itself. 

I have always, and I mean always, sent QRL? before starting a run. 
In fact, there have been a few times (not many) where I have sent
QRL?, gotten no response, started calling CQ only to find the
frequency was indeed occupied but the station, for whatever reason,
simply did not respond to my QRL? Observing the waterfall would have
avoided this.

For decades, QRL? served a good purpose before the waterfall was
invented, but time has marched on. Of course, for those without a
waterfall, QRL? should still be used. 

73, Bill W6WRT