Topband: 160

[Wes]

Sounds good to me.

I would add that I have made some FT-8 QSOs, mostly on the day it arrived and 
before I grasped the implications, but also some more recently.  That said, 
although I am uploading to LoTW for my QSO partners' use, I am not using them 
for credit for any awards. This suits my personal ethical position.  I have a 
DXCC certificate that says, "RTTY" on it and RTTY contacts are the only ones I 
will submit for credits.  Once again, this is the way I choose to do it; others 
are free to march to their drummer, just as they are free to run excess power, 
use remote stations in a different time zone, have their buddies work new ones 
for them to keep their status on the "Honor Roll" and so forth.  I don't care.

As I have been known to contribute to individual DXpeditions as well as 
supporting NCDXF and INDEXA, I've obviously made it onto a "list" and from time 
to time receive requests for donations.  A couple of these leap to mind.  One, 
from an EU ham headed to a Pacific isle, bragged about how, even as a single op, 
he was going to have a station on 24/7 making QSOs.  I don't think it necessary, 
but I will say, "No Deal" and no QSOs with me.  A more recent one is also going 
to a rare Pacific isle and is looking for money and operators skilled in FT-8 
F/H.  I'm not sure exactly what skill is required but that's the way it goes. If 
they run a good operation and can fill in some slots on CW, SSB or RTTY for me, 
I'll send a few bucks, but it will be after the fact.

In terms of DXpeditions, it should be remembered they need to work us.  Their 
reason for going is to make Qs and a lot of them.  If no one works them on FT-8, 
they'll try CW or some other mode.

My $0.02

Wes  N7WS


On 8/2/2019 2:22 PM, Alan Swinger wrote:
> Below is Letter for QST on this subject that may (or not) be published FYI. Glad to hear AA1K back calling CQ on CW in the AM. I am there too looking for CW DX. - 73, Alan K9MBQ
>
>   If Hams who use WSJT/FT modes enjoy using them, by all means do so.
> However, I strongly disagree with and object to the fact that QSOs made in these modes count for DXCC Digital awards in the same way as RTTY, PSK, etc do. Since FT8 operators can walk away and not participate in QSOs, and come back after some other activity and see how many new countries and QSOs that the computer made, this is unlike Digital modes where operators must remain engaged to make QSOs. Therefore, seems to me that such Computer-generated contacts should have a separate category in the current award systems since the operators are not directly involved in making the QSOs . . . call it Computer-Aided Digital or something more clever. No argument that skill is required to set up a station to make FT-8 contacts, but a different set than what those of us who work DXCC, Challenge, etc use on CW, RTTY, and SSB, including those towers, expensive equipment, skills, and years of hard work to get the new ones when there was NO FT-8 or similar modes!
> So, I do not be begrudge the new low signal computer-aided modes, nor do I cast aspersions on the Ops who enjoy using them . . . even though I am unlikely to join their ranks, but the Ham community should not penalize those of us who used non-FT modes to get our hard earned awards by giving an unfair advantage to a new technology. We (Ham Radio) need the New Technology, but these modes are sufficiently different in many ways from the older modes that justifies a separate category in the award spectrum.  Therefore, I urge the ARRL and the CQ Magazine leadership to establish a Digital award category that is separate and different from the current DXCC et al Digital criteria.
> Alan Swinger K9MBQ
> Charlottesville, VA
>