[UK-CONTEST] HF SSB Field day rules ..

[Dave Lawley]

Message text written by "Jim Balls"
>I just want fair rules .. as usuall I guess it suited the rich boys of
>contesting (who I guess just happen to be on the HFCC comittee)

Given this sort of snide nasty remark it's not surprising that 
there isn't a rush of people coming forward to serve on the
Committee. I have just spent many hours doing the checking 
and writeup for NFD. Thanks for your support.

For the record, up until 1997 the rules said you could use 
"a transceiver". By that time several groups were using the
FT1000, and I was the one who pushed for a rule change so 
that a second receiver could be used, precisely in order to 
level the playing field. 

My group did not use two rigs, neither at that time did any of us 
own an FT1000: I used my initiative and arranged to borrow 
one, making a 200-mile round trip to collect it. Perhaps you 
feel this is unfair.

The rule we introduced was "count the receivers". You could 
have a maximum of two, either in the same box (FT1000, TS950) 
or separate single receive rigs. Oxford G5LO came up with some 
ingenious software which allowed two single-RX rigs, using only 
one of the transmit sections, to swap frequencies instantaneously.
Guess what, we had a few complaints that this was unfair!

There have also been complaints that it is unfair to use an
FT1000D because, with a small modification, you can search
on different bands whereas on the MP which has a common
front end, both receivers have to be on the same band. 

Next we had complaints from several groups who wanted to use
two MPs, using only the main RX section of each. I argued against
this, because it is against my simple "count the receivers" rule, 
giving the temptation to use three, or even four, receive sections. 
We would have no way of confirming this, even in NFD where 
there are inspections. On the other hand I could see that especially 
in the Open Section of SSB FD, where you have multiple 
antennas and multipliers, two rigs on the table gives more flexibility 
than a single box containing two RXs.

After a great deal of discussion within the Committee and at the
HF Convention, the HFCC changed the rules in 1999 to allow any 
two radios, so long as the second RX in rigs such as the MP was 
disabled. We then got reports that some groups had interpreted
the "single transmitter" rule as "single transmitter at any one moment
in time" which definitely was unfair. It seemed that opening the thing
up, in response to input from several groups, had led to some
pushing the envelope too far. After long (and acrimonious) discussion 
we decided that the rules needed to be tightened up again.

What we have now is a distinction between Open and Restricted
sections, applying to both NFD and SSB FD. Since you have
multiple antennas in the Open section, the flexibility is allowed to
have two rigs on the table but you can only use one receiver
in each.  We trust that no-one breaks this rule. Maybe this is unfair.
In the Restricted section, you can have just one rig on the table.
Simple and easy to understand. The reality is that some groups in 
this section have been using FT1000 since at least the mid-90s 
and we didn't feel we could suddenly ban use of the second
receiver. Even if we did ban the second receiver, it would only
be a matter of time before we had complaints that someone was
flaunting this rule.

What I think we have learned from this long and painful process
is that there is no set of rules which are proof against concerns
about fairness, while trying to make sure no-one can bend the 
rules and gain an unfair advantage. As in most contests, you 
have to look at the rules and decide which section to enter and which
equipment to use but I'm in no doubt that operator ability and choice
of antennas is more important than choice of rigs. Maybe that 
is unfair.

This year in the Restricted section of NFD three of the top ten
groups used single-RX radios (TS930 TS940 IC756). The leading
group in the Open section used an FT1000MP but noted on their
cover sheet "second receiver never used!"

I'd better say that the above remarks, and my irritation at the
tone of your email, are my own and are not intended to 
represent the view of the HF Contests Committee. I can speculate,
however, that rsorting to snide remarks about RSGB volunteers
makes it less likely that you'll get the outcome you're looking for.

Dave G4BUO