[UK-CONTEST] SSB Field Day '05

[Andy Summers]

Hi Tom,

I think it's great that this has stimulated some debate on the state of the
rules in SSBFD. Keep them coming! It might make the HFCC realise the rules
could still use a further tweak. After all, I did publicly point out the
possibility of what I thought was possible within the new rules in 2000 and
wasn't told it wasn't allowed - by anyone. As a general point, why doesn't
the HFCC canvass regular entrants views before they get changed?

I hope you don't mind my commenting on your point of view Tom, because
that's exactly what it is - a point of view. Comments inserted...

> -----Original Message-----
> Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 18:21:32 -0000
> From: "Tom Wylie" <tom at gm4fdm.com>
> Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] SSB Field Day '05
>
> Therefore if you are running a spotting station with ANOTHER OR SECOND
> ANTENNA then you are outwith the rules.   It doesn;t matter if you are in
> the same field, or the next field or in the next town.   If you
> are part of
> the Contest station entry - you may NOT have another antenna!

See now you're guilty of interpreting the rules yourself here, Tom. Where do
the 'rules' talk about not being able to do some particular activity if you
are "part of the contest station entry"? The only one I'm aware of is that
your Club members can't go home and work you to give you some points. The
very fact that this activity is explicitly mentioned rather than a blanket
ban on Club members helping the entry implies that this is the only
restriction.

In any case, when are you "part of the contest station entry"? If I go home
and announce a spot to the public DXCluster and the station receives that
spot, according to your logic the contest station now has two antennas. And
yet I think that's perfectly legal. If my home station happened to be in the
same field as the contest station that would still be legal. The bit that's
made people uncomfortable with this is the use of a private cluster, which
has now been disallowed. We didn't operate this system in 2005 because we
followed the new rules. But there's still nothing in the rules stopping the
use of other technologies to effect the same solution, as others on this
reflector have alluded to. Even if that's simply someone going home with a
paper list of needed multipliers and announcing needed mults to the public
DXCluster. They could even keep it private by using a mobile phone.

> IMHO  the second receiver bit does not cover "spotting" stations
> per se, but
> is simply for the operators to check propagation on another band
> to see if
> it is worthwhile going QSY.   Spotting is clearly intended to be
> done via an
> RF network to a public cluster.

Well, I disagree. The technique of 'big knob man'/'little knob man' is well
known in the Restricted community of SSBFD and NFD. It's usage is not even
restricted to mult hunting.

> All this hoo hah about pushing the envelope.   The rules is the
> rules - they
> are produced year by year and are as clear as we can make them.   If you
> choose to "push the envelope" dont be surprised, if at some point
> the HFCC
> says "enough is enough" and somebody gets disqualified.   If that happens
> dont get on your high horse and start to moan and complain.

As we seem to be demonstrating, the rules are not necessarily the rules you
thought they were! The very fact that the rules have been tweaked over the
years demonstrates that they are not as clear as you can make them, and that
others in the past have similarly 'pushed the envelope'. I should also point
out that the 'rules' demand that you comply with your licence conditions. I
wonder how many Open section entrants can say they did so? I'm not being
accusational here, I'm just pointing out that there is acceptable
transgression of the rules which does make 'pushing the envelope' acceptable
in other areas. If it's possible to argue the toss about legality then it's
not blatant transgression of the rules, and I wouldn't expect to be
disqualified, and yes I'd complain about it. I would expect the HFCC to
consider modifications to the rules if they thought it shouldn't be allowed.

I would like to see a Restricted section were we talk about it being
'unassisted', because assistance is a general term. I would also be in
favour of going back to the 1 Tx 2 Rx allowance - however you want to
implement it, as GM3SEK also suggests. And I don't think we should outlaw
the ability to be innovative and spot using the 2nd Rx. I wouldn't be in
favour of a change to the antenna restriction because we've tried very hard
to push the envelope in this area too, but the rule is quite good at
restricting you to just a few types of antenna.

I see no reason to continue with the private DXCluster restriction in the
Open section. It should be 'anything goes' here. Apart from the fact that
some logging software provides the required functionality without the use of
a private DXCluster, it would also bring us into line with international
contests, where this technique is indeed used by those who wrote the RSGB
rules.

I wonder if I'll be lynched at the HFC?
73,
Andy.