[UK-CONTEST] Decline in 2m contest activity

[Ray James]

--- On Wed, 10/9/08, gm4fam at tiscali.co.uk <gm4fam at tiscali.co.uk> wrote:

> I can see the advantages of KST when no contests are running
> and QSOs are far more of a random nature; but during a contest (with
> defined time periods) I believe it shouldn't be used.

Cris, this statement is contradictory.
A contact is a contact, contest or no contest.
You also appear to have an aversion to mentioning the other banned area, the DX-Cluster, whereas KST gets all the stick.


> I wonder how anyone managed to make contest QSOs in the
> 60s, 70s and 
> 80s?

Hmmm...no mention of the 90's. A period when the exodus to 6m was being felt and continues to this day. But to answer your question, we did it with the tools of the day. Good operators, equipment, site, a paper log and paper check logger and a list of calls and locators from previous contests and getting qso partners to move up a band on a schedule and confirming their callsign and frequency on the new band. If we were lucky afterwards, the locals in the pub didn't thrash us too heavily in dominoes, Wojjy would then take us to a barn dance full of beefy looking farmers and beefier looking girls.

> No internet, no KST, no crutches,
> Now the keyboard and screen enjoy more priority than the
> ability to be versatile on mode use - its considered just as important
> (if not more) to arrange contest QSOs via a 3rd party than actually make
> the effort and be on the air.  That's not 2-way communication -
> its 3-way!  And it certainly isn't contesting.
> IMHO doing well in a contest with chat support is like
> buying a fish at the supermarket, putting it in a jar on the mantlepiece
> and then claiming credit for catching it by yourself - similar smell
> too.

Cris, the discussion is about VHF/UHF contesting in the UK yet your opinions come across with an air of an incredulous HF operator that schedules can be made for a contest qso. We certainly didn't do that when we operated together at GM7V but I recall the wails of despair if we lost cluster access and the advantages it gave all participants. It is no different to being involved in a good run to JA on 40m and seeing a spot from someone in the Pacific stating good copy, pse listen....what would every operator worth his salt do? Exactly!!! Same difference in my book but as long as all the contest exchange takes place over the air then I don't have a problem. It makes no matter you know the frequency because it's your operating frequency, it makes no matter you know his call and he knows yours, and you know in advance the report will probably be 599 plus a known zone and slightly more challenging if it was a serial number.

To put everything into perspective the word chat-room conjures the wrong impression. The ON4KST system is typically only used to arrange a schedule in a part of the radio spectrum were typical stations are using very high gain antennas of a very narrow beamwidth. The UK wide or European coverage experienced on HF does not exist on these bands and the higher up one goes the greater the need for some kind of system to enable contacts to be arranged with no guarantee of success. In a perfect world such systems would not be abused and no information would be exchanged via the cluster or converse system. Unfortunately, it isn't a perfect world and some operators do not possess the common sense required to know that cluster/chat-room information exchange invalidates the contact as well as upsetting puritans. Such lapses should not go unspoken and I for one have done so in an educational way as everyone has to learn the ropes. 

>From a UK perspective, rarely was anything ever seen during a contest from a UK operator but the VHFCC saw fit to take action against everyone rather than the perpetrators. If the VHFCC want to tie themselves up in HF knots of multiple sections to adjudicate then let them get on with it and make a rod for their own back. They are the custodians of encouraging national contest participation in a valuable and unique part of the radio spectrum which has properties vastly different to those found on HF and should be treated with that in mind. VHF/UHF activity in the Channel Isle, west country, Wales, the very north of England, Eire, Northern Island and Scotland and its Isle is pretty thin on the ground. The very nature of the spectrum, its propagation vagaries and sharpness of antennas deem that unlike HF, some method of contact arranging is necessary some of the time.
Typically, schedules are only attempted for the most challenging of contacts and not run of the mill distances when random CQ's will suffice.
The VHFCC's UK banning of VHF/UHF contest schedule making is a knee jerk reaction to a minority problem, the extent of which has never been factually disclosed. It appears on the surface to be a HF contest mindset being imposed on non-HF spectrum environment.
Don is correct in so far as this decision is not the only reason for the demise in VHF/UHF contest participation or activity in the UK and I have already explained my thoughts on that point. What I would say is that the decision is nail in the coffin of encouraging greater VHF/UHF spectrum utilisation for radio amateurs far away from the main centres of activity in the UK. It makes no matter whether it be a "big gun" or an MI3 wanting to see how far his 10w and 21el will get on 70cm, all suffer and will go elsewhere to get more bangs for their bucks and the slippery slope of reduced VHF/UHF activity continues on the VHFCC's watch.
 
73 Ray GM4CXM
IO75TW 

http://rayjames.biz/gm4cxm