[UK-CONTEST] Re Decline in VHF/UHF contest activity

[don.field at gmail.com]

Actually Ray that's exactly NOT what happened. The pre-merger VHF members 
of the Committee debated the rule change and agreed it. I was absolutely 
clear that I wanted it to be this way as I suspected there would be those 
like yourself who would try to level such accusations.



That said, there is no magic dividing line - several of the Contest 
Committee members are active contesters, both HF and VHF (G4CLA, G4TSH, 
G0MTN, to name but a few. Most of my early contesting was on VHF/UHF). This 
HF/VHF division that some insist on making is, quite frankly, unhelpful to 
the hobby in its wider sense. We are all radio amateurs.



Don Field G3XTT

Contest Committee Chairman



> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ray James
> Sent: 12/09/08 11:26 am
> To: uk-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] Re Decline in VHF/UHF contest activity
> 
> 
> --- On Fri, 12/9/08, Paul O'Kane <pokane at ei5di.com> wrote:
> 
> CXM
> What is your thoughts on the validity or otherwise of contacts that take 
> place by schedule by the above systems bands above 70cm and please 
> explain your reasons why? 
> 
> DI
> > If they are contest QSOs, I see them as having no validity, because the 
> skeds are arranged on band/modes/technologies that do not correspond to 
> the class of entry.
> *****
> 
> Thanks for answering the loaded question Paul, and in exactly the way I 
> had expected from you. 
> In a stroke, your viewpoint would render a massive percentage of contest 
> contacts in countries throughout the world from years ago to the present 
> day as invalid. I did say VHF/UHF and Microwaves have to be considered a 
> different beast to HF. 
> 
> It probably reinforces why amateur radio contesting in the UK would still 
> benefit from having a separate HFCC and VHFCC rather than a combined rule 
> making committee.   
> 
> There are more HF contest operators than VHF/UHF/Microwave contest 
> operators in the UK. Under the new joint committee one would expect 
> therefore there would be more HF than VHF/UHF/Microwave contesters making 
> up the committee and rightly so. The downside is that though the 
> member(s) representing my and other VHF/UHF/Microwave contest operators 
> interests has an equal say, he or they can be easily out voted by HF 
> majority committee members wishing to impose HF style contest attributes 
> onto the VHF/UHF and Microwave fraternity.  
> 
> It could be that this is precisely what has happened regarding the 
> cluster, KST and the like? The jaws of the HF element of the new combined 
> committee probably dropped to the polished oak desk when learning 
> VHF/UHF/Microwave operators actually have the ability to chat to each 
> other and arrange a schedule for a contest qso.....wow, this isn't 
> allowed on HF so it ain't gonna be allowed on our watch. For all we know, 
> the abuse allegations where just a smokescreen. It was easier to stop use 
> of such mediums as and when they did than stop the contest season after 
> it had started in order to instigate assisted/unassisted sections later.
> Guess it'll appear as a "result of the members survey" ;-)
> No wonder all the contest groups and individuals who researched for this 
> claimed abuse found little or nothing, it wasn't there in the first place 
> or if was, it was an incredibly small number.
> Enough to warrant separate assisted and unassisted sections in the 
> future?
> I think not but if they come, okay, but I do hope they do something 
> serious to encourage inter-UK working whilst they're at rule and 
> multiplier changes. 
> 
> 
> 73 Ray GM4CXM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> UK-Contest mailing list
> UK-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
>