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

[Ray James]

Don,

Theorising by those for whom the rule change effected is a consequence of how it was done, why it was done, when it was done, the minimal notice period, the lack of evidence, why is it good enough for IARU Region 1 contests when it isn't for RSGB events, the implications for operators away from the centres of activity, why the cut off at 70cm, why not include 23cm, 13cm, 9cm, 6cm, 3cm and 24GHz. If the reason for the rule change was applicable to some then it should have been applicable to all for precisely the same reason it was conjured up in the first place. The principal is exactly the same for all the bands mentioned so consistency is completely absent. In the 18 months since the change was imposed, no other Region 1 European VHF/UHF/Microwave committee has followed your unilateral lead, which speaks volumes of what other managers think.
It is also incredulous that you and the committee agreed this considering the geographical perspective. We're not in the middle of Europe with 360 degrees of potential contact making all around us, we're a nation on the north west edge and would at least expect contest rules that reflect the needs of operators between Shetland and the Channel Is.

73 Ray GM4CXM




On Fri, 12/9/08, don.field at gmail.com <don.field at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> > 
> _______________________________________________
> UK-Contest mailing list
> UK-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest