[UK-CONTEST] UK-CONTEST] Remote Control

[Ray James]

--- On Sun, 14/6/09, Don Beattie <g3ozf at btinternet.com> wrote:

> I've been watching this thread, and think we need to consider things a bit  more broadly.

I have also been following this thread and reading points from both sides of the fence, rate Don and Roger's submissions the most persuasive.     
CQ's bold decision in my opinion is a leader that over years to come will see a similar provision made by other contest organisers. 
Personally, I feel they could have done slightly better in making the Extreme category into two sections. One for an entrant where all the remote station is located at a single location and another when multiple receivers can be utilised anywhere rather than lumping these vastly different situations into the same pot. Maybe it'll come in time as there is a very good case for separation.
My only experience of this is on the microwave bands with SM6AFV and SM7LCB. The former lives at the bottom of a hill and has his station located at the top whereas the latter lives in what I assume is a hole in Stockholm but his remote 23cm/3cm station on an island off the south east coast of Sweden. Both have excellent results from their remote stations but the validity of one to one contacts would be shattered in my view if they actually had additional remote receivers located elsewhere, in particular in the UK! 

The most pleasing aspect of CQ's decision is that they are realistically addressing innovation rather than inhibiting it's inclusion. I see a parallel but in the opposite direction with our own CC unilaterally banning the use of the likes of DXCluster and ON4KST on VHF contests when all that was required was the inclusion of an "assisted" category.

73 Ray GM4CXM          





> 
> Personally I think that any plan to encourage innovation in
> the way that amateur radio operates is to be applauded. Innovate or die
> is an oft-quoted maxim, and it applies to us all as well ! If CQ want to
> offer the opportunity for people to experiment with remote control in
> contests, then good luck to them. I agree that it would not be a level
> playing field if such stations were ranged against "normal" stations in the results. But that is not what CQ is proposing.
> 
> I have another reason for encouraging remote control. As
> the range of electronics in use in the average home develops, I an see a
> situation developing where the only way some people can operate QRO
> on HF will be via remote control. I can even envisage the concept of a "time share" station, where a number of people who are blighted with local EMC problems share a remote station positioned on some distant hilltop. So
> remote control is to be encouraged, in my view. As long as the contest
> categorisation is such that "normal" stations and remote control multi-site megastations are separated, I see no problem.

> Don, G3BJ