[UK-CONTEST] Failure to Identify

[Ian White GM3SEK]

John Lemay wrote:
>Perhaps I can be really old fashioned here, and suggest that a qso 
>requires a minimum exchange of both callsigns and a report ?
>

No, for two reasons.

One is that there are different QSO standards between HF and VHF. 
There's no point in discussing why or whether this "should be" - that's 
simply the way it is, so it's wrong to attempt to impose standards from 
one part of the spectrum upon another. HF contest QSOs simply don't 
exchange both callsigns; only one callsign has to be identified 
correctly over the air.

The second reason is that "both callsigns and a report" is incomplete! 
What's missing is the exchange of ACKNOWLEDGEMENT - sent and received 
both ways, that is the key piece of information that clinches the QSO.

If anything needs to be enforced across the entire spectrum, it is: "No 
Ack = No QSO. No excuses".

HF contesters are pretty clear about the need for acknowledgements to be 
sent and received both ways. Express or implied, the acknowledgement is 
still there. On VHF and above, the meteor scatter and moonbounce 
operators have very strict formal rules about that final "R", and good 
VHF/UHF/microwave operators apply the same standards for all contacts.

But RSGB VHF contest rules have never even mentioned it...


-- 

73 from Ian GM3SEK
http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek