[UK-CONTEST] UK-Contest Digest, Vol 102, Issue 2

[Derek Thom]

Hi NFDers!

I had promised that I would, having conveyed our objections to the HFCC, not 
prolong the debate but I feel I must respond to the points made by Andy 
M1EBV as I think I may not not presented our argumently with sufficient 
clarity.

Firstly; our opinion is that there is a significant difference between 
packet clusters and RBN/skimmers; the former is essentially a DX reporting 
network while the latter report everything heard calling CQ and, so I'm 
told, everyone sending 599.  This is why we consider the decision to allow 
RBN and skimmers to be a change and not a clarification of the rules.

Secondly; a separate stand-alone receiver is more versatile than a second 
in-built receiver; the former can be manned by a second operator and used, 
in broad terms, for the functions provided by RBN and skimmers.  Although 
with the big "flagship" rigs, such as the FT1k, two ops can use the 
big-knob/little-knob technique, this is not the case with most other 
dual-receiver rigs such as the Icom 756 series which have only one VFO knob. 
This is why we equate a second standalone receiver to be roughly equivalent 
to RBN/skimmers; to allow one and not the other is, in our view, 
inconsistent.

To reiterate yet once again, we are not against well considered rules 
changes but we do not like last minute and inconsistent changes which put 
some, probably many, groups at a disadvantage.  The HFCC has been kind 
enough to record our comments are we are now content to leave matters rest.

I'm now off to finish final preparations for the weekend and am looking 
forward to a great deal of fun and fair competition!  Good luck to all!

73,
Derek G3NKS
Chairman
Cheltenham Amateur Radio Association - G5BK/P



.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andy Cowley" <andy.cowley at uwe.ac.uk>
To: <uk-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 10:44 AM
Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] UK-Contest Digest, Vol 102, Issue 2


>O> Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2011 21:20:23 +0000
>> From: Ken Eastty<ken.g3lvp at btinternet.com>
>> Subject: [UK-CONTEST] Fwd: Re: NFD
>> To: "uk-contest at contesting.com"<uk-contest at contesting.com>
>> Message-ID:<4DE6AD17.9010009 at btinternet.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>>
>> The following objection has been sent to the HF CC via Quin:
>>
>> The members of the G5BK/P NFD team, wish to register a formal and strong
>> objection to the decision decision to permit the use of RBN and skimmers
>> in the restricted section of HF NFD for the following reasons:
>>
>> 1.  The very short notice given for, as we see it, the change to the
>> rules.  This gives groups not already prepared to use such technology
>> (and we believe there will be many) very little time to benefit from the
>> change.  This, we argue, is unfair.
>
> This is _NOT_ a change in the rules. It is a clarification of the existing 
> rules.
> Packet radio communications are specifically allowed, so external spotting 
> aids
> are allowed. Self spotting is banned. So Skimmer and RBN and DX cluster 
> are allowed.
>
>>
>> 2.   The means by which the change was promulgated.  We believe that not
>> all groups monitor the contest reflector, so there will be some who will
>> not have heard about the change.  Again, unfair.
>
> This is _NOT_ a change in the rules. It is a clarification of the existing 
> rules.
> Direct e-mail to all registered participants was how this clarification 
> was
> advised, not by a contest reflector.
>
>>
>> 3.    The change does not fit with the "no second (stand-alone)
>> receiver" rule in the Restricted Section.  If we can now use RBN and
>> skimmer, why not a second receiver for the latter provides, in general
>> terms, much the same function as the former.  A totally inconsistent
>> decision, we argue.
>
>
> This is _NOT_ a change in the rules. It is a clarification of the existing 
> rules.
> A second receiver _IS_ allowed in the restricted section as long as it is 
> integrated
> into the transceiver - e.g. FT1000 - so no change there.
>
> All your arguments depend on this being a change, which it isn't, so they 
> all fail.
>
> Good luck in the contest.
>
> vy 73
>
> Andy, M1EBV
>
> _______________________________________________
> UK-Contest mailing list
> UK-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest