[UK-CONTEST] 2012 UKAC = Rule canges

[Peter Burden]

I've recently returned to VHF/UHF contesting after a rather long gap and am
fascinated by the changes. I've worked out some of the unfamiliar
vocabulary (such as S&P) but some things are still puzzling - does
UBN mean "you've been naughty"?

The correspondence on the rules is interesting and inevitable. Contests are,
I think, for development of operational and technical skills among other
things.
Separate sections exist to encourage those who are, for whatever reason,
still a
long way "down the ladder". For what they're worth, here's some thoughts.
These
are from my experience of 432 MHz UKAC.

1. I see no reason for minimum power restrictions on sections. If somebody
wants to enter AO with 10W that's up to them. It should be clear that power
levels are "at the aerial" as per licence conditions.

2. If there is felt to be a need for aerial restrictions, they should be
expressed
in terms of aerial gain rather than the convoluted ideas that have been
suggested.
Since determination of gain is not practical without generating even more
controversy, perhaps aerial restrictions could be expressed in terms of
total boom length,
irrespective of whether it's one very long aerial or a box of four. An
alternative
would be to specify a total number of elements, suitably adjusted on a band
by band basis. Operators could then split their "element" or "boom" budgets
between several aerials in whatever way they wish.

There would need to be further consideration of microwave "aperture"
aerials.

3. Sections could be defined in terms of both maximum power and maximum
aerial
"budget". You could even think in terms of a product or sum of the two so an
operator could run either 10W to a 25-ele yagi or a 1Kw to a rubber duck.

4. The M5 rule is fine by me.

5. Should sections be split into portable and fixed stations as is done for
many
other contests?

6. The rules for distance calculation specify (rule 5b) that "scoring will
be based on
the algorithm implemented by the latest version of G0GJV's LOG software".
This is not
acceptable. If I want to write my own contest scoring code am I expected to
obtain and
decompile a version of this software to see how to calculate distances. The
algorithm used
should be published.

7. It should be clearer how an operator is to record incomplete or
otherwise invalid
QSOs. They should appear in the log so that the serial number sequence makes
sense but be clearly marked. [ISTR that the Web log entry facility lacks a
facility
to indicate the reason for invalidity - could be wrong!] What happens when
you think
you've worked a station and he/she calls you later to indicate that the
earlier QSO
was actually incomplete?


Peter G3UBX