[VHFcontesting] Concerning Tilton's Rule

W0MU Mike Fatchett w0mu at w0mu.com
Tue Mar 17 13:43:48 PDT 2009

While a great thought in theory it never works that way when you have new
people entering the contest trying to give you points.  So what if they give
the information in the wrong order.  It is our job to get the proper
information in the log.  

Rules are for those that will be sending in a log to be scored.  Lots of
people work other contesters because it is fun, they don't care about the
rules as they don't apply to them.

Leaving out part of an exchange would be a violation of the rules.  The
sponsors would like to know about it.

My interpretation of the FCC rules on station id might be different than
yours.  I am sure if I am in violation the FCC will let me know.  I don't
need anyone telling me what is right or wrong unless you work for the FCC.

If the rules say you will send a signal report and the grid square you best
do so.  It station x only sends the grid.  Turn them in with a recording.
They should be disqualified.  It they do not or will not give you a report
then simply don't log them.  If they get enough NIL (Not in Log) their score
will be damaged and if they have enough reduction they can be Deed as well.

If a station is following the rules how can one make the exchange any

CC Packet Cluster W0MU-1

"A slip of the foot you may soon recover, but a slip of the tongue you may
never get over." Ben Franklin 

-----Original Message-----
From: vhfcontesting-bounces at contesting.com
[mailto:vhfcontesting-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Ron Hooper
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 9:43 AM
To: Chet, N8RA
Cc: k7cw at yahoo.com; VHF Contesting
Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] Concerning Tilton's Rule


I will try to explain my perception of the contest identification issue.

Some stations have figured out ways to speed up the contact rate by
shortening the information that is passed.

Some stations believe that by leaving out some of the information during the
exchange is a FCC rule violation and do not shorten the exchange.

Now here is the problem: Stations that have higher rates are sure to
accumulate more contacts using a shorter exchange than the stations that do
not leave out part of the information. This appears to me as double exchange

Again from my perception, Marshall is saying that we all need to be clear on
how the exchange should be handled. I don't think he cares how it should go,
as long as everyone in the contest is using the same exchange format to make
the competition equal.

Does that make more sense now?


On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Chet, N8RA <chetsubaccount at snet.net>wrote:

> Well put Paul.
> I didn't see a problem needing a solution.
> 73 all,
> Chet, N8RA
> -----Original Message-----
> From: vhfcontesting-bounces at contesting.com
> [mailto:vhfcontesting-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Paul Kiesel
> Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 2:41 AM
> To: VHF Contesting; Marshall Williams
> Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] Concerning Tilton's Rule
> Hi Marshall,
> I applaud you for your positive approaches to the betterment of VHF 
> contesting and operating in general.
> I respectfully disagree with you regarding "what constitutes a VHF QSO."
> As I mentioned while commenting on another thread today, I don't think 
> that we need to necessarily hold to Tilton's layout of what should 
> constitute a VHF QSO. Tilton certainly had his reasons for coming up 
> with the structure that he did and it made sense to have it that way then.
> But this is 2009, not 1950. Virtually all transmitters use VOX now and 
> the bands are no longer filled with screaming heterodynes when the 
> propagation gets good. For most operating conditions, a streamlined 
> operating procedure makes sense.
> Now, let's cut to the chase. FCC requires that you send your call at 
> least once during a QSO. If, during a contest QSO, you say your call 
> and the other station says his call, the FCC is fully satisfied that 
> it's rules about signing have been followed. (Longer QSOs require that 
> each station signs at least every 10 minutes and at the end of the 
> QSO.) On SSB or CW, here is no practical need to say the other 
> apologize about the caps, but I don't have the use of italics for 
> email.) I can think of only one occasion where I had to ask if a 
> station was responding to me. We got it answered and continued. So, 
> for normal and contest QSOs, there is no need to follow Tilton's QSO 
> construction.
> I do think that there should be exceptions to the above. The 
> exceptions are for meteor scatter and EME QSOs. The reason that 
> regimentation in calling is needed during these activities is that it 
> isn't always clear that information you copied is being sent to you. 
> Also, operators know what the expect to hear next if there is a 
> specific structure to QSOs. This is important when dealing with 
> extremely weak or momentary signals. In these two cases, I would 
> continue to hold to the standards already set up for meteor scatter 
> and EME QSOs.
> During contests, it just makes sense to get all NEEDED information 
> across as quickly as possible. Let's say you call CQ and another 
> station responds.
> Since you know that the other guy is calling you, why would you need 
> to hear him say your call? The answer is you don't need to hear it. It 
> would be just a waste of time for him to say it. All you need to hear 
> is his call only!
> This is one of the ways successful contesters operate. You keep is 
> short and move on.
> So, to wrap it up. Legally, you need only send your own call. Beyond 
> that, contest rules state what is needed to be sent in the exchange. 
> And that is the way it needs to stay! There is no need at all to slow 
> things down by insisting on sending information that is already known!
> So, instead of asking what should constitute a VHF QSO, we ought to be 
> asking why in the world do VHF QSOs have to be different? With the 
> exceptions that I mentioned above, they don't.
> 73,
> Paul, K7CW
> --- On Mon, 3/16/09, Marshall Williams <k5qe at sabinenet.com> wrote:
> From: Marshall Williams <k5qe at sabinenet.com>
> Subject: [VHFcontesting] Concerning Tilton's Rule
> To: "VHF Contesting" <vhfcontesting at contesting.com>
> Date: Monday, March 16, 2009, 7:30 PM
> Hello again to the VHF contesters on the list....
> A month or so ago when I posted my first thoughts on this, I made a 
> point of following a careful definition of what constitutes a valid 
> VHF contact.
> Ron, W4WA, has elicited several responses on this on this reflector on 
> this matter.  It is clear that this idea needs to be revisited 
> carefully.  We need to have a standard and we need to follow it.  If 
> the VHF community wants to permit contacts like those done in HF 
> contests, that is OK, we just all need to be sure of exactly what is 
> the correct procedure.
> In the HF world, the following is accepted procedure:
> ME:  CQ CQ K5QE K5QE over
> DX:  W1XYZ
> ME:  W1XYZ EM31
> DX:  ROGER FN10 FN10  --  Sometimes this is just abreviated to FN10 
> FN10
> ME: QRZ Contest from K5QE over
> It is clear that several elements of Tilton's Rule for a valid VHF 
> contact are missing here.  I never received my call from W1XYZ and he 
> never received a ROGER from me.  If the abbreviated version of line 4 
> is employed, then I never got a ROGER from the DX station.
> A much better version of this is:
> ME:  CQ CQ K5QE K5QE over
> ME:  W1XYZ K5QE EM31
> DX:  ROGER FN10 FN10
> ME:  ROGER QRZ Contest from K5QE over (Variations:  ROGER ROGER QRZ 
> from K5QE over and ROGER your FN10, QRZ from K5QE over)
> Here, W1XYZ has given my call, and I have given him a ROGER.  I 
> believe that the required elements are all here.  W1XYZ his given both 
> calls, a grid, and a ROGER.  I have given the same information.  It 
> looks like we have added about 3 sec to the entiere contact time.  I 
> realize that when 6M is wide open for hours and hours, this procedure 
> will cause a few less contacts to be made in an hour.  There are some 
> advantges here too....The DX station has given my call and I have 
> given my call as part of the exchange.  That allows other stations to 
> know who I am and to get ready to work me.  Don't you just hate it 
> when you hear an HF station running stations like crazy and he does 
> not give his call for a very long time(or that fact that he is 
> actually listening up 20KHz!!!).
> I believe that this is the correct form for a VHF contact, but I am 
> not trying to "force" this particular version on anyone.  What I 
> believe we need to do, is for the community to carefully consider this 
> problem and to come up with a "standard procedure" that we can all 
> follow. We can
> agree that the HF form is acceptable when 6M is wide open and you are 
> working stations like crazy.  We can also agree that this form is not 
> acceptable on 2M and up where huge runs don't normally occur and 
> things are more "leisurely".  We can agree that Tilton's Rule must be 
> followed carefully on schedules.  We can agree on whatever we want as 
> long as everyone is on the same page.
> Personally, I would like to see Tilton's Rule upheld.  For historical 
> and practical reasons, it is a good definition of what constitutes a 
> valid contact.  Tilton's Rule has served us well in the past.  It is 
> interesting that the MS and EME folks(digital and CW) are VERY strict on
these things.
> If you don't get all the required elements, it is not a contact.
> When I was in Oklahoma City in the late 70's, I had
> 49 states worked and was running with RI for my WAS.  I thought that 
> the contact was complete and I called the other station on the phone 
> after about 10 min of RRR, RRR, RRR.  He told me that he did not have 
> my ROGER and that since we had talked on the phone, we would now have 
> to start over.  I was heartbroken over this as the moon had gone 
> beyond my window.  I never got RI from OKC and I still need that state 
> for a non-digital WAS on 2M.  For want of a single R, my 2M WAS was 
> lost--however, the guy on the other end was just following the correct 
> procedure.  He did everything right--he just needed a better set of 
> ears...HI.
> As on my previous posts, rational thoughtful comments are appreciated.
> Flames -----> bit bucket.  I must compliment everyone on their 
> thoughtful replies to the previous issues.  Keep it up guys!!
> 73 Marshall K5QE
> _______________________________________________
> VHFcontesting mailing list
> VHFcontesting at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
> _______________________________________________
> VHFcontesting mailing list
> VHFcontesting at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
> _______________________________________________
> VHFcontesting mailing list
> VHFcontesting at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting at contesting.com

More information about the VHFcontesting mailing list