ARRL SSB DX CONTEST [Archive]

aa0mz

03-08-2003, 05:30 PM

Ed:

I am not so sure this is a case of pirate operation as it is poor copy. There was a DK8TU/TI8 operating extensively during the contest.

During contests, some of these operators identify only as "QRZ?" and seldom throw out their callsign which could easily be missed if a pileup is on top of it. Callsigns are gathered off of dx clusters. You also have hard to understand accents as well as very poor recordings that some operators play back for identification.

Sorry you have to deal with the cards. In reality all these missed callsigns should cost the TI8 operator contest points. If they would do that, maybe contesters would start giving out full exchanges with each QSO (which is the rule of the contest but often not followed), instead of "QRZ?."

73,
Jim (AA0MZ)

K8TU

03-08-2003, 05:58 PM

Thank you to the fellas that told me about DK8TU/TI8 operation. That does make me feel better. Going to try and mark that call on the envelopes and return the envelopes unopened. Maybe I can save the people their sase's.

Thanks again. Ed--K8TU

K8UT

03-08-2003, 07:46 PM

Ed,

I agree with previous comments. I think this is more a case of mistaken identity and poor operating practice than intentional piracy.

If you check the postings on DXSUMMIT, you will see that W6KYJ twice posted your callsign during the contest. Other ops may have seen the posting, assumed the callsign was correct, and logged it. ((There are lots more spots for DK8TU/TI8)

-larry
K8UT #(Ed - nice callsign you have... but the letters are in the wrong order! ;-)

kr5f

03-08-2003, 08:11 PM

I have to concur with the others, the station was TI8/DK8TU ..

I watched the posts on packet and I must say I have never seen so many busted callsigns posted. I often wondered if we were in the same contest.

If stations logged what they posted, I don't think they should turn in their logs ... and they should be embarrassed ..

/lee

wx4qn

03-09-2003, 01:00 PM

Wonder why the bad copy?
Could it be that the contesters, whose calls we hear only during contests, are that inexperienced?
#http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

aa0mz

03-09-2003, 05:17 PM

I don't think bad copy is because contesters are inexperienced. I think the bad copy is because some contesters have bad operating habits. Not passing required info at every exchange (which is contest rules but commonly ignored by some big contest stations) is a problem. How often do you hear a station pass nothing more than "QRZ?" on every transmission, yet he has a pile up. Where is the pile up coming from and why don't they ask for his callsign? Because they get his from the internet DX cluster. If the information is posted wrong, then people log it wrong.

Just last week I heard OZ7C on 30 meters and some guy was calling him SV2BOH when passing a report. Wonder why? Because it was on the cluster.

It's not about contesters. It is about some ops poor operating procedures with seldom identifying other than "QRZ?" and other ops relying on the cluster.

This can be solved by disqualifying these stations that don't ID every QSO they log in the contest.

73,
Jim (AA0MZ)

k1fpv

03-09-2003, 05:32 PM

How many of those stations gave out 59 reports? After over 40 years as a ham, I've found that I can give little credence signal reports given out in contests!

w0nka

03-09-2003, 09:21 PM

I also thought I worked k8tu. I had to sit there for 5 to ten minutes after a contact just to hear the callsign that was sent real fast and poor one time! Then wait until he decided to say it again, so I can get it right. I guess I still missed it.

I finally upgraded to general this year and this was my first DX experiance. All the 59 reports were great! But didn't help me on how my station was working at various places around the globe. I know they are contesting, and minutes are contacts, and contacts are points.

My 2¢.

Shane W0NKA

WB2TLQ

03-10-2003, 05:10 AM

Hello Everyone,

# # I am very sorry to see the real life results of some of the poor operating that takes place in contests (and contest style DX operations...) #Now I know that the contest sponsors are not ever going to enforce their rules in a big way because it will cost **them** advertising and sponsors. #But as many of you know, the number of stations that properly indentify during a contest is pretty small. #And this goes for both pouncing stations and running stations. #Of course the pouncers have to at least give a phonetic version of their callsign to get in the log, but how many pouncing stations identify with a non-phonetic callsign as the last thing they say -- 10% -- less??
# # I did find it hilarious that all stations were very careful to say "59 kilowatt" (or whatever their power level was) during each exchange -- well duhhh! #I knew I was 59 before I picked up the mic #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif # If they could be darn sure to say that, why not a callsign???
# # If the ARRL and CQ and others were to tape a couple hours of contest exchanges they could probably disqualify a few big time operations, then things would change a bit...but don't hold your breath, contesting equals money for those folks.
# # On the positive side...proper operating procedures can exist with contesting success, witness Marti at the mic of EA8BH. #Every single exchange (as far as I could tell...) properly indentified, a deliberate pace that would seem to minimize errors, a firm cheerful voice from beginning to end. #I know I am holding up the Babe Ruth of DXing as a model, but that is my point exactly. #If it were crunch time (and this is what the contesters say contesting is good for...) who would you rather hear on the other side of your emergency traffic, someone with the panache of Marti or someone who sounds like a fratboy on speed?
# # Just my two cents for the day...

Bill, WB2TLQ
Wausau, WI

N9TTX

03-10-2003, 07:10 AM

I agree. Though it is not just that a lot of the hardcore speed freaks out there are rattling their calls off so fast one cannot tell if it is a C, E, D,G,etc..., or the packet cluster bogeys, non-signing "Run" stations, (and I am guilty of not signing off with my call sometimes after a Q in contest mode...I try, but sometimes forget...as we all probably do in this instance), it is also as someone mentioned, that the language accents are sometimes hard to copy. I had one station that did sound like he was signing "three"...and then shortly after..signing "two" for the number in the call. I had to listen for a good long time to decipher the three was correct...I try and count out the number if they cannot copy. One practice I try and follow is get the callsign, info 1st, then pounce if in that mode. If in Run mode, I don't give a report until I am certain of the report in return...I have had some stations contact, and run off thinking that both of us have everything right when I have not gotten all their info or they have my call wrong...alas it is loss of points for either of us. I am not in any hurry to contest. I am there to have fun, make contacts, and sometimes add a bit of humor in my contesting (as is normal for me anyway)...I believe the original post is as what the concensus has agreed...that the call was misinterpreted. I contacted the DK8TU/TI8 station myself. As for EA8BH...Beuatiful station....I finally got contact with him after years of missing him in contests or when he was testing the memory voice keyer. My personal opinion, that that is one of the best sounding and run stations out there. Clear, strong, concise, easy to copy speed, and good operating practices. Kudos. 73 all.

Dave.....N9TTX

k8nqc

03-10-2003, 03:43 PM

So many signal reports are useless. I even hear some operators giving reports based on an "S" meter reading rather than the RS(T) system which is the standard for hams. When I bring my mobile rig into the shack and hook it up on my beam, those stations that were a 5 on the meter in the car magically go up over 9 on my beam. "S" meter readings do not tell the transmitting station much about his signal. Even though a contest station says 59(9) to all stations, the real report is how long one had to call in the pile-up and the need or lack of need for repeating of information. That gives good relative information versus other stations.

N0PU

03-10-2003, 04:12 PM

I've been following this with some interest...

It occurs to me what contests SHOULD be for and were originally designed to do was to teach communications under a pressure situation.

One of the very first things that I learned about communications is that circuit disipline is the most important part of the exercise. Without circuit disipline the lessons we are suppose to be working toward during the contest is going out the window.

It also seems to me that personal integrety has flown the coop also. Ops screaming at each other in pile-ups, not passing the required 'simulated' message data, including call sign, with each message, using the standard 59 instead of giving accurate signal reports and generally trying to cheat the system.

So, as far as a training exercise, it is a waste of time.

And as far as a contest goes it appears to be a farse. If all the top winners are cheating, then the top winners are the biggest losers we have. Not a list I wish to be on, OR brag about.

I keep reading these kinds of threads and I keep thinking that we are losing the direction we were asked to travel by the FCC; that is to build a large group of operators and technicians capable of handling message traffic in a time of need.

The system was designed so that the older ones could teach the younger and the younger would be available for ardeous tasks and us OFs would be around to back them up.

We need to get back to the basics folks. Good old fashioned communications skills, message handling, learning and practicing electronics, and maybe some need a few lessons in intra-personal relationships and peer communications.

K1MKF

03-10-2003, 05:01 PM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (aa0mz @ Mar. 09 2003,13:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It's not about contesters. #It is about some ops poor operating procedures with seldom identifying other than "QRZ?" and other ops relying on the cluster.

This can be solved by disqualifying these stations that don't ID every QSO they log in the contest.

73,
Jim (AA0MZ)[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I'm not sure you can disqualify them. #Who are going to be the contest police? #But, I do agree it should be more publicized that each and every QSO should involve an exchange of callsigns and signal reports (or s/n, state, etc.) #I go crazy listening to 5 minutes of exchanges with one station never giving his callsign. #And that isn't only durring contests but also during DXpeditions and other DX operations. #It's just a bad habit that has to be corrected. #Just like when an op askes for suffixes only.

Mark
k1mkf

K1MKF

03-10-2003, 05:08 PM

I also forgot to add:

The number of stations giving their callsign in voice at an unreadable speed over and over when there was no pile-up. Gee-whiz guys can't you at least slow down to human speeds when working one station at a time? Perhaps it's our fault, the little guns. If we asked the big guns to repeat their calls a few times with every QSO they would realize it would be faster to do it correctly the first time.

Mark
k1mkf

03-10-2003, 06:37 PM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K1MKF @ Mar. 10 2003,10:08)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The number of stations giving their callsign in voice at an unreadable speed over and over when there was no pile-up. #Gee-whiz guys can't you at least slow down to human speeds when working one station at a time? #[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
As a new op working my very first contest with the ARRL SSB contest, I noticed this too, and it was the thing that frustrated me the most. I knew to expect pile-ups and tried to be patient and wait my turn (if it came), but the ops doing "QRZ" without ID'ing themselves for minutes at a time was frustrating. I kept repeating to myself, "WHO ARE YOU?!". For the most part, though, it was a blast to get into the thick of things, experience the pile-ups, and know how fun it was to realize that I was making contacts on the other side of the world with a measly 100 watts out through a trap dipole up 30 feet!

Anyway, during this contest, I learned to ask them to repeat their callsigns if they spoke too fast or didn't ID themselves when they called back to me. I know it takes them extra time to ID themselves to people who ask them, but otherwise I might not log the correct call and they might not get a QSL card. Most of the ops that I asked to repeat their callsigns didn't seem upset or impatient about having to do so, and I only had to ask for repetitions a few times anyway.

03-10-2003, 10:34 PM

That may have not been one, but there was one out there. Amidst all the excitement of what the contact was, judgement was lost when some operators off of the USS George Washington in the Gulf dicided to tune up on 14Mhz. The gentleman operating the Special Event for the Queen Mary (W6A I think?) came back to the station using the callsign CVN73 (the ships hull number). Come on! You still need to have a legit callsign last I heard! Stations continued to work this station. When asked what his home call was, he gave what seemed to be a legit KG4 call, which came up, you guessed it, NEGITIVE in the FCC database. Not even issued yet. On top of it all, this guy had NO, NONE, ZILTCH ham radio eticite. He just did not even sound like a ham. Now I have operated from a destroyer as some may know, and this guy WAS on that ship (Un-mistakable audio), but he was NOT licensed. I being active duty say God-Bless and good luck to all our boys out there, but lets be more careful in just letting anyone come in and chit chat without a license.

W4MDL/KH6

Thomas

ke4pjw

03-11-2003, 02:46 AM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (k8nqc @ Mar. 09 2003,09:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So many signal reports are useless. I even hear some operators giving reports based on an "S" meter reading rather than the RS(T) system which is the standard for hams. When I bring my mobile rig into the shack and hook it up on my beam, those stations that were a 5 on the meter in the car magically go up over 9 on my beam. "S" meter readings do not tell the transmitting station much about his signal. Even though a contest station says 59(9) to all stations, the real report is how long one had to call in the pile-up and the need or lack of need for repeating of information. That gives good relative information versus other stations.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I might get flamed for this one, cause I really don't know.

It was always my understanding that the (T)one signal report was for the tone quality of the CW someone was sending. When giving a phone report the ®eadability and (S)trength are the ones you are sending. Example, Readability 5 and Strength 7.

I am one of those dolts sending Strength as the S-meter reading, should I not do this? Why should I not do this?

ke4pjw

03-11-2003, 02:53 AM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W4MDL @ Mar. 09 2003,16:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">When asked what his home call was, he gave what seemed to be a legit KG4 call, which came up, you guessed it, NEGITIVE in the FCC database. Not even issued yet. On top of it all, this guy had NO, NONE, ZILTCH ham radio eticite. He just did not even sound like a ham.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
DOD callsigns are not in the FCC database. As a real world exampe, KC4AAA and KG4BB are not in the FCC database, but are legitimate DOD callsigns.

N0PU

03-11-2003, 02:59 AM

This is the RST system of reporting:

READABILITY
1 -- Unreadable
2 -- Barely readable, occasional words distinguishable
3 -- Readable with considerable difficulty
4 -- Readable with practically no difficulty
5 -- Perfectly readable

SIGNAL STRENGTH
1 -- Faint signals, barely perceptible
2 -- Very weak signals
3 -- Weak signals
4 -- Fair signals
5 -- Fairly good signals
6 -- Good signals
7 -- Moderately strong signals
8 -- Strong signals
9 -- Extremely strong signals

TONE 1 -- Sixty cycle a.c. or less, very rough and broad
2 -- Very rough a.c. , very harsh and broad
3 -- Rough a.c. tone, rectified but not filtered
4 -- Rough note, some trace of filtering
5 -- Filtered rectified a.c.but strongly ripple-modulated
6 -- Filtered tone, definite trace of ripple modulation
7 -- Near pure tone, trace of ripple modulation
8 -- Near perfect tone, slight trace of modulation
9 -- Perfect tone, no trace of ripple or modulation of any kind

ke4pjw

03-11-2003, 03:25 AM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N0PU @ Mar. 09 2003,20:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This is the RST system of reporting:

<SNIP>[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I found this page (http://www.larc.on.ca/rst.htm) that explained on phone, if you use S units as your report, you are supposed to add an S before the report. Example, "5S7" for a perfectly readable station with a signal strength of 7 S-Units.

That would explain why I get 59's for stations that only have 2 S-Units on my end but have similar power and ant to mine. Heck, if I didn't look at the meter, I can't tell the difference between a 5 S-Unit station and a 10db over S9 station on SSB.

Thanks for posting the RST system for CW, but it is not completely applicable for phone.

N0PU

03-11-2003, 03:29 AM

It sure is applicable...
You simply don't report a tone on phone because there is none...
It is the same system...
I got the data here and it is very reliable...

http://www.hartungpress.com/hamradio/rst.htm

ke4pjw

03-11-2003, 03:46 AM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N0PU @ Mar. 09 2003,21:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It sure is applicable...
You simply don't report a tone on phone because there is none...
It is the same system...
I got the data here and it is very reliable...

http://www.hartungpress.com/hamradio/rst.htm[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
So it is applicable except for the part that is not applicable? <GRIN> Ah, the never end cycle of arguing over semantics.

Thanks for posting the RS(T) system.

N0PU

03-11-2003, 04:12 AM

PJW: Do not take the following personally... I'm not picking on YOU... I have every respect for you because you asked the question when you honestly didn't know...

I gonna pick on a system gone nutso...

The reason we have extra class operators out there who do not understand the very simple RST system is because they are not exposed to it...

The only two questions in the testing system about RST are the following:

T6A05 (D)
What does RST mean in a signal report?
A. Recovery, signal strength, tempo
B. Recovery, signal speed, tone
C. Readability, signal speed, tempo
D. Readability, signal strength, tone

T6A06 (D)
What is the meaning of: "Your signal report is five nine plus 20 dB..."?
A. Your signal strength has increased by a factor of 100
B. Repeat your transmission on a frequency 20 kHz higher
C. The bandwidth of your signal is 20 decibels above linearity
D. A relative signal-strength meter reading is 20 decibels greater than strength 9

No explanation... No description of the system, and those "studying" cannot gather from the questions how the system works or that there is more to it than is presented in the questions... And MANY tested may not even be exposed to THIS much because the questions may not show up on an exam....

How can we expect people who are not properly trained to do what is needed to integrate themselves into a system that has so much involved in it, when we do nt give them all the information they need.

Then, when presented with the material, they feel insulted because they don't know... How could they know...

Then they get on the air and some jerk who doesn't know gives 'em a bad time about not knowing and feeds them some more bad info....

arghhhhhhhhh... it is frustrating...

When I studied for my first Novice test, (if the RST system was on those test, I don't remember), I would have had to UNDERSTAND the system because I would not have known EXACTLY what was gonna be asked. And that goes on to every single principle tested. I HAD to UNDERSTAND or I bombed.

The system has gone bad folks and it needs fixin' ASAP.

Any Ideas?

ke4pjw

03-11-2003, 05:35 AM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N0PU @ Mar. 09 2003,22:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">PJW: Do not take the following personally... I'm not picking on YOU... I have every respect for you because you asked the question when you honestly didn't know...

I gonna pick on a system gone nutso...
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

None taken :)

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N0PU @ Mar. 09 2003,22:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
The reason we have extra class operators out there who do not understand the very simple RST system is because they are not exposed to it...

The only two questions in the testing system about RST are the following:

T6A05 (D)
What does RST mean in a signal report?
A. Recovery, signal strength, tempo
B. Recovery, signal speed, tone
C. Readability, signal speed, tempo
D. Readability, signal strength, tone

T6A06 (D)
What is the meaning of: "Your signal report is five nine plus 20 dB..."?
A. Your signal strength has increased by a factor of 100
B. Repeat your transmission on a frequency 20 kHz higher
C. The bandwidth of your signal is 20 decibels above linearity
D. A relative signal-strength meter reading is 20 decibels greater than strength 9
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Exactly the reason for my confusion. I was aware of the RST system and had taken note of the meaning behind the various S levels. However, I had made the assumption from on-air monitoring and reading reports such as above that the old S levels had been depricated in favor of S units.

(S units being S9 = 50uV and each S unit being a change of 6db)

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N0PU @ Mar. 09 2003,22:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
No explanation... No description of the system, and those "studying" cannot gather from the questions how the system works or that there is more to it than is presented in the questions... And MANY tested may not even be exposed to THIS much because the questions may not show up on an exam....

How can we expect people who are not properly trained to do what is needed to integrate themselves into a system that has so much involved in it, when we do nt give them all the information they need.

Then, when presented with the material, they feel insulted because they don't know... How could they know...

Then they get on the air and some jerk who doesn't know gives 'em a bad time about not knowing and feeds them some more bad info....

arghhhhhhhhh... it is frustrating...

When I studied for my first Novice test, (if the RST system was on those test, I don't remember), I would have had to UNDERSTAND the system because I would not have known EXACTLY what was gonna be asked. And that goes on to every single principle tested. I HAD to UNDERSTAND or I bombed.

The system has gone bad folks and it needs fixin' ASAP.

Any Ideas?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Well, after a review of the ARRL's Operating Guide, this was clearly poor operating practice on my part and a horribly bad question to incude in the Tech Question pool. I and the person(s) who added that question to the pool are attempting to see something that is simply not there.

BTW, I don't think that question was in either the Novice or Tech exams when I took the test.

I think the system is fine for the most part, I was just being thick. :)

N0NB

03-11-2003, 02:18 PM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KC0ODY @ Mar. 10 2003,12:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As a new op working my very first contest with the ARRL SSB contest, I noticed this too, and it was the thing that frustrated me the most. I knew to expect pile-ups and tried to be patient and wait my turn (if it came), but the ops doing "QRZ" without ID'ing themselves for minutes at a time was frustrating. I kept repeating to myself, "WHO ARE YOU?!".[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Well, obviously you weren't given the super-secret Ham Radio Contester's Frequency Guide before the 'test. Then you would have "known" what frequency each large operation was assigned and would have been able to cross-reference the callsign. This makes it super efficient for the large operation as time is not wasted sending mundane things like the callsign and effort can be concentrated on important information like "QRZ?", and "59 K".

</sarcasm>

N9TTX

03-11-2003, 08:13 PM

Digressing a bit from the original post (as we have seemd to come to the concensus that the "pirate call" was a case of mistaken identity), but it does relate.

As far as the RS(T) system goes, this is how I report: R as per the readability as posted earlier. S as per what my meter does show for "S-units"...otherwise why would there be a "+20" added to an S9 signal..so I read directly off the meter. I have not run CW contacts at all, so I din't use the "T" ....yet. Now I also realize due to some misalignment on meter sensitivity/calibration in some cases, running a preamplifier or not, and the overall level of "noise" on the band at the time, one may need to adjust their report. I also have noticed that there have been extremely loud and strong signals which move the meter (on my 101E for example) only a fraction, and some which sound just as loud which move the meter to an S9+10 figure. I still give out 5,1 or 5,3 reports AND have given out 3,9+20's before (gotta love bad audio on a killer signal). These are based on what I see and hear. As a side comment, I prefer analog meters over the digital bar/sweep meters. I find the lil' old needle flopping back and forth gives a better representation of what is being recieved or transmitted. I find I can see fluctuations a whole lot better with the analog (reading a tuner for example).

As for some of the 5,9 reports that may be given, I have noticed that a lot of stations in contest mode only "pick up" the loud signals and ignore the weak ones..so therefore the S9 would be right. The R5 could also be right even though the station may be asking for a repeat. I.e. A pileup occurs...the station giving the report has to contend with other stations calling out with the same signal strength as the one he is trying to "Q" with, the station may have a legit 5,9 signal report due, but because of inconsiderate ops out there trying to plug their callsign in whenever they feel, the recieving station has to ask over and over again for one letter or number. This may also be in account to the various accents. The signal is strong and definately readable, but because of accent, one letter or the number(s) in the callsign are slightly in question. These instances should not reflect a bad signal report (what is a bad signal report anyway?...one made a contact), but a true one. During a contest the QRM is so high, there really are not true 5,9's out there...RELATIVELY speaking. When one gets 10 strong "5,9" stations adjacent to one another on frequency, what is a relative report? Especially when each is competeing with the others for a contact or when their bandwidth is so wide due to overmodulation or some such thing. Pretend one cannot see the meter and use your ears and mind to figure out what the report should be. Use the RS(T) list and use one's ears....use your best judgement. Tho in a contest sometimes it is just easier to say 5,9..sad to say.

Dave Aho....N9TTX

N9TTX

03-11-2003, 08:34 PM

I just went to the page(s) noted for the RST designations...thanks for posting them...I didnt know the S bit of controversy over a signal meter v.s. ear....spose it stands to reason as back in the old days from whence my Hammarlund was manufactured, there were not many if any signal meters. I guess I sort of use a combination of ear and signal meter...*LOL* Anyhow, now for another question that may get lambasting:

What is the "Q" signal report and where is the listing for all those?....I hear a lot of "Q5" reports out there, and assume it means essentially 5,9 but not sure. When and why was this form used?

Thanks again KE4PJW and N0PU for the links.

Dave....N9TTX

K8UT

03-11-2003, 09:19 PM

Further evidence of hams who work "spots" rather than real stations can be found on the recent announcements of current Ducie Island DXpedition. Looking at DX Summit, _most_ hams have posted spots that they worked VP6DIA, but about a dozen people have logged and spotted QSOs with callsign VP6DAI.

It might be easy to blame this problem on the hams on Ducie -- not giving their callsign often enough. But somebody out there is seeing the spot on the Internet, going to the frequency, shouting their callsign, getting a report, and logging something that they see on their computer but never bothered to verify on the air.

-larry
K8UT

03-11-2003, 10:29 PM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">DOD callsigns are not in the FCC database. As a real world exampe, KC4AAA and KG4BB are not in the FCC database, but are legitimate DOD callsigns.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
The call he was using for the ship was CVN73. Far from a legit call of anykind. The call I was refering to was the one he gave as his personel callsign. As is mine W4MDL. I am DOD, but that does not make my call some secret DOD call that is not in the books.

WB6ZVC

03-11-2003, 11:00 PM

Interesting thread. First off, the error rate of the average operator in these contests is in the range of 1 to 5 percent. And if one of these errors gets put onto packet, it will affect other people.

A station that doesn't clearly ID is going to lose QSOs. Vote with your feet - don't work them!!

Big bucks for sponsoring contests? These must be other contests than the ones I know about.

73 WB6ZVC

ke4pjw

03-12-2003, 12:28 AM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W4MDL @ Mar. 10 2003,16:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The call he was using for the ship was CVN73. Far from a legit call of anykind. The call I was refering to was the one he gave as his personel callsign. As is mine W4MDL. I am DOD, but that does not make my call some secret DOD call that is not in the books.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Well the CVN73 call was obviously incorrect. But there are some calls issued by the DoD, not the FCC, that are not in the FCC database. I gave you two examples of such calls. Neither of them are in the FCC database. Your call was issued by the FCC and is obviously in the database.

I also found this little interesting bit from Part 97

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Sec. 97.5 (a)(3) A military recreation station license grant.

A military recreation station license grant may be held only by the person who is the license custodian designated by the official in charge of the United States military recreational premises where the station is situated. The person must not be a representative of a foreign government. The person need not have been granted an amateur operator license.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

That could explain why he did not know amateur proceedure, he dosen't have to be one.
** Updated ** Was I smokin' something with that last statement or what? There has to be a licensed ham there.

Also take a look at the Group D (http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/amateur/callsigns/sequentialsystem.html) callsigns.

**UPDATE**
Doh! All ham callsigns are supposed to appear in the ULS (Sec. 97.7). So I don't know what kind of limbo the old DOD callsigns are in right now. My guess is they are invalid. Doh!

03-12-2003, 07:19 PM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N0NB @ Mar. 11 2003,07:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well, obviously you weren't given the super-secret Ham Radio Contester's Frequency Guide before the 'test. #Then you would have "known" what frequency each large operation was assigned and would have been able to cross-reference the callsign.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I was wondering if something like a contest frequency guide exists somewhere out there. I imagine that such a guide would need to be updated frequently. I have a couple of DX links bookmarked, but wonder if any large DXpedition actually posts what frequencies they will be using during a contest. I am new to HF and just learned how to use DX clusters.

WA9SVD

03-13-2003, 07:17 AM

Ah, the RS(T) system!

We have to remember it IS subjective, and based on an individual operator's "perception!"

R= Readability: I base it on readability; can I understand what the other operator is saying, and how well. (And NO, it has nothing to do with the signal strength. It's possible to have a "5x1" signal.) And then I have to make sure things are set up correctly on MY side; if I'm working 'phone and have mistakenly selected the CW filter mode, of COURSE the signal isn't going to sound good. But that's a reflection on my own error, not on the other station's signal!

S= Signal strength: Again, a subjective value. For the same signal, do I have the pre-amp switched in or out; did I forget to check the attenuator switch (40 or 60 dB attenuation can make a big difference!) and am I using the dipole or the 5 element beam? So is a 5x7 less than a 5x9+ report? This report is much more a reflection on the receiving station's capability. The modest station with a dipole might give a(n) (honest) report of 5x7, but the station down the street, with the 70' tower and 5 el. beam may give an honest report of 5x9+ 10 or more. Who is correct? They are both correct. It depends upon the capability of the receiving station, for the most part. (I'd NOT be upset with a 5x3 report, and I've made such contacts. I don't care if the signal is weak. I'd be MUCH more concerned about a 1x9 or even 3x9+ report!)

T=Tone: Well, that's one that is better explained by some more accomplished CW operators, as they can describe that system better than I.

I also know that most (anyone know an exception???) contest stations send RS(T) =59(9) no matter what, even if they have to ask for multiple repeats. If the copy is 59 or 599, WHY the repeats?
I call them as I hear them, and I wish others would do so. But I'm obviously in the minority.

K9NW

03-15-2003, 04:41 PM

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KC0ODY @ Mar. 10 2003,11:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I learned to ask them to repeat their callsigns if they spoke too fast or didn't ID themselves when they called back to me. I know it takes them extra time to ID themselves to people who ask them, but otherwise I might not log the correct call[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
You did exactly the right thing!

What I've found in 25 years of contesting is that generally the ops that finish with the highest scores are also the ones who ID on virtually every QSO. Yes, they may skip it now and then but mostly it's an integral part of the whole QSO process.

The top scoring ops want you to call them. How do they get you to call them? By letting you know who they are....by sending their callsigns....frequently! "What's your call" type questions only slow down their QSO rate.

Those that ID only every few minutes or so are under some misguided perception that this helps increase their QSO rate/score. They are wrong.....

73, Mike K9NW