Big change on DXCC rules

Dxcc rule modification

The ARRL is attempting trying to get ahead of some concerns regarding remote control stations. Technology has brought us to a point that becomes fuzzy for many. Not all stations are created equal, we all have advantages and disadvantages to making contacts to achieve DXCC and beyond at a point where we operate. We will never all be the same (thank goodness). The DXCC award(s) are generic or specific for band or mode. I think there could've been a complete new category of awards with just a "remotely" verbiage added after the specific DXCC award. For example you could get a 40meter DXCC award or a 40meter-remotely award...just make it more defined. If we make the awards easier to obtain, we lessen the challenge to achieve them. But the ruling has been made, so have fun and challenge yourself.

Randy, KA4AQM
Chesapeake Va

 

And I thought motocross was controversial and dangerous. I feel safer at the starting gate with 39 other riders than going up against you guys on this topic.

Everyone have a great weekend!

Greg (NU4R)

 

Thanks for your reply. What I am trying to wrap my head around is sorta who gets DXCC credit for what.


N9DSJ cleverly (doubt that) drops a remotely controlled drone station into P5-land and remotely controls it to contact W9blah...

Does W9blah get credit for a P5 qso? And what does N9DSJ get or could claim (aside from a visit from homeland security)?

To my limited thinking, W9blahh worked RF to RF to P5-land. N9DSJ did not do squat (as usual).

Sorry for being dense.....

73,

Bill N9DSJ

 

Well, it certainly is dangerous!

 

Of course you do. All you guys are going the same direction (or trying to).

73,
Bill

 

I suspect the 500m rule for maximum distance between transmitter and receiver is so you can't TX from one location and use a separate receiver away from that location in the form of remote receiver, or calling a friend on the phone and using his rig to hear if a station if calling you. For example, you have a super bad issue with noise and can't hear a DX station, so you TX from your radio and use a receiver at a different location so you can actually hear the station that you are trying to work.

This doesn't just apply to remote stations you access over the internet, but also your station at home. It's the ARRL's way to define a station location and I'm pretty sure this part has been a rule for a long time now.

 

Well, if the "DXpedition" were approved by the DXCC desk, W9blah would get credit, and N9DSJ would get W9blah's unending gratitude as a reward. Hopefully, you'd have the foresight to either work your station remotely, effectively talking to yourself for DXCC credit, or lending your "station" to another licensed ham to make the contact for you.

I have heard that one criticism against allowing remote control operations is the notion that rare ones could be made less rare by establishing unmanned remote stations there, spoiling some of the magic/challenge of DXCC. I think if that started becoming an real, rather than hypothetical, concern, it would be appropriate to revisit the matter.

 

Establishing "rules" that apply to every situation is what makes this so difficult. From my own sense of what may be acceptable, I distinguish between a situation where one simply "buys time" on a given super station that is optimally geographically located to work a specific DX station/entity -- versus someone who builds remote capability into his own station so that if he travels for a living or happens to be away when a needed station comes on he can access his own station and work the DX. The former would "legally circumvent" the intended challenge of DXCC while the later would be consistent with the argument of "what is the difference if the key line is 2 meters long or 2000 km long -- as long as the station location remains the same. I think the DXAC should get input from the members, then give their expert consideration to this topic and make a recommendation to the board. I don't think "one rule fits all" in this case. I realize I may be the only one with this opinion...hi hi...73, Greg-N4CC

 

If this makes it possible for remote stations to be located on rare DX locations and count for them then I am all for it - what matters is the location of each station not where the operator is.

The change that I would like to see is to go back to the old rules of the station must be within 100 miles of the transmitter and a ham may not sit in Chicago and use transmitters in Florida, California and Maine to claim DXCC - thats utter BS.

 

If he using same station for the contacts what difference does it make if it's next door or thousand miles away?

Me, I'm operating from a park bench, or wayside stop, and don't begrudge what others have for their use.

 

Just a question...

Thinking out loud here:

Would it possible (and proper) for those that govern the DXCC program to offer endorsements for station type?
There would be an award endorsement for utilizing the same station (example: my home station, whether I am sitting in front of it or operating it remotely); and a different endorsement for using multiple station locations, be they remotely operated or I travel there and operate as a guest using my call.

I do not know all the ins and outs of DXCC, so I am not sure if the above is possible. On the surface, it seems doable.


Regards,
-Bruce
KA1NOS

 

Good thinking but how would you keep things "honest and ethical?"

What would stop someone from claiming a different award endorsement, than they deserve?

Sounds like a can of worms.

 

In other actions, the Board instructed the HF Band Planning Committee — which soon will solicit members’ comments on proposed changes to the ARRL HF Band Plans — to include the possibility of requesting that the FCC add RTTY and data privileges for Novices and Technicians on 15 meters.

Many old hams WORKED very very long and hard for their ticket ------ one word for NOVICE and Technicians "UPGRADE" ! Don't expect a damn hand out !

 

Nothing new here...

Same way it's always been...operator's prerogative!?



[Honest] Regards,
-Bruce
KA1NOS

 

This is exactly how I feel and have thought about remote use..it isn't fair to others nor ethics for me to be transmitting from my QTH in Wisconsin and having a stack of various beams directed West on the shoreline in California at my disposal. Sure, it would help to make contacts for awards..but it isn't fair. Life doesn't have to be fair, Ham radio operators to eachother, should be.