ARRL OO Notices for JT65 Users

Discussion in 'Working Different Modes' started by NN4F, Feb 11, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: Left-3
ad: HRDLLC-2
ad: L-MFJ
ad: abrind-2
ad: L-Geochron
ad: MessiPaoloni-1
ad: Left-2
  1. NN4F

    NN4F Ham Member QRZ Page


    In the past few months, several hams that are in groups that I frequent have received OO notices for "Bad Practices" on JT65

    I'm one of SC's Asst. Section Managers and I'm putting together a file that we are working on, if you have received an OO notice, I know you may not want to make it public, so if you would email me at, with the reason for the note and the OO that issued the note, I can add it to our complaint....THIS ONLY FOR JT65 Operations...

    I will not make your details public unless you specify....

    Thanks, Paul - NN4F
  2. WA4OTD

    WA4OTD Ham Member QRZ Page

    Without specifics, what is going on in JT65 world?
  3. NN4F

    NN4F Ham Member QRZ Page

    Notices issued for items, that are not violations, one or two different OO's take on what should and shouldn't be sent...
  4. WA4OTD

    WA4OTD Ham Member QRZ Page

    I'm surprised the OO's would send a notice for this!

  5. WG7X

    WG7X Platinum Subscriber Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    Good Lord, What could be so bad about the very small messages sent via JT65?

    Just for the masses, JT65 is used only to send signal reports in X number of dB and sometimes a 13 character macro. This is also done in a mode that considers 20 watts as "very high power". Usual wattage is ten watts or less.

    That's it.

    If someone is getting their panties in a wad over JT65 transmission, they either have a screw loose (most likely) or they have some other agenda.

    Which is it?

    Inquiring minds want to know, furthermore, who are these "groups" that are targeted?

    If you're gonna air a bit of dirty laundry, air it all.

    73 Gary
  6. AF6LJ

    AF6LJ Ham Member QRZ Page

    I really don't get this, maybe some more explanation is needed.
  7. NN4F

    NN4F Ham Member QRZ Page

    We have had OO notices sent for Non-ID at the end of transmission, when in fact a CW ID was sent, and some that tell that the signal was too wide on JT65, where improper measuring tools were used to name but a few.

    I'm just trying to find out how widespread the issue goes...
  8. NN4F

    NN4F Ham Member QRZ Page

    Gary, just some groups of ops on Facebook and Yahoo... nothing major, but they are starting to add up.
  9. KB2URI

    KB2URI Ham Member QRZ Page

    ok ill speak up

    I got one. Pardon any typos I'm doing this mobile.

    So I got one off a q I worked with get this an oo. I admit I ended the q by sending the default lite pseud tu73 msg, and the PO listed non I'd as the reason.

    First I thought oo's wernt supposed to get involved in things they have an interest in, and secondly after getting the notice I double checked my settings and the cw Id was on. So I WA like um what did I so wrong?

    Second, I found it funny to get a notice before a qsl . Isn't the final courtesy a qsl? Not an oo notice? Strangest qsl ever.

    Theirs the tone of the notice just came off wrong. An oo notice requires no reply per the form. Yet this oo 'asked' MD to email additional details.

    Just all struck me as odd.
  10. WG7X

    WG7X Platinum Subscriber Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    OK... This sounds like a problem with the "Official Observer" program.

    Maybe they, as a group, need remedial training? In order for them to be taken seriously their reports need to be above reproach.

    Sounds like that is not happening.

    73 Gary
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page