FT8 RRR versus RR73 in a dispute with 3DA0AO

Discussion in 'Ham Radio Discussions' started by M0OXD, Sep 30, 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: L-Geochron
ad: abrind-2
ad: Left-3
ad: L-MFJ
ad: MessiPaoloni-1
ad: HRDLLC-2
ad: Left-2
  1. M0OXD

    M0OXD Ham Member QRZ Page

    Dear all,

    I worked a dxpedition last night, and Pista (HA5AO) says I'm not in his log, although his WSJT program sent me 73 twice, after I acknowledged his signal report with RRR. Here is the thread, and my question is around his argument that it's not a valid QSO unless he sees my RR73 not RRR, which one 'can send RRR anytime to a station hoping that he will log you'.


    190929_211715 7.074 Tx FT8 0 0.0 320 <3DA0AO> YO2OXD -09
    190929_211730 7.074 Rx FT8 -10 0.3 320 YO2OXD <3DA0AO> R-08

    190929_211730 7.074 Rx FT8 -16 0.1 199 7X2TT M0NKC IO91
    190929_211730 7.074 Rx FT8 -18 0.2 569 7X2TT M0MLZ IO70
    190929_211745 7.074 Tx FT8 0 0.0 320 3DA0AO <YO2OXD> RRR
    190929_211745 7.074 Rx FT8 -13 0.1 703 CQ 7Z1AL/QRP
    190929_211745 7.074 Rx FT8 -18 0.2 807 CX5TS JS6TWW PL55
    190929_211745 7.074 Rx FT8 -2 0.1 1111 F4BYA JA2QXY R-14
    190929_211745 7.074 Rx FT8 3 -0.1 1505 DL1LTK 9K2HQ R-14
    190929_211745 7.074 Rx FT8 0 0.2 1802 SP1MGM EA3XR 73
    190929_211745 7.074 Rx FT8 -18 0.1 344 CQ ES6RQ KO28
    190929_211745 7.074 Rx FT8 -22 -0.0 677 CQ MW1BAJ IO71
    190929_211745 7.074 Rx FT8 -20 0.1 1465 W3OFT DL5HBD JO43
    190929_211800 7.074 Rx FT8 -10 0.2 320 JA3APV <3DA0AO> -12
    190929_211800 7.074 Rx FT8 -16 0.1 199 7X2TT M0NKC IO91
    190929_211815 7.074 Tx FT8 0 0.0 320 3DA0AO <YO2OXD> RRR
    190929_211815 7.074 Rx FT8 -21 0.2 569 7X2TT M0MLZ IO70
    190929_211815 7.074 Rx FT8 -9 0.1 703 JR5MJS <7Z1AL/QRP> -13
    190929_211815 7.074 Rx FT8 -21 0.1 764 CQ OH6FYP KP12
    190929_211815 7.074 Rx FT8 6 2.0 926 7X2TT RA3BQ KO85
    190929_211815 7.074 Rx FT8 1 0.1 945 BI8DHZ EA6BE JM29
    190929_211815 7.074 Rx FT8 -6 0.1 1112 F4BYA JA2QXY 73
    190929_211815 7.074 Rx FT8 -1 -0.4 1188 ER3RR RU6UR -16
    190929_211815 7.074 Rx FT8 6 -0.1 1505 DL1LTK 9K2HQ R-10
    190929_211815 7.074 Rx FT8 4 0.1 1802 PD0ODV EA3XR JN11
    190929_211815 7.074 Rx FT8 -14 0.2 1859 JA9IPF F1GRH JN13
    190929_211815 7.074 Rx FT8 -13 0.1 890 7X2TT G1MHU IO93
    190929_211815 7.074 Rx FT8 -13 0.2 969 IK8HJG ON5ZZ 73
    190929_211815 7.074 Rx FT8 -9 0.1 1796 CQ UN7ZAI MO51
    190929_211845 7.074 Tx FT8 0 0.0 320 3DA0AO <YO2OXD> RRR
    190929_211900 7.074 Rx FT8 -10 0.2 320 <YO2OXD> 3DA0AO 73
    190929_211900 7.074 Rx FT8 -19 0.1 199 7X2TT M0NKC IO91
    190929_211915 7.074 Tx FT8 0 0.0 320 3DA0AO <YO2OXD> 73

    Many thanks for clarifying this one for me.

    Here is the entire exchange with Pista who is leading this dxpedition.

    ---------- Forwarded message ---------
    From: HA5AO Pista
    Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2019 at 16:26
    Subject: Re: 3DA0AO Log Check Request Response
    To: Cristian Romocea


    Im sorry Cristian. Its not a valid QSO. I never seen RR73 from you. I can send RRR anytime to a station hoping that he will log you. No, its not valid QSO even if my system sent you 73. It was not logged in good reason. You sent the RRR minutes later than i called you. I called you many times in different sequence. You always just return with report. Sorry not in log.

    73, Pista, HA5AO
    Sent from Samsung Galaxy S9+ smart phone

    -------- Eredeti üzenet --------
    Feladó: Cristian Romocea
    Dátum: 2019. 09. 30. 13:43 (GMT+02:00)
    Címzett: [email removed]
    Tárgy: Re: 3DA0AO Log Check Request Response

    Dear Pista,

    Thanks for taking the time to reply. I read your blog I can imagine how frustrating it must have been at the beginning of the dxpedition with the current propagation. I am surprised you say you never received confirmation, as I have clearly received twice you final 73 at 21.19.00 and then again at 21.19.15 in response to my RRR at 21.18.45. I thought our entire exchange was quick and entirely legitimate. I am attaching a screen-grab of my WSJT log file and see also below.

    190929_211715 7.074 Tx FT8 0 0.0 320 <3DA0AO> YO2OXD -09
    190929_211730 7.074 Rx FT8 -10 0.3 320 YO2OXD <3DA0AO> R-08

    190929_211730 7.074 Rx FT8 -16 0.1 199 7X2TT M0NKC IO91
    190929_211730 7.074 Rx FT8 -18 0.2 569 7X2TT M0MLZ IO70
    190929_211745 7.074 Tx FT8 0 0.0 320 3DA0AO <YO2OXD> RRR
    190929_211745 7.074 Rx FT8 -13 0.1 703 CQ 7Z1AL/QRP
    190929_211745 7.074 Rx FT8 -18 0.2 807 CX5TS JS6TWW PL55
    190929_211745 7.074 Rx FT8 -2 0.1 1111 F4BYA JA2QXY R-14
    190929_211745 7.074 Rx FT8 3 -0.1 1505 DL1LTK 9K2HQ R-14
    190929_211745 7.074 Rx FT8 0 0.2 1802 SP1MGM EA3XR 73
    190929_211745 7.074 Rx FT8 -18 0.1 344 CQ ES6RQ KO28
    190929_211745 7.074 Rx FT8 -22 -0.0 677 CQ MW1BAJ IO71
    190929_211745 7.074 Rx FT8 -20 0.1 1465 W3OFT DL5HBD JO43
    190929_211800 7.074 Rx FT8 -10 0.2 320 JA3APV <3DA0AO> -12
    190929_211800 7.074 Rx FT8 -16 0.1 199 7X2TT M0NKC IO91
    190929_211815 7.074 Tx FT8 0 0.0 320 3DA0AO <YO2OXD> RRR
    190929_211815 7.074 Rx FT8 -21 0.2 569 7X2TT M0MLZ IO70
    190929_211815 7.074 Rx FT8 -9 0.1 703 JR5MJS <7Z1AL/QRP> -13
    190929_211815 7.074 Rx FT8 -21 0.1 764 CQ OH6FYP KP12
    190929_211815 7.074 Rx FT8 6 2.0 926 7X2TT RA3BQ KO85
    190929_211815 7.074 Rx FT8 1 0.1 945 BI8DHZ EA6BE JM29
    190929_211815 7.074 Rx FT8 -6 0.1 1112 F4BYA JA2QXY 73
    190929_211815 7.074 Rx FT8 -1 -0.4 1188 ER3RR RU6UR -16
    190929_211815 7.074 Rx FT8 6 -0.1 1505 DL1LTK 9K2HQ R-10
    190929_211815 7.074 Rx FT8 4 0.1 1802 PD0ODV EA3XR JN11
    190929_211815 7.074 Rx FT8 -14 0.2 1859 JA9IPF F1GRH JN13
    190929_211815 7.074 Rx FT8 -13 0.1 890 7X2TT G1MHU IO93
    190929_211815 7.074 Rx FT8 -13 0.2 969 IK8HJG ON5ZZ 73
    190929_211815 7.074 Rx FT8 -9 0.1 1796 CQ UN7ZAI MO51
    190929_211845 7.074 Tx FT8 0 0.0 320 3DA0AO <YO2OXD> RRR
    190929_211900 7.074 Rx FT8 -10 0.2 320 <YO2OXD> 3DA0AO 73
    190929_211900 7.074 Rx FT8 -19 0.1 199 7X2TT M0NKC IO91
    190929_211915 7.074 Tx FT8 0 0.0 320 3DA0AO <YO2OXD> 73
    Best 73,
    Cristian

    On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 at 12:35, <email removed> wrote:
    Following is the response regarding your Busted/Missing Call Request.

    Checked log: 3DA0AO
    Submitted callsign: YO2OXD

    # Date Time Band Mode Disposition
    1. 2019-09-29 21:04 40 FT8 Sorry, NIL (Not in Log)

    Sorry You are not in log. I checked the WSJX-text file. I called you and sent you the RR73 several times but I never received your confirmation.

    73, Pista, HA5AO
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 30, 2019
  2. W7UUU

    W7UUU Principal Moderator Lifetime Member 133 Administrator Volunteer Moderator Platinum Subscriber Life Member QRZ Page

    Oh well.

    Move along and try to work a more cooperative and less pedantic chap next time

    Dave
    W7UUU
     
    KC2IEB, KA4DPO, DM2TT and 14 others like this.
  3. M0OXD

    M0OXD Ham Member QRZ Page

    Thanks Dave. Funny but that is exactly what my friends at the local ham radio club said! It's a bit frustrating though when u call this guy for hours at night and get this outcome...
     
  4. VA3VF

    VA3VF Ham Member QRZ Page

    If you use RRR, which is my preferred option when working a DXped or any other ATNO, the 73 is considered to be a requirement.

    Too many 'duelling breaks' between RR73 and R-XX for my tastes.

    For run of the mill contacts I use RR73 and log it, if the other station did not consider it a complete contact, tough.

    Looking at the extract, I think you have a good contact. The 'last word', if you want a confirmation, is always the other station's.

    Look for another station. Neither the first nor the last time you'll see this.
     
  5. K1VSK

    K1VSK Ham Member QRZ Page

    The only word which adequately describes this is ‘silly’. Although ‘ludicrous’ is a close second.
     
    KK4NSF, N3AB, W4NNF and 1 other person like this.
  6. KK5JY

    KK5JY Ham Member QRZ Page

    Did you get his permission to post his email in the forum?
     
    WA1GXC, K1OIK, N3AB and 1 other person like this.
  7. W7UUU

    W7UUU Principal Moderator Lifetime Member 133 Administrator Volunteer Moderator Platinum Subscriber Life Member QRZ Page

    Fixed

    Dave
    W7UUU
     
    KK5JY likes this.
  8. VA3VF

    VA3VF Ham Member QRZ Page

    I thought <no-reply> type email addresses were one-way only.

    Good to know.
     
  9. KA2IRQ

    KA2IRQ Ham Member QRZ Page

    The software reacts differently to "RRR" and "RR73" ???? I was always told it was just operator preference on which to use, but otherwise made no difference in how things worked.
     
  10. W7UUU

    W7UUU Principal Moderator Lifetime Member 133 Administrator Volunteer Moderator Platinum Subscriber Life Member QRZ Page

    They are. However, it had the email domain that is personal to the sender... "noreply@xxxxx.com" where xxxxx is his personal domain - not a ISP domain.

    Either way, it's not required for the discussion to have email address in public view.

    Dave
    W7UUU
     
    K4AGO likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page