>It is obvious from some of the recent comments made on this and other forums
>that there is a lot of discontent with the present 160M contests.
Is there? There seems to be this huge battle over the "window." Other than
that, there doesn't seem to be a tremendous problem.
>Whatever
>situation develops, it is up to the organisers to address those issues and
>make adjustments to the rules accordingly. Since the begining of time,
>mankind has exploited every loophole in every rulebook, amateur radio
>operators are no different. It is time for "us" ie those interested and those
>uninterested in 160M contests, to put forward a cohesive set of requirements
>that the contest organisers should include in their rules.
Is it necessary to "close" every loophole?
>I will starty the ball rolling, here are my list of requirements for 160
>contests, please let me know what you think.....
>
>1 Each contest to last from "local dawn to dusk" not from 'x' hours Zulu
I Think you mean "dusk to dawn".
This is only fair if the contest takes place at either the spring or autumn
equinox. Otherwise, some regions of the earth will have considerably more
"darkness" to work with than others.
Further, by requiring off time during daylight, you prohibit operation
during potentially anomalous openings. What fun is a contest if you get
locked out of a freak opening?
Best bet is to require a certain amount of off time, and leave it up to the
operators to decide when to take it.
>2 Points based upon radial measurement from stations QTH.
This is only practical if either concise QTH, or generalised QTH (grid
squares) information is exchanged. While a grid-square contest would
certainly be fun on HF, it may be difficult to score such a system without
a computer. We wouldn't want to exclude our paper-bound breathren from the
fun of contesting.
>3 Band split into 3, .....non participants....US EAST + US West.....DX....
>4 DX to US qsos can only be between windows ie split freq only.
Ooo. This seems ugly. This has the potential of using TWICE as much
bandwidth for each QSO on a single band contest. (ie band limited) Further,
there would be tremendous frustration level when a CQer isn't listening in
your segment.
If the problem is the Window, making more windows doesn't solve it. Perhaps
the solution is to either abolish the window -- or to go back and figure
out why the DX window exists. Why does it exist? I thought it existed
because certain DX countries only had allocations in this area. Perhaps
specific rules for behavior in the Window need to be defined. Stations are
only implored to "observe" the DX window. Since everyone has a different
interpretation of "observing" the window, hence the problem.
>5 Each organiser must appoint someone who's job is to tune the band logging
>infringements. Disqualification rewards bad operating behaviour.
Initially, I thought this might be unenforcable, given that someone could
pirate someone else's call, and have them disqualified.
Then it occurred to me that an observer need only record contacts being
made inappropriately and their time, and look for them in the submitted
log. This could work.
>6 QSO must include serial number, lets reintroduce some skill into the qso
I've personally suggested getting rid of ALL "59(9)" reports in all
contests and replacing them with a sequential serial number. So far, it has
fallen on deaf ears.
Bill Coleman, AA4LR Mail: aa4lr@radio.org
Quote: "Not in a thousand years will man ever fly!"
-- Wilbur Wright, 1901
|