CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] ARRL Triple Play Award

To: "CQ-Contest" <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] ARRL Triple Play Award
From: "Tom Osborne" <w7why@verizon.net>
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 08:47:35 -0700
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Hi Dave

Don't think it should take all that long.  I have been on LOTW for about a 
year and I have WAS on Basic, RTTY, CW, 80 meters, 40 meters, 20 meters, and 
46 on SSB.  RTTY'ers are the best for QSL'ing to LOTW.  Probably 60-70% 
upload their logs after a contest.  You can see by my score who are the 
worst :-)

I see  now I'll have to get on SSB to finish that one off.  73

Tom W7WHY

> From the latest ARRL Letter:
>
> "The Board voted to create a Triple Play Award. This new award, set to
> be implemented by January 2009, will be given to those amateurs who
> achieve Worked All States (WAS) on voice, CW and digital modes.  All 150
> QSLs must be exclusively via Logbook of The World (LoTW).  Only those
> contacts made after the awards start date will be eligible."
>
> The award itself sounds interesting, but the LoTW requirement makes it
> even more interesting.  I wonder how long (and how many contacts) it
> will take someone to achieve certificate #1.  It's entirely possible to
> work all states on a particular mode in a single weekend contest (K7ZB
> and I have even done it twice as M/S on 160m), but getting all
> confirmations through LoTW sounds quite challenging.  I'm not trying to
> knock LoTW, but at the current hit ratio most users report for the
> system, this seems like less of an operating award and more like a
> recruitment award ... i.e., how effective are you at sending emails
> after the contact and begging folks to upload their logs to LoTW.
> Maybe that was the League's intent.
>
> 73,
> Dave   AB7E

_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>