For the record, DXAC recommended a distance limit the both times they
were asked to evaluate this rule. That would prevent "propagation
shopping" as you call it.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
73
Ria, N2RJ
On Mon, 3 Feb 2020 at 22:50, <contesting@w2irt.net> wrote:
>
> I don't personally like that rule, and if I ever got into operating with
> remotes I would surely not engage in that sort of behavior, but would rather
> stick with one single site and abide by its propagation limits. But with
> that said, I don't disagree with remote receive-only connection, and I think
> it's fair if you're limited to 100km or even 100 miles.
>
> It's foolish to me for the DXCC program to allow a 160m contact from me to
> Japan, made from my chair in New Jersey via a remote in California, where
> both the transmitter and receiver are located at the same W6 location but
> where I'm in broad daylight at 9am -- but NOT allow a contact made from that
> same desk in New Jersey to England at 11pm my time, when we're both under
> the path of darkness, but I'm transmitting from my back yard and receiving
> via a friend's remote receiver two towns over. ESPECIALLY if I'm in a
> contest where that operation is specifically allowed and encouraged.
>
> Newington has opened the door to accepting remote operation for DXCC credit,
> and my original opposition to it has been dispelled to a degree, but I
> vehemently disagree with propagation shopping being allowed but receive-only
> not. So either they need to change the rule or operators will have to
> self-censor and not submit their remote-RX QSOs for credit.
>
> In my case I simply don't have access to a remote so it's moot. But if I did
> then there's no way I would pad my stats if it's not allowed. I have to look
> at myself in the mirror when I shave.
>
> ---------------------------------------------
> GO FRC!
> Peter, W2IRT
>
> www.facebook.com/W2IRT
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CQ-Contest <cq-contest-bounces+contesting=w2irt.net@contesting.com> On
> Behalf Of Paul O'Kane
> Sent: Monday, February 3, 2020 3:43 PM
> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ 160m contest-vs-DXCC rule problem
>
> On 03/02/2020 19:57, N2RJ wrote:
> > ARRL declared this type of remote operation OK for DXCC some years ago
> > - you can operate from W6, work Macau, minami torishima, Philippines
> > etc then hop on a remote on the east coast and work Europe and Africa.
> > Hop on a southeast remote and work ZS, PY, LU, CE, CP etc. Owning a
> > station is not even necessary.
>
> Is there anyone who does not accept that this neatly illustrates how just
> how ARRL got it wrong, and thereby devalued its premier awards program -
> DXCC?
>
> 73,
> Paul EI5DI
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|