Good points. VHF contesting is nothing like HF contesting (except
maybe for the occasional huge 6m opening). Also, VHF+ contests are
primarily VHF weak-signal contests. Although there has been some
attempt to bring some of the FM crowd into the fold, I don't consider
that that's what it's about.
The people who make the rules should be experienced VHF weak-signal
operators and contesters. They know what the bands are like. They know
the difficulties and pitfalls as well as what is successful. And
hopefully they have enough experience to know what sort of rules would
enhance and what would harm contest activity.
73, Zack W9SZ
On 6/17/13, Marshall-K5QE <k5qe@k5qe.com> wrote:
> Jay-W9RM has posted....
>
> ASSISTANCE: I am a supporter of the CQ WW VHF rules and would like to
> see them implemented in all ARRL VHF contests.
>
> LEGISLATIVE: I am in favor of a ARRL committee (appointed or elected)
> dedicated to VHF operations and contests WITH THE POWER to amend and
> enforce rules changes independently of the ARRL CAC.
>
> Jay W9RM
>
>
> I especially like these two posts. The ASSISTANCE post has been made by
> me and others. It is a sound idea and should be pursued.
>
> The LEGISLATIVE post is also a very good idea. The VUAC _could_ have
> worked, but in practice it did not. Many of the guys on the VUAC were
> not really active VHF operators, never mind active VHF contest
> operators.....they did not have any idea of what is really happening in
> the VHF world. Some were there to protect a specific constituency in
> the NE. Some were just there....
>
> To be sure, there were some VUAC members that tried very hard to improve
> the VHF+ contesting rules. However, they were hammered by those that
> want no changes. Pure Protectionism, as Les said. The VUAC was
> subordinate to the PSC(Programs and Services Committee) not to the
> CAC(Contest Advisory Committee). The VUAC could not DO
> ANYTHING.....except make recommendations to the PSC. Sometimes the PSC
> just ignored those recommendations. GENIUS!!! Set up a Committee of
> supposedly top VHF ops and then ignore their recommendations. OF
> course, when a really, really BAD recommendation was made, it sailed
> right through.
>
> The current VUAC members were appointed, so it would be easy to find
> fault with appointments. However, I believe elections would result in
> an even worse committee. IF we elected our VUAC members, we would
> surely get some good ones.....and some hopeless Bubbas from the local FM
> club who were more popular than the serious VHF ops in their Division.
> I believe that appointment is still the best way, but, we need to try to
> get "real" VHFers appointed.
>
> Whatever we do with the VUAC or some successor committee, it MUST NOT
> OPERATE IN SECRET as the current committee has. In the early days, Jim
> Aguirre-W7DHC in the Pacific Northwest was pretty open about what was
> going on and often asked the opinion of the VHF ops in his area. I
> praised him for that. Recently, Steve-N2CEI has also been very
> forthright about the issues the VUAC was considering and also sought out
> the opinions of those in the SE US.
>
> The Directors and Vice-Directors are the key. That is where we need to
> start....after we figure out EXACTLY what we want.
>
> Comments??
>
> 73 Marshall K5QE
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> VHFcontesting mailing list
> VHFcontesting@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
>
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|