eHam Logo

 Home Home
 Articles & Stories
 Contesting Wiki
 My Profile

 This Week's Contests
 Classified Ads
 Contest Links
 Product Reviews

Contest Lists

Other Lists

 Mailing List FAQs

Site Information
 About This Site Team

Contesting Online Survey

Survey Question Current Survey Question

Recently the RDXC committee reclassified P3F to high power from low power without publicly providing strong evidence that any infraction had occurred. They concluded was that the contestant was running HP on 80/40m but not full-time, just 10 minutes here and there without any convincing evidence. It appears they used the RBN as their source of information. Should the RXDC contest have to publicly provide convincing evidence before reclassifying a station from LP to HP?

Recent Surveys

Randy, K5ZD, wrote a sidebar titled " Convergence and Change" in the 2015 CQWW CW printed results in CQ magazine. He wrote that the "convergence of personal computers, Internet access, DX clusters, and CW Skimmer have changed the nature of CW contesting". He goes to say that it is "more difficult to police the line between the single operator working alone and those who are using the assistance of DX spotting." In light of this convergence and change is it time to recombine SO and SOA into a single category?

What's your primary Software for HF Contests ? ( no VHF/UHF ! )

Are you ready the this year's winter contest season

What ways have you found to be effective to attract newcomers to our hobby?

What is your linear?

View All Survey Questions

Have a good idea for a Contesting Online Survey question?
Enter your idea!

Thanks for voting! Your vote has been included in the results below.

If you are running contacts during a contest and an operator asks you to move farther away from a net frequency because there is an emergency communication taking place that you are interfering with would you:
  Posted: Feb 29, 2004   (1207 votes, 8 comments) by VE5ZX

Survey Results
Ignore him and keep working the contest. 9% (107)
QSY and find a new CQ frequency 58% (699)
Go to the net frequency, confirm there was an emergency and then return to the contest 4% (45)
Go to the net frequency, remain there until you were sure the emergency signal was copied and then return to the contest 7% (88)
Go to the net frequency, help the net until the situation stabilized and return to the contest 22% (268)

Survey Comments
Non-contester speaks
Dear YLs and OMs,

I'm not much into contesting, but is where Towertalk and Yaesu have their lists, so here I am.

Your comments about how to deal with being informed about emergency communications while you're trying to rack up points show lots of experience and knowledge about operating procedures that I never expected from rabid contesters.

Another OM suggested that when it comes to emergency communications, he would rather be working with experienced contest operators, which makes sense, although I had never considered the synchronisity.

It gave me a newfound respect for contesting. When trying to get my radio club prepared for emergency communications, I will begin to suggest contesting as a way to gain experience with concise communications. For beginners, I know there are calmer, less scary contests for trying out one's hand besides the Worldwide Phone Cacophony.

I did not realize that falsely indicating imaginary emergency communications was a phenomenon in contests, but I guess some people are more comfortable telling lies than I've ever been. Whatever I might have thought about contests, I am disturbed that hams would stoop to _break the law_ to transmit deceptive messages about fake emergencies.

Where is it... here it is: "97.113 Prohibited transmissions. (a) No amateur station shall transmit: (4) ...; ... false or deceptive messages, signals or identification." It was easy enough to find, I just went to Part 97 (available on the ARRL website) and searched for the word "False," and it lead me right there.

I'm sure that well-placed, dispassionate reminders that such deceptive messages are totally illegal would significantly cut down on their occurances. Making false transmissions about emergencies is no game.

I would expect the FCC to deal with that more harshly than any other brand of malicious communications. Happy hunting.


Posted by wb2cir on March 11, 2004

QSY Requests
I would most certainly go to the net freq.
to find the nature of the emergency and help
in any way possible. This why we all have
Amateur Radio license's and most(not me) contest operators have superior stations and
and operating skills. This is how I defend
the contesting art when I hear it put down.
In an actual emergency the best operators to
have on hand,in my opinion, are your contesters and NTS folks. Those who do both
=bonus points! 73,Mike

Posted by WW8MM on February 26, 2004

QSY requests
I would apologize with simple sorry and then give call sign.As to ackowledge the request.I wouldn't ask if I could help out until I listened for a few minutes and only then if felt there was something I could do to help out.

Posted by n1qwx on February 19, 2004

QSY Request
In my area there are many operators which are very close to me. When a contest opens the first thing I do is listen, listening to see if I am working the contest either on the same freq or close to it with my fellow hams. I too, want to make contacts, however, I can do this at any time. It's not like the band won't open again. If one of these operators comes and says I am interfering with them ... it's simple, I move! This same concept applies to emergencies. As a HAM our first priorty it listening, once we are sure that we are not causing "Harmful Interference" whether intentionally or not! Then we can transmit! Although ... you all knew that! 73's and hope to work you in the next contest.

Posted by kc2ksy on February 11, 2004

This is ridiculous
If ANYONE claims that there is emergency traffic, you release the freq.
If you are able to appropriately assist with emergency traffic, and you fail to, you should get a CB.

Posted by ad8a on February 8, 2004

This never happens in a CW contest.

Posted by N4SL on February 5, 2004

QSY requests
In my opinion, the worse operators are those who stop everything and insist on "proof".

Even if 80% of the time it is a "spoof", it makes no sense at all to enter in a debate. If the emergency is real, you would be intentionally causing a problem.

I have seen this happen many times while working DX. Some bozo will pop up on a busy frequency, bark one quick "QRL?" call, and then proceed to start working people. If the person is informed the frequency was in use, they'll say "well I asked (and no one answered in the one second I paused)".

They often proclaim "I can't hear anyone" like they see and hear all things whispered on earth, just like jolly old Santa Claus does from the North Pole.

It is common for operators to use the "prove it by completing the following questionaire" operating method, but wrong. It is especially being LID-like to do that if someone says there is emergency traffic. It just isn't worth the risk to other people's safety. VFO dials are easy to spin, when you are looking for 20 over 9 random signals.

73 Tom

Posted by w8ji on February 2, 2004

QSY Requests
I've had this happen a number of times, even though I cannot hear the so-called emergency traffic - which is where I smell a rat. I always ask for the station's callsign and location of emergency - just to establish if it is half genuine.

I often think it is one way of on-air contest-bashers (deliberate QRMers) to mess with things, but I err on the side of safety in any case.

Posted by vk2cz on February 1, 2004

To post a comment, you must be logged in.

If you are not a member, become one now!