[amsat-bb] Re: proposing a new gentleman's rule...

Robert Turlington rob_g8ate at hotmail.com
Tue Feb 19 08:04:37 PST 2008

Yes Auke
I couldn't agree with you more,I would further add that any Station wishing to call CQ after hearing another calling CQ should at least allow sufficient time for a response to the original call.There have been numerous occasions when stations answering my CQ call have blocked out by another CQ call almost straight afterwards!Regards Robert G8ATE > Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:47:00 -0700> From: sparkycivic at shaw.ca> To: amsat-bb at amsat.org> Subject: [amsat-bb] proposing a new gentleman's rule...> > In light of hearing some stations calling "CQ" or "CQ Satellite" and then failing to reply to the terurn calls, I have realized that there is a need for a new procedure to be used when calling "CQ" on satellites. This is needed in order to address multiple satellites sharing a common uplink frequency, and having overlapping(or nearly-so) footprints. In particular, AO-51 and AO-16 are using 145.92 FM for their voice uplinks, and their footprints are presently seperated by only a few minutes. > > Perhaps the considerate operator should be naming the satellite that they are trying to use while calling, in order to avoid confusion or frustration when the operator's calls might be inadvertently received on multiple sats at once. > > Any thoughts?> > Auke de Jong> VE6PWN> DO33go> Edmonton, AB> > _______________________________________________> Sent via AMSAT-BB at amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author.> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!> Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
Free games, great prizes - get gaming at Gamesbox. 

More information about the AMSAT-BB mailing list