[amsat-bb] Why 6 digit grid locator in Europe?
tosca005 at umn.edu
Sat Feb 20 00:08:38 UTC 2016
In your example:
and a quick Thanks/73
I don't consider this to be a complete contact, personally.
1. EA4GPZ calls 2E0SQL and it appears that 2E0SQL replies with his/her
grid locator, IN80do, but there is no guarantee (i.e., no CONFIRMATION that
2E0SQL heard EA4GPZ's callsign correctly. Maybe he thought he heard EA4GPC,
and since he never repeated the callsign he (thought he) heard, it may go
into his log (or a contest log) incorrectly.
2. EA4GPZ apparently heard the grid report of IN80do well enough that he
was confident that he heard it correctly, so he sent his grid locator
IO91js. But he never repeated the grid locator IN80do so he might have
mis-heard it as IN80vo, for example, and so it would go into the log
3. 2E0SQL apparently heard the grid report of IO91js well enough to send
his 73's indicating that the contact is complete, but what if he mis-heard
it as IIO91as instead? He never repeated it back, so it would go into the
My notion of a complete, verified contact would (unfortunately, for this
discussion), be much more verbose, with each side repeating the info they
(thought that) they heard so errors could be caught and fixed. Maybe this
is just my bias from VHF-through-microwave contesting where I want to be as
close to absolutely sure that I got everything exactly right. And even so,
I seldom submit an absolutely spotless error-free log.
2E0SQL copies EA4GPZ, please copy IN80do
EA4GPZ roger IN80do from 2E0SQL, please copy my IO91js
2E0SQL roger your IO91js. 73
Each operator has heard and repeated back both the other operator's
calllsign, and the other operator's report (gridsquare), so both of them
have confirmed that they got the information correctly. And both have sent
their 73's not only to be polite but also to signify that they each believe
the contact is complete and correct.
I'll probably get firebombed for proposing such a verbose exchange,
particularly if NOT in the context of a contest, but I have already donned
my flameproof coveralls. The fact that airtime during an FM satellite pass
is so precious and limited is one of the reasons that I tend to shun them
in favor of the few linear transponders still flying. And certainly I
appreciate that FM reception is usually far easier to copy than weak-signal
73 de W0JT
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 4:06 PM, Peter Goodhall <peter at m3php.com> wrote:
> Ofcoms reasonably relaxed, its main concern is that I identify at the
> start of a transmission (CQ) every 15mins or again if I change
> frequency. IARU says that a valid QSO is defined as:-
> - Mutually identified each other
> - received a report and
> - received confirmation of a successful identification & reception of the
> Report could easily just be the Gridsquare on its own, after all the
> signal reports meaningless via a satellite if its FM (probably ssb
> too) and you're getting into it thats all that matters, remove the
> signal report and you speed up the QSO and that extra two letters
> doesn't seem so bad.
> When you think
> EA4GPZ 2E0SQL
> 2E0SQL IN80do
> EA4GPZ IO91js
> and a quick Thanks/73
> Probably isn't going to take that long.
> But I honestly don't feel that because on EME or M/S its just 4
> characters that it should mean a sudden switch, for EME/MS the 4
> letters have been decided based mainly on the digital modes which has
> moved into HF with JT65 and JT9 before then apart from in a PSK brag
> file you never really heard QRAs on HF.
> I'm not sure how long the 6 characters has been a thing on the
> satellites in Europe, but in the 4 years I've been on it's certainly
> the norm.. like you say tons of times wasted on for example SO-50
> having to wait for someone to stop calling over you or keying you out
> that its easily 50% of the time lost just to people probably not being
> able to hear the satellite in the first place.
> Just my thoughts anyway and many thanks for the squares while you've
> been on from the UK.
> Pete, 2E0SQL
> On 18 February 2016 at 21:35, Dani EA4GPZ <daniel at destevez.net> wrote:
> > El 18/02/16 a las 15:26, Peter Goodhall escribió:
> >> We can strip down exchange information to just be 2E0SQL EA1JM IO91 or
> >> if we don't bother even with that 2E0SQL EA1JM.. I'm not really sure
> >> it constitutes a contact by my licence regulations.
> > I don't think that the licence regulations have any say on what
> > constitutes a contact or actually try say so. That's for the ham
> > community to decide. I can speak only for the Spanish and UK
> > regulations, which are the ones that I've ever read.
> > The EME and meteor scatter communities have a very clear idea of what
> > constitutes a contact for them, because they're only always working
> > under marginal conditions, so they try to send the least information
> > possible.
> >> There's far greater issues like people calling over the top of in
> >> progress QSOs, deliberate jamming etc which should be dealt with
> >> first, if this was taken care of then more QSOs on FM satellites could
> >> take place and that extra two letters wouldn't really make a real
> >> difference.
> > I agree with that. For me, the worst problem in FM satellites is people
> > calling over and over without being able to hear the satellite. It would
> > be fun to record some passes and study how much time gets wasted with
> > such issues and how much time is used to actually make QSOs. I have the
> > impression that more than half of the time gets wasted usually.
> > 73,
> > Dani EA4GPZ.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Sent via AMSAT-BB at amsat.org. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available
> > to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership.
> Opinions expressed
> > are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of
> > Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite
> > Subscription settings: http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
> Peter Goodhall, 2E0SQL
> Sent via AMSAT-BB at amsat.org. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available
> to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions
> are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official views of
> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
> Subscription settings: http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
More information about the AMSAT-BB