I've tried what Bob WB4APR suggests a few times, as a test for last year's Field Day, and while I agree it's a more efficient use of packets, I found it to be impractical when using an HT in one hand and the antenna in the other. It would work much better if you and the stations you want to QSO with are using software like UISS rather than the keypad interface on an HT.
Part of the problem is that a lot of ops still use SSIDs when transmitting to the packet satellites, which is not really necessary and complicates the problem of having to memorize a call to type it in manually on another screen buried several clicks away in a menu. There's also the "chicken and the egg" problem, where one op using a "nonstandard" protocol isn't going to make a lot of QSOs when everyone else is using an incompatible protocol. Is everyone going to click several screens into each received position packet to see if their call is listed in the STATUS field? (Which is, again, added overhead that HT users have to go through.) Checking to see if you've been digipeated to know when to stop sending your packets? Yet another complication that's easier said than done when using an HT.
On the Kenwood D72 and D74 HTs, it's very easy to send a reply message to a station whose position or message packet you've received, and also very easy to stop automated resends, e.g., when you've gotten a response message, when you know the other station is out of the footprint, or when you realize that you're trying to QSO with an unattended station.
Until I see a significant shift of usage toward Bob's proposed QSO protocol, I plan to continue to use Patrick WD9EWK's very effective QSO protocol, which is much more practical for HT operation and is the de facto standard. I often check position packets' status messages in case someone else is using Bob WB4APR's protocol, but have found it to be rare, and it's an order of magnitude faster to just send them a message packet in response.
73, Ryan AI6DO
On Saturday, April 13, 2019, 8:31:51 AM PDT, Patrick STODDARD (WD9EWK/VA7EWK) via AMSAT-BB amsat-bb@amsat.org wrote:
Hi John!
Have you tried editing the status text field on an APRS-ready HT or mobile radio? Lots of keypresses to make the change. It would be easier for someone using software like UISS to type a few characters in that field. For someone with a TH-D72, you could end up with 20 to almost 40 keypresses to change a call sign in a status text field. It is similar for those using a mobile radio like a TM-D710G, where you press buttons on the microphone's DTMF keypad to make those changes. It is much easier for the users of the APRS-ready transceivers to pull a call sign from a listing, and in a few keypresses send a message to that call sign, instead of editing the status text to do the same thing.
I know of one west-coast station that uses the status text to make contacts with other stations. I don't think that station is using a radio like a TM-D710G to work the passes. For the rest of us with the APRS-ready transceivers, we use the messages back and forth. We can see when a station sends a message to another station, and can quickly make calls with messages compared to the longer time needed to edit a status text field to do the same thing.
Unfortunately, the Kenwood and Yaesu APRS-ready transceivers faithfully implement APRS, where UISS deviates from it slightly for messaging. UISS allows the user to disable the use of ACK packets when sending messages. UISS will send an ACK packet, if an incoming message requests it, but at least those users have the option of not using ACKs on their own messages to others. Now if the APRS standard provided a way for ACKs to be optional, and Kenwood and Yaesu implemented this change (i.e., a menu option where the ACK requirement for outgoing messages could be disabled)... I wonder who could propose changes to APRS... :-)
73!
Patrick WD9EWK/VA7EWK http://www.wd9ewk.net/ Twitter: @WD9EWK or http://twitter.com/WD9EWK
On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 2:26 PM John Brier via AMSAT-BB amsat-bb@amsat.org wrote:
Thanks for explaining Bob. I wasn't clear on just how much "heavier" APRS packets were.
It would definitely take a concerted effort to get people to use STATUS messages more.
73, John Brier KG4AKV