In your example:
EA4GPZ 2E0SQL 2E0SQL IN80do EA4GPZ IO91js 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 incorrectly. 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 log incorrectly.
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.
EA4GPZ 2E0SQL 2E0SQL copies EA4GPZ, please copy IN80do EA4GPZ roger IN80do from 2E0SQL, please copy my IO91js 2E0SQL roger your IO91js. 73 EA4GPZ 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 SSB.
73 de W0JT
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 4:06 PM, Peter Goodhall peter@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
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@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@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
AMSAT-NA.
Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite
program!
Subscription settings: http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
-- Peter Goodhall, 2E0SQL _______________________________________________ Sent via AMSAT-BB@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 AMSAT-NA. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb