Timing on VUCC Upgrade Processing
On March 23, 2013 at the Greater Houston Hamfest I had my QSL cards checked to upgrade my VUCC Satellite Award from 700 grid squares to 761 grid squares. I received the processed VUCC upgrade from the ARRL today, June 10, 2013. The upgrade took 80 days to process. For some reason a QSL card from XE1AY for a contact in EL10 was not counted and the upgrade only took me up to 760 grid squares.
Also, I did not find a sticker for 750 grid squares in the envelope. I paid by credit card and did not receive a statement of the costs that were charged to my credit card. I surmise that the person who processes the VUCC upgrades is probably over worked.
My personal feeling is that the ARRL VUCC award is a very worthwhile award and that satellite operators should continue to participate in it.
Allen N5AFV
That sure seems like a long time. And then, to have an error occur withthe processing and no sticker and no credit card paperwork. Not very goodattention to detail. It sure makes using LoTW a much better way to go. It's a whole lot faster(often a day or two for credit) and less human intervention and possibilityfor errors. Unfortunately, the percentage of operators using LoTW is not as high aswhat fellow users would like. Overall, the ARRL figures show only about14% of QSO records have been QSL'd. Wish there was better participation. 73, Bob K8BL
--- On Mon, 6/10/13, Allen F. Mattis [email protected] wrote:
From: Allen F. Mattis [email protected] Subject: [amsat-bb] Timing on VUCC Upgrade Processing To: [email protected] Date: Monday, June 10, 2013, 3:01 PM
On March 23, 2013 at the Greater Houston Hamfest I had my QSL cards checked to upgrade my VUCC Satellite Award from 700 grid squares to 761 grid squares. I received the processed VUCC upgrade from the ARRL today, June 10, 2013. The upgrade took 80 days to process. For some reason a QSL card from XE1AY for a contact in EL10 was not counted and the upgrade only took me up to 760 grid squares.
Also, I did not find a sticker for 750 grid squares in the envelope. I paid by credit card and did not receive a statement of the costs that were charged to my credit card. I surmise that the person who processes the VUCC upgrades is probably over worked.
My personal feeling is that the ARRL VUCC award is a very worthwhile award and that satellite operators should continue to participate in it.
Allen N5AFV
_______________________________________________ Sent via [email protected]. 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
Hi!
That sure seems like a long time. And then, to have an error occur withthe
processing and no sticker and no credit card paperwork. Not very goodattention to detail. It sure makes using LoTW a much better way to go. It's a whole lot faster(often a day or two for credit) and less human intervention and possibilityfor errors. Unfortunately, the percentage of operators using LoTW is not as high aswhat fellow users would like. Overall, the ARRL figures show only about14% of QSO records have been QSL'd. Wish there was better participation.
I have only used LoTW for my satellite VUCC applications. It took almost 4 months to get the initial certificate back in 2011. After that, endorsements filed through LoTW later in 2011 and in 2012 were processed quickly, but I never received the proper endorsement stickers until I went back to ARRL via e-mail and asked for them. For the 125-grid sticker, I received a 125- grid 6m VUCC sticker. An e-mail to ARRL, and the 125-grd satellite VUCC sticker was in my mailbox in a few days. I didn't get anything for the 150- grid level, until I e-mailed ARRL to ask for it. Guess they don't see many satellite VUCC applications and endorsements via LoTW.
I am now starting to go through my QSL cards to make a large endorsement application for my satellite VUCC. This will add at least 300 more grids to my count, and will take a while to get everything in order. This was why I started out just using LoTW for my satellite VUCC. But, as N5AFV mentioned earlier, we satellite operators should file for this award. Even if all it does is show ARRL that we're out here.
73!
Patrick WD9EWK/VA7EWK http://www.wd9ewk.net/
On 6/10/2013 14:21, Patrick STODDARD (WD9EWK/VA7EWK) wrote (in small part):
But, as N5AFV mentioned earlier, we satellite operators should file for this award. Even if all it does is show ARRL that we're out here. 73! Patrick
I have not been satellite active for several years (mostly because of no birds to actually talk through for more than 3 seconds at a time). LOTW was fairly new when I stopped operating satellite, but at that time the general comment from those that were using LOTW was that particularly for satellite operations, LOTW was such a pain to use, and really did not support satellite ops without putting in incorrect data (it did not understand our cross band operation or that there are actually more than one satellite in use). Maybe someone who is using it currently can advise if works better for satellite operations now. One of these days I will get back on the birds, but I do have several thousand satellite QSOs that I could log from years back if there were really any reason to do so.
Jim,
LoTW works fine as long as the ADIF fields for propagation mode and satellite are properly filled with "SAT" and the satellite abbreviation, respectively. Satellite QSOs show up properly for WAS Satellite, VUCC Satellite, and DXCC Satellite.
73,
Paul, N8HM
On 6/10/2013 6:24 PM, Jim Walls wrote:
On 6/10/2013 14:21, Patrick STODDARD (WD9EWK/VA7EWK) wrote (in small part):
But, as N5AFV mentioned earlier, we satellite operators should file for this award. Even if all it does is show ARRL that we're out here. 73! Patrick
I have not been satellite active for several years (mostly because of no birds to actually talk through for more than 3 seconds at a time). LOTW was fairly new when I stopped operating satellite, but at that time the general comment from those that were using LOTW was that particularly for satellite operations, LOTW was such a pain to use, and really did not support satellite ops without putting in incorrect data (it did not understand our cross band operation or that there are actually more than one satellite in use). Maybe someone who is using it currently can advise if works better for satellite operations now. One of these days I will get back on the birds, but I do have several thousand satellite QSOs that I could log from years back if there were really any reason to do so.
Jim.... LoTW works just fine for SAT QSO's now. As long the ADIF filefor your operations is filled-out correctly. 73/GL, Bob K8BL
--- On Mon, 6/10/13, Jim Walls [email protected] wrote:
From: Jim Walls [email protected] Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Timing on VUCC Upgrade Processing To: [email protected] Date: Monday, June 10, 2013, 6:24 PM
On 6/10/2013 14:21, Patrick STODDARD (WD9EWK/VA7EWK) wrote (in small part):
But, as N5AFV mentioned earlier, we satellite operators should file for this award. Even if all it does is show ARRL that we're out here. 73! Patrick
I have not been satellite active for several years (mostly because of no birds to actually talk through for more than 3 seconds at a time). LOTW was fairly new when I stopped operating satellite, but at that time the general comment from those that were using LOTW was that particularly for satellite operations, LOTW was such a pain to use, and really did not support satellite ops without putting in incorrect data (it did not understand our cross band operation or that there are actually more than one satellite in use). Maybe someone who is using it currently can advise if works better for satellite operations now. One of these days I will get back on the birds, but I do have several thousand satellite QSOs that I could log from years back if there were really any reason to do so.
-- 73 ------------------------------------- Jim Walls - K6CCC [email protected] Ofc: 818-548-4804 http://members.dslextreme.com/users/k6ccc/ AMSAT Member 32537 - WSWSS Member 395
_______________________________________________ Sent via [email protected]. 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
On 06/10/2013 06:24 PM, Jim Walls wrote:
I have not been satellite active for several years (mostly because of no birds to actually talk through for more than 3 seconds at a time).
Ditto.
LOTW was fairly new when I stopped operating satellite, but at that time the general comment from those that were using LOTW was that particularly for satellite operations, LOTW was such a pain to use, and really did not support satellite ops without putting in incorrect data (it did not understand our cross band operation or that there are actually more than one satellite in use). Maybe someone who is using it currently can advise if works better for satellite operations now.
As far as I can figure out, all LOTW does is make it easier/faster to apply for awards that I'm not even slightly interested in applying for, while guaranteeing that I'll never get a 'real' QSL card for the contact. While I'm not really a collector of cards, I QSL in reply 100% (green stamp appreciated but NOT necessary) and it IS nice to have that concrete reminder of a QSO. Whereas the only award I've ever applied for is the ZRO, and you can't even do that any more.
I have used LOTW with satellite contacts for several years. I even uploaded my old contacts back into the 80's.
I do not know what issues you may have had, but it works great for me. It is seamless with most logging programs. Just click and the contacts are uploaded!
I use n3fjp's ACLog.
73, Joe
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jim Walls Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 5:25 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: Timing on VUCC Upgrade Processing
On 6/10/2013 14:21, Patrick STODDARD (WD9EWK/VA7EWK) wrote (in small part):
But, as N5AFV mentioned earlier, we satellite operators should file for this award. Even if all it does is show ARRL that we're out here. 73! Patrick
I have not been satellite active for several years (mostly because of no birds to actually talk through for more than 3 seconds at a time). LOTW was fairly new when I stopped operating satellite, but at that time the general comment from those that were using LOTW was that particularly for satellite operations, LOTW was such a pain to use, and really did not support satellite ops without putting in incorrect data (it did not understand our cross band operation or that there are actually more than one satellite in use). Maybe someone who is using it currently can advise if works better for satellite operations now. One of these days I will get back on the birds, but I do have several thousand satellite QSOs that I could log from years back if there were really any reason to do so.
participants (7)
-
Allen F. Mattis -
Gary "Joe" Mayfield -
Gus -
Jim Walls -
Patrick STODDARD (WD9EWK/VA7EWK) -
Paul Stoetzer -
R.T.Liddy