Why 6 digit grid locator in Europe?
I can´t understand it. My thinking: - Any award needs 6 digits
- Time on SATs is limited, Why to waste it trying to understand something useless
- Other places, such as USA, only use 4 digits from years
- To wrap up, all are advantages
Anybody knows some reason why should we follow using 6 digits?
If there is not a strong reason, I think we should start using 4 digits
Juan Antonio
EA4CYQ
Hello Juan,
I agree with you. The 6 digits locator here in Europe comes from the terrestrial communications rules and it has never been changed for satellites.
On digital EME modes, for example, the 4 digits is the standard worldwide and on cw EME is often not used.
The real question is why do we have to we have to transmit our locator:
-locators awards (4 digits are enough) -to beam the station (6 digits are more precise)
Considered that we are beaming a satellite or the moon.... I think the second answer has not to be considered
73 Fabio F5VKV
On 17 Feb 2016, at 08:20, Juan Antonio Fernandez [email protected] wrote:
I can´t understand it. My thinking:
Any award needs 6 digits
Time on SATs is limited, Why to waste it trying to understand something
useless
Other places, such as USA, only use 4 digits from years
To wrap up, all are advantages
Anybody knows some reason why should we follow using 6 digits?
If there is not a strong reason, I think we should start using 4 digits
Juan Antonio
EA4CYQ _______________________________________________ Sent via [email protected]. 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
Hi guys
Yes, it's a bad habit in europe, but when I give all four digits, people again asked by the two last digits and it is worse yet. As the saying goes, "the cure is worse than the disease". Let us try to get used to everybody. 73 Luis
El 17/02/2016 a las 9:01, Fabio escribió:
Hello Juan,
I agree with you. The 6 digits locator here in Europe comes from the terrestrial communications rules and it has never been changed for satellites.
On digital EME modes, for example, the 4 digits is the standard worldwide and on cw EME is often not used.
The real question is why do we have to we have to transmit our locator:
-locators awards (4 digits are enough) -to beam the station (6 digits are more precise)
Considered that we are beaming a satellite or the moon.... I think the second answer has not to be considered
73 Fabio F5VKV
On 17 Feb 2016, at 08:20, Juan Antonio Fernandez [email protected] wrote:
I can´t understand it. My thinking:
Any award needs 6 digits
Time on SATs is limited, Why to waste it trying to understand something
useless
Other places, such as USA, only use 4 digits from years
To wrap up, all are advantages
Anybody knows some reason why should we follow using 6 digits?
If there is not a strong reason, I think we should start using 4 digits
Juan Antonio
EA4CYQ _______________________________________________ Sent via [email protected]. 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
Sent via [email protected]. 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
El 17/02/16 a las 08:20, Juan Antonio Fernandez escribió:
I can´t understand it. My thinking:
Any award needs 6 digits
Time on SATs is limited, Why to waste it trying to understand something
useless
Other places, such as USA, only use 4 digits from years
To wrap up, all are advantages
Anybody knows some reason why should we follow using 6 digits?
If there is not a strong reason, I think we should start using 4 digits
Dear all,
I would like to go even further. A valid contact is defined as one where there has been exchange over the air of:
- Both callsigns - The signal report - A confirmation of the reception of these (usually a roger or 73 will do)
At least it's written that way in the IARU R1 VHF manager's handbook.
An exchange of grid locators is not required to make a contact valid.
I don't follow all the awards, but I'm not aware of any awards that actually require grid locators to be exchanged over the air to make the contact count for the award. Sure you need to track grid locators if you are after VUCC, but you can get the grid locators by qrz.com/email/qsl cards/etc. It's not needed that you get them on the air.
It bothers me especially on FM sats, where time is shared between all the operators and many times people insist in repeating their 6 digit locators several times because of difficult conditions. This is just a waste of time.
Of course I want to put the grid locators on my logbook, but most of the time the locators I get on the air are just the same that are listed on qrz.com, so I could just get them there.
In especial conditions, such as if you're operating portable and the satellite is not busy (read as only 3 or less people), then it may make some sense to pass the 4 or 6 digit locator over the air. But please, don't repeat it several times as you struggle to make a contact in difficult conditions.
This is less of a problem in linear sats, because time is not shared between all the operators. Still, the same reasons for not passing the locator at all are valid.
So, my suggestion is: Please, don't pass the grid locator at all, except in especial conditions.
73,
Dani EA4GPZ.
While I appreciate that passing 6 character grid square is slightly more verbose than say 4 I do think it's such a small issue it's not worth worrying about, in-fact you could go as far as saying you don't even need to send the signal report (this is something that's been argued about in HF Contesting for years) after all the logbooks probably pre populated as 59 or 599 depending on the mode.
At the same time I don't take the argument of "its on QRZ", while it probably is, I'm not sure it's a reason for not giving a grid square.. whether it's auto populated inside my logbook or not.
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.
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.
Pete, 2E0SQL
On 17 February 2016 at 23:05, Dani EA4GPZ [email protected] wrote:
El 17/02/16 a las 08:20, Juan Antonio Fernandez escribió:
I can´t understand it. My thinking:
Any award needs 6 digits
Time on SATs is limited, Why to waste it trying to understand something
useless
Other places, such as USA, only use 4 digits from years
To wrap up, all are advantages
Anybody knows some reason why should we follow using 6 digits?
If there is not a strong reason, I think we should start using 4 digits
Dear all,
I would like to go even further. A valid contact is defined as one where there has been exchange over the air of:
- Both callsigns
- The signal report
- A confirmation of the reception of these (usually a roger or 73 will do)
At least it's written that way in the IARU R1 VHF manager's handbook.
An exchange of grid locators is not required to make a contact valid.
I don't follow all the awards, but I'm not aware of any awards that actually require grid locators to be exchanged over the air to make the contact count for the award. Sure you need to track grid locators if you are after VUCC, but you can get the grid locators by qrz.com/email/qsl cards/etc. It's not needed that you get them on the air.
It bothers me especially on FM sats, where time is shared between all the operators and many times people insist in repeating their 6 digit locators several times because of difficult conditions. This is just a waste of time.
Of course I want to put the grid locators on my logbook, but most of the time the locators I get on the air are just the same that are listed on qrz.com, so I could just get them there.
In especial conditions, such as if you're operating portable and the satellite is not busy (read as only 3 or less people), then it may make some sense to pass the 4 or 6 digit locator over the air. But please, don't repeat it several times as you struggle to make a contact in difficult conditions.
This is less of a problem in linear sats, because time is not shared between all the operators. Still, the same reasons for not passing the locator at all are valid.
So, my suggestion is: Please, don't pass the grid locator at all, except in especial conditions.
73,
Dani EA4GPZ.
Sent via [email protected]. 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
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.
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 [email protected] 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 [email protected]. 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
El 18/02/16 a las 23:06, Peter Goodhall escribió:
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.
In fact it's not the case that they use 4 digit locators on EME. 4 digit locators are used in many JT modes just because there are some spare bits in the message format.
I think that operators EME CW don't send locators ever. They have their own signal report system called TMO, where they send one of the letters T, M or O three times based on the amount of data they could copy.
http://www.nitehawk.com/rasmit/g3sek_op_proc.pdf
For MS there is signal report system based on the length an strength of the pings.
http://www.g0che.co.uk/ms-procedure.php
The thing is that in the US 4 digit locators are normally used for terrestrial VHF and such instead of 6 digit locators. In fact, 6 digit locators are almost unheard of and many operators won't know their 6 digit locator. I read recently a proposal of change to the rules of the IARU R1 50MHz contest regarding this matter. This contest currently requires that 6 digit locators are exchanged over the air. However, there is a problem that US operators will usually pass just 4 digit locators and it's difficult explain and get their 6 digit locator under marginal propagation conditions (the usual conditions in transatlantic 50MHz).
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.
I don't know either, but it's only the case in Europe. In the US they normally use 4 digit locators on satellites. I think that the difference in use comes from terrestrial VHF.
The thing is that perhaps we as a community of satellite operators should decide what do we consider as a signal report or valid contact. As you said, the standard signal report doesn't make much sense for satellites. The report could be the locator, but I don't think this is such a good idea because it is not so easy to copy a 6 digit locator in poor conditions (in Europe the many different accents and languages don't help either). The report should be easier to copy.
I agree that in good conditions you can send back and forth 6 digit locators real quick. However, in poor conditions, if you want to get them copied properly, you will probably have to repeat it several times and perhaps request a readback.
The problem with any idea about changing the established customs is that the satellite community is quite big and spread out. Most of the operators don't read amsat-bb. By comparison, the EME and MS communities are smaller and the guys there tend to frequent the same mailing lists and webs for skeds.
Just my thoughts anyway and many thanks for the squares while you've been on from the UK.
Could you get IO95? I hear that's quite a rare grid.
73,
Dani EA4GPZ.
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 [email protected] 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 [email protected] 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 [email protected]. 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 [email protected]. 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
With three FM voice transponders and SIX linear transponders in operation today, I think there is plenty of bandwidth to handle a few simple exchanges.
The primary reason I care to hear a station's gridsquare is for ARRL VUCC Satellite Award endorsements. Often I will give my name and state when making contacts with a new station in the log.
73 Clayton W5PFG
On 2/19/2016 18:08, John Toscano wrote:
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
participants (7)
-
Clayton W5PFG -
Dani EA4GPZ -
EC4TR Luis -
Fabio -
John Toscano -
Juan Antonio Fernandez -
Peter Goodhall