[Dx-qsl] 7O1YGF and TT8ZB

[Mike Lazaroff K3AIR]

I was wondering when someone was going to bring up the P5...now I don't have to do it :)

The circumstances of both operations are very similar:  no clear licensing "final authority", no "amateur service" as we know it, etc. etc.
Both operators were obviously in-country with some kind of permission to operate (it would be impossible bring equipment into P5 or 7O and operate without high-level permission from recognized authorities), no "documentation"...

Having been in some of the areas mentioned, I do know that the type of documentation demanded by DXCC often just isn't obtainable.  7O1YGF obviously had permission to operate; so did the P5.  Neither place licenses the amateur service as we know it.  Both operations took place under similiar circumstances, and interestingly enough, both ended by authorities telling the operators to export the equipment.  In most places, "unauthorized" radio operations result in the confiscation of the equipment, and prison terms for the operators, not just an invitation to QRT. 

But one is "good," and one isn't.   Hmmm....

Something doesn't smell right to me.  Either they are both good or they both aren't.  Bottom line: somebody with enough influence over the DXCC program wanted P5 activated but didn't care about 7O.  I've heard the usual rumors and won't detail them here.  But it is time that somebody told the real story and the truth.

BTW, I didn't work either station so it makes no difference to me which one(s) are good or bad.

Those who say "the rules apply to everybody" are right.  They should, but they don't.  Don't you just love politics???

Mike K3AIR


-----Original Message-----
>From: Al Bailey <k8six at comcast.net>
>Sent: Mar 12, 2007 12:11 AM
>To: Ron Notarius W3WN <wn3vaw at verizon.net>, 'DX-QSL Reflector' <DX-QSL at mailman.qth.net>
>Subject: RE: [Dx-qsl] 7O1YGF and TT8ZB
>
>What about the P5 operation then, as it is my understanding the the 
>documentation did not
>come from the CENTRAL authorities but came from LOCAL authorities? 
>Why then was the
>P5 allowed and the 7O not allowed?
>
>
>
>At 11:16 PM 3/11/2007, Ron Notarius W3WN wrote:
>>There's no "hidden agenda" here.
>>
>>It's been well established that 7O1A did not have a license from the central
>>governmental authority, only permission from local authorities.
>>
>>And I know for a fact that past ARRL staffers have literally begged and
>>pleaded with the 7O1YGF operators for some -- any -- documentation to prove
>>that they had permission from the central government to import their
>>equipment, let alone anything that would appear to be proof of license.
>>Further, at least some team members have claimed to have this documentation
>>and have promised to foward it along; they haven't.  So your beef with the
>>7O1YGF operation lies with the operation, not with the ARRL.
>>
>>I have also talked at length with a local DX'er who spent some time in that
>>part of the world.  Suffice to say, based on his background information on
>>that part of the world, I strongly believe that the 7O1YGF team had, or
>>thought they had, permission to operate; but, someone higher in authority
>>than their contact(s) disapproved.  And that their contact(s) dare not put
>>anything on paper, as it could mean their necks (figuratively and
>>literally).
>>
>>Bottom line gang, is very simple:  You must have a valid license from the
>>entity's central governmental authority to operate from your DXCC entity for
>>it to be accepted.  These were the rules in effect at the time of the two
>>aforementioned Yemen operations.  Neither of these operations had them or
>>have proven otherwise.
>>
>>How any of this can be considered the "fault" of the ARRL in general and/or
>>the DXCC desk in particular is beyond me.
>>
>>73, ron w3wn
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: dx-qsl-bounces at mailman.qth.net
>>[mailto:dx-qsl-bounces at mailman.qth.net]On Behalf Of Doug Renwick
>>Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 6:32 PM
>>To: 'DX-QSL Reflector'
>>Subject: [Dx-qsl] 7O1YGF and TT8ZB
>>
>>
>>The one major complaint I have about the ARRL/DXCC is the
>>reluctance to accept Yemen contacts...7O1YGF and 7O1A by
>>DJ9ZB.
>>For some 'hidden reason' the ARRL feels that 'approved'
>>Yemen operations are not acceptable to them.  Until
>>otherwise proven, I think that it must be political in
>>nature.  It's too bad that the ARRL has soiled a good award.
>>
>>Doug
>>
>>
>>At 05:54 PM 3/11/2007, Dick Flanagan wrote:
>>
>> >Has anyone received credit for the 7O1YGF operation to
>>Yemen in
>> >April 2000?  I just had my card returned by the DXCC Desk
>>for lack
>> >of documentation.
>>
>>It will never be approved.  Which is too bad, since the
>>operators
>>were clearly where they said they were, and they had some
>>sort of permission.
>>
>>73 - Jim AD1C
>>
>>