[Dx-qsl] Fw: CY0 call signs

[Ken Scheper]

I have been specifically told by some ops that it has to be XXX/WA8JOC. 
There were a few in Africa 6W/XXXXX & FR/XXXXX, etc... that the ops said to 
use during the pileup.  It seems some feel stronger about it than others. 
The ARRL checkers don't seem to care whether in front or back, just as long 
as it's there.  I'm glad when I was on Sable we had the CY0AA callsign.  It 
sure made things simpler.  I suppose you need a Canadian licensee among the 
ops to do the pure CY0 callsign.  I know some hams have taken the VE test in 
Montreal (?)
to allow licensing at all in some spots.

Anyway WFWL !

Best 73 all
Ken
WA8JOC


--------------------------------------------------
From: "Ron Notarius W3WN" <wn3vaw at verizon.net>
Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 14:53
To: <kq0b at sbcglobal.net>
Cc: <dx-qsl at mailman.qth.net>
Subject: Re: [Dx-qsl] Fw: CY0  call signs

> Mike,
>
> While I haven't had a chance to work these guys yet (I've been busy trying 
> to push my club newsletter out the door, and it's late again), I have been 
> listening.
>
> Every time I've heard them, they are sending home call / CY0... the old 
> traditional way.  And if memory serves, I do believe this is technically 
> required by the reciprocal treaty between the US and Canada.
>
> If someone is spotting them the other way... CY0 / home call... and that's 
> how someone logs them, well, that's not what is being sent.  If there are 
> consequences, so be it.
>
> It may not matter in the grand scheme of things, but I know that I've been 
> scolded in the recent past for sending a QSL card to someone with the 
> prefix before the call instead of after.    So, caveat emptor!
>
> 73, ron w3wn
>
>
> Mar 9, 2011 02:19:57 PM, kq0b at sbcglobal.net wrote:
>
>
> From: Michael W Elliott
> Subject: CY0 call signs
> To: dx-qsl at mailman.qth.ne
> Cc: ARRL-LOTW at yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wednesday, March 9, 2011, 1:14 PM
>
> I want to take this opportunity to remind everyone that the information on 
> the CY0 website
> http://cy0dxpedition.com/
>
> SPECIFICALLY shows that each call signing as follows
>
> CALLSIGN/CY0      so example    N0TG/CY0
>
> I have seen dx alerts postings  showing reverse and I believe on the first 
> day of operation they were signing     CY0/CALLSIGN
> example:  CY0/N0TG
>
> Be careful as this affects LOTW confirmations.
>
> Operators may not go nuts over a misprint and will probably send qsl card 
> back but lotw certificate will not tolerate the call mixup;  but I might 
> be wrong.
>
>
> Can some verify my thinking on LOTW
>
>
> Like I said cards are one thing  LOTW  is another
>
> Also dont mix up your 0(zeros) with  O(alpha)
>
>
> tks
> de
> Mike
> Michael W. Elliott
> "THE INSIDE ADVANTAGE"     -
> RETIREMENT - LEISURE, REST and ONLY ELECTRONIC MAIL PAYMENTS
> Servant to Bridgett, Collin and all my Creditors
> St. Louis County Missouri
> ______________________________________________________________
> DX-QSL mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/dx-qsl
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:DX-QSL at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> ______________________________________________________________
> DX-QSL mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/dx-qsl
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:DX-QSL at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>