[Dxbase] Re: A few LoTW reminders

[Garth Hamilton]

At 04:01 AM 20/10/2005, "Fred Handscombe" 
<fredch at homeshack.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:


I have been using DXBase a long time now and my logbook has several 
calls in it. Before the operator Callsign field was introduced I used 
the notes section to record the callsign in use. In Canada we were 
able to use multiple callsigns with the special prefix options so I 
have about 12 I think in the log. Using the Notes field the first 
thing I entered was the callsign in use  CG3HO - then any other 
comments I had or VE3HO -    and on the few occasions where I had a 
guest op I would put VE3HO - VE7PT - indicating call used and 
operators callsign. When answering QSL requests I sort the cards in 
the various callsigns and operators and do each group separately and 
I have a QSL Card design for each variation so it is quite easy to 
cover all variations. For LOTW I can use the Notes field to separate 
the various callsigns for submissions to LOTW for one call only. I am 
not using DXB2006 but am using DXB2005 and have used all previous versions.

I am also a QSL MGR for N6TJ and I have all his operations from 
around the globe and that log is separated in the same manner as are 
those for JA1BK . PP5JR I have individual logbooks for the various 
callsigns as each callsign has a variety of guest operators for each 
contest and I use the notes field to put in the contest which 
separates the various operators. Each variation has its own QSL card 
in the file for printing the QSL from.

So I am currently separating my VE3HO log into its various individual 
callsigns to match LOTW and I use the notes field to parse these 
variations to do that. I am also putting onto computer all the logs 
prior to 1985 when I started with DXBase.

May not be an option for you but that is how I have addressed this 
sort of problem.

 From Jack I have a master call for each operator and the sub 
callsigns I manage for that person.

N6TJ -  ZD8Z, PT5A, ZF2TJ, TO4A, etc
VE3HO - 5H3LV, 5Z4LV, VE3EUP, VE7AM, VE1UD, VE1CDX, VE2VY, VE2EUP etc.
JA1BK .......
PP5JR........

I find it quite easy to move around when doing QSLs and the only time 
I need to change reg file is when I am uploading a new log segment.

73 Garth

> > 1. Probably your log contains qso's while using a number of different
> > calls.
> > (I had my novice call, my Advanced call, and ...
>...snip...
> >... upon purchase/renewal.
> >
> > 2. Each call in your log must be in the Operator Callsign field during the
> > proper date timeframe.
>
>I think there is a BIG difference in interpretation outside the US as "our"
>system does not work like this (above)
>
>1- The logbook (and computor file) is for ONE callsign used on the air, I
>have multiple lookbooks for each of the callsigns I have and use.  I believe
>this is the UK licence requirement to have each callsigns logbook in a
>discrete file (No, I havent read the "rules" carefully in a long time)
>
>2 - This may be specific to the UK.  I am not obliged to enter MY call if I
>operate my own station.  However if another ham operates my station with my
>callsign I am obliged to note this in the log.  This is my interpretation of
>the "operator callsign" meaning the person operating for that QSO.  By
>default my own call is the operator to "fill the box" with something
>otherwise which is no big deal.
>
>The nett result of this, and this is where in my opinion DXbase is very
>wrong, is that I CANNOT send QSL cards using DXbase for any legitimate
>contacts made from my station(s) by another operator.  The field in the
>label select which says use "*" for all actually means "all registered
>callsigns" which is a different thing.  So in fact I need to register ALL
>the station operators I have ever had and get new registrations each time a
>new person operates!  This will keep Jack busy!
>
>The problem I have is that I am managing stations which have had many
>operators and cannot get the DXbase to print cards unless I register every
>operator.  This seems to be a "new" (and totally unwanted) feature in 2006
>as I have not had any problems with prior versions.
>
>I respect Jack's right to protect his programme but this is not the way to
>do it!
>
>But I need a proper solution!
>
>73 Fred
>G4BWP