[PaQSO] RTTY in PAQP

[Hal Offutt]

Well, I guess I'll add my two cents.

First of all, I will have to join those voting No on this proposal.  Here
are a few reasons:

1.  It would cause much QRM to the CW portion of 40 M.  Also, it would cause
participants to spread out even further, depriving non-participants of a
place to operate.
2.  If stations were permitted to count SSB, CW and RTTY contacts (ie work
the same station three times on a band), it would further concentrate
activity on the low bands and reduce activity on the high bands, making the
PA even more of an in-state activity and leaving the out of state stations
with even fewer stations to work.
3.  It presents many software and computer problems.
4.  There is already plenty of activity under the present rules and if a
third mode became popular, it would dilute the current phone and CW
activity.
5.  It presents many problems for mobiles and portables.
6.  Makes the contest more complicated for newcomers.
7.  A lot of stations don't have RTTY capability.


The Real Problem?

To the extent that this proposal is designed to correct a perceived
disadvantage for participants who don't operate CW or don't operate CW well
enough to keep up with the 20-30 WPM speed in this event, there are other
things that can and should be done to correct this problem.  And I agree
that this is a problem.


1.  Awards and Categories

I've always thought that there are not enough awards and categories in the
PAQP.  Currently, to win an award, it is usually necessary to work both
phone and CW.  Except in the CW only category, which I think is a fairly new
category.  But wait.  If there is a CW only category, why is there not a SSB
only category?  Like some big contests (I'm thinking of the IARU contest)
and many (most?) other state QSO parties, shouldn't there be phone only
categories, mixed mode (SSB and CW) categories, and CW only categories?  And
awards for the winners of all of these?  The problem, of course, is that
this creates a lot of extra work for the contest sponsor.  We're talking
about nearly tripling the number of certificates.  And a lot of additional
cost to pay for additional plaques and mailing expenses for the additional
certificates and plaques.  I would like to think that if the contest
sponsors were to ask for people and clubs to pay for some of the additional
plaques and volunteers to help with the additional work, that many would
step forward, but it still would involve a great deal more work on someone's
part.  However, it would be fairly easy to add a SSB only category similar
to the CW only category.


2.  Slow Speed CW

Isn't there something that we could do to encourage those with slower CW
capabilities to use this mode?  I'm thinking of more points for CW contacts
below a certain speed (10 WPM), or at minimum a special part of the band for
slow speed contacts (7070-7100?).  This would certainly add to the fun for a
lot of people and perhaps help some of the newer hams to learn how much fun
CW can be.  It would not require a rules change to set aside a special space
for slow speed contacts, but making a change in points for slow-speed
contacts would involve a change in the rules and the software.  Is it worth
it?  5-10 points per sub-10 WPM contact would probably attract a lot of
interest, so maybe so.


A Separate Event

I really liked Kay's suggestion of a separate event for RTTY.  This would
show if there is really a demand for this mode.  Finding a weekend would be
very  difficult and someone with a lot of time would have to step forward
and organize it.  But done right, it could be a fun event.  I would suggest
something much shorter (4-8 hours), and perhaps it could be on one or more
weekday evenings instead of a weekend.  And it would not have to put more
work on the shoulders of Nittany.  Time for someone to step forward?


Rules Changes in General

We all have changes we'd like to see made.  It is easy to propose a rules
change, but extremely difficult to implement one.  All those different
software programs (there are at least six) must be altered, the change must
be advertised and explained, all participants must update their software to
the new version, etc.  There needs to be a lead time of two years or so to
do this.  Then all of the past records lose meaning and we have begin again.
This is not something you want to do every year.  I don't blame the contest
sponsors for being very reluctant to change the rules.  If participation
were to fall off for several years running, this might indicate a problem
and the need to make a change.  But I don't think this is the case
currently.  The PAQP continues to be a very popular event.  If I were the
sponsor, I would need to see some very good reasons to make a major rules
change.

73,

Hal W1NN  op of W3USA/M