[SADXA] DXAC Survey
Gene at K5GS.com
gene at k5gs.com
Fri Aug 26 11:41:57 EDT 2022
Hi Wes,
I can't answer any questions about the Southwestern DXAC rep, you'll
have to ask him.
My answers to the survey are:
1. There has been some interest in having the RTTY DXCC award separate
from the Digital award. Currently there is a Digital DXCC which
includes RTTY as well as all digital modes such as FT-8 and FT-4, etc.
*QUESTION:*
Since FT8 has pretty much replaced RTTY (like SSB replaced AM), is it
worth the effort in trying to separate RTTY from Digital? Should we
return the RTTY mode DXCC Award?
_*
*__*K5GS Answer:*_
We're in a transitional period. SSB didn’t replace AM overnight. Today’s
access to inexpensive technology has enabled the FT modes to explode. In
less than 4 years FT-modes displaced RTTY on DXpeditions. However, that
doesn’t mean RTTY is dead.
There is still a large constituency that use RTTY, especially for
contesting, and many years of documented RTTY achievements (awards)
exist today.
It was a mistake to merge the FT-modes with RTTY, it diminished those
historical RTTY achievements. Over time it might be appropriate to merge
them, maybe in the next 10 – 15 years as new users embrace the FT-modes
and RTTY continues its decline in popularity.
For the foreseeable future there should be separate recognition awards:
- FT-modes (or possibly FT-modes and other digital modes)
- RTTY
Although, I wouldn’t worry about the other digital modes.
*QUESTION:*
2. New Entities / DXCC Rules Changes: The rules that are in place today
have been there for 25 years, and with good reason. Review of the
lengthy discussions that took place as part of the DXCC 2000 effort in
the mid-to-late 1990’s yielded an incredible set of guidelines and
ultimately this set of rules that has clearly withstood the test of time.
Discussion Question: Is it time to consider launching a “DXCC 2025”
effort? Is it time to think about changing the DXCC program and its
rules? The last effort was in the mid-to-late 1990s and resulted in the
“DXCC2000” effort. Should we revisit the DXCC rules on a periodic
basis, and if so, how often? What should be considered?
_*
*__*K5GS Answer:*_
The DXCC rules have not withstood the test of time. A project to rewrite
the rules should begin tomorrow. In this Internet driven world 25 years
is too long to keep the same rules. Change is normal, opposing change
isn’t, this is a hobby.
Over the past 25 years the geopolitical and regulatory landscapes look
nothing like they did in the mid-1990s – early 2000s. The creation of
Maritime Reserves in many of the world’s oceans and seas have greatly
impacted our ability to activate current DXCC entities. Today we have
entities blocked for:
- Political (and military) reasons
- Environmental / Biosecurity reasons = Marine Reserves
Our own USF&W Service and other federal agencies are part of the
problem. New Zealand, France, New Caledonia, Australia, South Africa and
the United States have taken many current DXCC entities out of play,
count them, you'll be surprised.
Additionally, a few countries implemented onerous rules which
essentially take an entity out of play or severely limit access for ham
radio purposes.
When I started DXing in 1976 only a few entities were Politically blocked.
Today, environmentally restricted entities far outnumber the Politically
blocked entities, and the number is growing as DXpedition landing permit
applications are being rejected for environmental / bio-security reasons.
It’s no longer just a matter of politics, un-elected appointees and
government environmental agencies are making rules that bar ham radio
from islands we had relatively easy access just 10 years ago, or less.
Examples include: Chesterfield, Willis, Mellish, Kermadec. When you
include USF&W, French TAAF, etc. the number is stunning. The days of
finding a fishing boat captain willing to take us to some flung islands
are long gone.
In the current environment it would seem logical to assume that someone
starting in DXCC has no chance of ever achieving Honor Roll and
certainly not #1 Honor Roll.
Even someone that started DXing 10- 15 years ago probably doesn’t have a
chance for Honor Roll. It was possible with 2 blocked entities because
politics change, However, with the large number of disparate
environmental agencies and organizations controlling so many DXCC
environmentally restricted entities the probability of them opening is
low to nil.
Possibly there could be a 10-year test. If an entity hasn’t been
activated in 10 years maybe it should be moved to inactive status. There
are different ways to do this, but the intent is to make DXCC Honor Roll
an interesting and reasonably achievable goal.
Today’s rules are too complex, the rules should be simplified and
flexible. Not simplified to the point of making them a rubber stamp, but
simplified to make them understandable. The intent of the rules should
be to enable the establishment of new entities.
*QUESTION*
3. When many of us began chasing DX years ago, there were several
countries that had no amateur activity. China is one of the most
notable of those that were inactive from back then. Albania is another
among many. Things have changed. Over time, they do change through the
various political changes and otherwise. It seems that while there are
a few countries that have not been active for several years, or may not
be, perhaps we just need to be patient for things to change again.
Discussion Question: Should Inactive Status be considered at all, or is
this premature at this time? What about changing the criteria to
qualify for Honor Roll as suggested before? Inactive Status for
countries that do not currently allow radio operations of have not been
active for a number of years? Several proposals have surfaced; in one
case create an “Inactive Countries category” which effectively reduces
the total number of “active countries” and reduces the number needed to
make the honor roll. A second approach has been to reduce the number of
countries need to make the honor roll from say within 10 of all current
counties to 15. What is your opinion?
_*
*__*K5GS Answer:*_
One reasonable approach can be to move an entity to “inactive” status
and return it to active if and when ham radio is permitted, then apply a
10-year rule. Current criteria will determine the legitimacy of the
operation.
This means the number of DXCC entities will vary based on ability to
activate. Keeping entities on the list that cannot be activated within a
reasonable time frame diminishes enthusiasm for the DXCC program.
Honor Roll should be based on the available number of available “active”
entities. The number 10 is as good as any, 10 would be the path to Honor
Roll. If an inactive (or new) entity becomes active all Honor Roll
members that do not have it confirmed from a previous operation need to
work the entity to maintain their standing.
The operation must be conducted on land, rocks, or manmade platforms.
Being on a ship at the wharf, at anchor or steaming in the vicinity of
an entity is never acceptable.
*QUESTION*
4. Should there be other types of awards added to the DXCC program, and
if so, what would their criteria? One proposal has been an annual DXCC
competition. Something on the order of CQ’s Marathon Award.
_*K5GS Answer:*_
No opinion, I don’t chase DX awards.
On 8/26/2022 8:14 AM, Wes wrote:
> Thanks for passing this along, Gene.
>
> It does beg the question as to why the Rocky Mt DXAC member is asking
> for input when our own member has not.
>
> As you know from our private discussion I have a big interest in
> resurrecting the RTTY DXCC award. I previously posted to this group
> my correspondence with the then listed DXAC member, who it turned out,
> no longer held that post. He suggested writing Dick Norton, which I
> did but never even got the courtesy of a reply from him.
>
> Now I see that N6QQ is our division DXAC member, and there apparently
> is going to be a meeting of the DXAC, but who would have known?
>
> I look forward to seeing what you have to say.
>
> Wes N7WS
>
> On 8/26/2022 6:30 AM, Gene at K5GS.com wrote:
>> The following was posted on the Mile High DX Association reflector.
>>
>> I will post my answers in another e-mail.
>>
>> If you have an opinion you should send it to your DXAC rep.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> GS K5GS
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> The following discussion items are on the agenda for the DXAC. As the
>> Rocky Mtn Division DXAC member, I am soliciting input from DXers in
>> the division concerning the following items up for discussion within
>> the DXAC.
>>
>> 1. Return of the RTTY mode DXCC Award
>> 2. DXCC 2025? (2050? 2100?) ?
>> 3. Inactive Status for countries that do not allow amateur radio
>> operation or have not been active for a number of years?
>> 4. New DXCC Awards ?
>>
>> 1. There has been some interest in having the RTTY DXCC award
>> separate from the Digital award. Currently there is a Digital DXCC
>> which includes RTTY as well as all digital modes such as FT-8 and
>> FT-4 , etc.
>>
>> Discussion Question. Since FT8 has pretty much replaced RTTY (like
>> SSB replaced AM), is it worth the effort in trying to separate RTTY
>> from Digital? Should we return the RTTY mode DXCC Award?
>>
>> **
>>
>> 2. New Entities / DXCC Rules Changes: The rules that are in place
>> today have been there for 25 years, and with good reason. Review of
>> the lengthy discussions that took place as part of the DXCC 2000
>> effort in the mid-to-late 1990’s yielded an incredible set of
>> guidelines and ultimately this set of rules that has clearly
>> withstood the test of time.
>>
>> Discussion Question: Is it time to consider launching a “DXCC 2025”
>> effort? Is it time to think about changing the DXCC program and its
>> rules? The last effort was in the mid-to-late 1990s and resulted in
>> the “DXCC2000” effort. Should we revisit the DXCC rules on a periodic
>> basis, and if so, how often? What should be considered?
>>
>>
>> 3. When many of us began chasing DX years ago, there were several
>> countries that had no amateur activity. China is one of the most
>> notable of those that were inactive from back then. Albania is
>> another among many. Things have changed. Over time, they do change
>> through the various political changes and otherwise. It seems that
>> while there are a few countries that have not been active for several
>> years, or may not be, perhaps we just need to be patient for things
>> to change again.
>>
>> Discussion Question: Should Inactive Status be considered at all, or
>> is this premature at this time? What about changing the criteria to
>> qualify for Honor Roll as suggested before? Inactive Status for
>> countries that do not currently allow radio operations of have not
>> been active for a number of years? Several proposals have surfaced;
>> in one case create an “Inactive Countries category” which effectively
>> reduces the total number of “active countries” and reduces the number
>> needed to make the honor roll. A second approach has been to reduce
>> the number of countries need to make the honor roll from say within
>> 10 of all current counties to 15. What is your opinion?
>>
>> 4. The idea of having an annual DXCC competition has been
>> suggested. Granted, others have annual awards, but the ARRL DXCC
>> program does not. As we get more and more people who do qualify for
>> honor roll, the DXCC program is no longer offering opportunities for
>> many to continue active DXing, and perhaps by offering other types of
>> awards, it may spark more interest. If we’re lucky, Cycle 25 may
>> bring enough sunspots to the ionosphere and drive more activity.
>>
>> Discussion Question: Should there be other types of awards added to
>> the DXCC program, and if so, what would their criteria? One proposal
>> has been an annual DXCC competition. Something on the order of CQ’s
>> Marathon Award.
>>
>>
>> Please let me know what your input is on the above areas. I would
>> like to respond back to the DXAC by the end of Aug.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Dick, K8ZTT
>> Rocky Mtn DXAC Rep
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> SADXA Website http://www.sadxa.org
>>
>> SADXA mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/sadxa
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>> Post: mailto:SADXA at mailman.qth.net
>>
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>> You can support qsl.net: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> SADXA Website http://www.sadxa.org
>
> SADXA mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/sadxa
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:SADXA at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> You can support qsl.net: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
--
Please note new e-mail address.
More information about the SADXA
mailing list