[SADXA] DXAC Survey

Fri Aug 26 12:10:56 EDT 2022

Let's take my case as an example. I presently
have 330 confirmed on Dig/RTTY. The first 320
were on good old FSK RTTY, the last 10 on FT8.

I am convinced that the last 10 could have not
been made using RTTY. The sigs were much too
weak.

Now how many DX-peditions in the last few years
(since the FT8 explosion) have operated RTTY ??
Now, I mean those to the really rare places, the top
20 or so on the needed list.

Now, as much as I wish to be a purist (note, I used FSK
not AFSK), I am also a realist. FT8 has replaced RTTY
and there's no putting that cork back in the bottle.

Let me conclude by asking ... we have a DXAC Rep ???

73, Dick, W1KSZ

On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 8:42 AM Gene at K5GS.com <gene at k5gs.com> wrote:

> 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.
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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