What about Mt. Athos?
The recent episode involving Latvian hams trying to visit and operate from Mt. Athos highlights a situation which has existed for 25 years, namely that it has been virtually impossible for anyone but Elder Apollo to operate from this artificially rare DXCC location. Apparently the Latvians had verbal permission, but in the end nothing written was forthcoming…
According to the SV2ASP/A QRZ.com web page, Ham Radio was initiated following an incident as a means of communications ‘when all else failed,’ but interestingly, according to Elder Apollo (on this same page) “[Ham Radio] remains in order to keep Mount Athos at the height it deserves in terms of DXing, [and] also to prevent its removal from the DXCC list.” A curious if not astonishing motivation indeed.
Mt. Athos remains on the DXCC list according to the current rules, and rules can change; the rules are not chiseled in stone. The door to changes was open in the late nineties. Only a proper procedure should alter DXCC’s path, but make no mistake, public opinion can lead to rule changes given sufficient cause.
Mt. Athos was added to the DXCC list in 1973 as a “distinctively separate administration.” Other entities added under this rule include Kingman Reef. While the separate administration rule is gone – its premise, first distorted and then discredited – these entities remain under current rules which require that entities remain as long as they continue to meet the criteria under which they were added. In reality, they remain on the list for reasons of nostalgia. It’s difficult to take any entities away from DXers. Those who benefit from the presence of Mount Athos on the DXCC list should understand that there is absolutely no reason why totally impractical entities must remain on the list. It is simply a matter of will – and public opinion.
There are ways to change the status of Mt. Athos. That Mt. Athos is altogether too inactive –that it is too high on the most needed list – is not a reason to remove it from the entities list. It is very important to follow the current, relevant DXCC rules, and inactivity should never be a criteria for removing a DXCC entity. Yet inactivity could eventually provide motivation to change the rules.
In the mid-nineties, a “Blue Ribbon Committee” was created by the ARRL Board -- the so-called DXCC-2000 Committee. This committee comprised ten superbly qualified people, Board members, staff members, DXAC members and others, each experienced in DXCC history and procedure. The composition of the committee was varied and the results it produced were comprehensive. Its wide-ranging charge was to rewrite the DXCC rules as necessary. The results were accepted by the ARRL Board with relatively little discussion and few changes. Such a committee could and perhaps should be constituted again. There is still cause for making important changes. What is required is creativity and leadership.
Register your comments to this and other opinions on the DX University “Contact Us” page. (http://www.dxuniversity.com/contact_form.php)
QRM and Frustration
(This article is drawn from parts of the DX University presentation at Visalia in April, 2015.)
DXpeditions have always had some form of on-the-air difficulty in conducting their operations. In the early days, there were many fewer DXers, and the QRM potential was less. But, there were always DXers disgruntled by their inability to make a QSO who would transmit on the DX frequency. But, recent DXpeditions have been increasingly plagued by QRM, inadvertent and intentional.
Inadvertent QRM falls into several categories: Ignorance or IQRM, Unnecessary or UQRM, and Created or CQRM. A forth type of QRM is not inadvertent, it is Deliberate -- DQRM.
Ignorance IQRM or IQRM* stems from a lack of learning about standard, proven DXing procedures. To the extent that it affects us all, this type of QRM is primarily caused by the inability of would-be DXers to operate their radios properly. This results in transmissions on the DX frequency and the inevitable reactions from frustrated DXers.
Unnecessary or UQRM is usually attributable to the UP and Frequency police. This difficulty appears to be exacerbated by the unnecessarily complex frequency controls of modern transceivers.
A third form of QRM is Created QRM or CQRM which is caused by DXpedition operators who don’t have the ability to control their pileups. (In some cases, CQRM can lead to intentional QRM.) The fundamental principle is that the nature of the pileup depends on how the pileup is conducted. It is likely that CQRM is the easiest QRM to control since it is relatively easy to guide a relatively small number of DXpeditioners.
Having defined several types of disruptive expedition-related QRM, what if anything can be done to rectify these situations? To help combat Ignorance QRM, the “DX Press” has been prolific. But one thing is becoming clear: More often than not we are “preaching to the choir.” We are NOT reaching the large percentage of casual “DXers.” They don’t read the literature, they don’t belong to DX clubs, and often they don’t know other experienced DXers. They have an interest in DX, and they start calling when they hear something interesting. We need to pay more attention to finding and working with more casual DXers.
The code is another situation. With the advent of no-code licenses, we have many new hams who want to work CW, but haven’t yet put in the time to learn it effectively. Thanks to the industry code readers are prevalent. Some DXers wish that these people would stay on SSB and RTTY, but is that what we really want?
Unnecessary QRM can be minimized by better educating DXers in the operation of their radios. In addition, frequency control in radios currently available is far more complicated than necessary and should be simplified. Transmitting on the DXpedition frequency was seldom a problem with separate transmitters and receivers.
In the case of Created QRM, QRM created by DXpedition operator’s style, more attention by DXpedition managers to procedure would prove helpful. Because there are relatively few DXpedition operators, it is easier to help these operators in using the best practices to manage their pileups than to attempt to educate thousands of DXers. If DXpedition operators consistently employ best practices, pileups will be more efficient and more fun. Following the suggested Best Practices published by the DX University and by The DX Code of Conduct – for DXpeditioners can help.
In the case of CQRM, QRM created by DXpedition operator’s style, more attention to procedure by DXpedition managers could prove useful. Following the suggested Best Practices published by the DX University and by The DX Code of Conduct – for DXpeditioners can help.
Intentional QRM is entirely another matter. DQRM is usually generated by discontented operators who wish to retaliate in some way for some reason. Perhaps some of these operators haven’t made their desired QSOs for reasons they deem beyond their control. Some of these QRMers are not DXers at all, and have had their net QSOs disrupted by DXpedition activity.
Some DQRM results from adverse, real-time interaction between DXers and other, pre-existing Amateur Radio activities. For example, DXers in pileups aren’t well known for listening to their transmitting frequencies before transmitting. DXpedition operators aren’t known for listening to their pileup frequencies, either. Opening an expedition on a narrow WARC band without a full complement of stations isn’t the best idea, but it happens. Covering certain nets and mode frequencies isn’t wise either. Some of the QRM and DQRM is caused by the operating style of the DXpedition operator; frustration experienced by DXers can lead to DQRM.
When a major DXpedition in on the air, there is much additional friction ready to be exploited. Better operating on both sides of the pileup is necessary. Putting our educational resources where they will do the most good is essential. The DX University is working in this area. If you have additional ideas, please write.
*The terms UQRM, IQRM, CQRM and DQRM used in this article are attributed to Chris Duckling, G3SVL.
DXU Best Practices
With ever increasing activity, pileup behavior on the DX bands seems to be becoming worse and worse. The DX Code of Conduct is a widely circulated list of operating rules that have been adopted by many DXpeditions. The original Code is directed at DXers, and it instructs them how to operate in a way that could bring order and make pileups more civil.
Less widely known is that "The DX Code of Conduct" Web pages also contain a set of guidelines for DXpeditioners or DXpeditioner's Code. The DX-Code organization has asked DXpedition leaders to "support" the DX Code of Conduct. Which code they support is not always clear, however.
To clarify this situation, the DX University offers clearly delineated guidelines for both DXpeditioners and DXers. They are referred to separately as "Best Practices for DXpedition Operating" and "Best Practices for Courteous and Efficient DXing." Links to these pages are found elsewhere on this page. Best Practices" for DXers is similar to those of the DX Code of Conduct, although presented as suggestions.
The "Best Practices for DXpedition Operating" is the result of a considerable effort by a group of experienced DXers and DXpeditioners who hold strongly to the principle that DXpeditioners themselves are in the best position to control and manage their pileups.
We hope that DXpedition leaders and operators will review and adhere closely to the Best Practices for DXpeditioning Operating in order to help assure well-run operations. While the DX University takes no position on how these guidelines can or should be used, we hope that the organizations might would recommend these "Best Practices," These guidelines are simply offered as our recommendations for good operating practices.
About the DXAC
Ever wonder what the ARRL's DXAC is all about? See the DX University Blog for a short history of the DX Advisory Committee, what's it's been doing and where it's headed right now.
DXpeditioning Basics - Revised
A new version of DXpeditioning Basics is now availabe. The original version was published in 1994. To see the new version, go to the DX University Website > DXpeditioning Tools > Publications > DXpeditioning Basics - 2013.
Tuition Grants for DXU Students
FOR IMMEDIATE PUBLICATION
22 April 2013
NCDXF DX University and Contest University Scholarships
NCDXF is committed to bringing younger DXers and Contesters into our hobby. NCDXF will provide full tuition scholarships for hams 25 years of age and younger at all DX University and Contest University sessions held in North America for the next year. This includes those held at the Dayton Hamvention next month.
Funding for this project comes from NCDXF’s Scholarship Endowment Fund, which is separate from its General Fund used to support DXpeditions.
Credit for the success of NCDXF is made possible by our contributors, individuals and clubs.
Joining or renewing membership has never been easier. Please visit our website at http://www.ncdxf.org
Glenn Johnson, WØGJ
Vice President, NCDXF