Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6   Go Down

Author Topic: VK6CQ calls for 3Y0J DXCC to be invalidated due to no landing permit !  (Read 2514 times)

AF5CC

  • Posts: 1664
    • HomeURL
Re: VK6CQ calls for 3Y0J DXCC to be invalidated due to no landing permit !
« Reply #15 on: March 01, 2023, 08:44:58 AM »

I don't think South Georgia or Kerguelen are near that dangerous.  Both have bases on them, I believe, and South Georgia was even invaded by the LU army.

73 John AF5CC
Logged

WO7R

  • Member
  • Posts: 6042
Re: VK6CQ calls for 3Y0J DXCC to be invalidated due to no landing permit !
« Reply #16 on: March 01, 2023, 09:21:39 AM »

Quote
If the team shows ARRL the proper documentation, I believe the operation will be approved. Don't believe they will base their decision on whether a landing permit should have been issued, or if the team made bad decisions or were reckless.

Wasn't there a Spratley operation a while back where one of the operators was actually shot and killed by one of the governments disputing ownership?

And wasn't that operation approved anyway?

Or, how about the Sable Island (or was it St Paul's) where the temp tower they put up fell over and a ham was killed?  I think that one was ultimately approved also, wasn't it?

I don't like to see those sorts of things -- really, nobody should die for this hobby.  But, in fact, there is a casualty rate and I don't recall that the ARRL has ever acted when they go bad.

If we're going to decide that people take excessive risks for certain entities, then we should all man up and delete them -- not write carping notes about it after the fact.

We get who actually gets up the logistics and goes.  Age and fitness varies.  Survival skills certainly vary.  Some of us have cheered on some riskier things than this group.  Each of the three recent Bouvet expeditions were high risk and could have easily resulted in death.  Or, have we forgotten the broken boats, etc, of the expeditions that made zero QSOs?

Simply demanding perfect expeditions to difficult places and then whining about it after the fact is not really responsive to the situation. 

As for the authorities, well, that varies.  The French aren't paying any attention to what happens on Bouvet.  These things are "owned" (a loose term for such remote places) by a variety of governments.  Each expedition is its own approval adventure.

PS, I would be extremely surprised that this group doesn't have that permit.  The leader is an actual Norwegian and presumably speaks the language.  He negotiated some kind of permission to go there.  You don't go to sensitive environmental spots without a lot of discussion and some kind of permitting.  We should worry about a lot of things with respect to Bouvet.  I would worry zero about the permit until and unless  the League surprises us.
Logged

ON6KE

  • Member
  • Posts: 90
Re: VK6CQ calls for 3Y0J DXCC to be invalidated due to no landing permit !
« Reply #17 on: March 01, 2023, 09:28:31 AM »

I'd say (again) let the expedition's website show the permit(s).
Logged

WB9LUR

  • Member
  • Posts: 953
    • CallingDX.com
Re: VK6CQ calls for 3Y0J DXCC to be invalidated due to no landing permit !
« Reply #18 on: March 01, 2023, 09:39:38 AM »

I wonder, it's OK to wonder, right? I wonder if some of those that didn't work 3Y0J will support invalidating the DXCC most vigorously - while those that did work them see no valid reason to disallow this DXCC op.

Is this sour grapes? You are not gonna start DQRMing are you?

Randy / WB9LUR





Logged
. .

73, Randy / WB9LUR - http://www.CallingDX.com

. .

WO7R

  • Member
  • Posts: 6042
Re: VK6CQ calls for 3Y0J DXCC to be invalidated due to no landing permit !
« Reply #19 on: March 01, 2023, 09:43:49 AM »

Quote
I don't think South Georgia or Kerguelen are near that dangerous.  Both have bases on them, I believe, and South Georgia was even invaded by the LU army.

True, but as a matter of fact, even South Georgia is dangerous, established outpost notwithstanding.

Go look at the video from the South Sandwich/South Georgia operation.  A storm blew them off of Sandwich and there was another one that blew into  the bay at South Georgia.  A member of the Braveheart lived up to the name by rescuing a different boat that had turned, crossing a pair of anchor cables.  He rescued it by ramming it with a zodiac.

A little less dangerous?  Maybe. South Georgia is where Shackelford went for help.  But not exactly a safe harbor in the end.
Logged

ON6KE

  • Member
  • Posts: 90
Re: VK6CQ calls for 3Y0J DXCC to be invalidated due to no landing permit !
« Reply #20 on: March 01, 2023, 09:45:56 AM »

Quote
I don't think South Georgia or Kerguelen are near that dangerous.  Both have bases on them, I believe, and South Georgia was even invaded by the LU army.

True, but as a matter of fact, even South Georgia is dangerous, established outpost notwithstanding.

Go look at the video from the South Sandwich/South Georgia operation.  A storm blew them off of Sandwich and there was another one that blew into  the bay at South Georgia.  A member of the Braveheart lived up to the name by rescuing a different boat that had turned, crossing a pair of anchor cables.  He rescued it by ramming it with a zodiac.

A little less dangerous?  Maybe. South Georgia is where Shackelford went for help.  But not exactly a safe harbor in the end.

Shackleton. And he and his crew by the way were no sissies.
Logged

WO7R

  • Member
  • Posts: 6042
Re: VK6CQ calls for 3Y0J DXCC to be invalidated due to no landing permit !
« Reply #21 on: March 01, 2023, 09:49:39 AM »

Quote
I'd say (again) let the expedition's website show the permit(s).

Most do so.  Some don't. All have to show them to the league.  That's what counts.

Everything that matters in terms of approvals is out of our hands.

Even if there is a permit, that doesn't necessarily mean the league will approve it.  There have been cases where people thought they had licenses, for instance, and the ARRL decided it wasn't a proper one and disallowed it.  So, us seeing whatever the team relied upon means nothing. What the league decides is everything.

I would be quite surprised if this one wasn't pre-approved as far as the permits go.  It isn't something one is required to guess about and they are almost certainly issued far in advance of setting sail.
Logged

N4KZ

  • Member
  • Posts: 761
Re: VK6CQ calls for 3Y0J DXCC to be invalidated due to no landing permit !
« Reply #22 on: March 01, 2023, 09:52:28 AM »

To: KH0/KC0W

Tom,

I read your post with great interest since what I wrote and posted on another topic several months ago was the recipient of one of your tart zingers.

I had not inserted the proper number of paragraphs in my post to meet your expectations.

Since I wrote professionally for many years, I am well aware of the importance of breaking text into frequent paragraphs. I appreciate your setting me straight.

And I encourage you to heed your own advice about posting items in haste or in a computer trance or some other state of mind. LOL

73, Dave (The Paragraph Guy)
N4KZ
Logged

KD6KVL

  • Member
  • Posts: 239
Re: VK6CQ calls for 3Y0J DXCC to be invalidated due to no landing permit !
« Reply #23 on: March 01, 2023, 09:54:49 AM »

I didn't read as no permit was issued.  What I took from this is that he is insinuating that they had a permit to land by helo and never intended on doing so.  He also insinuates they did not perform to the requirements of bringing the needed survival equipment and 10 days rations on the first trip.  Whether this is an issue to the NPI or even actually part of the permit agreement is unknown.  I'm glad everyone is safe and thankful for my qso's whether they count or not.
Frank KG6N
Logged
Frank KG6N

KJ4Z

  • Member
  • Posts: 1628
Re: VK6CQ calls for 3Y0J DXCC to be invalidated due to no landing permit !
« Reply #24 on: March 01, 2023, 09:56:23 AM »

I wonder if some of those that didn't work 3Y0J will support invalidating the DXCC most vigorously - while those that did work them see no valid reason to disallow this DXCC op.

I worked them and to be honest, I do not particularly care whether it counts or not, so long as the determination is fair and seen to be fair by most reasonable people.

Even if it is not required to post the permit, it seems like posting it would be the best way to alleviate any doubt.
Logged

KD6KVL

  • Member
  • Posts: 239
Re: VK6CQ calls for 3Y0J DXCC to be invalidated due to no landing permit !
« Reply #25 on: March 01, 2023, 09:58:11 AM »

To: KH0/KC0W

Tom,

I read your post with great interest since what I wrote and posted on another topic several months ago was the recipient of one of your tart zingers.

I had not inserted the proper number of paragraphs in my post to meet your expectations.

Since I wrote professionally for many years, I am well aware of the importance of breaking text into frequent paragraphs. I appreciate your setting me straight.

And I encourage you to heed your own advice about posting items in haste or in a computer trance or some other state of mind. LOL

73, Dave (The Paragraph Guy)
N4KZ

Seems a little petty Dave, and way off topic.  Don't be so insecure!
Logged
Frank KG6N

LA7GIA

  • Member
  • Posts: 224
Re: VK6CQ calls for 3Y0J DXCC to be invalidated due to no landing permit !
« Reply #26 on: March 01, 2023, 10:43:59 AM »

I could just add that a landing permit is not needed to go ashore Bouvetøya, and will never be issued by NPI if you use a zodiac. Simply because it is not needed and thus not within their jurisdiction.. You only need permit if you plan to use a helicopter.  If it was me, before I would post anything like this maybe, just maybe, I would do some sense checks or ask someone more experienced than yourself.

https://www.npolar.no/en/regulations-bouvetoya-nature-reserve/

« Last Edit: March 01, 2023, 10:47:46 AM by LA7GIA »
Logged

W3WN

  • Member
  • Posts: 1127
Re: VK6CQ calls for 3Y0J DXCC to be invalidated due to no landing permit !
« Reply #27 on: March 01, 2023, 11:20:40 AM »

Is there any merit to this or is just a another "karen" ??

https://ibb.co/zbJWpmq
https://ibb.co/tZvjqRd
https://ibb.co/fCDR9s8
https://ibb.co/DYPvRQJ
https://ibb.co/nrZWCxN
https://ibb.co/607yFZ2
https://ibb.co/z8fGtjy

73' John VK3YP
Tuesday morning quarterbacking.

And in regards to the landing permit allegation referred to in the subject line, from the 3YØJ web page...
Quote
NPI Landing permit received!

September, 2020 - ​We now have the official landing and camping permit from the Norwegian Polar Institute (NPI)
Logged
Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati.
Ban The DH!
זאל ס גיין באַקס!

AA6G

  • Member
  • Posts: 14
Re: VK6CQ calls for 3Y0J DXCC to be invalidated due to no landing permit !
« Reply #28 on: March 01, 2023, 11:41:37 AM »


Wasn't there a Spratley operation a while back where one of the operators was actually shot and killed by one of the governments disputing ownership?

And wasn't that operation approved anyway?

That was 1S1DX in April of 1979. I have the QSL and it counted for DXCC. From their QSL card: "After being turned back twice from possible operating sites, once by gunfire, the DX-pedition made a landing and operated for 72 hours making 13,226 QSO's on 10, 15 and 20 meters on phone and CW."

No one was killed.

73, Chuck - AA6G
Logged

AE5X

  • Member
  • Posts: 1755
Re: VK6CQ calls for 3Y0J DXCC to be invalidated due to no landing permit !
« Reply #29 on: March 01, 2023, 12:09:36 PM »


Wasn't there a Spratley operation a while back where one of the operators was actually shot and killed by one of the governments disputing ownership?

And wasn't that operation approved anyway?

That was 1S1DX in April of 1979. I have the QSL and it counted for DXCC. From their QSL card: "After being turned back twice from possible operating sites, once by gunfire, the DX-pedition made a landing and operated for 72 hours making 13,226 QSO's on 10, 15 and 20 meters on phone and CW."

No one was killed.

73, Chuck - AA6G

DJ4EI killed, others adrift for 11 days:
https://dokufunk.org/upload/dx_magazine_spratly.pdf
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6   Go Up