Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9   Go Down

Author Topic: VKØLD/VK6CQ suggests ARRL revoke 3Y0J DXCC Credit for Endangering Life & Limb  (Read 2979 times)

VK6CQ

  • Posts: 31
    • HomeURL



Looks like VK6CQ has achieved his goal to destroy Antarctic DXpeditioning. Bravo!

Give the islands back to Argentina and there will be a lot of Ham Radio activity. :)
Falkland Islands, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands have never been part of Argentine territory before, so how can United Kindgom  'give them back' ? Just Argentina make a claim for them, is all.
Logged

VK6CQ

  • Posts: 31
    • HomeURL

Boils down to risk “nothing, gain nothing “ in the end.

Why do bureaucrats have to bless such things?

Because it's bureaucrats and governments who have to conduct the multi-million dollar rescue missions when guys like 3YØJ bite off more than they can chew and get into trouble. Did 3YØJ carry indemnity insurance to cover such an eventuality? No answer has yet been forthcoming; wonder why?
Logged

KB2FCV

  • Member
  • Posts: 3285
    • homeURL

I don't see any reason for trying to prevent the operation from being approved for dxcc.

They're grown adults and are fully aware of the dangers they were potentially getting into. There are other equally or more dangerous things that people do for "fun" than what this group did. People climb mountains all the time - Mt Everest claims several people a year, yet people still go to climb it knowing full well they may not come back. At least from what I read, this team had a captain with experience in the arctic / antarctic and landing with zodiacs. The captain wants to bring everyone back safe so I'd guess they did everything as safely as they could and anyone could say no if they weren't comfortable. I have zero expertise in what constitues safe practices working in antarctic rough waters, the OP certainly is way more qualified to say what is or isn't. It sure did look dicey to me.. but they did get the team on / off the island in one piece. They went there because they wanted to go. I see no reason to revoke credit as they appeared to have followed the ARRL rules.
Logged

EI2GLB

  • Member
  • Posts: 1251

Because it is none of your business, they don't have to answer to you no matter how important you think you are,

 
No answer has yet been forthcoming; wonder why?
Logged

AF5CC

  • Posts: 1664
    • HomeURL

I don't see any reason for trying to prevent the operation from being approved for dxcc.

 I see no reason to revoke credit as they appeared to have followed the ARRL rules.

Exactly!  Stop confusing this issue with logic and facts!

73 John AF5CC
Logged

VK6CQ

  • Posts: 31
    • HomeURL

But when he sent the info to these Bureaucratic's with the aim to discredit they guys and make himself look good then why not blame him, no doubt he copied them on his pile of crap email that he thinks people actually wanted,

He could have sent Ken a email once he got home and said that there was a few issues and maybe you should have done this ect, instead he went for the most important aspect of any DXpedition to get it's credit at DXCC revoked,

That is where the spite and malice is not in the crap that was written about how big his pecker is and that we all should bow to his knowledge of the Antarctic,

Not go straight   
< snip >
< snip >
Wow.  Talk about "shoot the messenger"

Alan has some valid points on safety.  And unlike many of the Tuesday Morning Quarterbacks chiming in with their "expert" opinions, he actually HAS been there and DOES know what he is talking about.

Blaming him for a potential bureaucratic decision to limit or outright deny future DXpeditions is ridiculous.  It only serves to ratchet up the rancor and continue to sew discord.

Or to put it more succinctly:  Knock it off.  Please.
Bringing this issue out in the open and directly to the ARRL DXCC Desk for action is the only way this 'Safety of DXpeditions to Bouvet and other remote & dangerous sub-Antarctic' issue is ever going to be properly discussed and resolved.  Trying to talk to LA7GIA privately would have been a waste of time;  I'd tried contacting 3YØJ organizers a few times way back when it was still a N6PSE/LA7GIA joint venture and got nowhere. They really weren't interested in expert, professional advice even when it was being handed to them on a plate! Made them feel and look less the experts, perhaps? At least N6PSE acknowledged my emails; LA7GIA never even bothered.

As regards the size of my pecker, I really don't have any male ego issues on that score and my Antarctic CVs, both as a professional Telecom Engineer in the Offshore Oil & Gas sector and an Amateur Radio enthusiast speak for themselves, so I don't need my ego stoking or any public reverence in that department either.   

However, I do admit to having been somewhat naive in assuming that people would naturally be inclined to take what I was saying seriously seeing as I've actually 'been there, done that' etc. on many occasions. Unfortunately, seem that lots of people out there in DX-Land really don't like being brought back to the cold, stark truth of reality when they're busy trying to live in and perpetuate their own fantasy worlds. 

I have every confidence that 3YØJ would have largely been a great success if MV Braveheart and its very experienced Kiwi crew had been available, but that was not to be. Once an ocean-going racing ketch with a draft of only 3.5m and no cargo crane was selected as Braveheart's replacement, it became pretty clear to myself and many others with marine backgrounds that things were very likely to become rather problematic once 3YØJ arrived off the east coast of Bouvet Island.  If such concerns had been raised when Marama was first announced, does anyone out there in DX-Land seriously think the 3YØJ organizers would have bothered to take any notice of me or anyone else?    Let me know.
Logged

VK6CQ

  • Posts: 31
    • HomeURL

Because it is none of your business, they don't have to answer to you no matter how important you think you are,

 
No answer has yet been forthcoming; wonder why?

How important or otherwise I may feel is not the issue here, so stop with the invective why don't you.

It may well be none of my business personally, however it is the business of governments who have to send multi-million dollar rescue missions down into perilous sub-Antarctic waters to pull them out when things go pear-shaped (as they are sometimes want to do). Who gets to foot the bill for such expensive rescue missions? Why, none other than Joe Public tax-payers just like me, so collectively it is very much my business!
Logged

VK6CQ

  • Posts: 31
    • HomeURL

He could have sent Ken a email once he got home and said that there was a few issues and maybe you should have done this ect, instead he went for the most important aspect of any DXpedition to get it's credit at DXCC revoked,


Agree with you on this point.
Only if Ken had acted like an Ass and replied to his private email saying something like no there were no issues and you don't know what your talking about etc.  That is the only time when IMHO it might have been justified to go Public.

Yes lets face it, there where safety problems, but this was a grown mans Dxpedition and anybody could have spoken out or stayed on the boat. 

I remember someone on here, the guy who likes to Dress up saying that there was not going to be any problems when Ken got back.  I pointed out that there was a lot of people that did not like how this Dxpedition was going.
I think there are a lot more people that are going to be getting vocal as the months pass on.

Lets just brace ourselves for the possibility that once one or more team members get home and start to look back at how this played out they may also start to become very vocal.

Robert: Your first paragraph hits the nail squarely right on the head; not even a courtesy acknowledgment email. Zilch, Nada, Ничего.
Logged

VK6CQ

  • Posts: 31
    • HomeURL


Lets just brace ourselves for the possibility that once one or more team members get home and start to look back at how this played out they may also start to become very vocal.

Very unlikely, I'd say. Probably all been required to sign Non-Disclosure Agreements, hand over all copyright to Team Leader or ARDX Group etc. as a condition of joining the 3YØJ Team.  Not unusual when there's Big Bucks or Krazy Kroner involved.
Logged

US5WE

  • Posts: 33
    • HomeURL

I have every confidence that 3YØJ would have largely been a great success if MV Braveheart and its very experienced Kiwi crew had been available, but that was not to be.
At last I got the answers to my questions asked before and assumptions from the parallel thread:
Who will benefit if 3Y0J operation will not get DXCC credit?
The answer is quite obvious – some influential group or resentful individual who decided, for some reason, to discredit the 3Y0J operation.
So, according to Alan, there was only (1) one ship in Antarctica capable to make DXPedition a success and unless the mentioned influential group will find a well paid suitable substitution, "governments" will reject all DXpedition requests and DXCC Desk is ought to revoke DXCC credit for trips using alternative transportation methods.
Puzzle formed, I quit.
Logged
UARL Technical and VHF Committies
DXCC Honor Roll #1 (Mixed, Phone) 10BDXCC (160-6m), 10BWAZ(160-6m),
ARRL field checker.

VK6CQ

  • Posts: 31
    • HomeURL

I have every confidence that 3YØJ would have largely been a great success if MV Braveheart and its very experienced Kiwi crew had been available, but that was not to be.
At last I got the answers to my questions asked before and assumptions from the parallel thread:
Who will benefit if 3Y0J operation will not get DXCC credit?
The answer is quite obvious – some influential group or resentful individual who decided, for some reason, to discredit the 3Y0J operation.
So, according to Alan, there was only (1) one ship in Antarctica capable to make DXPedition a success and unless the mentioned influential group will find a well paid suitable substitution, "governments" will reject all DXpedition requests and DXCC Desk is ought to revoke DXCC credit for trips using alternative transportation methods.
Puzzle formed, I quit.

Well, I learn something new every day; now I know where and how conspiracy theories are born!

For the Record:

1) I do not bear any resentment or jealousy towards 3YØJ or any of the Team members, I just think that some of them made some very reckless and foolhardy decisions that could well have cost lives. They were just very lucky to get away with it, that's all. If you're man enough to go to somewhere as isolated and hazardous as Bouvet, you should be man enough to 'fess up to all the bad decisions and mistakes you made whilst you were there. Downplaying safety incidents or pretending near-misses didn't happen just to avoid red faces, embarrassment or whatever only perpetuates ignorance and means that the next group to go there could well make the same poor decisions or mistakes as you did and not be so lucky next time.   This isn't a p*ssing contest (well, at least in the Antarctic professional world it isn't); this kind of information is crucial and needs to be openly shared, not brushed under the carpet.

2) For many years there was only one (1) ship in Antarctica with a sufficiently experienced and professional crew capable of virtually guaranteeing success for large sub-Antarctic DXpeditions in relative comfort at a price affordable to the DX Community and that was MV Braveheart.  There's plenty of other DX guys out there who've sailed with Capts. Nigel or Matt Jolly to various DX entities who will wholeheartedly agree with me. Yeah, Evohe might just tick all the boxes for a sheltered harbour, but dread to think what it would be like at an open anchorage in the South Atlantic - pass the puke bucket for sure! Anyone know of any other suitable and affordable vessels, be sure to let Viktor & I know.
Logged

K7KB

  • Member
  • Posts: 984

Boils down to risk “nothing, gain nothing “ in the end.

Why do bureaucrats have to bless such things?

Because it's bureaucrats and governments who have to conduct the multi-million dollar rescue missions when guys like 3YØJ bite off more than they can chew and get into trouble. Did 3YØJ carry indemnity insurance to cover such an eventuality? No answer has yet been forthcoming; wonder why?

You keep bringing this up as one of your arguments, but can you actually provide examples where Amateur Radio operators have been stranded on Antarctic islands and had to be rescued by the island administration? There very well could be examples of it, but I just haven't heard of them, so enlighten me.
Logged

KQ4CMA

  • Posts: 4
    • HomeURL

If I haven’t missed this point in 5 pages, it’s worth considering. Any vehicle or device that requires a certification may also require an operator who’s responsible for using it properly and legally. So a “licensed” boat still requires a licensed captain. If either side defaults, neither are defensible. Not sure what this is an argument for or against, but the refs seem to go a bit deeper than I’ve read so far.
Logged

AE5X

  • Member
  • Posts: 1755

Bottom line is, people should be allowed to place themselves at risk - even in danger, if they chose. To restrict that to the degree proposed by VK6CQ is an impediment to humanity, not a benefit. Yes, even if other people feel they are compelled (or are actually compelled) to come to their rescue. He asks if indemnity insurance existed for the 3Y0J DXpedition - I wonder if release clauses were signed, a more appropriate way to proceed with such an endeavor.

No, I didn't work them.
Logged

WO7R

  • Member
  • Posts: 6032

Quote
I wonder if release clauses were signed,

I don't understand this argument.  This isn't about private parties and covenants not to sue.

This is about whether certain government agencies are responsible for certain patches of ocean and are obligated under some law or treaty or other to mount a rescue when a rescue is required.

If that is so, and it frankly seems quite plausible to me, then there is no "release" to be had here.  Governments in 2023 presumably don't allow people to say "don't rescue me" if they have the obligation to, in fact, rescue them.  Which then raises the question of whether they can intervene in situations they regard as high risk and also whether they actually do so.

I have visited lesser, land-based wilderness areas and once you leave the trailhead, you really are largely on your own as little as 500 yards down the trail.  You may or may not run into others and they may or may not be able to help you.  There are rangers around if not commonplace and I imagine that you might be able to ask for, and receive, some kind of rescue if you needed it and were able to get the word out to the authorities lurking just outside and somewhat within the wilderness.  There is no cell phone service and basically nobody carries satellite phones to the places I have gone.  I don't recall anybody being helivac'ed out, but I am sure it could happen, depending.

But I do not remember having to provide or sign up for any kind of specific safety plan. We got briefed on how to handle brown bears (the most likely problem) and that was it.

Whether these places, in these much more dangerous waters, are more strict, I don't know.  I could easily imagine it being so, given the order of magnitude greater risk of death. 

But, I do know that whatever is done ahead of time, to go to any wilderness of any kind puts you in a place where rescue is chancy and cannot be counted on in the first place.  Just pure personal survival means that something had better be planned and nobody should expect a timely rescue.  You basically need to assume you will rescue yourself or at least that's the percentage play.  That means, among other things, your boat needs to be robust enough to at least limp into some port, somewhere pretty much no matter what happens.


« Last Edit: March 04, 2023, 03:03:02 PM by WO7R »
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9   Go Up