Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 9   Go Down

Author Topic: VKØLD/VK6CQ suggests ARRL revoke 3Y0J DXCC Credit for Endangering Life & Limb  (Read 2983 times)

VK6CQ

  • Posts: 31
    • HomeURL

JOHN VK3YP:

GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT! I never called for 3YØJ DXCC to be invalidated due to no landing permit, as the subject header of your previous post suggests.

Read my open letter properly; I suggested that ARRL should consider the following: "...revoke 3YØJ's accreditation on the grounds of reckless endangerment to life & limb" due to "continued ignorance of, or flippant disregard for, safety protocols". Then I listed several examples from 3YØJ's own Facebook page of 3YØJ Team members doing really, really dumb things that could easily have seriously injured or killed them. Ask any polar / alpine field guide or licensed boating / zodiac driver and they will agree with me.

73 de Alan BSc (Radio Physics), Professional Radio Officer Licences etc. etc.
VK6CQ VKØLD VP8PJ 9VØA VKØEK VKØMM CE9/VKØLD etc. etc.

Yeah, been there, done that many times in the past 40 years. So don't waste time on any anti-VKØLD smear campaign and turning the tables to try and publicly discredit me - I'm not the 'Elephant in the Room', I'm just the messenger boy.
Logged

KD8MJR

  • Member
  • Posts: 6017

So while I totally disagree with the Credit being revoked I am just wondering if there is any precedence of a Dxpedition credit being revoked for claims of recklessness.

 IMHO these are grown men on a Dxpedition, not a bus load of school kids that are being blindly led.  If someone had a safety issue I am pretty sure they would have just stayed on the boat.  The boat was 100% certified for that voyage so it was definitely up to the individuals to assess if they could manage the conditions and where willing to leave the boat.
Logged
“A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.”  (Mark Twain)

VK3YP

  • Member
  • Posts: 73

Hi Alan,

Apologies for the misunderstanding for saying that you called for 3YØJ DXCC to be invalidated due to no landing permit, as the subject header of my post suggests.

As you have clarified it’s a safety issue around the dxexpedition.

But the “punishment”  shouldn’t call for dxcc to be not accredited.

John VK3YP
Logged

KF6QEX

  • Member
  • Posts: 788

from http://www.arrl.org/dxcc-rules

Quote
Section III. Accreditation Criteria-

1. Each nation of the world manages its telecommunications affairs differently. Therefore, a rigid, universal accreditation procedure cannot be applied in all situations. During more than 85 years of DXCC administration, basic standards have evolved in establishing the legitimacy of an operation.

It is the purpose of this section to establish guidelines that will assure that DXCC credit is given only for contacts with operations that are conducted with proper licensing and have established a legitimate physical presence within the entity to be credited. Any operation that satisfies these conditions (in addition to the applicable elements of SECTIONI., Rules 6, 7, 8, and 9) will be accredited. It is the intent of the DXCC administration to be guided by the actions of sovereign nations when considering the accreditation of amateur radio operation within their jurisdiction. DXCC will be reasonably flexible in reviewing licensing documentation. Conversely, findings by a host government indicating non-compliance with their amateur radio regulations may cause denial or revocation of accreditation.

2. The following points should be of particular interest to those seeking accreditation for a DX operation:

a) The vast majority of operations are accredited routinely without a requirement for the submission of authenticating documentation. However, all such documents should be retained by the operator in the unlikely event of a protest.

b) In countries where Amateur Radio operation has not been permitted or has been suspended or where some reluctance to authorize amateur stations has been noted, authenticating documents may be required before accrediting an operation.

c) Special permission may be required from a governmental agency or private party before entering certain DXCC entities for the purpose of conducting amateur radio operations even though the entity is part of a country with no amateur radio restrictions. Examples of such entities are Desecheo I. (KP5), Palmyra I. (KH5) and Glorioso Islands (FT/G).

3. For those cases where supporting documentation is required, the following can be used as a guide to identify those documents necessary for accreditation:

a) Photocopy of license or operating authorization.

b) Photocopy of passport entry and exit stamps.

c) For islands, a landing permit and a signed statement of the transporting ship's, boat's, or aircraft's captain, showing all pertinent data, such as date, place of landing, etc.

d) For locations where special permission is known to be required to gain access, evidence of this permission must be presented. For a list of these entities, GO HERE

e) It is expected that all DXpeditions will observe any environmental rules promulgated by the administration under whose authority the operation takes place. In the event that no such rules are actually promulgated, the DXpedition should leave the DXpedition site as they found it.

4. These accreditation requirements are intended to preserve the integrity of the DXCC program and to ensure that the program does not encourage amateurs to "bend the rules" in their enthusiasm, possibly jeopardizing the future development of Amateur Radio. Every effort will be made to apply these criteria uniformly and to make a determination consistent with these objectives.
Logged
sdrawkcab daer tseb si txet sihT

KD8MJR

  • Member
  • Posts: 6017

So that implies that meeting some sort of safety standard is not part of the rules!  Unless there is something in section 6,7 or 8 that state otherwise.
Logged
“A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.”  (Mark Twain)

K4GTE

  • Posts: 178
    • HomeURL

Your call to "...revoke 3YØJ's accreditation on the grounds of reckless endangerment to life & limb" is not justification to revoke accreditation based on current guidelines and rules. Your opinion is just that, an opinion. If you are advocating ARRL rule changes, then you need to approach this in a totally different manner.
Logged

K5MO

  • Posts: 65
    • HomeURL

A DXpedition in the age of internet forums truly is a no-win proposition for those actually attempting to do it.   In addition to all the regulatory hurdles ,  now we need to have the safety police evaluation.    Maybe we should require a member of OSHA be onboard future trips.

John K5MO
« Last Edit: March 02, 2023, 05:33:02 AM by K5MO »
Logged

KE8KMX

  • Posts: 265
    • HomeURL

A DXpedition in the age of internet forums truly is a no-win proposition for those actually attempting to do it.   In addition to all the regulatory hurdles ,  now we need to have the safety police evaluation.    Maybe we should require a member of OSHA be onboard future trips.

John K5MO

An operation like this one for sure should have designated a saftey officer with the authority to call a halt to anything they felt was unsafe.  The ARRL gives you extra  points during field day if you have a saftey officer so they do in fact consider safe operation an important part of the hobby.

I am guessing in the near future Norway is going to require a landing permit for any type of landing on Bouvet be it Zodiac, magic carpet, boggie board or breast stroke because of this.


Gino

Logged

W2IRT

  • Member
  • Posts: 4229
    • What I do for fun


Because not everybody likes to be swaddled in bubble wrap.

Logged
www.facebook.com/W2IRT
Night gathers and now my watch begins. It shall not end until I reach Top of the Honor Roll

Great times are at hand, and soon there will be DX for all—although more for some than for others.

W3WN

  • Member
  • Posts: 1127

JOHN VK3YP:

GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT! I never called for 3YØJ DXCC to be invalidated due to no landing permit, as the subject header of your previous post suggests.

Read my open letter properly; I suggested that ARRL should consider the following: "...revoke 3YØJ's accreditation on the grounds of reckless endangerment to life & limb" due to "continued ignorance of, or flippant disregard for, safety protocols". Then I listed several examples from 3YØJ's own Facebook page of 3YØJ Team members doing really, really dumb things that could easily have seriously injured or killed them. Ask any polar / alpine field guide or licensed boating / zodiac driver and they will agree with me.

73 de Alan BSc (Radio Physics), Professional Radio Officer Licences etc. etc.
VK6CQ VKØLD VP8PJ 9VØA VKØEK VKØMM CE9/VKØLD etc. etc.

Yeah, been there, done that many times in the past 40 years. So don't waste time on any anti-VKØLD smear campaign and turning the tables to try and publicly discredit me - I'm not the 'Elephant in the Room', I'm just the messenger boy.
Hello Alan, hope all is well.

You have made some valid points about safety issues, and I for one would not even consider debating with you on what is and is not in the categories of safety and acceptable risk.

I simply do not believe that AT PRESENT, there is anything within the DXCC rules and related criteria that would justify AT PRESENT such a disqualification.

Should it be discussed?  Absolutely.  Should this be considered for further DXpeditions involving locations that are high-risk to access?  Definitely. 

But:  retroactively revoking credit for rules changes or additions that take place after the fact?  No matter how well intentioned, this does not sit well.  It would only serve to punish those who did the best they could under difficult circumstances (even if some of their decisions, in retrospect or hindsight, were unwise), and those few of the Deserved who actually were fortunate to contact them.

Take care.
Logged
Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati.
Ban The DH!
זאל ס גיין באַקס!

AF5CC

  • Posts: 1664
    • HomeURL

This would really start us down a road we don't want to go down.  Would the ARRL refuse to credit any DXpedition to the pacific ring of fire because an earthquake, volcano, or tidal wave could happen while the DXpeditioneers are there.  What about DXpeditions to entities with active military conflicts or insurgencies going on?  There are plenty of those.  POTA activations in tornado alley?  Better shut those down, never know when a twister might pop up. 

Then there are those pesky meteors that are always hitting the Earth!

73 John AF5CC
Logged

KD8MJR

  • Member
  • Posts: 6017

An operation like this one for sure should have designated a saftey officer with the authority to call a halt to anything they felt was unsafe.  The ARRL gives you extra  points during field day if you have a saftey officer so they do in fact consider safe operation an important part of the hobby.

I am guessing in the near future Norway is going to require a landing permit for any type of landing on Bouvet be it Zodiac, magic carpet, boggie board or breast stroke because of this.


Gino

No, no!
We already have enough red tape and bureaucratic nonsense to go through. We do not need some kind of safety officer to add another $40K to the bill.

It's very simple, the boat needs to be certified for the Trip and if anybody does not feel safe leaving the boat then just stay on the Boat.


Logged
“A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.”  (Mark Twain)

W2IRT

  • Member
  • Posts: 4229
    • What I do for fun

But:  retroactively revoking credit for rules changes or additions that take place after the fact?  No matter how well intentioned, this does not sit well.  It would only serve to punish those who did the best they could under difficult circumstances (even if some of their decisions, in retrospect or hindsight, were unwise), and those few of the Deserved who actually were fortunate to contact them.
What irks me in this whole ridiculous discussion is that there was absolutely no requirement for H&S compliance stipulated by the authorities. I might have a different take on this if they had disobeyed such a stipulation by the Norwegian government, but that was not the case.

Whether such a requirement will be needed or not in future is a different matter. It's fair to debate the wisdom of their actions, but to whine that they should have done this or should not done that, when those things were not clearly spelled out in writing as a condition of being granted authorization will solve absolutely nothing, and may only decrease the chances for another Bouvet or Peter 1 activation. As far as I'm concerned, if a team has the stones to do this and chooses to do so of their own free will I'm onboard with it 100%.
Logged
www.facebook.com/W2IRT
Night gathers and now my watch begins. It shall not end until I reach Top of the Honor Roll

Great times are at hand, and soon there will be DX for all—although more for some than for others.

VK6CQ

  • Posts: 31
    • HomeURL

You have made some valid points about safety issues, and I for one would not even consider debating with you on what is and is not in the categories of safety and acceptable risk.

I simply do not believe that AT PRESENT, there is anything within the DXCC rules and related criteria that would justify AT PRESENT such a disqualification.

Should it be discussed?  Absolutely.  Should this be considered for further DXpeditions involving locations that are high-risk to access?  Definitely.

But:  retroactively revoking credit for rules changes or additions that take place after the fact?  No matter how well intentioned, this does not sit well.  It would only serve to punish those who did the best they could under difficult circumstances (even if some of their decisions, in retrospect or hindsight, were unwise), and those few of the Deserved who actually were fortunate to contact them.

Take care.
[/quote]
Ron, Thanks for the feedback and I understand what you're saying.  Perhaps it's about time for the ARRL to recognize that they have a responsibility to their membership to encourage/ensure that future DXpeditions to remote and hazardous locations such as Bouvet are conducted in a safe manner and that there's no recurrence of the foolhardy decisions and reckless behaviour we've been witness to the last few weeks. They need to review the DXCC rule book and update accordingly as a matter of some priority before someone ends up getting seriously injured or killed. 73, Alan   
Logged

VK6CQ

  • Posts: 31
    • HomeURL

This would really start us down a road we don't want to go down.  Would the ARRL refuse to credit any DXpedition to the pacific ring of fire because an earthquake, volcano, or tidal wave could happen while the DXpeditioneers are there.  What about DXpeditions to entities with active military conflicts or insurgencies going on?  There are plenty of those.  POTA activations in tornado alley?  Better shut those down, never know when a twister might pop up. 

Then there are those pesky meteors that are always hitting the Earth!

73 John AF5CC

John, you're missing the point here - everything you list above are Force Majeure hazards that a DXpedition can't do anything about. What I'm talking about are things DXpedition members can do something about; i.e. don't take dumb risks such as try and beach a Zodiac in heavy surf (you'll most likely flip and maybe break your neck), or try and walk through a crevasse field without being roped up (you'll most likely break through a crevasse bridge and be killed in the fall) or do stupid things out of sheer ignorance of the dangers involved, such as wearing waders in heavy surf (if you get swamped, waders will fill with water, you'll lose balance, won't be able to stand up again and drown) or take your lunch sitting underneath an ice cliff (could collapse without warning at any minute and ruin your day). Evidence of this kind of flippant disregard for safety and ARRL should consider revoking DXCC credit - will soon stop all the DXpedition yah-hoos from doing it again and the wives and families won't have to worry so much.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 9   Go Up