Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 9   Go Down

Author Topic: VKØLD/VK6CQ suggests ARRL revoke 3Y0J DXCC Credit for Endangering Life & Limb  (Read 2984 times)

VK6CQ

  • Posts: 31
    • HomeURL


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
[/quote]
If this happens, then my open letter will have largely served its purpose.
Logged

KE8KMX

  • Posts: 265
    • HomeURL

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.


Not saying there shoud be a ARRL rule requiring it or a paid third person SO.   The team brought a licensed medical doctor/ham along because it was good practice and a wise thing to do.   JUst saying any operations like this should designate someone to to be the SO who's job it is to stand back and observe while others are taking pics, setting up etc.  It is  good practice and a wise thing to do. For all I know these guys did do that but when I was reading Facebook posts and watching video's I kept thinking "where is the team SO?"   I know I would have pulled the plug the minute beach landings of zodiacs was ruled out.  This was not a group of 20's Navy Seals.


Gino  - KE8KMX
Logged

VK6CQ

  • Posts: 31
    • HomeURL


"What irks me in this whole ridiculous discussion is that ......................"

Nothing ridiculous being discussed here, Dude. We're talking about Bouvet Island, the most remote island on the planet and a rather dangerous place to be with the very real possibility of serious injuries or fatalities lurking all over the place.

Add to the mix a DXpedition largely composed of middle aged guys or older who are well past their prime and not particularly fit, with little or no experience in how to survive in a cold marine / polar environment, whose attention is focussed almost entirely on playing radios and hardly ever on the hazardous environment around them and you've got a recipe for that well known dessert 'Custard Flack Pudding'! 

This is a very serious matter that needs serious consideration by the DX Community at large and some kind of fairly prompt action by the ARRL DXCC Desk.

The safety aspects of DXpeditions to remote and hazardous / dangerous locations has been conveniently brushed under the carpet in the past and ARRL has chosen to turn a blind-eye to DXpedition safety thus far.

I'm just highlighting the matter and bringing it to everyone's attention because the ARRL has a duty and an obligation to its membership as well as the DX community worldwide to start treating remote/hazardous location DXpedition safety seriously and bring it in line with 21st Century societal norms. 

You really think your 3YØ QSO and Bouvet QSL card are worth a life or someone ending up a paraplegic?

Is this also how the ARRL DXCC Desk thinks?



Logged

K4GTE

  • Posts: 178
    • HomeURL

Safety is stressed in amateur radio exams, at least in the US it is. Common sense also applies. I am against any safety rules imposed by the ARRL or any other amateur radio group. What will be next ? No antenna erecting ? No tower climbing ? Smacks of "wokeness", and we already have way too much of that. Loss of accreditation for the 3YOJ expedition based on one's opinion of "safety" is absolutely ludicrous.
Logged

WO7R

  • Member
  • Posts: 6042

Quote
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.

In a word -- no.

First off, it would require self-reporting in the vast majority of cases.  Nobody who pays 20,000 dollars (including some "safety officer" who also ends up paying 20,000 dollars) is going to own up to it, doubly so after spending two to five years raising 500,000 from the amateur community at large.  That's just not the real world.

These are very remote places we're talking about.  Places nearly nobody actually goes to.  If your idea becomes "law" we just won't see certain videos.

If the concern is that these places are too risky for the "weekend warriors" that actually go -- those 50 or 60 something heroes that in many case also take along heart medications -- then we should man up, gather up the list of such places and simply disallow them to start with.  Endlessly vetting what is or is not "safe enough" is a fool's errand best left to the legal authorities that issue whatever kinds of permits they require.  We, as a group, are not capable of determining these things.  We cannot form the necessary consensus.

We already special case Western Sahara and Spratley, so there is plenty of precedent for singling out entities for any kind of special treatment we deem important.

The rule could read:

Section II, Rule 6: Because of the special level of danger and expense, the following entities are deleted as of <date> and will not be reconsidered:

Bouvet
Peter I
Heard


We could maybe add a few others like South Sandwich, maybe even South Georgia.

Then, we could handle the remainder the way we do now.  Once in a while, a DXpedition temp tower will fall with someone on it.  Once in a while, a ham even gets shot.  We haven't discredited for those and we probably should not start now.

I don't want people to die to get me a maybe postcard.  I do, however, want a DXCC program that is reasonably predictable.  If I work someone, I should, in the vast, vast majority of cases, get credit because the basic permitting happened, they actually got there, and I worked them.
Logged

N0UN

  • Posts: 924
    • eHam Forums are a waste of time



"IBTL"

NØUN
« Last Edit: March 02, 2023, 11:19:41 AM by N0UN »
Logged

K3STX

  • Member
  • Posts: 1697

Evidence of this kind of flippant disregard for safety and ARRL should consider revoking DXCC credit

Why? If somebody wants to be an idiot shouldn't they be allowed to be one? Idiots do all sorts of idiotic things everyday; we just say "what an idiot" and move on.

Paul
Logged

KE8KMX

  • Posts: 265
    • HomeURL

Evidence of this kind of flippant disregard for safety and ARRL should consider revoking DXCC credit

Why? If somebody wants to be an idiot shouldn't they be allowed to be one? Idiots do all sorts of idiotic things everyday; we just say "what an idiot" and move on.

Paul


There are 340 DXCC entities. The vast majority of the the "uber rare" ones are islands that are protected nature preserves and require govt approval to activate them.   Ham radio activations that result in deaths, govt intervention rescue operations and or **** being left behind impead/forbid future permission to said nature preserves. 

Gino  - KE8KMX


Logged

K7JQ

  • Member
  • Posts: 2602

This whole thread is bulls**t. These were grown men just on a ham radio *adventure* to a rock/glacier "island" (and I use that term loosely), littered with penguin poop, in one of the most remote, weather beaten areas on Earth. Nobody twisted their arms, and they owed nothing to us (well, maybe they pissed off donors). Had they successfully completed their intended mission, despite the "danger" involved, and doled out 200,000 QSO's, this thread wouldn't even have been started.
Logged

W2IRT

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

Nothing ridiculous being discussed here, Dude. We're talking about Bouvet Island, the most remote island on the planet and a rather dangerous place to be with the very real possibility of serious injuries or fatalities lurking all over the place.
It might well have been dangerous, but you shot yourself squarely in the vegetables when you mounted your high horse and stuck your nose in where it didn't belong Dude.

Add to the mix a DXpedition largely composed of middle aged guys or older who are well past their prime and not particularly fit, with little or no experience in how to survive in a cold marine / polar environment, whose attention is focussed almost entirely on playing radios and hardly ever on the hazardous environment around them
...
This is a Very Serious Matter™© that needs serious consideration by the DX Community at large and some kind of fairly prompt action by the ARRL DXCC Desk.

Bull$#!+
If some government agency bureaucrat insists on a polar survival plan and a compliance officer then it's the team's decision whether or not to go. If that's not stipulated then it's up to the team to conduct themselves in a manner that they see fit and take whatever risks they deem acceptable. It is not up to the ARRL to be DXpedition Nannies,™ and I would argue it's not up to you either. You are figuratively, and in this case literally, as far away from Newington as it's possible to be. By all means, your experience and suggestions are fine and I agree with many of the concerns you expressed, but trying to tell the ARRL how to conduct its affairs is where I draw the line. If the NPI wishes to revisit this in the future then whatever they say goes, but trying to bully our national society is the height of hubris in my opinion.

I would certainly not have been able to participate in a DXpedition of that nature; I know my physical limitations and going there would have been the end of me. But that said, not everybody chooses to live in a mollycoddled world of lullabyes and pacifiers. We say bad words, we drink whiskey, smoke cigars, consume too much red meat and giant sugary sodas, and in my circle of friends we drive our Jeeps into inhospitable terrain for days or weeks at a time. If you think I'd drive to Dingo Pi$$ Creek or the Canning Stock Route without enough food and fuel, plenty of spares, and at least two more rigs, you'd be mistaken, but there are those who do choose to "wing it" and get out safely at the other end. And some lose their rigs, and yes, sadly a few die along the way or have to be medevaced to hospital. At some point you have to let adventurers adventure. I look at your nation's ultra-strict off road vehicle requirements and thank my maker every single day that we're not subject to those asinine limitations here.

I do not want to see that kind of thing brought to the DXpeditioning table as a requirement, but I'm sure most teams would gladly welcome recommendations for best and safest practices.
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.

WO7R

  • Member
  • Posts: 6042

Quote
Why? If somebody wants to be an idiot shouldn't they be allowed to be one? Idiots do all sorts of idiotic things everyday; we just say "what an idiot" and move on.

Yes and no.  I agree that "safety", "after the fact" is not the standard.

I do not agree with the sentiment, which you may or may not have intended to express, that we have no culpability for the risks these guys take.

We set the rules (strictly speaking, the ARRL does, but it roughly corresponds to what we want).

And, by setting the rules, it will leave some number of places, however we do it, that are more risky (and expensive) than others.  But, we can change that list.

There's Snake Island off the coast of Brazil.  Basically, it is a den of vipers, literally.  Nobody lives there and nobody but very well prepared researchers go there.

Fortunately, it happens not to count separately under DXCC rules.  If it did, we might have some crazy people try to activate it.  I seem to recall one or two IOTA expeditions managed the feat somehow.  No expedition to this place would ever see a dime of contribution from me even if we somehow belatedly decided it counted separate for DXCC.

There is a place called North Sentinel, which is part of the Andaman chain.  Nobody activates it -- there are easier -- and safer -- places to go. This island is remarkable because the indigenous population kills foreigners on sight -- and so far, the Indian government doesn't care about the place to actually make it inhabitable in the normal way by putting down this tribal group.

Someone might make an imaginative argument that this group of indigenous people represents a different political entity, but I hope nobody does, because I doubt if the Indian government is inclined to give anyone permission to disturb that population, which , in any case, wants to kill you.

There are ample Antarctic islands, every bit as dangerous as Bouvet, that sit too close to the continent and don't count separately.  As far as I can tell from Google Earth, many don't even have names.  They are just terrible, remote, and we fortunately don't have to raise millions to activate such godforsaken rocks.

But, if we wished to, we could change to rules and make all of those things a target.  It would almost certainly bump up, maybe drastically, the DXpeditioner fatality rate.

Let us not do so.




Logged

AF5CC

  • Posts: 1664
    • HomeURL

Evidence of this kind of flippant disregard for safety and ARRL should consider revoking DXCC credit

Why? If somebody wants to be an idiot shouldn't they be allowed to be one? Idiots do all sorts of idiotic things everyday; we just say "what an idiot" and move on.

Paul

Not only will  you give a new one to thousands of operators, you might also win a Darwin Award!!

73 John AF5CC
Logged

AF5CC

  • Posts: 1664
    • HomeURL

Remember also, if they had not filmed it, or made internet postings about what was going on, none of us would have known any of this, and been none the wiser.  Impose too many safety regulations by the ARRL and they will just keep us in the dark.

73 John AF5CC
Logged

K3STX

  • Member
  • Posts: 1697

There is a place called North Sentinel, which is part of the Andaman chain.  Nobody activates it -- there are easier -- and safer -- places to go. This island is remarkable because the indigenous population kills foreigners on sight

But if some guy had PERMISSION to activate the Andaman Islands by choosing to go THERE then he/she is the idiot and permission to operate is all that is needed to make it count. I am not sure it is our place to protect grown adults from themselves if they don't want to be protected. Just my opinion.

Paul
Logged

WA2VUY

  • Member
  • Posts: 626

1979 Spratley
1980 Palmyra
1983 Spratley
Yasme...
Check out those dxpeditions.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 9   Go Up