eHam
eHam Forums => DXing => Topic started by: VK6CQ on March 01, 2023, 09:04:48 PM
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
from http://www.arrl.org/dxcc-rules
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
Because not everybody likes to be swaddled in bubble wrap.
(https://i.postimg.cc/2yxnHXYz/No-airbags.jpg)
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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%.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
"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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
(https://www.n0un.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/bouvet.jpg)
"IBTL"
NØUN
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
1979 Spratley
1980 Palmyra
1983 Spratley
Yasme...
Check out those dxpeditions.
-
I am not sure it is our place to protect grown adults from themselves if they don't want to be protected.
Once we set the rules, no I agree with you. If some fool can get permission for that place (lots of luck on North Sentinel), I can only be one of those that won't contribute to the funding.
But, in truth, you've hit on something vital in all of this. Getting permission to activate North Sentinel is a fantasy. As far as I know, it simply isn't available. Not to anthropologists, not to anyone. Not since everyone going there of late comes back in a casket, no exceptions unless you run like hell on the initial landing right back to your boat or chopper.
Similarly, we already know that even if it was still on the list, USF&W told us outright they were not going to give any permissions for Kingman, ever again. Not everyone agrees with me, but I see cause and effect in finding an excuse to take it off the list soon after that announcement.
Leaving that part aside, modern authorities aren't necessarily allowing any old fool to go to these places any more. They may have their own agendas (environmental interests, or the ancient bureaucratic imperative to "stay out of trouble") but at least these guys are not motivated to under-rate risk.
And, they are not just a random gaggle of people whose only unifying point is some arbitrary "sport" called DXing. They have some amount of real expertise. Some of them actually go to most of these places betimes. They have some clue that we stay at homes do not.
So, to a degree, however informal and loosely tied to the rules it may be, the bureaucrats who give us so much trouble also give us a certain amount of cover when it comes to deciding whether Rock X can actually be done using the proposal of Group Y. We can and should make our own call in regards to funding of these things. But we also know that much of the really crazy, high risk stuff is never going to get out of the gate, in the end. The authorities just won't allow it for safety reasons, environmental reasons, or both.
It's not perfect. There was that guy with the ultra cheap plan for Bouvet. As I recall the proposal, he was going to hitch a ride on a boat passing Bouvet on its way to somewhere else, be totally abandoned for X weeks, and then get picked up by the boat on its way back. I thought it was a suicide mission and said so. But, it was damn cheap and some of us were tempted. Not enough, however, for him to secure enough actual funding, thank goodness. We hadn't see the last three expeditions yet when we all made that call on to fund it or not, but now that we have, I think most of us would agree that this goes beyond "not protecting adults" to "financing a suicide by expedition." Anyone who took a hard pass on that one has my thanks. So, there still are places that are perhaps a little too permissive. But, not many. Most now have some bureaucrat with a 'show me' attitude.
-
Activating Ellis Island, home of the Statue of Liberty, required paying for a National Park Service employee to act as a compliance officer for the operation.
It was activating in 2016 when the ARRL sponsored a year long National Parks on the Air operating event to help celebrate the 100th Anniversary of the National Park Service.
As I recall the operation was restricted to just a few hours.
-
Suicide mission?
There are a few guys we should encourage…
-
Its been interesting reading the comments and attitudes in here.
1) They are grown adults let them manage their own risk, yes, but does that mean when it goes belly up, that grown adults who are going to have to put their necks on the line can say, Nah, I aint goin to rescue them,
2) Thankfully there is a video of the experience, this shows just how risky it can be, no survival suit means
A fit person in these circumstances quickly loses the ability to make even basic movements to help keep themselves afloat. There have been many recorded cases of drowning in less than 10 minutes – long before the body core temperature has started to drop or the person is affected by hypothermia.
3) The Master of the vessel would ultimately be held responsible in the event of any inquiry. I remember one Master proclaiming whats the difference between God and being Master of a vessel? Well imn here and he aint. He was quite a character for sure, but he took all of us round the world a couple of times.
4) The saying there are old sailors (dxpeditoners) and brave sailors (dxpeditoners) just not many old brave sailors (dxpeditoners) is very true.
5) Should places be ruled to dangerous, well maybe, anywhere can be dangerous if a gung ho group attacks it, I wonder did they have a search and rescue plan, just in case some or the whole dingy full got into strife? Did they have enough capable seafarers to handle any serious mishap.
This discussion needs to be had, the last we need is headlines, about fatalities/strandings and the like.
Dont berate the writer of the message, consider what information the message brings, you may not want to agree with it, but at least understand it.
Disclaimer: I didnt work them, we were moving house.
I have spent a good few years at sea, both as a fisherman, large cargo vessels, small chemical tanker.
Have I ever thought this is it, yes, when the Master got all nonimmediate operational crew into the back of the wheelhouse wearing life
jackets whilst we entered a port during a severe storm with limited steerage due to rudder getting ready to fall off, (brand new ship) that
was freaky.
-
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
Because usually, where there are idiots involved in remote & hazardous locations, some government somewhere or other has to mount a multi-million dollar rescue mission to go pull them out and rescuers have to put their own lives at a completely avoidable risk to do so. If that ain't an idiot being selfish, dunno what is.
-
This now qualifies for the dumbest eHam Thread, ever.
Even worse than the Ten-Tec and 10kW 6 Meter Amp threads(s).
IBTL
"UNNOTIFY" and "IGNORE" even more stupid threads & idiots. Good grief - you NIL's have lost your mind. First you QRM DXpeditions, now you QRM eHam.
Get a life.
NØUN
-
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.
Here is one who won an award trying to go there:
https://darwinawards.com/darwin/darwin2018-13.html
Maybe YASME will have better luck.
-
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.
That's not the point and not how these things work - in the case of Bouvet Island, South Africa is responsible under international maritime law for SAR in the sector of the South Atlantic where Bouvet Island is located and would have been obliged to send their Agulhas II Antarctic supply vessel to mount a rescue mission. Why should South Africans be expected to risk their lives to go rescue a bunch of rich-kid Americans & Norwegians who found themselves out of their league and out of their depths in the South Atlantic? Did 3YØJ carry indemnity insurance to pay the huge cost of such an eventuality? If not, they might have found themselves bankrupt when the South African Govt. presented them the bill.
-
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.
Here is one who won an award trying to go there:
https://darwinawards.com/darwin/darwin2018-13.html
Maybe YASME will have better luck.
Every once and awhile someone Quotes this guy and I remember why I have him on ignore!
So his idea is that the Indian Government should go over there and shoot and kill the Tribal people that own the island and whip them into submission!
Good God I though that kind of thinking died out 100 years ago.
Yes lets kill the Natives, maybe we can use the surviving one's as slave labor to help build the an expensive 5 Star Hotel over their bulldozed Village.
Here is an idea, why don't we just leave them alone like they have been for hundreds of years. Maybe they have had past experiences with diseases and know that foreigners bring in all sorts of diseases that can kill them.
Maybe they have immunity to a disease that would be deadly to the rest of us. Lets not screw with them, because by now we have learned how badly that ends.
-
Why should South Africans be expected to risk their lives to go rescue a bunch of rich-kid Americans & Norwegians who found themselves out of their league and out of their depths in the South Atlantic
I don't know. Maybe South Africa should take it up with Norway. The permissions, or lack of same, come from Norway. The "rich kids" are just playing by the rules as they are set up.
And, we've had three expeditions with pretty decent dollars (at least by ham radio standards) all with varying degrees of success.
This one actually came off better than the first two. It was the first two (with varying degree of "broken boat") that actually were farther in over their heads and actually came closer to needing some kind of rescue.
I don't know why you are singling out the most recent group when, by your professed standards, the other two recent tries deserves at least as much condemnation.
I don't recall you speaking up back then and I don't understand why you aren't talking about it now. It seems the real critique isn't "after the fact" as you are portraying it.
The better case, by your own professed lights, is exactly what I am suggesting -- changing the rules to rule this sort of thing out of bounds altogether. On grounds that we, as a group, really cannot fund and vet these things adequately, at least not by your lights. And, maybe you can persuade enough of us to agree. This would be so even though most expeditions do come off. Maybe (you presumably would argue) we've just been lucky. If so, we've been lucky for at least 30 years now.
And, I don't see how some of these risks don't happen even at relatively nicer places. If the boat to Baker broke down badly enough -- or if the Braveheart would have broken down to a dozen different places badly enough -- the rescue you are now talking about probably has to happen for those, too, and none of that sort of thing is cheap. Cheaper, maybe, than Bouvet waters, but not free.
Any place with a big, private charter boat requirement is a big deal if we take your argument seriously. That's a lot of places, including some that nobody regards as nearly so difficult as Bouvet.
Still, maybe we need all of these groups to have some sort of indemnification. Or, we let the operators (already spending big bucks) take on the bankruptcy risk.
But it seems like after-the-fact judgements really aren't responsive to what you are talking about. What ought to be the discussion is whether we really can do these things. We do not, as a group, have an unlimited budget. If a more realistic plan, with adequate safety margins, takes 2 million bucks to activate a Bouvet or Peter I, then we probably should admit we can't do these and take them off the list.
But, limited as it was, 3Y0J actually happened, nobody died or even went to hospital. It is, by any standard, a limited success. It's a strange one to carp about after the very bad turns (that could have been much worse) that preceded it.
-
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.
Seems that news of 3YØJ's dismal safety performance travels quickly on the diplomatic grapevine: According to my very reliable contact in the Govt. of South Georgia & South Sandwich Islands in Stanley, Falkland Islands, amateur radio licences for these two locations will now longer be issued and any DXpedition that might be in the pipeline to VPØ, VP8/g & VP8/s will no longer be approved. Australian, French and New Zealanders will probably go the same way, if not already done so Tusen takk, folkens! >:( :-[
-
So his idea is that the Indian Government should go over there and shoot and kill the Tribal people that own the island and whip them into submission!
Someone should tell him to adjust his humor/sarcasm meter. It is simply a fact that this tribe is being left alone (something very unusual). It is also a simple historic fact that most indigenous people have been whipped into submission. That is the historic norm. I didn't think I had to say it was commendable that the Indian government has not. In fact, it is about the only such case I know about. The rest were "whipped", starting with Columbus.
Sheesh.
-
Seems that news of 3YØJ's dismal safety performance travels quickly on the diplomatic grapevine: According to my very reliable contact in the Govt. of South Georgia & South Sandwich Islands in Stanley, Falkland Islands, amateur radio licences for these two locations will now longer be issued and any DXpedition that might be in the pipeline to VPØ, VP8/g & VP8/s will no longer be approved. Australian, French and New Zealanders will probably go the same way, if not already done so Tusen takk, folkens!
I would very much like to see a public confirmation of this.
The world hasn't worked like this for the whole 30 years I have been a ham. If these guys going ashore as they did has made this big change, in spite of nothing actually going wrong, it deserves to become better than what amounts to a rumor. And, it needs some amount of airing out.
When will your well-placed friend (or his boss) make the public announcement? We do deserve to know.
-
According to my very reliable contact in the Govt. of South Georgia & South Sandwich Islands in Stanley, Falkland Islands, amateur radio licences for these two locations will now longer be issued and any DXpedition that might be in the pipeline to VPØ, VP8/g & VP8/s will no longer be approved.
Unless they make a large enough campaign contribution to the PM of the UK.
BTW, who is Prime Minister this week?
-
Why should South Africans be expected to risk their lives to go rescue a bunch of rich-kid Americans & Norwegians who found themselves out of their league and out of their depths in the South Atlantic
I don't know. Maybe South Africa should take it up with Norway. The permissions, or lack of same, come from Norway. The "rich kids" are just playing by the rules as they are set up.
And, we've had three expeditions with pretty decent dollars (at least by ham radio standards) all with varying degrees of success.
This one actually came off better than the first two. It was the first two (with varying degree of "broken boat") that actually were farther in over their heads and actually came closer to needing some kind of rescue.
I don't know why you are singling out the most recent group when, by your professed standards, the other two recent tries deserves at least as much condemnation.
I don't recall you speaking up back then and I don't understand why you aren't talking about it now. It seems the real critique isn't "after the fact" as you are portraying it.
Larry: I did think seriously about raising the matter of Bouvet Island and remote / hazardous DXpedition safety at the time of the 3YØZ, then 3YØI force majeure aborted attempts. However in the end I decided not to do so. Mainly because I was reluctant to bruise any egos that were bruised enough already, ruffle any DX peacock feathers or raise my head above the parapet and face a torrent of abuse from the 'Acolyte Army', with an occasional sensible comment thrown in by the cooler and more rational heads within our hobby.
However, this time round, when I saw photos of guys posing for selfies under unstable ice-cliff, floundering around on the beach and in the surf wearing clumsy immersion suits instead of full boating dry suits & lifejacket I thought 'enough is enough already - it's time to bite the bullet and speak out'. If some people don't like the taste of truth, well they're of course welcome to spit it out - but the aftertaste is still gonna be there. Better to accept justified criticism and learn something from it.
From the huge pile of supportive emails in my Inbox the last 48 hours, seems like the vast majority of the DX Community around the world (including VE, LA, DK, F etc.) are on my side and glad someone finally had the guts to point to the Three Hundred Pound Gorilla in the Room.
Only protests of disbelief that someone would dare have the temerity to question the ARRL's wisdom and its holy scripture 'The DXCC Rules' are coming from the USA; that beacon of liberty, 'Land of the Free' and 'Land of the Right of Individuals to Do Incredibly Stupid Things'. For example: carry a gun into McDonalds (as long as it's not concealed, of course!), go hunt big game in Africa and shoot zebras for fun, go to Bouvet Island and get yourself marooned there, crushed by collapsing ice cliff or commit hari-kiri in the surf wearing your waders etc. etc. etc.
-
Seems that news of 3YØJ's dismal safety performance travels quickly on the diplomatic grapevine: According to my very reliable contact in the Govt. of South Georgia & South Sandwich Islands in Stanley, Falkland Islands, amateur radio licences for these two locations will now longer be issued and any DXpedition that might be in the pipeline to VPØ, VP8/g & VP8/s will no longer be approved. Australian, French and New Zealanders will probably go the same way, if not already done so Tusen takk, folkens!
I would very much like to see a public confirmation of this.
The world hasn't worked like this for the whole 30 years I have been a ham. If these guys going ashore as they did has made this big change, in spite of nothing actually going wrong, it deserves to become better than what amounts to a rumor. And, it needs some amount of airing out.
When will your well-placed friend (or his boss) make the public announcement? We do deserve to know.
Go ask 'em yourself Larry: https://www.gov.gs/information/contactus/
Note that since June 2017, the VP8 prefix applied strictly to the Falkland Islands only and the Falklands Post Office stopped issuing licenses for the old Falkland Islands Dependencies (FIDs). Later that year, after persistent lobbying by myself and others, Ofcom (UK version of FCC) finally authorized the use of the new prefix VPØ for amateur licences in the former FIDs, now the two separate British overseas territories of 'South Georgia & South Sandwich Islands' (VP8/g & VP8/s) and 'British Antarctic Territory' (VP8/a, VP8/o & VP8/h). However neither territory has bothered to enact or promulgate the VPØ prefix or issue licences. They still won't even convert my existing VP8PJ/a,g,h,o,s licence to VPØPJ/a,g,h,o,s after three years of me repeatedly knocking on their door. However, I do have a ruling from Ofcom in the UK stating that VP8PJ is still valid for use in the former FIDs (VP8/a,g,h,o,s) so that will have to do for now.
Anyone considering organizing a DX trip to VP8/a,g,h,o or VP8 South Sandwich Islands, my advice is don't waste any of your time or $$$, 'cos after those four 3YØJ guys got themselves marooned on Bouvet for four days and three nights without adequate food & shelter, it definitely ain't gonna happen no more! My contacts at one of my former employers, the Australian Antarctic Division (AAD) in Hobart, Tasmania are now saying the same thing about VKØ/h&m i.e. Heard & McDonald Islands absolutely no chance and any future Macquarie Island amateur activity will be limited to AAD personnel stationed there (as is already the case with VK9/w Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) weather station on Willis Island). Judging by the deliberate bureaucratic obstacles Thierry FT8WW has been faced with recently, looks like the French authorities are following a similar, if not identical, path.
I don't like it any more than any of you DX chasers out there do, but that's the way it is.
-
According to my very reliable contact in the Govt. of South Georgia & South Sandwich Islands in Stanley, Falkland Islands, amateur radio licences for these two locations will now longer be issued and any DXpedition that might be in the pipeline to VPØ, VP8/g & VP8/s will no longer be approved.
Unless they make a large enough campaign contribution to the PM of the UK.
BTW, who is Prime Minister this week?
No idea - I'm Australian.
-
Seems that news of 3YØJ's dismal safety performance travels quickly on the diplomatic grapevine: According to my very reliable contact in the Govt. of South Georgia & South Sandwich Islands in Stanley, Falkland Islands, amateur radio licences for these two locations will now longer be issued and any DXpedition that might be in the pipeline to VPØ, VP8/g & VP8/s will no longer be approved.
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. :)
-
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. :)
Что за..??? Виктор, прочитайте еще раз мое открытое письмо - я не пытаюсь разорить радиолюбительство в Антарктиде!! Я просто говорю, что правительства закроют его, если некоторые невежественные операторы будут игнорировать безопасные операции. Я просто посланник, а не сообщение.
What the? Victor, read my open letter letter again carefully - I'm not trying to ruin amateur radio in Antarctica!! I'm just pointing out that governments will shut it down if some ignorant operators continue to ignore safety.
-
And all because VK6CQ (or any of your other calls) didn't get in the log.
As has been said if this expedition hadn't posted video's, photo's or any other updates on social media this conversation would not be happening. If they had pulled off the planned activation and done what they had planned to do this conversation would not be happening.
And if the ARRL do revoke the 3Y0J accreditation then they need to do it for BS7H, all the 1S activations, 3Y0X, and the other numerous activations of any "dangerous DXCC". Oh and with that all your activations from down there also need revoking.
If you Mr VK6CQ had the intentions of closing down all activations to the South Atlantic - which it seems you may have because of your selfish "I am not in log" attitude then well done for killing off DXing around the world, simply because no one will go anywhere just because of your selfish attitude.
As for the international rescue (and I don't mean Thunderbirds), that could have been triggered by any number of Expeditions, not just amateur radio, but exploration by scientists and the many hundreds of Antarctic Cruises. What if a British Antarctic Survey boat had a major engine failure, or even an Australian Antarctic Survey boat of which you know everything about, and there was a major operation would you be saying "they didn't follow safety rules so should be charged by the country for all the costs"?
As I opened this "rant" it is all because you didn't get in the log - neither did I.
Chris Colclough
G1VDP
P.S. Not just this open letter, but all the other selfish attitudes surrounding this DXpedition by people who didn't make the log have killed Amateur Radio for me. All the QRMers, all the constant callers, all the armchair DXers making comments, and all the p**cks (like VK6CQ). My kit will be up for sale and G1VDP will not be heard in any pile ups on any mode.
-
And all because VK6CQ (or any of your other calls) didn't get in the log.
As has been said if this expedition hadn't posted video's, photo's or any other updates on social media this conversation would not be happening. If they had pulled off the planned activation and done what they had planned to do this conversation would not be happening.
And if the ARRL do revoke the 3Y0J accreditation then they need to do it for BS7H, all the 1S activations, 3Y0X, and the other numerous activations of any "dangerous DXCC". Oh and with that all your activations from down there also need revoking.
If you Mr VK6CQ had the intentions of closing down all activations to the South Atlantic - which it seems you may have because of your selfish "I am not in log" attitude then well done for killing off DXing around the world, simply because no one will go anywhere just because of your selfish attitude.
As for the international rescue (and I don't mean Thunderbirds), that could have been triggered by any number of Expeditions, not just amateur radio, but exploration by scientists and the many hundreds of Antarctic Cruises. What if a British Antarctic Survey boat had a major engine failure, or even an Australian Antarctic Survey boat of which you know everything about, and there was a major operation would you be saying "they didn't follow safety rules so should be charged by the country for all the costs"?
As I opened this "rant" it is all because you didn't get in the log - neither did I.
Chris Colclough
G1VDP
P.S. Not just this open letter, but all the other selfish attitudes surrounding this DXpedition by people who didn't make the log have killed Amateur Radio for me. All the QRMers, all the constant callers, all the armchair DXers making comments, and all the p**cks (like VK6CQ). My kit will be up for sale and G1VDP will not be heard in any pile ups on any mode.
Chris: OUCH!! I sense a lot of hurt, anger and frustration in there. Why spend time checking the 3YØJ on-line log to see if VK6CQ or any of my other callsigns are 'in the log' unless you'd taken an instant dislike to me or what I was saying and were looking for a reason to justify or bolster that dislike?
You're barking up the wrong tree because your rant is full of misconceptions about me from the word go. I'd prefer not to bore this forum's readership by stating the bleedin' obvious yet again, so will address and put you straight on each of the points you have raised by separate email.
I wouldn't want you to abandon the hobby on my account and who knows, once you actually understand where I'm coming from, you might even apologize for calling me a p**ck ! ;)
One point I will make clear right here and now though: Whatever gave you the idea that I'd be upset, envious, sour grapes or whatever because I'm 'not in the log'? That's merely an assumption on your part. I've never been interested in collecting QSL cards or chasing DXCC and I really couldn't give a monkey's if I'm 'in' or 'not in' the 3YØJ log or anyone else's log for that matter. There's more to Amateur Radio than DXCC and QSL cards, you know.
In the meantime, go take a chill pill and keep a lookout for my email sometime over the weekend.
-
What the? Victor, read my open letter letter again carefully - I'm not trying to ruin amateur radio in Antarctica!! I'm just pointing out that governments will shut it down if some ignorant operators continue to ignore safety.
There was no need to translate this to Russian, I speak English fluently.
United bureaucrats and green terrorists will be happy to make more obstacles for Hams world wide and your "open letter" is a perfect instrument for this. If you would have worried about the fate of Ham Radio, the personal letter to 3Y0J DXPedition leaders will serve the purpose.
But you decided to feed the anti-hamradio trolls.
The difficulties of 3Y0J were extensively discussed among the Russian Arctic DXpeditioners but
none of them could ever imagine to write the public condemnation of either 3Y0J team or Marama crew as YOU did.
Personally I am immensely glad that there are still brave people of European nationality who, like their ancestors, are not afraid to take risks in order to achieve their goal.
-
< 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Boils down to risk “nothing, gain nothing “ in the end.
Why do bureaucrats have to bless such things?
-
Why do bureaucrats have to bless such things?
1. Because there are plenty of people who, left to their own devices, would shoot the last spotted owl. We are in the middle of one of the great extinction events the planet has ever seen. Caused not by natural means but by human activity. Many people are in denial about this to varying degrees. So, a few hardy souls have blocked off a few of the less valuable bits of land and said "but not here." Well, a lot of places we want to go are on those less valuable bits of land. So, we have to persuade them, the inevitable bureaucrats that get put in charge of such things, that we aren't going to, in effect, accidentally shoot the last spotted owl while playing radio.
2. Because, as has been pointed out, in the modern age, busted adventures are not necessarily left to die or at least rescue themselves as they often did in earlier ages. Someone is responsible for a given patch of ocean and they tend to be called out when people get into trouble. Those things aren't free and it just might be that some bureaucrats may want to vet some of the operations that may cause such things to take place. I'm not the expert here and it seems a bit rough-and-ready as to how and when these things are actually activated. Certainly, no one was called in for the first two Bouvet operations or even this one. But that they can be activated is simply a matter of watching the news and seeing these things happen from time to time. Some authorities in charge of dangerous places could easily start asking questions of groups like ours. If they do not do so already.
There are probably other reasons, but those are two of them.
This isn't 1843 anymore.
-
One point I will make clear right here and now though: Whatever gave you the idea that I'd be upset, envious, sour grapes or whatever because I'm 'not in the log'? That's merely an assumption on your part. I've never been interested in collecting QSL cards or chasing DXCC and I really couldn't give a monkey's if I'm 'in' or 'not in' the 3YØJ log or anyone else's log for that matter. There's more to Amateur Radio than DXCC and QSL cards, you know.
If anyone cares to check ARRL DXCC Standings (https://www.arrl.org/dxcc-standings), you'll see that VK6CQ is no where to be found. Some hams in Australia don't submit to the ARRL for credits, but submit to the WIA DXCC Standings (https://www.wiaawards.com/view/DXCCStandings.php). Can't find him there either. So when he says he doesn't give a monkey's or a ratsass about QSL cards or DXCC, I believe him. For anyone to say he sent this open letter out of spite for not making it into 3Y0J's log is pure speculation and without merit.
Some of us play this DXCC game, and some don't. Can't say I blame anyone who doesn't need some radio club to bless their QSOs after you submit them, oh yeah, and fill out a form and send them some $$$$$$. I got sucked into this game in the mid 90s, and I've spent enough on postage both ways, plus ARRL fees, to buy a better station.
That being said, l agree with VK6CQ's concerns about safety, proper protocols, and that regulations should be adhered to in the Antarctic regions. An open letter for the whole world to see doesn't seem appropriate. Seems that a letter to the 3Y0J team and the authorities in Norway who OKed this trip would have better served the purpose. But maybe he tried this, or just didn't believe it would influence how future operations to Antarctica would be conducted in future DXpeditions.
I didn't make it into the 3Y0J log either, simply because propagation failed in my area. Saw them on the board a few times, and that was it. No big deal, already had Bouvet confirmed. Just wanted one more band, and would have stopped at that because of the "requests" I saw about not working them again, but none of that matters now. No sour grapes here, I never criticized the crew, and I believe their operation will be approved by DXCC. I see no reason for it not to be approved and hope it is. I've lost credits before, and know the feeling. I've had one operation purged from my credits, and lost 31 Challenge points because of deletions. So I understand the frustration. The very thought that someone wants to undo someone's ATNO will send the DX community into a frenzy. Just relax, let's wait for the final outcome from ARRL, which will likely be positive.
-
l agree with VK6CQ's concerns about safety, proper protocols, and that regulations should be adhered to in the Antarctic regions. An open letter for the whole world to see doesn't seem appropriate.
That's exactly it. Expressing his opinion is fine but he expressed it by dropping a load in the punchbowl, and that's quite the opposite of fine.
-
What the? Victor, read my open letter letter again carefully - I'm not trying to ruin amateur radio in Antarctica!! I'm just pointing out that governments will shut it down if some ignorant operators continue to ignore safety.
There was no need to translate this to Russian, I speak English fluently.
United bureaucrats and green terrorists will be happy to make more obstacles for Hams world wide and your "open letter" is a perfect instrument for this. If you would have worried about the fate of Ham Radio, the personal letter to 3Y0J DXPedition leaders will serve the purpose.
But you decided to feed the anti-hamradio trolls.
The difficulties of 3Y0J were extensively discussed among the Russian Arctic DXpeditioners but
none of them could ever imagine to write the public condemnation of either 3Y0J team or Marama crew as YOU did.
Personally I am immensely glad that there are still brave people of European nationality who, like their ancestors, are not afraid to take risks in order to achieve their goal.
Виктор, я просто практиковал свой русский язык, который выучил в старшей школе много лет назад, но сейчас у меня не так много возможностей его использовать, вот и все. Я не имел в виду какое-то оскорбительное обвинение в том, что ты не умный парень и не можешь бегло говорить по-английски.
Personally, I am immensely glad that all these guys made it back home alive, because some of them very nearly didn't. There is a big difference between bravery and bravado. Kind Regards and 73, Alan VK6CQ VKØLD VP8PJ
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
I believe my concerns regarding Antarctic & sub-Antarctic DXpedition safety are now sufficiently out there in the public domain for the 'powers that be' to take notice and take action, so I will not be posting any further comments regarding the matter on eHam.net DX forum. Anyone wanting to ask any further sensible questions is free to contact me at: vk0ld@yahoo.com
73 to all, Alan VK6CQ / VKØLD
-
Wow, that was a lot of drama..............Who is going to be the first one to poke the bear trying to get VK6CQ to come out of hibernation? :)
(https://i.ibb.co/pwr3rVB/Capture.jpg) (https://imgbb.com/)
-
Wow, that was a lot of drama..............Who is going to be the first one to poke the bear trying to get VK6CQ to come out of hibernation? :)
Tom, if you were in hibernation... would we have to tip the cow instead of poke the bear? Asking for a friend.. ;D
-
The ARRL offers 100 bonus points for Class A Field Day Stations that have a Safety Officer.
-
I will say that I think the ARRL has no place in judging the safety of amateur radio operations.
They do not have anyone who has the expertise to make these kinds of judgments.
I am sure that they would not like the legal implications of being in this position.
They are a publishing house and radio club among other things.
I don't like the thought of people who were not there, but who have seen some video or read some stories on the internet making after the fact criticisms. Perhaps there are some who are qualified, but I am not convinced. I think that the people who were actually there have their own ideas about what was good and what was not so good about their operation.
This reminds me of a picture I have in my head about the Explorers Club in it's heyday. A lot of gents sitting with a whisky in hand intoning... Bad Form I say. Very Bad Form... Kibitzing about some expedition to the ends of the globe that did something that was not tradition.
-
Bottom line is, people should be allowed to place themselves at risk - even in danger, if they chose.
We all take risks, some calculated better than others. Just a few of mine within the last year:
Getting behind the wheel of an automobile;
Crossing a busy highway intersection;
Downhill skiing on a slope beyond my skill level;
Walking alone in New York City's Central Park;
Walking alone at night to get to Chicago's Greektown on Halstead Avenue;
Neglecting to take my glaucoma medication;
Getting near a 12 ft Alligator at my Okefenokee Swamp remote site.
Some of those decisions were more reckless than a Bouvet landing.
No, I didn't work them.
I did work them.
Paul, W9AC
-
“Mountains are only a problem when they are bigger than you. You should develop yourself so much that you become bigger than the mountains you face.”
Man would not have landed on moon if man looked for excuses to give up!
-
Bottom line is, people should be allowed to place themselves at risk - even in danger, if they chose.
I can't agree with this attitude. I agree adults should be adults, we agree that far, but that's not really the discussion here.
We are not innocent bystanders. The risks they took were taken because of arbitrary rules we all agreed to follow. And which we, the stay at homes, insist upon. If we wanted a different DXCC, and organized ourselves adequately, we could get it. Based on any grounds whatever.
So, we dangle the risks and rewards out there for others to take. There are plenty of Godforsaken Rocks that nobody goes to because, for whatever arcane reason, they don't count separately and there are much safer options. DXpeditioners are not intrinsically motivated by risk. When was the last time Everest or K2 was activated for SOTA?
We have already, as I have pointed out, long special cased Western Sahara and Spratley. I don't know if they quite qualify without that special, explicit permission. In any case, we specifically included them.
Well, we could specifically exclude entities as well. There's nothing magic about the list we have. "The rules" have been changed many times. Maybe it's past time to consider whether we want to get practical about safety. . .or at least expense.
We, collectively, have a finite budget for DXing and DXpeditions. We particularly have a limited budget for big time expeditions like Bouvet. One, maybe two a year. Tops.
I know there's a lot of people out there that, because it's a hobby, resist thinking about this stuff.
But, we just spent something like 2.5 million dollars over three expeditions to get 20,000 QSOs out of Bouvet. Some of us contributed up-front, many of us did not. But, the ones that contribute up front are the ones that make these expeditions possible. The boat is paid for before it leaves the dock, among other things paid up front.
The DXpeditioners themselves put up a big fraction (40, 50 per cent of the budget), but we, individually and through foundations, put up the rest. Whether you contribute or not that is financial reality. The budget just isn't unlimited.
And, despite big individual budgets, it is not clear to me, anymore, that we are spending enough to actually reliably pull these things off. Costs keep rising, too. It wasn't that long ago that 350K US could activate anything. Not anymore. Million dollar expeditions are becoming commonplace. And, as we've seen, these are not gold plated exercises. 3Y0J barely happened. The other two got us zero Qs.
Do we want to keep hitting our head against the wall for some of these places? We could have had four, five, six activations to some still very rare but still difficult places for that kind of money.
Maybe the program is healthier in all respects if we look at some of these places and make the practical decision that we just don't have the wherewithal to activate them safely and for a price we really want to pay.
-
Man would not have landed on moon if man looked for excuses to give up!
"Man" also had an effectively unlimited budget and shut the program down cold when Apollo One caught fire. The redesigned the command module and lunar lander because of it. Think we are up for anything remotely equivalent?
The Soviets had no prayer of getting to the moon. How do I know? There was a remarkable interview Nova did after the Soviet collapse with all the top surviving Russian management (they were still alive then).
The head of it all was asked, point blank, whether they could catch up with the US.
"Nyet" I heard, firmly and definitely, before the translator began translating the rest of the answer. He then detailed exactly how badly they were being outspent and how many corners they were cutting. They were under enormous pressure to succeed, but they just didn't have the horses.
It takes more than will to do these things and even more will to do them without excessive risk. In fact, I gathered from that interview that sometimes taking risks means you haven't really got it. Not reliably. "Luck" is not a program.
The first man in space, Yuri Gagarin, died trying to operate the Soviet would-be lunar lander. That was one we didn't find out about until this same program.
-
Sour grapes are on the menus for hams who did not work 3Y0J? ;)
DXpeditioners decide what is "safe" for themselves, like all adults should.
Scaredy-cats best stay at home, safely behind their keyboards, microphones and keys.
-
Scaredy-cats best stay at home, safely behind their keyboards, microphones and keys.
How bravely you cheer on the risks that other people take based on rules you assent to.
I'd bet some here would make the very same posts even if a requirement for activating certain DXCCs, right in our rule book, required them to walk a half mile over hot coals. "They are adults, they can take whatever risks they want." That would be the inevitable posts.
At some point, we certainly must let adults take risks. But we should also stop this eternal pretending that the number and degree of these risks are something we stay at homes have nothing to do with.
We have everything to do with it.
-
Scaredy-cats best stay at home, safely behind their keyboards, microphones and keys.
How bravely you cheer on the risks that other people take based on rules you assent to.
...
I'd bet some here would make the very same posts even if a requirement for activating certain DXCCs, right in our rule book, required them to walk a half mile over hot coals. "They are adults, they can take whatever risks they want." That would be the inevitable posts.
If that was the requirement and there was no nanny to tell them no, then it is up to the DXpeditioners to make the call. Nobody else. Period. There would have been no Shackelton, no Hillary, and many other famous explorers if today's pearl-clutchers had held sway back in the day when men weren't afraid to do dangerous things.
-
If that was the requirement and there was no nanny to tell them no, then it is up to the DXpeditioners to make the call. Nobody else. Period. There would have been no Shackelton, no Hillary, and many other famous explorers if today's pearl-clutchers had held sway back in the day when men weren't afraid to do dangerous things.
Shacketon and Hillary were doing stuff with intrinsic value. Real life explorations of this world.
They were not doing it to satisfy the arbitrary rule set for an arcane hobby. It is silly, frankly, to compare the two.
I have not objected to DXpeditioners taking these risks. I have objected to the idea that we pretend we are magically exempt from establishing the risks they do take and have no responsibility for them as they are.
It is their call whether to go or not. Never said otherwise. But, I do say that it is our call whether there is any reason to go in the first place. It isn't "pearl clutching". It's owning up to our part of this.
We should not, in any sense, pretend we are bystanders. Too many of these posts do so, implicitly or otherwise.
"How risky this is" is not really set by the DXpeditioners. We set those risks and we do it with a rule set blessed by nothing save history and our own ornery sense that it's always 1959 and nothing has changed. It may even be, in some cases, that we have no empathy and don't give a damn about what risks people take for an arbitrary game.
There is a regular research team on Bouvet, supported by the Norwegian government. It's not like there's this wonderful value to science and humanity for a DXpedition to go to Bouvet. It's literally just to play radio for us.
If some future group dies activating some of these places, because it is inherently risky, or the risk has gone up for some reason, then we all bear a certain amount of responsibility because there is zero value to Bouvet or Peter I for radio amateurs unless we have a rule set that makes it valuable. Well, what we make, we can unmake.
-
For those who were around then, what was DXing like in the 50s and 60s? I get the impression that DXers were much less concerned with ultimate count and DXpeditions to every entity. It was more of a, I will work what is on the air, kind of mindset. Maybe it was less competitive back then, or without the internet it was harder to keep score and always discuss such things.
I know we didn't have mega-DXpeditions back then.
73 John AF5CC
-
I wasn't there, but I believe part of it was that some of the harder places hadn't been activated yet.
We had people like Don Miller and the Colvins basically dropping anchor somewhere and operating.
Environmental restrictions didn't exist. There are tales of activating places like Navassa or Deschero with a rickety rope ladder long used by casual expeditioners and the locals for their beer busts. As far as I know, those tales are true.
A lot of what we take for granted was all added along the way -- CW Honor Roll, DXCC Challenge, etc. was all added as the years went by (and when computers made it practical to have a complex tracking of all of these achievements). I have no idea when all of these were added, but I do know that they were, over time.
Before the Don Miller scandal (the guy who did things like invent split operation but then got lazy and didn't operate from all the places he said he did), "the rules" were a lot fewer and simpler. Nobody had to document anything back then.
KY6R produced (or promoted?) this great chart that lays it all out. For a lot of reasons, including "nobody went there yet" the list" was a lot smaller for a lot of years.
It was also, as some reminiscence I once read said, the age of the traffic handler and the brass pounder. DXing was not so dominant as an activity then.
Here's that chart in PDF form:
http://ebarc.org/pdf/dx-entity-history.pdf . . . and it includes some of the award additions as well as estimates of how big the Honor Roll was at various times.
One important date not on that chart was the creation of DXCC Challenge in the year 2000 or so.
I remember when I was starting out in the late '80s, it was still possible and popular to buy radios that did not have WARC band capabilities. My first two or three HF rigs didn't have it.
Until the Challenge really took off (some were more or less working it since before it was a real program), WARC stuff was definitely optional and I remember DXpeditions as recently as the late '80s not doing very much with WARC bands. There wasn't a lot of point, yet.
Of course, by the late '80s and early '90s, DXpedtioners had figured out how to activate places like Bouvet. In fact, they seemed to be perhaps a little better at it than we now are and the lack of environmental pooh bahs (not the big factor it now is) probably didn't hurt.
-
For those who were around then, what was DXing like in the 50s and 60s?
73 John AF5CC
A great read describing the activities of one of the great DX activators of the day, can be found: https://www.yasme.org/dw1/
I certainly wasn't a ham then, but I have a large stash of CQ magazines from those days and the accounts of his travels are fantastic to read.
Unlike today, where there's much hand-wringing about helicopters and OSHA, Weil traveled solo on a relatively small (and rickety) boat around the south pacific activating rare spots. Almost all the voyages were eventful and the story is a great read.
There's a download link for the whole book about YASME which I really recommend. I purchased the paper copy and it's a great retrospective describing all the early efforts in DXpeditioning
John K5MO
-
K5MO, that's a great resource.
It links to this:
https://www.yasme.org/award-call-signs/
. . .which appears to be any call sign (some common, some rare) that were ever linked to YASME in any way (past and present).
I did note VP8SSI in there (a fairly recent operation). That one was a big time operation to a difficult, dangerous place. Lots more stuff that was no doubt quite rare in the day, but also I did not see a lot of Bouvet or Peter I type operations. Call signs, farther back, did often have different prefixes than they do today, so I might have overlooked something. And, I didn't exhaustively read it. Maybe someone else can point out others. It would not be a lot and the dates would matter for this discussion also.
But, the call list kind of matches the stories I have been told over the years of those bygone days.
DXing just wasn't as big way back then as it is now. DXpeditions were simple affairs, not expensive, and didn't really have more than a handful of ops. The big 8 to 20 team activation does not appear to be what most of the activations on that list were. In fact, the majority was done by a handful of operators, including OH2BH, but also the Colvins.
A lot of warm water South Pacific stuff, so it's safe to say that "safety" wasn't a big discussion other than the ordinary hazards of operating a sailboat.
As we expanded the DXCC list, and expanded the list of the possible, things got more dangerous than they did in those early days. DXing, way back then, simply didn't have the budget it does now and just couldn't really go to such places I imagine. I have no idea when Northern Cal DX got big, but until it did, there was no way for a DXpeditioner to raise large sums of money or even apply to it from the foundations, which took a while to get to where they are today.
It all grew organically as far as I was ever told and the call sign list, and the dates, reinforce all those old stories I was told.
There was a day, whole decades probably, where "danger" as we have been discussing it, just wasn't a factor yet.
It has been a factor since at least the 1990s and following, though.
-
It's a great book to download as a PDF and covers the Colvin's expeditions as well (those I vaguely remember. Weil was before my time).
DW's expeditions were dangerous from the jump. He sailed solo in a leaky old boat and faced the effects of typhoons without much of anything in the way of preparation. He was really a character, and was quite resourceful in staying alive over extended voyages.
In an age where there was no spotting networks, no daily updates to expedition status, folks had to tune, subscribe to weekly mailed DX newsletters and use telephone buddy systems to find DX. As a result, the total QSO counts were pretty low (and make Bouvet counts look huge). Equipment too, was not what it is today, though Weil had good stuff provided by Hallicrafters.
That book is likely the best resource on early DXing short of complete collections of early QST and CQ magazines (which I also have).
"Happy go lucky" really describes Weil's vagabonding around with a radio.
PS: Thanks for the link to the callsign list. I know I worked 3D2KG, back in the day but didn't realize it was a Colvin operation.
PPS: Which of the expeditions on the rocks in the pacific that had the platforms made of 2x4 which had the famous photo of a fisherman visitor on the platform with a filet knife in hand?
-
Of the many DXpeditions Jim undertook in the following years, the major one was the DXpedition to Heard Island in 1983, operating VKØJS with Kirsti operating VKØNL. Kirsti wrote the riviting book Heard Island Osyssey, an account of the Heard Island DXpedition and the harrowing experience of getting back from Heard Island on a ship that should never had left port.
http://www.heardisland.org/HD_team/HD_VK9NS.html
-
I've been looking for some time for a copy of Jims Book VK9NS. If someone has a copy, I'd gladly like to buy it and pay shipping.
Thanks,
Frank
kg6n
-
"Happy go lucky" really describes Weil's vagabonding around with a radio.
Gus Browning, W4BPD comes very close to fitting that description.
A discussion about '60s-era DXpenditions is incomplete without also bringing in Don Miller, W9WNV:
https://dokufunk.org/upload/dunphy.pdf (https://dokufunk.org/upload/dunphy.pdf)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ut1RAGMlFQ8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ut1RAGMlFQ8)
Paul, W9AC
-
The thing about reading Don Miller, is that it's not apparent what is real and what is not real.
It's hard to know where to draw the line.
-
An expansion of VK6CQ's proposal would be to ask governments everywhere to ban extreme sports, such as: Bungee jumping, cave diving, free climbing, hang gliding, wingsuit flying, parkour, mountaineering and skydiving, to name a few. All of these sports have reported multiple fatalities over the years. DXpeditions to remote uninhabited areas is less risky than some of those, but to those who believe risk-taking should be regulated or banned, it's risky enough.
There is a segment of the population who thrive on risk-taking and pushing personal limits. It's how they tick. Should the rest of us ban them from pursuing their goals? No. As long as they don't expose the rest of us to excessive risk, let them be. Let humans be humans.
-
As we expanded the DXCC list, and expanded the list of the possible, things got more dangerous than they did in those early days.
Weren't most of the dangerous already on the post-WW2 list? Or at least the list by the 60s? I think Bouvet, South Georgia, South Sandwich, Campbell, Marion Is, and most of the other Sub-Antarctica lands were on the list by the 60s. The only really dangerous recent edition, climate wise, has been Peter I.
Most recent editions have pretty nice climates: FO/A, FO/M, FK/C, 3D2/C, 3D2/R, VP6/D, and KH8S are all in the south pacific. Very nice temps for DXing. The new PJ entities have very nice weather. E3, Z8, BV9P and KP5 might be hard to get permission to operate from, but the weather rarely if ever gets below freezing there. E4, and most of the new EU countries are pretty similar to WX in the W1, 2, 8, 9, and 0 parts of the US.
BS7 has some nice temps but can be dangerous for other reasons. Now P5 can get pretty cold!!
73 John AF5CC
-
While not nearly as rare as those mentioned: KP2 is a great place to DX from as well.
--Shane
WP2ASS / ex KD6VXI
-
It’s dubious at best and downright wrong at worst to suggest it was easier, cheaper or l more safe in past decades. These people had to lug large equipment, larger generators and depend on sextants or LORAN where available just to find these places and do so with less than perfect weather prediction tools and rudimentary safety equipment.
And size is a relative thing - in the ‘60s for example, the set of DX’ers worldwide was substantially less than today making any comparison of qso totals a silly comparison.
It is arguably much easier today than ever before to activate remote islands. Romanticizing about how simple things were then is fun but rarely realistic.
-
In addition, the same big guns would call every night and these were not 59 and on to the next qso's. This is where Don Miller started making a list of operators jhe would not respond to. After repeatedly asking to work him once and then let others, they ignored his requests and so he ignored them until they complained to the league.
Say what you will about his later faults, but he was one of the best damn CW operators dx'ing ever had.
-
Don came back to the Visalia DX convention some years back and openly admitted to operating from the boat at ST Peter & Paul. He also proved to the K1N presentor that he had been on the island by discussing an attribute that is known only to those who have actually been on the island.
Frank
-
An expansion of VK6CQ's proposal would be to ask governments everywhere to ban extreme sports, such as: Bungee jumping, cave diving, free climbing, hang gliding, wingsuit flying, parkour, mountaineering and skydiving, to name a few. All of these sports have reported multiple fatalities over the years. DXpeditions to remote uninhabited areas is less risky than some of those, but to those who believe risk-taking should be regulated or banned, it's risky enough.
There is a segment of the population who thrive on risk-taking and pushing personal limits. It's how they tick. Should the rest of us ban them from pursuing their goals? No. As long as they don't expose the rest of us to excessive risk, let them be. Let humans be humans.
There's an excellent science fiction book by Stanislaw Lem "Return from the Stars" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Return_from_the_Stars describing the emotionless world without risk, violence and great deeds.
From that prospective it seems to me that VK6CQ wants to betrizate the DX community in general and DXPedition entрusiasts in particular.
-
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.
Why don't you take your virtue pompous virtue signaling and bullying and stuff it?? Jealous?? What a hateful SOB.
-
In addition, the same big guns would call every night and these were not 59 and on to the next qso's. This is where Don Miller started making a list of operators jhe would not respond to. After repeatedly asking to work him once and then let others, they ignored his requests and so he ignored them until they complained to the league.
Say what you will about his later faults, but he was one of the best damn CW operators dx'ing ever had.
Is this the same Don Miller who faked Numerous Dxpeditions and then had a Dxpedition where two of the Dxpedtioners died. He later sued the ARRL in court and then under cross examination admitted that he had never been to five of the entities including Bouvet! Later on he was convicted of conspiring to kill his wife and spent 22 years in jail. I am not even sure but it also seems he was running an underground museum filled with stolen artifacts and he also excavated some 500 Indian corpses and kept their bones in a cabinet in his house.
I would kind of say that those are more than Faults. It makes me wonder what really happened to those other ham operators that died.
Anyway lets get back to Bouvet as the Admin loves to lock threads.
-
In addition, the same big guns would call every night and these were not 59 and on to the next qso's. This is where Don Miller started making a list of operators jhe would not respond to. After repeatedly asking to work him once and then let others, they ignored his requests and so he ignored them until they complained to the league.
Say what you will about his later faults, but he was one of the best damn CW operators dx'ing ever had.
Not sure what you post is referencing, however, Miller was a good CW op but his real talent was in discriminating among a huge pileup at a fast rate. As to the reason he didn’t work some callers, this was a transparent attempt to manipulate the DXCC standings by not working the top guys and using the excuse that they were not following his directions. Obviously, they didn’t get to the top by being poor operators.
As to whether he was actually on/in the places he claimed to be, it’s not unlike operating a remote repeater on/in that entity while not actually being there. A difference with very little distinction.
-
In addition, the same big guns would call every night and these were not 59 and on to the next qso's. This is where Don Miller started making a list of operators jhe would not respond to. After repeatedly asking to work him once and then let others, they ignored his requests and so he ignored them until they complained to the league.
Say what you will about his later faults, but he was one of the best damn CW operators dx'ing ever had.
Not sure what you post is referencing, however, Miller was a good CW op but his real talent was in discriminating among a huge pileup at a fast rate. As to the reason he didn’t work some callers, this was a transparent attempt to manipulate the DXCC standings by not working the top guys and using the excuse that they were not following his directions. Obviously, they didn’t get to the top by being poor operators.
As to whether he was actually on/in the places he claimed to be, it’s not unlike operating a remote repeater on/in that entity while not actually being there. A difference with very little distinction.
(https://i.postimg.cc/xC70K49z/DMCC-1.jpg)
I actually met Don a few years ago in Dayton, when I was checking cards in the Hara. Same year I ran into Don Search.
Talk about polar opposites!
-
As to whether he was actually on/in the places he claimed to be, it’s not unlike operating a remote repeater on/in that entity while not actually being there. A difference with very little distinction.
Really? If I say the transmitter is in Aves but it is actually in Miami, that's the same as going through the considerable effort of getting the authorities to approve, put the station in Aves, and operating it remotely?
Do you know how ridiculous you sound right now?
Hate on remote operation if you like, but you must be young and green to argue this way. The hurt put in the program by Don Miller's lies about where he was is the biggest scar in the history of DXCC.
One reason LOTW is as paranoid as it is is precisely because of one Don Miller. Read any honest writeup of the Miller saga. There simply wasn't the worry about "is this guy legit" before him.
The only "scars" remote operation is making, by contrast, is the old farts who can't cope with something new. Most of us are coping just fine.
-
As to whether he was actually on/in the places he claimed to be, it’s not unlike operating a remote repeater on/in that entity while not actually being there. A difference with very little distinction.
Really? If I say the transmitter is in Aves but it is actually in Miami, that's the same as going through the considerable effort of getting the authorities to approve, put the station in Aves, and operating it remotely?
Do you know how ridiculous you sound right now?
Hate on remote operation if you like, but you must be young and green to argue this way. The hurt put in the program by Don Miller's lies about where he was is the biggest scar in the history of DXCC.
One reason LOTW is as paranoid as it is is precisely because of one Don Miller. Read any honest writeup of the Miller saga. There simply wasn't the worry about "is this guy legit" before him.
The only "scars" remote operation is making, by contrast, is the old farts who can't cope with something new. Most of us are coping just fine.
No need for your constant personal attacks simply because you don’t like my opinion so don’t let your panties get too tight. Last I checked, we are all entitled to opinions.
The difference in the Aves Island scenario you describe is, as I said, a difference with little distinction. In both scenarios, the op isn’t in/on the entity. Only the repeater is.
Would a picture help?
-
An interesting piece on Don.
https://www.ve1dx.net/Stories/WA6AUD002.html (https://www.ve1dx.net/Stories/WA6AUD002.html)
-
In addition, the same big guns would call every night and these were not 59 and on to the next qso's. This is where Don Miller started making a list of operators jhe would not respond to. After repeatedly asking to work him once and then let others, they ignored his requests and so he ignored them until they complained to the league.
Say what you will about his later faults, but he was one of the best damn CW operators dx'ing ever had.
Is this the same Don Miller who faked Numerous Dxpeditions and then had a Dxpedition where two of the Dxpedtioners died. He later sued the ARRL in court and then under cross examination admitted that he had never been to five of the entities including Bouvet! Later on he was convicted of conspiring to kill his wife and spent 22 years in jail. I am not even sure but it also seems he was running an underground museum filled with stolen artifacts and he also excavated some 500 Indian corpses and kept their bones in a cabinet in his house.
I would kind of say that those are more than Faults. It makes me wonder what really happened to those other ham operators that died.
Anyway lets get back to Bouvet as the Admin loves to lock threads.
Can you show me where he admitted to 5 operations he wasn't on? I've sat down and listened to his speech and done some reading on this and he admitted to not landing on St Peter & Paul Rocks. He claimed this was the only place this occured. If there is different info, I'd like to be more enlightened.
As far as his friends dying. The boat sunk in the south pacific, he wasn't on it, whats that got to do with his credibility?
I've never heard of the bones story, but ok.
He did do prison time for the conspiracy.
He still was one of the best cw dx operators, and many agree. He can be an a-hole, criminal, or just a not nice guy, but his skill was still obvious and our DXCC program would be DRASTICALLY different if he hadn't been around.
Frank KG6N
-
In addition, the same big guns would call every night and these were not 59 and on to the next qso's. This is where Don Miller started making a list of operators jhe would not respond to. After repeatedly asking to work him once and then let others, they ignored his requests and so he ignored them until they complained to the league.
Say what you will about his later faults, but he was one of the best damn CW operators dx'ing ever had.
Not sure what you post is referencing, however, Miller was a good CW op but his real talent was in discriminating among a huge pileup at a fast rate. As to the reason he didn’t work some callers, this was a transparent attempt to manipulate the DXCC standings by not working the top guys and using the excuse that they were not following his directions. Obviously, they didn’t get to the top by being poor operators.
As to whether he was actually on/in the places he claimed to be, it’s not unlike operating a remote repeater on/in that entity while not actually being there. A difference with very little distinction.
He asked every night for the same big guns to let unique callers have a shot and they stilled called on the same bands and modes every night. He finally started making a list in frustration and not working them.
In the old days, some dx'ers would dupe every day on the same expeditions. Don realized the value of given contacts to uniques to help all. There was a lot of people who thought only the strongest signals get the dx.
They did not follow his directions, not to call once they had him once per band slot.
They figured it out by calling with calls that weren't theirs and he would quickly reply. Some of these guys had clout as traffic handlers, because thats what ARRL really cared about at the time, and they made a stink, so the ARRL penned an unnamed editorial in QST and he sued for defamation. They settled.
He wasn't wrong on ignoring the hogs, but ARRL found issue with the black list.
Frank KG6N
-
He did say at Visalia that he felt bad for the blacklist, but he was spending years of his life and a fortune to give the same group of dx'ers qso's every night and everyone else was left with wasted time not getting through.
-
Would a picture help?
How about some perspective from you?
You seem to think they are equivalent.
Would you at least acknowledge the different levels of effort involved?
Apparently, you are more interested in where the guy's butt sits than where the radio does.
I'm sorry, a remote radio actually on Godforsaken rock is not the same as sipping Mai-Tai's on a beach in Miami and pretending to be on Godforsaken Rock. In the latter case neither the butt nor the radio is there.
At least in the Aves Remote Scenario, somebody had to go there and bring the radio ashore.
Can you at least acknowledge the vast difference in effort in those two situations?
-
In addition, the same big guns would call every night and these were not 59 and on to the next qso's. This is where Don Miller started making a list of operators jhe would not respond to. After repeatedly asking to work him once and then let others, they ignored his requests and so he ignored them until they complained to the league.
Say what you will about his later faults, but he was one of the best damn CW operators dx'ing ever had.
Not sure what you post is referencing, however, Miller was a good CW op but his real talent was in discriminating among a huge pileup at a fast rate. As to the reason he didn’t work some callers, this was a transparent attempt to manipulate the DXCC standings by not working the top guys and using the excuse that they were not following his directions. Obviously, they didn’t get to the top by being poor operators.
As to whether he was actually on/in the places he claimed to be, it’s not unlike operating a remote repeater on/in that entity while not actually being there. A difference with very little distinction.
He asked every night for the same big guns to let unique callers have a shot and they stilled called on the same bands and modes every night. He finally started making a list in frustration and not working them.
In the old days, some dx'ers would dupe every day on the same expeditions. Don realized the value of given contacts to uniques to help all. There was a lot of people who thought only the strongest signals get the dx.
They did not follow his directions, not to call once they had him once per band slot.
They figured it out by calling with calls that weren't theirs and he would quickly reply. Some of these guys had clout as traffic handlers, because thats what ARRL really cared about at the time, and they made a stink, so the ARRL penned an unnamed editorial in QST and he sued for defamation. They settled.
He wasn't wrong on ignoring the hogs, but ARRL found issue with the black list.
Frank KG6N
We’re taking past each other. Yes, he had his list but it was conceived out of malice to manipulate the top of the HR, not just to punish bad actors which, as we know, would be the ultimate irony.
-
Would a picture help?
How about some perspective from you?
You seem to think they are equivalent.
Would you at least acknowledge the different levels of effort involved?
Apparently, you are more interested in where the guy's butt sits than where the radio does.
I'm sorry, a remote radio actually on Godforsaken rock is not the same as sipping Mai-Tai's on a beach in Miami and pretending to be on Godforsaken Rock. In the latter case neither the butt nor the radio is there.
At least in the Aves Remote Scenario, somebody had to go there and bring the radio ashore.
Can you at least acknowledge the vast difference in effort in those two situations?
Your incessant argumentative behavior is tedious. I already clearly and succinctly explained the difference. What I can’t give you is an understanding.
-
"We’re taking past each other. Yes, he had his list but it was conceived out of malice to manipulate the top of the HR, not just to punish bad actors which, as we know, would be the ultimate irony."
I don't believe this is why he had the list. He's admitted to what he did and apologized. He said why he did it, and I believe him. I think creative minds and time have manipulated the facts on this. Many of the old timers of the day are gone, and in 20 years, I'd be surprised if any remain.
Frank KG6N
-
I already clearly and succinctly explained the difference.
Yes, and to many people, not just me, it doesn't make any sense.
It is akin to contending that manslaughter and murder are the same thing. Well, there are distinctions for those two acts and there's good reason for it. They are not the same.
I am not asking you to approve either one. I am asking you to show some actual understanding of the differences. To do otherwise is to look ridiculous and I would say so even if I agreed neither should be approved.
-
"We’re taking past each other. Yes, he had his list but it was conceived out of malice to manipulate the top of the HR, not just to punish bad actors which, as we know, would be the ultimate irony."
I don't believe this is why he had the list. He's admitted to what he did and apologized. He said why he did it, and I believe him. I think creative minds and time have manipulated the facts on this. Many of the old timers of the day are gone, and in 20 years, I'd be surprised if any remain.
Frank KG6N
I was “there”. I knew both Charlie Mellon as well as Miller. You are free to believe whatever narrative you choose.
-
I already clearly and succinctly explained the difference.
Yes, and to many people, not just me, it doesn't make any sense.
It is akin to contending that manslaughter and murder are the same thing. Well, there are distinctions for those two acts and there's good reason for it. They are not the same.
I am not asking you to approve either one. I am asking you to show some actual understanding of the differences. To do otherwise is to look ridiculous and I would say so even if I agreed neither should be approved.
People who use the term “ many people believe” really mean “I”believe but it sounds more valid when they contrive some imaginary group for which they supposedly speak. What you really mean is ‘it makes no sense to you’. Here’s an epiphany - it matters very little to me what you believe.
I gave you the clearest and most concise explanation possible. All you seem to want is to argue. I don’t like childish games couched in frivolous terms including the murder analogy. As the saying goes, “everyone have the right to be an idiot but some abuse the privilege”.
-
I gave you the clearest and most concise explanation possible.
Clear and concise is nice. Sensible is better.
I must conclude that the only thing you care about is where the human's butt is and other distinctions have no possible interest to you. You do not and will not entertain that sitting on a beach and making the whole thing up is anything other than exactly like spending years of effort to get a high technology item to a difficult location and then sitting in Miami to operate it. Either because you don't like it or just because you favor butt location over technical questions. It's all the same to you, even though it obviously is not.
And when I mean "obviously" I don't mean "it's my opinion". A butt and a radio in Miami is "obviously" different than a butt in Miami and a radio in Aves.
I think there's a real distinction here that just might be worth discussing whether you agree with what they are doing or not.
But, I get it, it's a hobby, you don't want to think hard here, and you've made it clear you don't want to seriously engage on this question.
-
[...]that sitting on a beach and making the whole thing up is anything other than exactly like spending years of effort to get a high technology item to a difficult location and then sitting in Miami to operate it.
+1
Making the whole thing up is against the rules.
Placing a remote there is in lines with the rules.
Simple as that.
Marvin VE3VEE
-
… and you've made it clear you don't want to seriously engage on this question.
I really get the feeling I’m talking to dry wall.
Apparently, even the Army method of teaching, ie., “tell them what you’re going to tell them, then tell them and then tell them what you told them” doesn’t work here.
Like my opinion or don’t. It’s monumentally irrelevant to me
-
"Like my opinion or don’t. It’s monumentally irrelevant to me"
Its relevant enough your still here repeating it???
Frank KG6N