Return to KLUBNL.PL main page

[Top] [All Lists]

LF: Re: Cross-band etiquette

To: <[email protected]>
Subject: LF: Re: Cross-band etiquette
From: "hamilton mal" <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 09:45:36 -0000
References: <[email protected]>
Reply-to: [email protected]
Sender: [email protected]
Its the way you "TELL THEM" john. Have you heard the one about the "


----- Original Message -----
From: "John Pumford-Green GM4SLV" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 8:58 AM
Subject: LF: Cross-band etiquette

> Hello LF,
> It is normal, polite amateur practice to a) listen for a few minutes and
> b) send a signal such as QRL? when selecting an operating frequency.
> On 500kHz itself this is rarely a problem, as band occupancy is
> generally low. This doesn't mean it is never an issue, even on
> 500, though.
> However I've become aware recently of neglect of this courtesy when
> using cross-band for contacts with non-UK or non-NoV stations.
> Last night, as an example, a 3-way cross-band QSO was ongoing between
> 2 UK stations on 501.316kHz and a PA station on 3533kHz.
> A 500kHz station (no names, no pack drill) was heard calling "CQ QSX
> 3533/7033" on another 500 frequency (the beauty of having 2 receivers on
> 500) and then, without checking if 3533 was in use.... no "QRL?" or
> other courtesy was given..... he started calling on 3533 "CQ QSX
> 502"... and then proceeded to alternate between the 2 bands until he
> got his desired cross-band QSO. Why he calls on 80m "QSX 502" is
> a mystery to me ...surely he isn't expecting a "reverse cross-band QSO"
> with an existing 500 NoV holder? Why not do it all on 500?
> The QSO already underway was swiftly and politely abandoned, both on 500
> and 3533 to make way, without any fuss and in a way that was perhaps
> unnoticed to the station concerned.
> Sadly this isn't the first time I've observed such behaviour.
> Occasionally a non-MF aware station will call on 3533, not knowing that
> it's being monitored for cross-band replies, and it's perhaps
> excusable - not everyone knows of, or is interested in, MF. Even if
> they call "QRL? it might not be possible to reply to them. Many of us
> have "RX only" setups for the 80m side. In this instance the correct
> thing for us is to move our 80m RX frequency and announce it in our CQ
> calls.
> I find it disappointing however that active MF stations seem to blindly
> assume that 3533 is free for their use and don't first a) check 500 for
> obvious cross-band activity away from their own 500 frequency nor
> b) check 3533 itself. A quick tune round 500 would have quickly made it
> obvious that a cross-band QSO was underway.
> If 3533 is in use they are free to find another nearby frequency and
> announce it in their calls, surely? I've done this many times and still
> had successful contacts. There's nothing magic in 3533 itself.
> I see regular complaints here decrying the poor operating abilities of
> the current "non-CW" generation, mainly from one source.
> I suggest we all need to check our methods and motives.
> For some stations the driving force seems to be "DX DX DX" and first
> sniff of an new QSO, in-band or cross-band, and out come all the shoddy
> practices of general HF operation - calling without listening, ignoring
> other QSOs underway, assuming ownership of certain frequencies.
> It's bad manners and poor operating.
> 500 isn't a "DX at all costs" band - it's an experimental allocation
> where the passing of information and observing of signal strengths and
> propagation conditions should be more important than a "569 QRU 73"
> QSO just to get another new country in the log.
> Just sticking to single 500kHz and 80m frequencies and blindly calling
> "CQ" regardless of what is already happening on the band(s) is simply
> indicative of poor operating ability.
> Cheers,
> John

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>