Re: Scarborough Reef


See ** below

On 10/29/2020 4:23 PM, Dave AA6YQ wrote:
+ AA6YQ comments below

Difficult is one thing. Impossible is another.

If it is truly under water with no hope of any future operation ever being able to comply with the rules when activating it, even with permission of authorities then Scarborough should be deleted.

And the rules should be clear about what happens in that case, even with grandfathered entities. 

But keeping an entity on the list that is permanently underwater is extremely unreasonable, to the point of being absurd. 

+ Please cite your proof that BS7 is permanently underwater.
**Dave/Ria, it doesn't matter if it is underwater now or not.  When it was last activated, with all the scaffolding, a few parts were not under water.  However, it fails the "100 meter dry at high tide" requirement, making it ineligible since the 100 meter rule was established.  I don't know if it's underwater at high tide 24/7 now [I doubt it], but that's not what the 100 meter rule prohibits.  FWIW, the So China Sea is sort of shallow-ish as seas tend to go, a bit surprising because the deepest parts of the Pacific lie not that far to the east of the Philippines, and the tides in the SCS tend to be fairly gentle.


Fred ["Skip"] K6DGW
Sparks NV DM09dn
Washoe County

Join { to automatically receive all group messages.