Re: Scarborough Reef

Dave AA6YQ

Me too Dave. The question however is "Why is BS7 still on the active entity list when it does not meet a physical requirement to be on that list? Even if someone goes legally and sets up, it is impossible to find 2 points 100 meters apart where they and the line between them is permanently above high tide, unless MSL drops far enough to essentially drain the lagoon. Keeping it on the active list for "political reasons," whatever that means, harks back to before the 2017 Revolution.

+ There are 3 possibilities:

1. BS7 satisfies the current criteria

2. BS7 doesn't satisfy the current criteria

3. whether or not BS7 satisfies the current criteria is not known

+ The correct course of action in cases 1 and 2 is obvious. If we're in case 2, the responsible ARRL committee would have deleted BS7; they haven't, so we must either be in case 1 or case 3.

+ If we're in case 3, then since the ARRL doesn't have the funds to make a firsthand assessment, BS7 should continue as a "current entity" until objective evidence of case 2 is provided.

+ This BS7H QSL card from 1994 depicts one of the "operating rocks" at high tide:


+ Unless the gentlemen on either side of the rock are unusually short, the top of the rock appears to be at least 3' above sea level.

+ Here's a picture of another "operating rock"; it also appears to be at least 3' above sea level:


+ Global sea level has risen less than 6" since 1994.


Dave, AA6YQ

Join { to automatically receive all group messages.