Re: Proposed Changes to DXCC for Remote Stations - Charge to DXAC
W4IPC,
I don't think folks should do that either.
Pick an area for your efforts and then operate and improve your skills. Want to try it somewhere else, great, two different DXCCs. NP. Each has value, but they should not be mixed. As I noted in another comment: Compare the optjons of a US Ham in Miami vs. one in Bermuda. Pick a spot, a physical spot. I don't care where you live, but I care where your radio and antenna are.
I've evolved that far, but now we have guys traveling physically and virtually across broad areas to gain an advantage that dillutes the integrity of the programs because they change their location and mix the contacts from different station localities. We have even seen cases where the operator used two different stations, very widely separated beyond reasonable limits to receive the DX that was uncopyable at the transmitting station. That makes no sense.
Again, pick a spot, operate, compete, grow and enjoy!
If the ARRL or other groups need to evolve their awards prorgrams, then they should treat it as a business opportunity to certify multiple DXCCs for a given operator's chosen locations. Very cool to have an East Coast, West Coast and a Gulf Coast DXCC! How about one from 8P6, too? If there are remote stations that an operator can call "home" even if one of many, that is VERY COOL!
Separately, for some contests, remote stations should be in their own class, much like Multi-Multi, Multi-Single, Single, Rover, Portable, etc. are now. It.would depend.on the contest.
Vy 73,
Gordon Beattie, W2TTT
201.314.6964
|
|