My 2 cents worth. I think many of us started on HF with receivers with no S-meter, i.e. S-38, so we had to improvise much like W9VNE listed. With my K3 I rarely look at the meter.
3 Likes
WOW !
Hi Guru,
as activator, I very often experience that I could give a chaser a 59 (or since I mainly do CW, 599 
) when I look at the signal isolated. However, in a pileup situation, this is often not the case due to chasers misidentifying characters (i.e. calling when I ask for a fragment of a callsign, while theirs has nothing to do with it), calling while the other station is transmitting because they don’t hear him, tuning on frequency etc. Another common interference are other hikers who ask what I’m doing while not realising that I’m concentrating on my RX. Then there are things like flies, moskitos etc, the wind or animals (e.g. cows on some HB9 summits) messing with the antenna or the pole…
Short version: on a SOTA summit, there may be many other reasons why an activator asks to repeat, other than the received signal.
73 Jens, HB9EKO
6 Likes
Hi Jens,
I agree with you on the different distractions and interferences an activator can have. To be precise, I was mainly thinking on chasers when I wrote that, chasers like those giving a “59 of courtesy” report, as they use to say. What’s the point on giving a “courtesy” false report?
73,
1 Like
In a way this whole discussion is redundant. The GR requires that a signal report be exchanged so that information unique to the contact is exchanged, but it does not say what the format of the signal report should be. I’m quite happy with RS(T) or L&C or for that matter “fully quieting”, and I’m happy with a “by ear” report, back in the day I would have accepted QSA/QRK equally happily. At the end of the day it doesn’t matter whether my signal report was a worm’s whisper or Krakatao sounding off because the signal report does not go into the database!
It does to me because accurate signal reports are valuable information allowing me to have a good perception of how’s the propagation and how’s my station performing.
If you have a RFI problem and your audio is horrible but you always get 59 reports, you’ll never know it.
If you don’t have your antenna at sight during your activation, the wind takes it down and all your signal reports keep being 59, you may never notice what actually happened to your antenna.
If a chaser copies you very weak but gives you a 59 and asks you to say your SOTA reference, you could perfectly assume that saying the reference once will be enough, but then he comes back saying something like “can you repeat again, you are very weak” then you repeat the reference while thinking “didn’t you say my signal was 59, why are you saying I’m very weak and asking me to repeat?”.
This will have slowed down the operation pace penalizing both the activator and the other chasers waiting for their turn. Should that chaser have given an accurate report 33, for instance, the activator would have understood that he better repeats the reference 2 or 3 times to make sure the chaser will copy it without needing to ask for a repeat.
73,
Guru
5 Likes
Thank you for all your input!
After reading your comments I’m thinking about reconsidering my methods.
I’ve got the impression that some of us got tired of RST. Like “c’mon lets talk about the decent stuff”. In my opinion taking the time for serious RST will give the qso a solid foundation.
I love 2 m (also FM) weak signal work. But with sota it is not always that easy. Some ops seem to not to know the squelch nob of their rig and are not willing to optimize their antenna position. Accordingly, a report below 53 seldomly occurs.
99 out of 100 of my reports are by ear. 499 is worthless on 80 m with a noise floor of S8. I’d rather say 439. Without a meter I can tell about S-value of noise vaguely by experience.
On e.g. 20 m I’d say 579 when the reading of the S-meter is S0 -10dB. I try to omit receiving answers like “There is no such thing like zero S”.
Thus I prefer to report signal strength above (or below) noise floor/QRM/QRN.
I give reports like 579 QSB 359 as well.
I guess the R-rating gives more information about signal quality than the S-reading.
However, it seems that the S-rating weighs more heavily. Maybe just because the scale is broader (from 1 - 9), hence pretending to be more precise. Practically I only give 3,5,7,9 which I think is sufficient. So for me, the S-scale also has just 4 usable values, just like the R-scale
I’ll try to emphasize on the “R” in future. I never say R1 or R2 because this won’t result in a valid QSO per definition. So just 3,4,5 left. I often find myself saying R5 although it’s rather 4 or 3. I will try to stretch my inner scale and use R2 in future.
I say T9 c (when it’s exceptionally enjoyable, no clicks, perfect timing, etc.), T9, T8, T7. I rarely use T8, T7 and it seems few ops are prepared and just write down T9 into their log. You always get 599 on your tube rig, although you know it’s technically impossible. On the other hand T-value could be a good indicator, if something is wrong with the rig…
Besides the RST issue most annoying: After apparently perfect QSO: wrong call in opponent’s log.
73 Martin
1 Like
My MTR3 has no S-meter so “wing it” I must…
Pete
1 Like
Here is an idea if some sort of signal report is going to be required for SOTA…
RST is Readability, Strength, and Tone in the case of CW. Forget the S meter. As has been pointed out, some rigs dont even have them so eliminate that requirement. S Meters are a relative indication anyway but I wont go there as that is an endless and hilarious debate thats been beaten to a pulp. Tone is a non issue for SSB since its not part of the usual report format. For CW, drop that one too. SOTA is a good community and if somebodies rig sounds bad, they will get told about it. The important aspect of a report it seems if you are going to give one, is how well you can copy somebody - READABILITY. No meter measurement required. As has been pointed out its subjective so really of no more or less value than an S Meter reading. SO… the new format of reporting is, wait for it… You are Q(1-5). Same on SSB and CW. I only say “Q” because people have been saying “You are Q5” for as long as I can remember - dating back to the 70s. You could also use “R” instead of “Q” to remain compliant with existing RST format. I DO like to know how well somebody is hearing me on the other end so I do find that an interesting and useful bit of information. Just a thought.
73
Joe
WB7VTY
1 Like
Hi Guru,
I agree with you. I send 59 reports either when the signal is 59, or in a contest where other reports would only cause confusion 
73 Jens, HB9EKO
1 Like
So many wise words…
It would be so nice to boil this down to a commonly accepted and practiced mindset.
73 Martin
1 Like
" can hear you," seems appropriate.
People are generally quick to point out you have a BAD signal, or ask if you’re walking around creating signal path difficulties.
Speaking of signal path challenges, I’ve had times when I had to freeze in one spot, one body position for over five minutes waiting for other operators to exchange QSO before it was my turn. I have a few chases that give me a hand’s with of viable signal. Loud and clear if I’m in the zone, quiet if I wiggle.
I love Radio! It’s not the QSO, it’s the thrill of the chase!!!
1 Like