5Mhz CW

Today I fell foul of the anonymous frequency police, not realising that 5.291 was no longer available for cw according to the latest Band Plan. Back home having checked the proposed new Band Plan there doesn’t appear to be any specific allocation at all for CW. Other modes have their own specific allocations but it seems as if CW is the poor relation and has to share with them.

Is there a preferred SOTA cw frequency on 5Mhz?


In reply to G4ASA:

Whilst band plans are a big help in organising incompatible modes and helping minimise mutual interference, band plan policeman are a royal pain in the backside. I impolitely tell them, using profane language where necessary, what they can do with their self-imposed self-importance and band plan. If they don’t like what they hear I tell them who to report me to at OFCOM. Nobody has done so yet and it normally shuts them right up. I suggest you do likewise Dave.


In reply to G4ASA:
I heard the exchange, but my cw isn’t quick enough to have read it accurately. I called in after your cq (G6DTN) but doubled with a more powerfull chaser and was called away for domestic duties so didn’t try again. ISTR a chart suggesting the 5258.5 to 5264 allocation be used for cw, and had a cw qso with G0TAK in that allocation last week with no interuptions. Not sure how this fits in with other 5MHz activators ideas.

Regards, Dave, G6DTN

In reply to G4ASA:

Here is the most recent version of the whiteboard, not a bandplan but a summary of suggestions:


Note CW is suggested at 5258 - 5264, the upper part shared with USB. QRP centre of activity 5260. Also suggested CW 5298 - 5307 shared with SSB. Idiocy!!!

It is now urged that CW avoids the beacon channel 5288.5 as it interferes with automatic beacon monitors.

It cannot be stated too strongly that THERE IS NO BANDPLAN as yet.


Brian G8ADD

In reply to G8ADD:

In reply to G4ASA:

Also suggested CW 5298 - 5307 shared with
SSB. Idiocy!!!

I’ve always assumed that “shared with” in the context of bandplans doesn’t necessarily mean concurrent useage. eg, if the frequency is clear, either mode can be used, or, to put it another way, listen first, as we would in any circumstance ;o)

I agree with Andy’s comments regarding the policing of bandplans, though I tend to be less assertive!

Edit: Also, CW and SSB are both “human” modes, and so cross mode working is very possible. In that context it makes sense to share space, rather than putting CW with data modes…


In reply to G4ASA:

Is there a preferred SOTA cw frequency on 5Mhz?

I realise that I didn’t attempt to answer the question: No, though one could defend taking over the QRP COA at 5260. Really, though, it is up to you SOTA CW guys - get together here or on the 5 megs Group, thrash it out, decide on a frequency and defend it against all comers, that seems to be the way it is done!


Brian G8ADD

In reply to MM0FMF:

did have words with anonymous but like Adrian/G4AZS, less assertively than you would have done.

Brian - printed off the Bandplan when I got home, it was dated 1st Jan yours is a later version but still only gives an allocation of 3kHz to CW as compared to 14.27kHz to Digital Modes which to me seems slightly unfair.

Dave/M0DFA sorry missed you, G6DTN was my last QSO on 5mHz, hope to catch you another time.


In reply to G4ASA:

Don’t forget 5298 - 5307, or perhaps do forget it! The whiteboard suggests 9 X 3 kHz channels for SSB, some shared, how many CW stations could you fit in that 3 kHz?

In the end and despite the chatter on the Group, the RSGB mandarins will speak out of a burning bush soon, and then we WILL have a band plan!


Brian G8ADD

In reply to G8ADD:
"In the end and despite the chatter on the Group, the RSGB mandarins will speak out of a burning bush soon, and then we WILL have a band plan! "

Which will be ignored as it suits like the RSGB special event station did by using PSK31 on 7.036 yesterday ?? :wink:

Roger G4OWG

I’ve been operating CW on 5260 over the last few days.
It has become almost the de facto CW channel for both QRP and QRO ops.
There is regular CW activity around that spot.

I joined the fivemegs Yahoo group thinking it would be a useful thing to do.
I have found it cold, unfriendly and divisive with bitchiness that I can do without.

I don’t have any 5Mhz kit for activating yet, but when I get myself sorted I’ll be picking 5260 as a starting point.



I’ve got a Perseus SDR recording of the whole 5MHz band for a 24 hour period covering your SOTA activation today and on listening to 5291kHz I was disappointed and dismayed at what I heard! Some self-appointed policeman attempting to apply “recommendations” (as opposed to legal or moral obligations) without identifying himself. Well done for persevering!

One of the concerns often voiced about “FC” is of interference to the beacons.

I am one of the (diminishing?) few who run 24/7 GB3RAL/WES/ORK beacon monitoring and have done for many years - my data, along with others is always visible here:


I don’t know why the “whiteboard” suggests that CW is forbidden from the old FC channel - certainly any use of 5291 poses no problems to the beacon monitoring for me.

It appears though that someone has decided they are entitled to interpret the “whiteboard” as a legal document.

There have been many instances of SSB operation on “FC/5288.5” recently, and this causes more problems for beacon measurements than CW operation at a 1kHz separation (as you were using today).

I just thought I’d add my comments from the perspective of one of those monitors who are providing data to the beacon monitoring project. As far as I’m concerned there’s nothing wrong with using 5291 for CW.

Any concerns about OV1BCN are spurious in the context of protecting the integrity of beacon monitoring data in the UK using G3PLX’s software, since it doesn’t measure OV1BCN, so there’s no risk of polluting the data. There’s no database of OV1BCN data, that I’m aware of.

Keep up the good work. You were a good signal here in Shetland today.


In reply to GM4SLV:
Hi John

thanks for your comments. having used 5291 many times for cw SOTA activations over the last couple of years without any problems, I was certainly taken aback by this persons actions.

With a miserly 3kHz allocated solely to cw and the QRP frequency in the middle, it seems a recipe for problems.