GW/NW-062 Question

In reply to GW0DSP:

I personally think the activation is a valid one. Why?

  1. The final ascent was on foot and all gear was carried (even if it was in multiple trips).

  2. He did not operate from a motor vehicle or within the vicinity. To me in the vicinity is very close. Let say he parked on a hill and the brakes failed. Would you have been able to get to the car in time to stop it rolling all the way down? If not, then you wern’t in the vicinity.

If a farmer or other person decides to pay you a visit on his tractor/quad bike would you be in the vicinity of a vehicle even though it wasnt your fault?

I also dont like the idea of a minimum walking distance. The whole point of SOTA choosing the marilyns list was to give a wide range of summits with various degrees of access. If that means there is a car park at the summit (Great Orme) so be it. To impose a 100m minimum distance is to make Great Orme out of reach of activation for those that have limited mobility. so not only could those people not be able to get up the major summits, but now they cant even join in on the “easy” ones. Bet they will be the first to thank you for that one :).

Also with the 100m rule, how can it be enforced? With a summit you can generally tell whether someone is actually transmitting from it by their signal strength. How would you possibly know where the car is parked?

My two penneth.

Ian
G7ADF

In reply to MM0FMF:
General rule 3.12.2 specifies what an Association Reference Manual is to contain. I don’t see any scope for making new rules therein.

In reply to G7ADF:

If a farmer or other person decides to pay you a visit on his
tractor/quad bike would you be in the vicinity of a vehicle even
though it wasnt your fault?

Indeed. If we could find the person who wrote that rule, I’m sure he would say, “No, of course I didn’t mean somebody else’s vehicle that just happened to turn up”. The problem is that the rule isn’t written in watertight legal language, but we are trying to interpret it as if it is. We’ll get nowhere like this.

The MT could decide that in the light of experience, the general rules are in need of some clarification. Or they could offer to deliver judgement in specific cases of query.

Or they could do nothing, in which case it is largely up to the individual to declare that they have operated within the rules. This may involve seeking the opinion of others as Mike is doing now, but ultimately he has to decide whether to register the activation and tick the box. If he does so and anyone then believes that he has broken the rules, it’s up to them to make a complaint.

This discussion may reach a consensus, but given the constitution of SOTA, that isn’t going to make it a binding interpretation. If we choose to participate in SOTA, we just have to accept that that is the way it is.

In reply to M1MAJ:

In reply to MM0FMF:
General rule 3.12.2 specifies what an Association Reference Manual is
to contain. I don’t see any scope for making new rules therein.

Who said new rules?

Section 2 describes the parameters for each association. These differ between associations such as the height limits for each band. In there there is a definition for summit operation criteria. The GM manual currently states “Operation must be within 25m vertically of the summit” which can legitimately be changed to “Operation must be within 25m vertically of the summit and xxxm from any vehicle used to approach the summit.”

We have still do decide how far xxxm should be.

Andy
MM0FMF

In reply to M1MAJ:

Also Martyn general rules 3.12.4 then argues that MT has the final say over the ARM.
No getting away from it, it’s down to MT, period.

73 Mike

Right it’s decision time and I have thought the matter through for almost 24 hours.

I am happy and confident that under the present rules and also within the spirit of sota, that my activation with the HF antenna attached to my car, constitutes a genuine, good activation of NW-062 and accordingly, I will log the activation on the database after lunch.

If I am asked to remove the log entry by MT following any justifiable complaint/s, I will remove it immediately without hesitation, once MT explains how/if I contravened any rules and points me to where such a ruling is in print.

Thank you to everyone for your input and for an interesting, friendly debate.

73 Mike

In reply to G4OIG:
A better plan might be to wear a yellow or orange reflective tabard and carry a clipboard. Passers by will then assume you are a man from the council or road agency on some mysterious errand and ignore you!

73

Brian G8ADD

On Hegdon Hill WB-023 I parked on the verge and walked along for
around 20m carrying the kit in several loads, all this after visiting
the trig (field with bullocks in it) without the equipment. I got some
weird looks from passing motorists while operating. On WB-021
Ruardean, I did walk further from the car with the back pack and
antennas, but still got a strange look from some of the locals who
thought I was a bit short on the grey matter, especially as I ended up
slightly lower down than the car! Sitting by the side of the road was
probably what did it in both cases. Next time I’ll take a cap with me
and see if I can beg some spare change from passers by.

73, Gerald

My personal view (not necessarily MT view - not discussed yet):

General rule 3.1 includes:

The Programme does not accept operation from or in the immediate vicinity of motor vehicles.

I would say that being connected by a feeder (common sense here - we are not going to use half a mile of feeder - you couldn’t carry it to the summit!) to a vehicle being used as a ground plane, puts you in the “immeditae vicinity” at least - in my opinion.

I would also say that good faith and the spirit of the SOTA Programme are valuable elements to all our participation. So I would not be keen to see a programme of plugging holes in all the rules - that would be too much like work, and this is supposed to be my hobby. Ultimately, it is for the activator to decide if his/her activation criteria is valid, and if so, then ensuing chaser contacts will be valid without question.

Ultimately, the summits where this kind of discussion is possible are few and far between. We are not going to get any Mountain Goats from exclusively such operations, so I wouldn’t be overly concerned.

As I say, these are my personal views.

Tom

Hi Mike,

My personal opinion is that if any part of the station is in, on or attached to the vehicle, I would not claim it as an activation. By the station, I include the antenna, mast and supports, rig, amplifier, power source (morse key HI) etc.

Just my ‘2 penneth’ as opinions were asked for.

Mike G4BLH

In reply to Tom

‘Ultimately, the summits where this kind of discussion is possible are few
and far between’.

True in the UK, but definitely not true elswhere

In reply to M1EYP:

My personal view (not necessarily MT view - not discussed yet):

General rule 3.1 includes:

The Programme does not accept operation from or in the immediate
vicinity of motor vehicles.

General rule 3.1 does not define “from or in the immediate vicinity of motor vehicle”, end of story, so the activator must put his own definition to it, I did just that and claim the activation as good within the rules.

4/9/07> Ultimately, the summits where this kind of discussion is possible are

few and far between. We are not going to get any Mountain Goats from
exclusively such operations, so I wouldn’t be overly concerned.

Correct Tom, but with such a grey area in the rules, the more unscrupulous amongst our ranks can abuse the system

As I say, these are my personal views.

Thanks for your personal input Tom, I acknowlege the fact that it is not from MT but merely your own personal opinion.

We can debate it for twenty years, but the outcome will always be the same, unless we change the rule in a way to protect those summits with limited space between parking and AZ.

73 Mike

In reply to G4BLH:

Thanks Mike you opinion is respected by me, BUT that’s all it is, your opinion and we don’t have to activate by anyone’s opinion but by a set of given rules.

I’m sure you know where I’m coming from.

73 Mike

PS Nice morse from you the other day, let’s hear more of it!! but not from ur vehicle, hi.

Tongue goes into cheek…

I have a few thoughts on how this issue of “immediate vicinity” could be better defined.

For example, rules could be as follows:

  1. Operation shall not take place within sight of your motor vehicle. This is “immediate vicinity”. Wearers of glasses are allowed to remove them to qualify this point.

  2. Point 1 would be void if you can see your vehicle but cannot throw your expired handheld at the car and hit it.

  3. If another motor vehicle enters your “immediate vicinity” throwing handheld (or other radio equipment) at it would be the quickest method of removing it from the “immediate vicinity” (or it will ensure a very speedy activation and quick descent/retreat)

  4. All radio equipment shall be carried (up and down the road if neccesary) until the activator breaks sweat. Then it can be “set-up” anywhere within the AZ voiding 1 and 2 above.

  5. Returning to the motor vehicle to collect “posh soup” or other items during the activation would indicate that the vehicle is in the “immediate vicinity” and invalidate the activiation.

I could go on… :slight_smile:

73 Marc GØAZS

In reply to G0AZS:

Hi, too easy to get around that one carry a portable screen, can’t see motr or hit it with any missile.

73 Mike

In reply to GW0DSP:

So to reiterate…I was not attached to the car, the radio was powered
by a SLAB 10 feet from the car, but the antenna was attached to the
car, which was sort of no longer a car, but part of my antenna system
in the way of a counterpoise.

Hi Mike,

I think this is the main problem. The car was part of your antenna system, but you did not carry the car to the summit. So next time you need to push it up hill a few meters before using it as counterpoise for your HF antenna :sunglasses:

BTW I have not checked yet if there are any similar motor vehicle summits here in F/AB, HB/VD or HB/VS.

73, Jaakko OH7BF/F5VGL

In reply to F5VGL:

A good point Jaakko, but how many ops attach a wire to a wire fence for use as a counterpoise? Did they carry the fence? or if using an earth spike, did they carry the land the spike is in? the plot thickens then.

73 Mike