Other SOTA sites: SOTAwatch | SOTA Home | Database | Video | Photos | Shop | Mapping | FAQs | Facebook | Contact SOTA

Invalid prefix HB


The thing to remember is that where you see an alert for HB/, it is not a prefix as used in SOTA, it is an Association code and its use to identify an Association is therefore quite correct. This becomes clearer if you look at the USA, where there are many Association codes that do not equate to prefixes but give the callsign area and the initial of the state. Association codes need to be close to the country prefix so that we can easily remember what country they refer to, but they don’t have to be a valid prefix.



I think the original point was someone alerting for HB/AL-001 as HB/M0FMF/p and not HB/AL-001 as HB9/M0FMF/p.


Exactly Andy, if the summit identifiers are unique in the world, everything is clear. Simply use the correct country prefix along ITU.


May I add some more confusion to this topic :wink:

The ECC recommendation 05.06 CEPT Novice Amateur License
proclaims that holders of a novice license, e.g. with the prefix DO here in Germany, must use the prefix HB3 when visiting Switzerland.

At least this would justify that the Swiss associations should not be renamed to HB9.

73 Stephan DM1LE


Is HB3 the prefix for Novice licence holders in Switzerland as is the DO prefix in Germany?



They can do what they like in print, it isn’t breaking any laws, the time to correct them is if they do it on the air!



I think it’s better to stop an error before it has been made rather than correct it after. Preventative maintenance so to speak.


As a chaser I have logged in the SOTA database four stations as HB/…/P because that was the callsign used in qso and it was the callsign which the activator also entered into the SOTA database. I have worked 100s of activators using the HB9/…/P as well. It’s not important, what a fuss about summat and nowt!



It is interesting that there is no licence class in the United Kingdom which is equivalent to the CEPT Novice Amateur Licence. Therefore holders of UK Intermediate and Foundation Licences are excluded from this recommendation.

Walt (G3NYY)


Hi Walt,
I don’t think the Foundation class will ever get simple reciprocal licencing, however the Internediate licence might be able to have its exam changed a little to meet the Novice level requirements of ECC 05.06 however the last time i asked Ofcom about this, they were not interested. I guess this would have to be driven by the RSGB before an application from Ofcom to the ECC would even be considered.

Some people forget that rather than the simple - no application needed reciprocal licencing through CEPT 61/01 and ECC rec 05.06, the old method of applying directly to a country for a reciprocal licence still exists and in some cases Foundation and Intermediate licences may find an equivalent level in another countries scheme and be issued a short term reciprocal licence. This process can take a long time however, so allow at least 6 months, don’t expect an immediate reply.


Conditions are indeed poor. :slight_smile:


It would be much quicker for the person concerned to upgrade to a Full Licence.

Problem solved!

Walt (G3NYY)


Such clauses give incentives for people to upgrade. Remove the incentives and you have even more M3’s running 400W on 40m :wink:


I only wanted to point out that there may be other options for those who don’t have an advanced call or are not in a country that has a compatible Novice-level qualification.

Of course, the same process exists if someone wishes to operate in a country who has not signed up to the CEPT agreement and in that case having an Advanced licence in the home country “might” help but it will most likely still take some time to process an application to the more “exotic” nations around the world.



Even more? Do you know of any? There’s not all that many full licencees running more than 100 watts!



There’s none so blind as those who will not see.



I could refer you to at least two M3’s that I am aware of that have challenger linear amplifiers in the foreground of their QRZ display picture (that is after hearing them on air).

But we don’t name and shame for that would be morally wrong :wink:

On the contrary Brian I am always amazed how well your FT-817 gets out to me.


I’ve no doubt that there are some, there is bound to be, but some people talk as if most of them do it. None of the FLs that I know have a linear, and they are punctilious about setting the power, FWIW. If they did run 400 watts they would only be 16dB over 10 watts or 6dB over 100, that 6dB has never struck me as being worthwhile so I have never run a linear.

Put it down to the antenna, my 102 foot doublet at 27 feet seems to be optimum for working the UK and EU. It started out life as a commercial G5RV but after reading Louis Varney’s two articles I extended the 300 ohm ribbon to the shack. If I collected sheepskins that 817 would have got me DXCC in the first year!



400W, oh the naivety of the man. 1500W is the entry level Brian.

The cost of buying in a ready made amp is such that there is no point buying a small amp when it’s hardly much more for US full legal levels. Even 1KW to 1.3KW FET no tune amps are realistically priced.

The penalty (if caught which is unlikely) is the same running 100W with a 10W licence as it is for 1500W so you may as well go for broke.


But for all your certitude on the matter, it is still just hearsay, nothing but hearsay, and I have to say that I absolutely deplore this habit that people have of talking about FLs as if they are all a bunch of power cheats. Power cheats no doubt exist, but that is no reason to paint all FLs with the same brush!

It seems silly to me, anyway - why spend a couple of grand on a linear, it makes more sense to spend it on a better main station rig - or a tithe of it on a better antenna which will improve signals both ways! At that your 1500 watt entry level is still only 6dB (less small change) better than the 400 watts that Jon quoted, and I commented on.

Now I’m off to enjoy Springwatch…