Can I say for me it’s every bit as frustrating listening to what can only be described as woeful operating practice , Sota has became a victim of its own sucess as the number of participants must now be huge in comparison to just 5years ago. And although the guidelines state that sota is not a competition when you create a table of scores someone always wants to fufill there ego and be 1st. A couple of years ago I posted a thread about the poor operating practices and suggested that when a pile up occurs that working by numbers may be a way forward, Sadly I was basically accused that this was because my callsign contained the number 1 in it and I would be taken early I was saddened with that remark simply what if I joined the qso when number 2’s were being called I would just have to wait till it came back to the 1’s. It is still My opinion that is the way forward with a little addition as the hyenas as i refer to them as will still operate as they always do, the activator if convenient speak to them and then when giving report simply say not in log to finish qso and record this in their log very soon the activator will buildup a picture of poor operators who persitently offend and and an e mail to MT who may help to address the situation with a firm e mail. and as anote it is not only chasers but S2S stations can be offenders aswell thinking they have the right to barge in in front of chasers paitently waiting. I dont suppose I will be very popular just same as last time.
All good, except for this. 
Many chasers will alert an activator to a S2S caller that may be lost in the pile up. Why shouldn’t they be prioritised? They are likely QRP and sitting in similar conditions to I am.
Many chasers do indeed and I always thank them for it when on a summit.
I will always prioritise a S2S caller (or /P or /M) as their operating conditions in most cases they will be at a disadvantage compared to other chasers (location, weather, operating conditions (e.g. antenna/power), etc).
As a chaser, I do the same; the activator may call the S2S station or not - up to them in the end - but as and activator myself I almost feel obliged to alert an activator that a S2S is calling them.
Yes, but you continued with:
Which was both rude and irrelevant.
The thing that you have reacted strongly against is the thought that I am against pile-ups. What I am really trying to do is understand why we get these “lunatic chasers”. My first step is that pile-ups lead to the opportunity for bad behaviour, if there was no pile-up then there is no opportunity for bad behaviour: people arrive on frequency, make their call, get their contact and depart. My second step is that Spots almost guarantee pile-ups, a spot appears and waiting chasers see it and congregate on frequency. OK, what then? Say you have a dozen or more chasers arrive on frequency and start calling. The activator starts working through them but inevitably some wait longer than others for their contact. Meanwhile more spots are appearing - it is not unusual for as many as five to appear simultaneously of a weekend. The impatient ones can see all these new opportunities appearing on their screens and are eager to get their contact and move on to the next chase. They try various techniques to get heard. Some will call before a QRZ?, some call after the QRZ? but as the other calls are subsiding, others will call after them and so on and the calling extends…and so does the time per contact for the activator. This is inefficient but inevitable, and its often the last one calling that gets worked, so for the chaser it is a successful ploy. The really bad behaviour is, I think, a deliberate ploy to get heard, perhaps to encourage the activator to work him to get rid of him, and often it seems to work.
My point, then, is not that pile-ups are bad, but certain types of behaviour result from pile-ups, and that the bigger the pile-up the more likely that frustration will lead to bad behaviour. The only way that I can see to reduce bad behaviour would be to reduce the size of pile-ups, and this could be done by eliminating spotting, or make it just band rather than frequency so that the chasers need to search and they won’t all arrive more or less at once, but that does not mean that I think that would be a good thing to do. No, I think we have to put up with the situation.
As someone who is mainly a chaser nowadays, my preferred method is to be relaxed, pop in and monitor activations, often more than one of them at any time, but only to call when the pile-up is waning. By then the biggest nuisances have been and gone. Much less stressful!
I will always prioritise a /P or S2S. However, some activators do try to barge in by sending /P /P over a QSO that is in progress. This is bad operating. This is CW; I don’t know if this also happens in SSB.
If I’m activating and an S2S calls with other chasers then those chasers will tell me there is an S2S. I can either call for the S2S next or let them wait. If I don’t work them first, these chasers will tell me again more strongly there is an S2S. That tells me the chasers want the S2S to be worked next and that’s why S2S chasers tend to get served sooner.
Apologies I maybe did not explain myself well on the S2S contact I fully support that S2S stations should be given priority and actively do so but not the ones that just repeat the request and disturb the qso in place I’m sure like me lots of chasers enjoy listening to activators and seeing how they are doing only to hear the same callsign repeatedly as soon as the activator passes it back to the staion he is speaking too, the second S2S is trying to bully there way in using the priviledged status of being on another summit in my opinion thats just ignorant as they know what they are doing. As for sitting in a warm comfy shack and thinking/talking of ancient glories thats all I have as ill health has came knocking at my door I would not crow about it he might knock anybodys door.
I always call for the S2S as soon as advised as it then releases the other activator to get on with their activation after the QSO. There is nothing so frustrating as sitting on a (usually) cold hillside trying to get through the pile up and wasting time when you could potentially make other contacts. Time is certainly less constrained when you are sat chasing in a (hopefully) warm shack… unless you’re due to go out for an appointment - then I might ask what you are doing leaving it so late to leave the house?
I like the comment hopefully warm shack yes with the price of heating these days might be as warm up a hill freezing our bollocks off.
It rapidly brought a large number of amateurs who had previously been restricted to VHF onto HF. That significantly increased competition and as in any other walk of life increasing competition tends to make some folks become more aggressive. Human nature.
Note carefully that I am not suggesting that it is those that arrived on HF as a result of the demise of the Morse test that are at fault for the fall in operating standards. Nor am I suggesting that it is a bad thing that the Morse requirement as a prerequisite to HF access was dropped. The advent of code readers at around the same time certainly didn’t help and I think that society at large is far less tolerant/patient these days. There are multiple factors at work here, some societal, which is why it is proving so difficult to find a solution.
I think it’s all down to selfishness, and I blame social media. We (in general) have become a society of show-offs where personal advancement, gain or results override consideration for others.
Thank goodness the majority on SOTA remain polite and respectful. It’s supposed to be for fun as part of a hobby.
Rick
I agree with Gerald - the problem has got much worse than it was in 2010 within SOTA, but so as the level of interest and the number of stations that can be worked on HF SOTA CW. I was also forced off the mode myself last month in EA8 as with QRP power it was impossible to control the idiots when I was trying to work the true enthusiasts. I returned later to CW after a session on SSB and operated UP 1 split to good effect.
People wanting the instant gratification of a QSO without learning the code are a nuisance. They haven’t spent time listening to live QSOs and learning beforehand as they should, before they transmit. They might be able to understand their own callsign and 599 but for some it goes no further than that. Anything other than that they cannot understand what is going on, so they transmit at the wrong time and cause mayhem.
We all make the odd mistake and TX at the wrong time briefly - such as the odd time when signals are weak perhaps, but I am talking about the persistent offenders, who often send repeated long calls. I served my time as an SWL for years but I didn’t learn the Morse Code then - I could have taken advantage of free professional training in the RAF, in my early 20s, as I was serving for 3 years in the RAF in a technical role at the main training school for Telegraphists! Instead I waited until I returned to “Civvy St” 10 years later and taught myself the code with the help of a vinyl LP record and a Datong Morse Tutor. I did 30-45 minutes receive practice a day for 5 months to reach that standard. Other operators take less, some take more. The practice brought me to a sufficient standard to pass the GPO Morse Test at 12 WPM with 100% accuracy.
As I had to wait almost 6 months for my licence after passing my test and the RAE because the Post Office were moving the licencing section to Chesterfield, I went on the air on the CB band for practice at first on CW with a Yaesu FT-101E. After a month or two of that I was a naughty boy and went on to the 10m band with a pirated G4 callsign that I couldn’t find in the then callbook. It was good practice and I probably had over 50 worldwide QSOs as a pirate on 10 meters before the licence (which changed my life) came through the door on 22-05-1982!
So I say to the learners improve your receive capability before you transmit, then get on the air with your fancy new paddle key (which most newbies seem to buy before they can even receive these days!). If you use a reader as some do and, as someone else said, wait until the tail end of the Activators activity or you could end up making a fool of yourself. You need to be able to know the protocol of at least a rubber stamp SOTA QSO (which is what most are in our branch of the ham radio hobby - there isn’t much conversation). You need to know who is sending at any one time and who they are sending to, and what they are actually sending. If you can’t do this you will make a fool of yourself and most of the Chasers as well as the Activator will know who you are - it can be embarassing, and you may get an email admonishing you, especially if you mess me about when I am activator and not chasing.
Unfortunately most of the likely offenders will not read this thread!
73 Phil G4OBK
PS 10m band is in very good shape to USA this afternoon…
Thanks for reminding us all of this! We’ve all had annoying experiences on air, so it’s good to remember that on the whole the good very much outweighes the bad!
PS: thanks for the contact when I was Seager Hill the other the day. I did look out for the blue plaque to mark the site of your first SOTA activation, but couldn’t find it!
Fortunately for most days this last week down here in North Yorkshire I have been able to turn the central heating off from 9am until 5pm and save some money… Sorry about the off topic Brian @G8ADD
I gave up thermionic emission around 10 years ago…
73 Phil G4OBK
Is there any evidence that hams who don’t know Morse are going on the air using a code reader?
Empirically, yes. There has been a considerable increase in people calling at the wrong time. This may be in part due to the contemporaneous advent of code readers, the use of which results in the operator not being able to determine the cadence of QSOs as they are being made.
A possibly more reliable indicator, which I see increasingly, is failure to respond to the DX in a timely fashion, presumably because the chaser’s code reader has to decode the CW, then he has to read and understand what is displayed and then, finally respond. For a native CW op all those steps are effectively instantaneous, just as they would be in conversation. The resulting delay means that the DX resends the call sign/exchange/whatever and because the code reader op can’t understand what is going on he is likely to send his exchange again over the top of the DX. At the least this interrupts the QSO flow, slowing things down. At worst the resulting mess seems to encourage others to pile in, presumably on the basis that the QSO is either completed or void, or is just taking too long for their impatient tastes.
I tend to think of code readers as similar to the problems with self driving cars existing in a world where most other vehicles are manually driven. If everyone used code readers there (probably) wouldn’t be any problem but code readers and native CW ops perhaps don’t mix all that well in the same pileup!
A little rubato on a bug will stymie the code readers. I just dont want to pack a heavy bug up the mountain hi.
Yes I know someone who got their foundation licence the same time as me, went on to gain their full licence and they do chase DX using CW. But they cannot read morse!!! even slightly.
But that said, I assume SOTA chasers don’t use CW decoders though? I wouldn’t have thought decoders can distinguish cw calls transmitting over one an other- or can they??
I understand that they are getting better as computational power improves the ability to simultaneously track multiple signals. But what would I know? The code reader between my ears has worked perfectly well for the past 57 years!
The use of remote receivers and the added audio latency is more likely.
Nowadays the old adage “if you don’t hear them you can’t work them” has to be adjusted in “if you can’t hear them switch to a nearby websdr”.