Techniques for head copying CW QSOs

That’s how I was taught (trained as RO). For professional telegraphy, you have to write it all down or type it because the idea was to pass on letter for letter messages. Also, a lot of code groups were used, so you had to be 100% accurate. We were taught NEVER predict next letter or words … On the ham bands this has caused me some problems. For simple QSOs, I don’t need to write everything down but for long ones, I still write down most of it. When speeds get up to 30-40wpm and beyond, I can’t write that fast and have to rely on method 2 word recognition but it irks me - it is not what I was trained to do :smiley:. Practice, practice everyday is the way.

3 Likes

30-40 WPM wow, not many telegraphists can copy at that speed for sustained periods with 100% accuracy, but yes, it is quite possible to reach that level head copying in amateur radio contesting or even rag chewing for many of us lesser mortals where you are copying CW as a hobby. Albeit in contesting you need to use keyboard to record your contacts and exchanges as you go along so head copying is not just what contesting is all about!

Very few of even the best professional telegraphists taking down Morse on paper, let alone a keyboard, can attain those speeds with 100% accuracy for lengthy periods of time. Most professionally trained telegraphists receiving plain language, code groups or figures with 100% accuracy seem to run out of head space and start to lose characters once the 25 WPM level is passed. From personal experience out of a class of 15 people being trained in receiving Morse Code prefessionally two members got to 32 WPM, two made 28 WPM and the rest stayed on 25/26/27 WPM. This was with 100% accuracy, i.e. not a single character or figure lost for 15 minutes - 5 minutes of code groups, 5 minutes of figures, 5 minutes of plain text. In the role that these guys were being trained for they had to reach the 25 WPM standard with 100% accuracy after around 4 months on the course, if they failed to reach that barrier they were deemed unsuitable and had to leave and find another job!

73 Phil

3 Likes

I remember a very good friend and former ship’s radio office Dave Oakden G3UFO now sadly SK telling me he spent his working life running CW at about 15-16WPM. Didn’t go faster because you didn’t need repeats because everything was 100% correct. Accuracy was the key in his professional life. He could ragchew much faster and used to practice as an amateur with an app on his phone that “read” him the BBC News website at about 23wpm whilst eating his breakfast.

Andy’s attempt to improve his headspeed has motivated me. Not to improve my CW skills which are dire for ragchewing but OK for simple SOTA exchanges and I should work on them. No I’m working away on Duolingo trying to improve my French for when we can start travelling again.

1 Like

I’m doing the same, learning CW for SOTA use and I’ve managed to reach a stage where I can begin to cope with Morse Runner at 20 wpm but with only single calls. I’m far from perfect and need to use it for a lot longer but it has been a learning process. It threw me this morning with a “/” in a callsign and also the use of what I think are called “cut numbers” so in the contest number instead of sending 90 it send NO.

Which brings me round to my real question. Is there an agree format for SOTA CW exchanges? Or if not a universally agreed format at least something commonly used? Morse Runner simulates a CW contest, what I need is a version which simulates a SOTA activation. :slight_smile:

John

1 Like

Since Morse Runner consistently sends an RST of 5nn [presumably to imitate contest exchanges] and hence very predictable, I pretend the 1-, 2- or 3-digit sequence number that follows is the RST even though the values are not realistic.

No, some are more chatty than others, but some abbreviations are more common than others so best to learn them to avoid being thrown by them, e.g.

2e0gqm/p de g8cpz/p ga john = ur rst 539 wid qsb = my sota ref g/ld058 = tks fer s2s 73 = de g8cpz/p

I use another app, Ham Morse [on my iPhone], to get practise with ham abbreviations.

1 Like

Hi John

An experienced CW operator activating SOTA would tend to use this typical exchange for speed and efficiency. Names if known and other brief pleasantries are often sent. The Chaser callsign could be sent twice - useful if the pile up chasers continue to send their call two or three times as some do! Other operators may suggest a different exchange:

First CQ:

CQ CQ SOTA DE G4OBK CQ SOTA K
DE 2E0GQM (John calls G4OBK)
2E0GQM GM 599 REF G/TW-004 BK (OR KN COULD BE USED INSTEAD OF BK)
TU 559 559 73 (73 or BK could be used you may also send your own callsign again to be 100% sure the activator has it some do, some don’t)
TU G4OBK (ACTIVATOR THEN AWAITS THE NEXT CALLER)

Note the reference is not sent every time, just from time to time - every 5 QSOs if one is busy is a good measure, in my opinion. Not every activator sends his call every QSO, but I believe they should, as it develops a good rhythm which chasers will then grasp. A less experienced CW activator may need longer to pick out a call from the horde of chasers calling. The more experienced operators can usually pick a full call or a partial call out from the horde with a single call from the chaser. So when chasing its best to send your call once, and using break in, listen for a second or two for the activator to respond. If the activator doesn’t go back to you or anyone else send your call once again.

Practice as a chaser as often as you can before embarking on first steps as an activator would be my advice, and then you will have a better appreciation of the procedure. 40m is the band to avoid when first activating if you are a novice as the number of callers is generally greatest on that band. So first steps try 20m, 30m or 60m I would suggest - you’ll find it less challenging.

73 Phil G4OBK

3 Likes

I’m still learning and hopefully improving as a CW activator. I can usually pull out a callsign from the pileup, but can only briefly hold it in my bird brain, so I scribble it down before responding.
If I only pick out a partial call, I’ll come straight back with “2E0?” or whatever.
So, if you are chasing me, please wait two seconds rather than one before calling again, to allow juggling of pencil and paddles. And maybe three seconds if the weather is cold and I have gloves on :o)
Having said that, I’ve noticed that regular chasers very quickly understand how individual activators work, and adapt their sending to suit - it is very impressive, and I’m very grateful to them.

73
Adrian

3 Likes

Hi Adrian,
Just in case this is of help to you, let me tell you what I do in these cases. If a chaser calls me once at a slower speed than my handwriting speed, I’ll write the full callsign down on my log before getting back to him/her.
If a chaser calls me once at speed faster than my handwritting speed, I usually headcopy his/her callsign and write down on paper only the most difficult to remember part, usually the suffix, then I come back to him/her ASAP because he/she may call me again if I take too long writing down the full callsign. After having sent my report, while my chaser is sending me his report, I have the chance to write down the rest of the callsing.
If I’m called by a well known regular chaser, I can get back to him without even having written his/her call down on my log, as I have his identity in my head and I can write down his/her callsing at anytime later.
73,

Guru

4 Likes

Listening to how an Activator (or any DX in pile up) is certainly good practice. Each op will tend to have slightly different practices and use/expect slightly different exchanges. It the old adage “always listen in frequency before transmitting”.

2 Likes

There have been observed “plateaus” in copying Morse. Such plateaus are usually experienced around 10, 18, and 26 wpm.

10 wpm: below this speed a person is using a short term memory “look-up table” to interpret Morse.

18 wpm: below this speed a person is using a long term memory “look-up table” to interpret Morse, which is neurologically both faster and more permanent, hence the reason for 13 wpm for the old General exam.

26 wpm: Code remains interpretation of single letters, but the interpretation has transferred to the language area of the brain. This is faster, hence the 20 wpm requirement for the old Extra class license.

To interpret above 26 wpm, the listener moves into copying syllables and words rather than individual letters. New methods for learning code such as Farnsworth are attempts to jump to learning code in the language area of the brain, the range between 18 and 26 wpm.

Guessing by your description, you do interpret letters directly from your language area. For making the next leap into what you are calling head-copy, I offer two suggestions:

  1. copying the code around 25 wpm with a pencil, but stop printing. Force yourself to use script. (How did I know you print the letters? Well, I don’t know, just guessing, but what is written is also descriptive of what is being processed, discreet letters). For some reason, physically running the letters together with script encourages hearing syllables and whole words rather than spelling out words from discreet letters.

  2. Listen to code at higher speeds. Listen to 30 to 35 wpm code, and do NOT attempt to write anything down. Just listen. If already using the language area, which I think you are, soon you will find words seem to almost magically materialize in your mind and you just know what was said!

Good luck! Have fun! CU on the air,

73 Fred KT5X (aka WS0TA on SOTA peaks)

6 Likes

I did give your posts a “like” at the time but I thought I should reply properly. :). Many thanks, you’ve both reassured me it might just be possible for me to master this. :slight_smile:

3 Likes

Very interesting.
I was taught morse in the Royal Navy - All of us got to 20wpm with 98% accuracy after an hour or two’s practice every day. 26 weeks later we all passed. I can’t remember any stumbling blocks, or plateaux along the way.

Interestingly for me, we all learned to copy on paper and of course when we received coded groups we could not have been using any ‘language’ portion of the brain and certainly could not be copying shyllables and words. Just letters.
David

As I understand it, a QSO is valid for SOTA if you exchange callsigns and signal reports and you need only record his/her callsign, time/date and band in your SOTA log. So, to be brutal, as long as you hear and record the callsign correctly, you have enough. You can even check his/her summit ref once you get home should you mishear it on-air.

Of course, it’s worth learning to recognise the handful of commonly-used abbreviations plus your own name so you can respond appropriately.

You raise a point I’ve sometimes pondered-in a QSO we are supposed to get a signal report yet we don’t have to record it in the log. So why do we need to get it, other than perhaps finding out how our respective signals are being sent/received?

It’s kind of a secondary level of acceptance that the QSO was completed. Exchange of callsigns and exchange of some information. Note the MT could also ask you to verify an activation if suspicion was raised about it, and having this information to collaborate a log is useful. I seem to see most people log the signal reports in the notes field anyway.

OK thanks for that. Yes, I usually put the signal reports in the notes part along with names, QTH, odds ‘n sods etc.

I thought I would share some of my morse experiences from over the years, and my morse head copy thoughts.

I trained to be a marine radio officer and spent approximately eleven years at sea, when morse code was the main method of communication. Typical plain text morse speeds encountered at sea were approximately 18-20 wpm, although that could vary up and down.

I spent the next few years at a government establishment as a morse code specialist, amongst other things. The training was to reach 25 wpm plain text, but during the operational work speeds varied tremendously and could be slower, to much faster.

In all of these the requirement was to record to paper, typewriter, or keyboard. The transcribed copy was then passed onto someone else to read.

In both of these occupations morse head copy was never considered, for obvious reasons, and the imperative was on transcription accuracy.

I have also been involved in morse code training.

Amateur radio morse transcription is of course different because if you miss something you can ask the sender to send it again.

I never considered head copy when I started amateur radio, but amateur radio morse QSO’s do lend themselves to it, as a lot of QSO’s are very standardised.

Amateur radio QSO’s tend to fall into two categories; the short and the long QSO. The short QSO tends to be calls plus RST, name and QTH. The longer QSO’s will include the above but tend to be the ragchew type. It is easier to head copy the short QSO, but with long QSO’s you may need to write down some bits to remember them. So, if you head copy a long QSO the trick is when to write, and when to head copy, this only comes with experience.

SOTA QSO’s are even more formulaic, as they tend to be just calls, and RST, so lend themselves to head copy. Having said that you still have to record the calls and the RST somewhere, so they can be input into the database.

One of the establishments I worked in started training new entrants in morse code from scratch on a computer system. At some point during the later stage of their morse training they were introduced to writing down the morse – they couldn’t do it, because they hadn’t been taught in their initial training. So the morale is you need to be able to do both, head copy and write it down.

From my own experience it is better to start writing down your QSO copy, and graduate to head copy as you gain confidence. There is really no magic formula, it is just practice, practice, practice.

73’s
David

13 Likes

There are a series of lectures on Youtube by the late Norman Kendrick G3CSG on Japanese morse code. Norman, a fellow member of Wirral A.R.S, was a naval telegraphist during WW2 in the Far East.

2 Likes

I lost count of the number of times I saw Norman’s Japanese Morse Talk.

Just started watching the series; fascinating. Thanks for the link.
73 Matt