About Region 1
Committees & Working Groups
HF Committee Newsletter
No. 52, May 2001
by Carine Ramon - ON7LX
The Region 1 EC has proposed
that we should have an informal meeting of the IARU Region 1 HF
committee in Friedrichshafen during the Ham Radio Meeting from 29-6
till 01-7-2001. The HF committee meeting will take place on Friday
afternoon from 13.00 till 17.30 hour.
The goal for this meeting is to have an exchange of ideas based up
on the discussion papers of the cancelled Vienna meeting and
possible additional papers. Please note that the discussions at this
meeting only can be a preparation for the Region 1 Conference in San
Marino next year and that no formal decisions or recommendations can
If you want to add other documents, I would like to receive them by
electronic form no later than 3 June 2001 so that I can organise
everything in this short time.
Let me remember you the documents received for the cancelled Vienna
a) EDR document:
For the upcoming interim HF-comittee meeting EDR would like the
following item put on the agenda:
Band-planning on 160m during contests.
I am writing a paper which I will forward to you in a short time.
HF manager EDR
b) VERON document:
A possible agenda item for the HF Meeting in Vienna could be the WRC
2003 agenda item "realignment of allocations around 7 MHz"
I suggest that either SP5FM or LA2RR gives us an update on what has
been achieved in CEPT/ERC/WGFM and ITU/SG8/WP8A. I also suggest that
they provide guidelines to the Amateur Radio Societies how to
instruct their national administrations on this 7 MHz subject.
And something for the newsletter: The Dutch administration agreed on
an extension of 160 meters to 1880 kHz (old 1850 kHz) with a maximum
power of 400 Watts. The change will come into effect in the spring
VERON HF Manager
c) SARL document:
SOUTH AFRICAN RADIO LEAGUE
MEMBER SOCIETY OF THE INTERNATIONAL AMATEUR RADIO UNION REGION 1
P O BOX 1721 STRUBENSVALLEI 1735 SOUTH AFRICA
TEL (011) 675-2393 FAX (011) 675-2793
Visit the SARL website at www.sarl.org.za
18 August 2003
Carine Ramon, ON7LX
HF Manager, IARU Region 1
AMENDMENT TO THE REGION 1 HF BAND PLAN: 10 MHZ BAND
Following discussions held during the HF Forum at the SARL Annual
General Meeting it was decided to request IARU Region 1 to amend the
HF Band Plan for the 10 MHz band for Region 1.
Referring to the HF managers Handbook (November 1996) and the IARU
Region 1 HF Band Plan, as adopted at the 1996 General Conference,
the remarks for the 10 MHz band reads, “The band segment 10.120 to
10.140 MHz may be used for SSB transmissions in the area of Africa
south of the equator during local daylight hours”.
The South African Radio League would like to amend this remark for
the 10 MHz band by removing the words ‘during local daylight hours’
and replacing them with the words ‘twenty four (24) hours per day’.
The 10 MHz band provides good and reliable communication between the
southern provinces of South Africa (ZS1 and ZS2) and the northern
provinces (ZS6). The band is often used to communicate when neither
the 40-metre nor the 20-metre bands can provide reliable
communications, especially between Cape Town and
Johannesburg/Pretoria. It is often found that when the SARL national
bulletin is broadcast on a Sunday, the 40-metre transmission does
not reach the ZS1 and ZS2 areas, and 20-metres goes right over them.
The 10 MHz band then comes into its own and provides these call
areas with good reception.
It is felt that this band would also provide acceptable
communications during the local periods of darkness. The use of the
segment 10.120 to 10.140 MHz for SSB in the area of Africa south of
the equator will not interfere with the utilisation of the band in
Europe and other parts of IARU Region 1. With the small segment
available on the 40-metre band (7.000 to 7.100), this allocation
would help to relieve the congestion on that band and provide good
long distance communication opportunities, not only in South Africa
but also in other countries south of the equator.
Therefore the South African Radio League would request the mid-term
HF Conference in Vienna during 2001 to consider the amendment of the
remarks to the 10 MHz band.
The remark at present reads:
“The band segment 10.120 to 10.140 MHz may be used for SSB
transmissions in the area of Africa south of the equator during
local daylight hours”.
And it is proposed that it be amend it to read:
“The band segment 10.120 to 10.140 MHz may be used for SSB
transmissions in the area of Africa south of the equator twenty four
(24) hours per day.”
For the kind consideration of the HF Managers meeting in 2001.
Dennis Green ZS4BS
HF Manager and Band Planner
d) CSG document:
For the CSG, the main issue these days is formats for contest logs
from logging software. About 15 months ago, the ARRL published the
specification for a new standard - they called it Cabrillo. This
replaced the former ARRL Suggested File Format for QSO records. It
is now mandatory for all ARRL contest, and logs in any other format
will be treated as checklogs. The main changes in Cabrillo are
1. Summary Sheet data and QSO data are combined in a single file.
2. 2. QSO data is closely defined - each field must be placed within
3. The QSO records do not have any indication of dupes, or
multipliers or points.
Item 3 needs more explanation. The ARRL has developed its own log
checking software which has two components. The first is to
independently check each log against an up-to-date database of
country/prefix references. This reference database (or simply, a
file) is readily available. It's the file CTY.DAT, maintained by Jim
Reisert AD1C, and used by all (or nearly all) contest logging
programs as the basis for identifying countries from callsigns, and
applying points and multipliers as appropriate to each QSO. I use it
myself for SD. Before the advent of contest logging on computer,
unmarked dupes were penalised severely. Now, with ARRL's software,
they simply don't matter - they will be scored with 0 points and no
penalty. The second component of ARRL's log checking software is to
combine and cross-check all the logs - and to disallow QSOs, and
impose penalties, where logs do not match. I had hoped that Cabrillo
would be a model for all contest organisers to follow. In
particular, it's good to have a single file from each entrant, and
it's good that they (the ARRL) independently check and score each
log. However, Cabrillo does have limitations and is very much
USA-oriented. In many respects it's little more than an updated ARRL
Suggested File Format. I believe it's very unlikely to become a
general-purpose format, to be easily adopted by other contest
In the meantime, you know that DARC proposed their own new format -
with particular reference to the WAE contest, including records for
I, personally, have suggested that any new standard for contest logs
should be based or derived from ADIF. However, this idea has not
been well received by either ARRL or DARC, although the RSGB will
now accept ADIF logs. Now that the majority of contesters use
computers to log, another issue has arisen. It's simply that contest
organisers cannot unilaterally announce significantly different log
formats unless they first have the cooperation of the contest
Here's a copy of some recent correspondence from K8CC, author of NA.
>Cabrillo *was* invented for the ARRL. Nobody else has to use it.
>there are few organizations in the world (DARC included) whom
>software writers will expend effort to support with unique
>standards. Maybe I'm just being too "American" here...if so,
>I refuse to discuss this with anyone but contest sponsors or
>software writers. These are the ONLY opinions that count. I will
>the right of the contest sponsors to demand what they will, but I
>refuse to implement that which is stupid, and will support other
>developers in a similar way.
The (contest logging software) user's opinions don't count - they
just buy our software and push the button. However, the name of the
game for any contest sponsor is to attract both activity and
entrants - that's the only real measure of the influence or success
of the contest - particularly the international ones like UBA or WAE
or IOTA. DARC is no different to ARRL in wanting to reduce the
post-contest work of dealing with logs in many different formats -
I'm sure you've plenty of experience with this in the UBA contest.
The difference lies in the fact that ARRL is larger and can make its
standards stick - not least because most of the major contest
loggers are American.
To summarise, I propose that "Contest Log Formats" should be on the
agenda for the meeting. There must be something that we in R1 can do
towards the acceptance of a format that would ease the pressures on
contest sponsors. If you like, I can prepare a more detailed paper,
or distribute a newsletter on the subject. Please let me know what
you would like.
I am looking forward to meet you all in Friedrichshafen.
Carine Ramon - ON7LX