Well guys, I'll think its now the right time to give some information from the recent 7O1YGF operation.
Wayne, N7NG/1 wrote: "In the second case (7O1YGF) no documentation was ever submitted....." Thats true! We were not able to get a piece of paper stating about the operation. That was NOT our fault. During our operation the Ministry of PTT received faxes and phone calls from amateurs around the world, asking for the legetimacy of our operation. One of the fax senders was DXCC Specialist Bill Moore, NC1L. This wasn't too helpfull. Wayne afterwards apologised for that. To get 7O1YGF credited for ARRL awards, Wayne want to have a written document either faxed or mailed from the Ministry of PTT in Sanaa DIRECTLY to ARRL Headquarter, not to us! As I'm not a newbie in dxing, I never heard before from such practice. Our operation was legal, verbal licence (Callsign 7O1YGF) was given to us upon arrival. They denied the second call (7O1II) for which we applied. We brought our equipment with us, total of 220 pounds, including two 5 element logperiodics. The operation site was in the diplomatic quarter in Sanaa, appr. 400 yards away from the HB9 and DL embassy. This area was heavily controlled by Police and Army day and night. Everybody could see our antennas, one was mounted on a 55ft tower and the other one top on a three story building. We where supervised by the Chief of the Secret Police twice. He didn't complain anything. What would be happened if our operation was not legal? After 9 days and 35k qso's we were forced by the Police to end our operation, what we did immediatly. Nobody was arrested and all of our equipment was taken out the country. Thats the story. AND our operation did not reflect badly on Amateur Radio but those who opposed. We know the callsigns and names. So, its on you to discuss if verbal permission is ok for any ARRL sponsored award or not. Hans, DK9KX one of the 7O1YGF team former calls: FR0ACC/G, DK9KX/S9, PY0ZSG, 5U7DX, 3D2CR, ZS9AAA/1, J59KX, N9KX/KH4 and some others "Mills, Wayne N7NG" wrote:: > Hi guys, > > Here is something to think about... > > As far as Hrane, YT1AD is concerned, North Korea apparently gave him ample > reason why he shouldn't transmit(!) It might be interesting to know why he > wasn't allowed to transmit, but he wasn't, and we missed the opportunity. On > the other hand, Ed, P5/4L4FN appears to have at least the tacit approval of > the DPRK, as he continues to operate. We don't know why, and really we don't > have any right to know. I guess DPRK can do anything it wants, and we will > respect their wishes. > > Someone wrote "...how is it decided who is the "appropriate authority"? > Shouldn't we be > consistent? If YT1AD was denied permission by the "appropriate authority", > then how could that same "authority" grant permission to someone else? At > least, it would seem reasonable to seek a suitable answer to that question > from the prior operators who had permission from some "appropriate > authority." > > Consistency is what we would expect based on most of our experiences. It is > what happens in most places, but not all. On the other hand, what right do > we have to expect that a particular government in the World will be > consistent? The World doesn't always work that way. We will fare better if > we adapt to the conditions instead of demanding what we expect. Taking > something off the list really isn't an option. > > Now this is a major point: ARRL does not want to encourage any activity that > will reflect badly on Amateur Radio. If we were to issue credit for an > operation against the wishes of the "appropriate authority," Amateur Radio > could suffer. Therefore, we would like to see tangible evidence that an > Amateur Radio operation is not illegal. Think about that one for a while. > This usually means a paper "license," but not necessarily. North Korea is > not the USA or France. As far as we know, Amateur Radio in the DPRK is not > defined. To expect a license in writing like you get from the FCC may be > unrealistic in some situations. In general, if someone in a high enough > position says something is OK, and no one in a higher position says that it > is not, it's probably OK. What happened in the first 7O case (7O1A) was that > someone said it was OK, and then someone in a higher position said it was > not OK. We are not in a position to argue. > (In the second case (7O1YGF) no > documentation was ever submitted, > so no should be waiting for us to make a > decision on accreditation.) Every case is different. Too many rules about > these things don't help, and making comparisons to the way things are done > in the US or Europe are meaningless. > > 73, Wayne, N7NG/1 > > ------------------------------------------------------- > Subscribe/unsubscribe, feedback, FAQ, problems, etc > DX-NEWS http://njdxa.org/dx-news > DX-CHAT: http://njdxa.org/dx-chat > > To post a message, DX NEWS items only, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Archives http://www.mail-archive.com/dx-news%40pro-usa.net/ > > Subscribe/unsubscribe, feedback, FAQ, problems > http://njdxa.org/dx-chat > > To post a message, DX related items only, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > This is the DX-CHAT reflector sponsored by the NJDXA > http://njdxa.org ------------------------------------------------------- Subscribe/unsubscribe, feedback, FAQ, problems, etc DX-NEWS http://njdxa.org/dx-news DX-CHAT: http://njdxa.org/dx-chat To post a message, DX NEWS items only, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives http://www.mail-archive.com/dx-news%40pro-usa.net/
