Unethical Ethics of Authors of Ethics of Operating Procedures

Unethical Ethics of Authors of Ethics of Operating Procedures

VK5EEE 25 May 2016 06:44

A great many CW operators have been upset to read a book endorsed by the International Amateur Radio Union (IARU) and called "Ethics of Operating Procedures for the Radio Amateur" (EOPRA) co-authored by two Belgian radio hams ON4UN and ON4WW.

The book contains big errors regarding CW Operation, and is confusing to beginners, long winded and contradictory. Far from being corrected the authors, in their ignorance and arrogance, refuse to revise it, and stick by their false claims regarding CW procedure.

Worse, the IARU has appeared to endorse the book and it has been translated into 25 languages and is widely promoted by major western amateur radio societies, inspite of the false information in contains giving wrong procedure advice to radio amateurs.

Fortunately, the Icelandic amateur radio society (IRA) has presented a paper to the IARU on this issue, which can be viewed in PDF here, correcting the main and strange errors of the two Belgians.

One of these Belgians, ON4UN, is an expert on MF antennas, but he certainly is far from being an expert on CW procedure. Interestingly, since I've held the callsign VK5EEE I've only had a very few stations who could not copy my call sign correctly or were not partient enough to do so, and the first of that very few over the past year, was none other than ON4UN.

So what are the main problems apart from the lack of readability and confusion repetition of the book, which requires a serious re-work? The main issues are concerning how to end CW transmissions on amateur radio, the use of <AR>, K, PSE and <KN>.

Thankfully, serious CW operators with knowledge via their clubs, such as FISTS, have endorsed the Icelandic corrections to the absolutely incorrect "re-writing of the rules of CW operating procedure" by ON4UN et al, and have re-stated the more than 75 year old correct procedures, which are, unlike the mess produced by ON4UN, very simple and straight forward:

K means "invitation to transmit" (over to you)
Any station ending a transmission with <AR> alone is NOT inviting any callers to respond
K is the correct way to end a CQ call
Putting <AR> or PSE ahead of K is perfectly acceptable
CL (closing down) is sent as two separate letters
<KN> (inviting only one specific station to respond) is (usually) sent as one symbol
<AR> "end of message" is sent as a seperator between the message part of a transmission and the formalities at the end

Why not ask the authors of EOPRA to correct it?

Extensive negotiations with the authors failed to bring about corrections.

Did the IARU intend to change CW procedures by endorsing EOPRA?

No—the IARU has informed the Icelandic Association that they did not intend to change CW procedures.

Why is this important?

K, KN, and AR have been documented in amateur radio publications for at least 70 years and stood the test of time because it’s important to know when a transmission is ending, when callsigns are to follow, and if a reply is required and from whom. There needs to be a common understanding of these procedures so that everyone can communicate effectively. However, due to EOPRA, a minority of operators are omitting ‘K’ at the end of CQ calls, resulting in confusion on the air; it’s rather like having someone decide that on traffic signals a red light means “go” while everyone else knows that green means “go”—chaos
follows when there is not a common understanding.

It’s noticeable that EOPRA is causing further confusion; some operators have started omitting the K from ‘normal’ overs too—a further demonstration that correct operating procedure needs to be followed; K is an invitation to transmit, and if K, KN, or BK is absent, a reply is not wanted.

Surely procedures can evolve over time?

Procedures can, and do, change, but change occurs gradually where it adds value and is accepted by the CW community. An example is that <CT> is now rarely heard, and "OP" has often replaced Name as it is more international in language.

Is it contradictory saying that PSE as in ‘PSE K’ should be allowed?

EOPRA bans the use of PSE in ‘PSE K’ because it is ‘unnecessary’. Unlike the other EOPRA items discussed above, many operators have been using ‘PSE K’ on-air for very many years and it does not cause procedural problems (because it is—or should be!—followed by a K). The discussion is about conversational (non-contest) QSOs where time is not of the essence and omitting PSE at 18 wpm saves all of 1.7 seconds! If someone is tuning across the end of a CQ call and only hears your callsign but missed the "CQ" part, if you end with PSE K their is no doubt that you were calling CQ and they're invited to respond. But it's only optional.

Where can I read more information about VA14_C3_40?

The Icelandic Association has provided a short document with links to all the background information and research. We strongly recommend reading this. It’s available here: http://bit.ly/MGrcRj

Please also pass this link on to others.

---

77 de Lou, VK5EEE

Last edited on 25 May 2016 06:47 by VK5EEE Show more

Re: Unethical Ethics of Authors of Ethics of Operating Procedures

VK2GDI Ian 25 May 2016 23:43

I found that I had already downloaded (and read) the IRA document. At the time I didn't quite understand what they were upset about as I had not heard of the EOPRA and my on-air experience is that (fortunately) it does not appear to have had any influence. I did find my Amateur Operator's Handbook (Revised (Dec.78) ) where Chapter 7 describes Operating Procedures. Maybe because of this I am one of the dinosaurs who uses CT!
This note made me wonder if we really ever need a KN? If I finish with …..AR VK5EEE de VK2GDI K then it's clear who I am inviting to transmit. I wonder what others think?

I wouldn't like to think that we have to be too rigid on procedures, after all we are trying to communicate, and so for example it seems silly to me to be dogmatic about ending a CQ call with PSE K or just K. I know that hearing a CQ that ends with a PSE K might just encourage me to reply.

I would suggest that I am not the only one to use a non-standard error correction signal: rather than ……. I sometimes use . . . . . . . . to mean ‘sorry, I’ve completely lost the plot and will start again when I've pulled myself together' .
73 Ian.

Re: Unethical Ethics of Authors of Ethics of Operating Procedures

VK5EEE 26 May 2016 04:45

Thanks Ian and I agree with you, there is no need to be pedantic. However, I have come across many who clearly have adopted the wrong recommendations of the publication, which appears to be the only main reference these days to correct CW operating procedures as promoted by national amateur radio societies.

The problem is really only the confusion that occurs when tuning in at the END of a CQ call. Naturally, if you catch the actual "CQ" you will know that you can call this station. However, it frequently occurs that we catch only the tail end of a call, and this is where those codes become important. Basically:

If you hear "K" you know you are entitled to call that station. Maybe they are in a QSO with someone, you cannot hear, but you can still call them, and assume either they were calling CQ or don't mind someone breaking in. Usually during QSO I'm happy for break ins and can usually copy more than one at the same time, if they are at least slightly off frequency.

If you hear a "PSE K" you know for definite that they were calling CQ and you would be more than safe to call them, without waiting for them to start another round of CQ.

If you hear a "KN" you know for sure you are not to reply to that station.

So it's really for those situations, and by ending with <AR> one simply does not know, and has to wait on frequency to find out if the station is going to call CQ again, or is in a QSO (which you may not hear the other side of), or was just conducting a test transmission. No harm done, but it's not helpful in such situations. The old and correct procedure of the endings (PSE)(K), (KN), were exactly there for that reason. It would be the same as ending a call in SSB and saying simply "end of transmission" - without saying "over" (K/KN) or "listening" (PSE K).

It's not the end of the world for sure, and we absolutely don't have to be pedantic about such things, but it's just useful.

---

77 de Lou, VK5EEE

Re: Unethical Ethics of Authors of Ethics of Operating Procedures

Chris VK1CT 26 May 2016 10:53

Lou, that's a good explanation.

I sometimes use KN to make it clear that I am inviting/ requesting a particular station to transmit. It is very useful in a net situation. I have also found it handy when working DX, as often by ending in '…. DE VK1CT K' you can often get another op who was probably tuning across the band and just hears the VK1CT K and thinks I was calling CQ.

I also use PSE K, but particularly in a net situation. For example, on the Sunday CW net when I am the net controller I will send 'CQ NET DE VK1CT QNI PSE K'. I think the use of 'PSE' also shows as being friendly and courteous. When calling general CQ I may use PSE K after several calls to indicate that I am desperate and I really would like someone to reply! HI

For error correction, I often just send a few dits, as Ian has said.

Re: Unethical Ethics of Authors of Ethics of Operating Procedures

VK5EEE 26 May 2016 12:34

Yes same here, I use PSE that way too :-) Like yourself and Ian I almost never use 8 dits in succession for an error, though occasionally. Depending, I use sometimes eeee, ee ee, eeeeeeee, ii, ?, but especially at higher speeds often just e e
I think there is a lot of flexibility there and I observe that most others use those flexible options too. Strictly speaking "?" and "ii" mean I repeat, rather than I made an error, and I usually use those in the "I repeat" fashion. Interestingly, in a CWCOM QSO with a former landline telegraph operator, I discovered RR in that profession meant "I repeat" and not "Roger Roger" as it does on radio telegraphy. That was an operator who used a sounder, not radio and audio tone CW. It's quite interesting all the nuances and variations of CW around the world and at different eras, and certainly it has continued to evolve. There is no standard for an exclamation mark, for example, and some signs actually changed over the years. I think the "," used to be an exclamation mark and then the ITU changed it to a comma. And "." used to be iii. I've started learning a bit of American Morse, so if you hear an odd CW that sounds clipped — the dahs are only meant to be twice the length of dits and very little spacing between words (only 4 dits spacing instead of 7) and something that sounds (in International Morse) like ief ief ief de vkoeee vkoeee vkoeee ar k that's me calling CQ in American Morse. I don't think I'll ever get an answer though! One has to be careful, I used some Japanese CW at the start of a QSO the other night and got clobbered by loads of Japanese CW and didn't understand any of it. Best to leave it to Sayonara only at the end! :-D

---

77 de Lou, VK5EEE

ON4UN Crazy CQ -- Author of Ethics book full of errors on how to call CQ

VK5EEE 12 Feb 2017 15:29

In the "Ethics of Operating Procedures" which the Icelandic Amateur Radio Society and FISTS and others have pulled apart as full of errors, and which the author ON4UN has arrogantly refused to revise and correct, ON4UN, who is an expert on MF antennas but not in CW procedure, among other errors he states that a CQ call must be ended with an <AR> and not K.

This is his current CQ on the 30m band, which is button pushing as it repeats again and again identical:

CQ DX DX = LP ON4UN ON4UN DX DX = LP

Yes that's it — ever seen such an unusual CQ call? The man hates French language so much he does not use "DE"? OK that's fine, it is not compulsory to use DE. Using two = in the middle of a CQ is unheard of, very unorthodox. LP, long path, to where? VK/ZL? USA? Meaningless. And to simply end with = LP and not an invitation to transmit (K) nor PSE K, is just plain arrogant.

Hey, I would not keep picking this guy to bits if he was not the arrogant author of a book full of errors which the IARU promotes and which has led an entire generation of new CW operators to CONFUSION nor if he was arrogant to refuse to correct these errors. What type of operator he is just goes to show by his latest CQ which has no logic nor method to it. He repeated the above endless loops without ever getting a reply.

Last time I called this guy he could not even get my call sign right, no matter how many times I sent it — and he did not have the patience to even try. And that was before I started writing about him. If someone is going to take on such an important task as writing a book on Amateur Radio CW operating procedures, they had better do a good job and ask around before coming up with such BS, contradictions and confusion which one can only wonder what the purpose of it all is. And why the IARU supports it.

But then we can see the operating of G3BJ on his DX expeditions, and K1ZZ, other senior IARU officials, and how they refuse to answer let alone deal with questions and concerns about 30m unlimited/unspecified "DX" split operations and the risks to that band, and other important issues which would require addressing by the IARU.

---

77 de Lou, VK5EEE

Last edited on 12 Feb 2017 15:32 by VK5EEE Show more

Re: ON4UN Crazy CQ -- Author of Ethics book full of errors on how to call CQ

VK5EEE 12 Feb 2017 15:51

List of all documents on this problem of ON4UN and ON4WW: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9259789/EOPRA/IRAexamCommLinks.pdf

Letter to the IARU from IRA on this problem: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9259789/EOPRA/IARUdeIRA.pdf

IARU response to the IRA letter: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9259789/EOPRA/IRA_CW_response1-1.pdf

Objections to the ON4UN-ON4WW Conflicting CW Procedure by IRA: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9259789/EOPRA/IRApaperVarnaAlbena2014_Calibri.pdf

IRA Examination Committee Resolution on why the so-called Ethics book will not be used: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9259789/EOPRA/IRAexamCommResol29Apr2013.pdf

Explanatory Notes on the IRA objection to the IARU Ethics booklet due to the CW errors, misinformation and disinformation: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9259789/EOPRA/ExplanNotesIRAexamComm.pdf

---

77 de Lou, VK5EEE

Re: ON4UN Crazy CQ -- Author of Ethics book full of errors on how to call CQ

VK5EEE 14 Feb 2017 07:36

Just now 0730Z on 40m, I called ON4UN with a short 1x2 call, who is 579 and got this immediately: SRI TOO WEAK SRI NO CPI — not what is usual as in "QRZ?" and then put an ear to try to figure it out — just the above! So my reply: RR then he continued:

CQ DX DX ON4UN ON4UN DX DX

CQ DX DX ON4UN ON4UN DX DX

Never any invitation to transmit — and of course, being Flemmish I guess he hates the French so doesn't use DE :-)

Then suddenly once, this:

TU TU 5NN

and then continued after a pause:

CQ DX DX ON4UN ON4UN DX DX

So who was he giving 5NN and no 73 and no callsign and no EE?!

I've been told by Belgians who know this character that he is arrogant. He sure is!!!

---

77 de Lou, VK5EEE

Last edited on 14 Feb 2017 13:46 by VK5EEE Show more

Re: ON4UN Crazy CQ -- Author of Ethics book full of errors on how to call CQ

VK5EEE 14 Feb 2017 08:20

It's a clear pattern, Tim VK3IM had a QSO with him soon after, and got a good report, and was 599 with Tim. Tim asked ON4UN what antenna he was using? No reply to that - "How dare someone waste my time asking about my antenna" and good bye…

---

77 de Lou, VK5EEE

Re: Unethical Ethics of Authors of Ethics of Operating Procedures

Michael VK2CCW 25 May 2016 22:42

Hi all,
I agree that the fact that there are operators out there that don't understand the correct procedures. These days there is not much training in the use of radio and the correct way of using one. Since the ITU have abolished CW as a requirement for a Ham station licence, those now joining the ranks of others that enjoy a rag chew or two on CW, have mostly to learn to send and receive themselves unless someone steps up to the task of training. To correctly teach a new comer would be the ideal thing in a perfect world. New comers should have to be trained by a club or someone of complete competence so new comers to this hobby are taught correctly on how to operate radio.

Its a shame that this hobby which I adore is going this way. The system needs to be taken back a peg or two and revised so that when a new op comes on air they have an understanding of what is done to correctly operate.

73 & 77 de Michael VK2CCW

---

Michael VK2CCW

Re: Unethical Ethics of Authors of Ethics of Operating Procedures

VK5EEE 26 May 2016 04:48

Indeed in the old days there were clear guides, inexpensive publications, and much assistance around for new comers. Now they're pretty much often left to their own devices, the Internet and there is less social interaction. I guess local radio clubs are key if they can be founded, revived, or already exist, and if CW operators get together as several of us have been doing, and as you are doing, to offer a helping hand. It seems there is a bit more of that going on now, but I think the social climate (TV, isolation, Internet) also has its down sides!

---

77 de Lou, VK5EEE

Last edited on 26 May 2016 04:49 by VK5EEE Show more

Re: Unethical Ethics of Authors of Ethics of Operating Procedures

Michael VK2CCW 26 May 2016 21:23

Hi all,

Well I was always taught that 8 dots was the way to correct and error. We all have different ways of correcting. I like using 8 dots as it gives you time to settle down again and continue on. In most cases, most ops know what was sent to them, when it was sent wrong unless you made a complete mess of it like I do from time to time, thats when I like to use proper correction. I don't ever remember anyone telling me that 8 dots had to be sent fast or all together but just send 8 to correct. These days its not all that important so long as the receiving station can understand the conversation. I here all sorts of error correction but so long as I understand whats going on, thats all that matters to me.

73 & 77 de Michael VK2CCW

---

Michael VK2CCW

Re: Unethical Ethics of Authors of Ethics of Operating Procedures

VK5EEE 26 May 2016 21:46

Exactly, well said. By the way, my callsign could be considered one big error, it is a VK followed by exactly 8 dits.

---

77 de Lou, VK5EEE

IARU Down the Drain with Unethical Ethics and G3BJ

VK5EEE 09 Aug 2016 13:51

From NZART Infoline List. Note that the booklet is as above described, CW operators who know the many errors it contains are not happy, and G3BJ, well, see the forum thread about correspondence with this individual. The IARU by the way, since a great many years, has a plan still on their to do list for band plans to be sorted by band width and thus apparently do away with CW exclusive bands. Of course, they have not succeeded as yet and CWToday issue no. 9 explains why CW needs exclusive bands. ARRL tried, but recently also had to withdraw and change their online band plan which had been showing only "DATA/RTTY" across the entire CW bands, and CW was only mentioned in tiny print on the side bar "CW is allowed on all frequencies". Anyway, here is the sad swallowing of this poor booklet by NZART which need to do a proper reading of it and criticise it and request its withdrawal as the Icelandic Amateur Radio Society have done. NZART also for Region 3 have been unable to find anyone to make an interactive site that will allow Region 3 member societies to update with their news. Our humble site is already better in that respect than the IARU-3 site which when I last looked was rather appalling. Time for that CW Union. We can do a much better job and put CW at the forefront of Amateur Radio for our members. So, over to NZART:

Over the last eight years, the booklet “Ethics and Operating Procedures for the Radio Amateur” has become a respected work describing the best standards of operating on the amateur bands. Translated into most major languages, the booklet by John Devoldere, ON4UN and Mark Demeuleneere, ON4WW, is a valuable reference work for all radio amateurs. The booklet can be found at http://www.hamradio-operating-ethics.org/
Mark and John recently contacted IARU, explaining that they felt it appropriate for IARU to become the custodian of the booklet into the future, with the scope to adapt and update it to ensure it remains relevant and current.
The IARU Administrative Council accepted this offer with gratitude to John and Mark for the work they have put into the document. On May 5th 2016, Mark and John met Don Beattie, G3BJ, President IARU Region 1, in Brussels to officially hand over the document. IARU will now carry forward the work in future years to ensure its continuing relevance and currency.

Continuing relevance and currency? It doesn't have relevance and currency in its current form, why do a job 60% when it could be done 99% with the input from a few proper CW operators (ON4UN was one of the tiny number of stations who could not copy my callsign correctly, even after many repeats, he had no patience).

---

77 de Lou, VK5EEE

Last edited on 09 Aug 2016 13:54 by VK5EEE Show more

Re: IARU Down the Drain with Unethical Ethics and G3BJ

VK5EEE 09 Aug 2016 13:58

IARU Administrative Council appear ignorant and arrogant. We've seen the correspondence of the President of IARU-1 who shut down the conversation. Region 2 President did not reply to correspondence. Region 3 all of them did not reply to our Emails and Petition regarding Indonesia QRM, while having a junket in BALI of all places, and then placing an Indonesian at the helm of Region 3 (Intruder Watch) Monitoring System, who promised much, but we've heard nothing at all from him since. Grrr…. IARU = Defunct?

---

77 de Lou, VK5EEE

Last edited on 09 Aug 2016 15:53 by VK5EEE Show more