[amsat-bb] LoTW still a big failure for checking satellite QSOs

[David W0DHB]

The biggest issue I run into is when the band specification entry is the
Downlink frequency rather than the uplink frequency (which seems to be the
accepted convention)
I believe these do not confirm at all.

I've also had people tell me when using eqsl.cc the convention is the
opposite.

Dave W0DHB

-----Original Message-----
From: AMSAT-BB [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces at amsat.org] On Behalf Of Clayton
W5PFG
Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2017 11:17
To: amsat-bb at amsat.org
Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] LoTW still a big failure for checking satellite QSOs

It is not luck, Ed. I have had the same thing happen to me on at least two
occasions.  I am 100% confident my upload contained the PROP_MODE and
SAT_NAME fields. The other station did not upload with those fields. 
The contact became a QSL record in the LoTW system as a terrestrial QSO. 
Fortunately I was able to assist the two stations to correct and re-upload.
The QSL's then were corrected to a satellite contact.

I have encountered some other special cases like this from time to time in
the LoTW system. It is not perfect but it generally works well and faster
than postal card exchanges.

73
Clayton
W5PFG

On 2/25/2017 11:50, Eduardo PY2RN wrote:
> Paul, may be I am the "lucky" one, but I have plenty of examples in LoTW
here.One of the most interesting is a QSO between PY and CT made via AO-40
satellite, where I have set satellite name and propagation mode correctly,
but the other station not, LoTW just credited terrestrial qso between PY and
CT on 1.2GHz.
>
> | Call Sign |   | PY2RN |
> | DXCC |   | BRAZIL |
> | CQ Zone |   | 11 |
> | ITU Zone |   | 15 |
> | Grid |   | GG66LW |
> | Worked Station |
> | Worked |   | CT1--- |
> | DXCC |   | PORTUGAL (272) |
> | CQ Zone |   | 14 |
> | ITU Zone |   | 37 |
> | Grid |   | IM67-- |
> | Date/Time |   | 2002-11-08 23:50:00 |
> | Mode |   | SSB (PHONE) |
> | Band |   | 23CM |
> | QSL |   | 2016-10-13 11:33:07 |
> |  |
> | Record ID 570561985 Received: 2016-10-13 11:33:07
>
>  |
>
>
> 73 - Ed PY2RN
>
>       From: Paul Stoetzer <n8hm at arrl.net>
>  To: Eduardo PY2RN <py2rn at arrl.net>
> Cc: "amsat-bb at amsat.org" <amsat-bb at amsat.org>
>  Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2017 2:37 PM
>  Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] LoTW still a big failure for checking 
> satellite QSOs
>
> Ed,
>
> LoTW will not confirm a QSO when the propagation mode and satellite 
> name don't match.
>
> 73,
>
> Paul, N8HM
>
> On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 12:30 PM, Eduardo PY2RN <py2rn at arrl.net> wrote:
>> This has been already taken to LoTW admins at ARRL but they insist in
blaming the "sat operator" as she/he registered the QSO with wrong/missing
information, which is true, but the system, LoTW the case, should avoid
confirming a match between two stations when one of them does not specify
PROPAGATION MODE = SAT. What LoTW actually does when one station specifies
it and the other not is to confirm a match QSO but the credit goes to the
terrestrial VUCC on VHF, UHF, etc. which, in my opinion, put high risk to
terrestrial VUCC credibility through LoTW confirmations.
>>
>> 73 - Ed PY2RN.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Sent via AMSAT-BB at amsat.org. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available 
>> to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. 
>> Opinions expressed are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the
official views of AMSAT-NA.
>> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite
program!
>> Subscription settings: http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sent via AMSAT-BB at amsat.org. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available 
> to all interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. 
> Opinions expressed are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the
official views of AMSAT-NA.
> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
> Subscription settings: http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
>
_______________________________________________
Sent via AMSAT-BB at amsat.org. AMSAT-NA makes this open forum available to all
interested persons worldwide without requiring membership. Opinions
expressed are solely those of the author, and do not reflect the official
views of AMSAT-NA.
Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
Subscription settings: http://www.amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb