A reader recently wrote:
Dan –
Why are some hams are professional CQers? How many times have you heard some guy call CQ over and over again only to find him give his call once and,of course, you miss it?
There are so many ways of calling CQ nowadays. Whats wrong with the 2X2 or 3X3 method, i.e.
CQ CQ DE K8ABC K8ABC CQ CQ DEK8ABC K8ABC….etc…..
Another complaint that I have is guys that end their CQ with KN. That’s about as wrong as wrong can be. KN means don’t interrupt me. Then why call CQ?
Please ask these questions in an upcoming blog. I would like to see the replies.
My biggest complaint about CQ process these days is about operators who answer a normal CQ by sending only their call sign. This is wrong on two counts. First of all, if I’m calling CQ, I cannot be sure if the station who just sent his call sign is calling me or not if he doesn’t send my call sign first. Second, it’s very easy to miss a call sign if it’s only sent once. A burst of noise or a bit of QSB could cause a bad copy. So, please, if you’re replying to my CQ, send my call once or twice and then yours two or three times, depending on conditions. TNX es 73!
The exception to the send both calls rule is probably contesting and nets, if it’s clear the CQ’r is running the frequency, at least in my experience.
Definitely. DXing and contests and nets have their own rules. My post was directed to “informal” or “every day” operation.