This past week I’ve observed a number of discussions about what constitutes a valid QSO. This question seems to arise from time to time with some general agreement forthcoming or ending with an agreement to disagree.
This past week the additional issue of what is allowed and what is not allowed to be communicated via online chat to facilitate the QSO was also debated at length.
On both these questions, contest rules are quite specific. For general operating and collecting awards, the rules are either less straightforward or not expressed at all.
As with most questions like this, I began by looking up information on the web. Here’s what I’ve found.
Valid QSO
When we dig back into the historical archives, we often find that others have addressed these issues before. Here are the historical definitions.
QST March 1957. The World Above 50 Mc. “What is a Contact?”
Edward P. Tilton, W1HDQ
The minimum exchange for two-way work to be considered a contact has been fairly well standardized on a two-stage procedure: positive identification of calls at both ends, and the completed exchange of signal reports.
Later in the article when discussing meteor scatter QSOs he says: If he gets the signal report, he then sends one to you. If you get it, you send “R.” If he gets the single letter, he also sends “R,” and the QSO is over, as far as the claim for a contact is concerned.
QST March 2006. The World Above 50 MHz. “What is a Contact?”
Eugene Zimmerman, W3ZZ
W3ZZ cites the original article above and adds: To this day we still follow the same general outline but with a few changes. Exchange of “signal reports” has come to mean exchange of at least one specific piece of information beyond the other station’s call sign. This can be an actual signal report in one of several formats, an abbreviation for a signal report like 000, which means full copy but at a very weak signal level, a grid locator or whatever. In addition once the contact sequence has begun, there can be no communication between the participants by some other means like the telephone, the Internet or some other amateur frequency, HF or VHF+.
He goes on to state: As Ed [W1HDQ] stated, there is no need for the final “73” or “SK” because when the other stations hears/sees the series of Rogers, that confirms that you have both his call and the report.
IARU Region 1 Requirements for a valid QSO
And to add a more recent reference, here’s the entry from IARU Region 1 VHF Handbook March 2021 (note that this is identical to the definition in their HF Handbook):
2.1 Minimum Requirement for a valid QSO
A definition for a valid QSO on VHF and on higher bands is:
A valid contact is one where both operators during the contact have
-
-
- mutually identified each other
- received a report, and
- received a confirmation of the successful identification and the reception of the report.
-
It is emphasized that the responsibility always lies with the operator for the integrity of the contact.
From 50+ years ago to today, the definition of a valid QSO has remained largely the same whatever the mode of communication.
Online Chat — What’s Allowed, What’s Not
I’m in no position to define this myself, but I can and have done a bit of research. Here’s what I’ve found.
QST March 2006. The World Above 50 MHz. “What is a Contact?”
Eugene Zimmerman, W3ZZ
All of our awards and standings depend on how vigorously we maintain our standards. As a group VHF operators have always had high standards in the past. Thus I have been dismayed at the reports I have received and in fact the postings I have seen on the Internet reflectors that are used to make schedules for both meteor scatter and EME contacts where stations are talking to one another on the Internet while a contact is being made on VHF. Worse yet, other well-meaning stations with perhaps bigger antennas or better conditions will tell the participants what they have heard. “Keep going, WlXYZ is sending you 27.” So the participants are getting information about the contact even if all they are doing is watching the Reflector and not sending anything themselves.
He goes on to state: Setting up schedules and exchanging information prior to the contact is perfectly reasonable. Once the contact begins, however, exchanging any details about the contact while it is ongoing is unacceptable. Information about the contact from third parties is likewise forbidden.
I personally like the warning posted on the Ping Jockey online chat webpage:
Exchanging any contact details on here before you’re complete, invalidates the contact.
The ARRL Contest Rules are pretty specific, too.
OPRG.8.4. Such assistance may not be used to facilitate the completion of any contact once the contact has commenced. This means such assistance may not be used to convey receipt or non-receipt of any required element of a contact or to request a repeat of any required element of a contact.
Valid QSOs and Online Chat — Summary Thoughts
We have some amazing technology at our disposal. That includes our ham shack computers, incredible rigs, and modulation modes from WSJT-X that really dig out weak signals. Yet, we have the same issues that plagued operators in 1957 and earlier. They are human issues.
We are so eager to earn awards, gain rare grids, and help one another do the same that we’ll use any tool at our disposal to make that happen.
I wouldn’t propose that some sort of tribunal be established to ascertain the validity of QSOs. This is by and large a self-regulated radio service along with all the awards and contests.
But there does need to be some earnest reflection on how we coach one another and how we behave when we’re placed into circumstances that would violate the principles outlined above.
I feel that there are elements of the Scout Law that can serve here: Trustworthy, Helpful, Courteous, Kind, Obedient. Maybe we should try them on for size.
Good luck with your QSOs, awards, and contests. I hope this history lesson and compilation of information has helped you on that journey in some small way.
Note that this article also appeared in the Proceedings of the Central States VHF Society Conference 2023 and was used to support a presentation at that same conference. Here’s the slide deck for reference:
Excellent article Jim. Thank you for the history and putting it all together for us.