Sometimes radio amateurs suggest that phonetics are not needed on VHF FM.  (See examples here and here.) Sometimes it even sounds like it’s a bad thing to use phonetics on FM.  It is inefficient and slows things down. I can see the logic behind this because with decent signal strength, demodulated FM audio is usually quite clear and easy to understand.

Here’s what I wrote in my VHF FM Operating Guide, also downplaying the need for phonetics:

The use of phonetics is not usually required due to the clear audio normally associated with frequency modulation. Still, sometimes it is difficult to tell the difference between similar sounding letters such as “P” and “B”. Under such conditions, use the standard ITU phonetics to maintain clarity. Many nets specifically request the use of standard phonetics to make it easier on the net control station.

The FCC Technician exam gives the topic of phonetics a light touch with just these two questions:

T1A03 (D)
What are the FCC rules regarding the use of a phonetic alphabet for station identification in the Amateur Radio Service?

A. It is required when transmitting emergency messages
B. It is prohibited
C. It is required when in contact with foreign stations
D. It is encouraged

And this one:

T2C03 (C)
What should be done when using voice modes to ensure that voice messages containing unusual words are received correctly?

A. Send the words by voice and Morse code
B. Speak very loudly into the microphone
C. Spell the words using a standard phonetic alphabet
D. All of these choices are correct

Use Phonetics

In practical radio operating, there are a number of things that can degrade communication, usually by creating noise sources that compete with the voice modulation. Most of these are a factor even if the RF signal is strong:

• A noisy environment at the receiving end (e.g., background noise such as road noise in an automobile)
• A noisy environment at the transmitter (e.g., background noise such as wind noise outdoors)
• Poor frequency response of the overall system (e.g., high frequencies may be lost in the transmitter, receiver or repeater, making it more difficult to understand the voice communication).
• Hearing impairment of the person receiving the audio (I’ve heard that we are all getting older)
• Difficulty understanding the person speaking (poor enunciation, unfamiliar dialect or accent, etc.)

So I say go ahead and use phonetics on VHF FM, especially for critical information such as your call sign. FM communication is not always clear and easy to understand. It suffers from the same signal-to-noise problems as other voice modes. (Perhaps not as bad as SSB on HF, but it’s still a factor.) In most cases, you’ll want to stick with the standard ITU phonetic alphabet (also known as the NATO alphabet).

Many nets request that you use ITU phonetics when you check in. Imagine being the Net Control Station for a net and having everyone making up their own phonetics. You would have call signs coming at you with all kinds of random words associated with them.  It is much better to have consistency. However, there are times when you might want to use alternative phonetics. See the HamRadioSchool.com article: Phonetic Alphabets for more insight on that.

73, Bob
Kilo Zero November Romeo

The post Go Ahead and Use Phonetics on 2m FM appeared first on The KØNR Radio Site.

The conventional wisdom in amateur radio is that we should not call CQ when using FM on the VHF and UHF bands, especially on repeaters. The reasoning for this is that during normal VHF/UHF FM operating, radio amateurs are tuned to a specific frequency and will easily hear a call on FM.

Compare this to the HF bands, where the other ham is generally tuning around to find someone to contact and stumbles onto your transmission. In that case, you want to make a long call (CQ CQ CQ Hello CQ This is Kilo Zero November Romeo calling CQ CQ CQ…) so people tuning the band will find you and tune you in. On VHF/UHF FM, the assumption is that the other hams have their radio set on the repeater or simplex channel being used and will immediately hear you. FM communications are often quite clear and noise free, which also helps. The normal calling method is to just say your callsign, perhaps accompanied with another word like “monitoring” or “listening.”  For example, I might say “KØNR monitoring.”

Question T2A09 in Technician exam pool reinforces this idea:

T2A09 (B)
What brief statement indicates that you are listening on a repeater and looking for a contact?
A. The words “Hello test” followed by your call sign
B. Your call sign
C. The repeater call sign followed by your call sign
D. The letters “QSY” followed by your call sign

Gary/KN4AQ wrote this tongue-in-cheek article HamRadioNow: Do NOT Call CQ on Repeaters which says that calling CQ on a quiet repeater works well because it is likely that someone will come on and tell you not to call CQ. Gary wrote:

So I trot out my standard advice: make some noise. I even recommend calling CQ, because that’s almost guaranteed to get someone to respond, if only to tell you that you’re not supposed to call CQ on repeaters.

There is also an interesting thread on the topic on reddit: 2 meter calling frequency.

Scanning and Multitasking

Some important things have changed in our use of VHF/UHF FM over past decades.  The most important shift is dispersion of activity: while the number of VHF/UHF channels has increased, the total amount of VHF/UHF radio activity has declined. This means that we have tons of channels available that are mostly quiet. Tune the bands above 50 MHz and you’ll hear a lot of dead air. In response to this, some hams routinely scan multiple repeater and simplex frequencies. While getting ready for Summits On The Air (SOTA) activity, I’ve had hams ask me to make a long call on 146.52 MHz so they can be sure to pick me up on scan.  

Another factor that comes into play is the multitasking nature of our society. Hams don’t generally sit in front of a 2m radio waiting for activity to occur. More commonly, they are doing something else and listening to the FM rig in the background. VHF FM is the Utility Mode, always available but not necessarily the top priority. A short call (“KØNR listening”) on the frequency can easily be missed.

Recommendations

My conclusion is that the Old School “KØNR Monitoring” style of making a call on VHF is no longer sufficient. First off, it sends the message of “I am here if you want to talk to me.” If that’s your intent, fine. However, if you really want to make a contact, being more explicit and a bit assertive usually helps. Follow Gary’s advice and make some noise.

For example, during a SOTA activation I’ll usually call on 146.52 MHz with a bit of a sales pitch.  Something like: “CQ CQ 2 meters, this is Kilo Zero November Romeo on Pikes Peak, Summits On The Air, anyone around?” This is way more effective than “KØNR Monitoring.”  I might also include the frequency that I am calling on, to help out those Scanning Hams. Something like “CQ CQ 146.52, this is KØNR on Pikes Peak, Summits On The Air.”  Note that these calls are still pretty much short and to the point, only taking about 15 seconds. This is a lot shorter than the typical HF CQ.

If I am driving through another town and want to make contact on the local repeater, I will adjust my approach accordingly. For example, on a relatively quiet repeater, I might say “CQ, anyone around this morning? KØNR mobile I-25 Denver.” Or if I have a specific need, I’ll go ahead and ask for it. “This is KØNR looking for a signal report.”

Keep in mind that VHF/UHF operating tends to be local in nature, so it makes sense to adapt your approach to both local practice and the specific situation.

• It’s OK to call CQ on VHF FM, make some noise on the frequency.
• Give other operators a reason to contact you.
• Don’t make your CQ too long, maybe 15 to 20 seconds.
• The callsign/listening approach is fine too.

Those are my thoughts. What do you think?

73 Bob K0NR

The post Go Ahead and Call CQ on 2m FM appeared first on The KØNR Radio Site.

In its petition, the Sundance Mountain Radio Association asserts that there is unnecessary and harmful confusion caused to daily amateur radio operation because the radio callsign is not a reliable indicator of station location. “It is common to work a W9 station and find out the guy actually moved to Florida years ago,” said Leroy Walker (KVØCO), President of the Sundance Mountain Radio Association (Palmer Lake, CO). “This wastes precious time when I am trying to work a particular state or area of the country. The other day, a KL7 station came booming in on 160m and I thought I had a new DXCC entity. Turns out, he was in Nebraska.”

License Modification

The post Radio Club Petitions FCC To Fix Call Area Confusion appeared first on The KØNR Radio Site.

The FCC has invited public comments on two proposals to change the licensing requirements for amateur radio operators. Both of these proposals are aimed at attracting and retaining new amateur radio licensees.

Tyro

The first one is the “Tyro” license proposal from Gary/AD0WU that creates a new license class with minimal licensing requirements and operating privileges on the 70 cm band. See the complete proposal on the FCC website.

I find this proposal severely flawed with way too many details that would need to be written into Part 97. For example, the proposal establishes 99 specific repeater/simplex channels in the 430 MHz portion of the band. Oh, and the repeaters use a non-standard 9 MHz offset. There’s lots more in the proposal that make it a non-starter.

Still there is a nugget of an idea in here: a GMRS-like entry-level amateur radio license that is super easy to get. This could be an easy-peasy gateway into ham radio for kids, spouses and family members. However, I expect the FCC to just dismiss this petition without serious consideration.

Enhanced Technician

The second proposal is from the ARRL (see this ARRL news item):

The FCC has invited public comments on ARRL’s 2018 Petition for Rule Making, now designated as RM-11828, which asks the FCC to expand HF privileges for Technician licensees to include limited phone privileges on 75, 40, and 15 meters, plus RTTY and digital mode privileges on 80, 40, 15, and 10 meters.

The proposal would “add limited High Frequency (HF) data and telephony privileges to those currently available to Technician Class Amateur licensees.” The objective is to sweeten the Technician privileges to both attract new licensees and to retain existing Technicians (and maybe get them interested in moving up to General). There is an assumption/belief/hope that providing some HF telephony and digital privileges will accomplish these goals.

I am disappointed in the lack of data-driven analysis in support of this proposal. The ARRL filing claims that they “studied the comparable entry level license class operating privileges of other countries” but provided no data. There are different licensing schemes around the world…maybe we should compare and learn something from them. The data they did provide was survey data of ARRL members…which is really just an opinion poll: what do you think we should do with the licensing structure? This is not a great way to create public policy.

What’s the Objective?

Let’s start with the objective, which the ARRL petition says is “developing improved operating capabilities, increasing emergency communications participation, improving technical self-training, and increasing growth overall in the Amateur Radio Service.” I think this is a reasonable goal.

For some reason, every time there is a concern about improving and growing amateur radio, the proposed solution is a change in the licensing structure (usually to make it easier to obtain operating privileges). If the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. While the licensing structure should be improved over time, it should not be the first (or only) tool to apply. The ARRL needs to take a much more strategic approach to working towards the objective. Fortunately, I see positive signs they are moving in the right direction. See ARRL CEO Howard/WB2ITX Speaks.

Back To Licensing

There is a worthy idea in the ARRL proposal:
Change the entry level license (Technician) to provide a taste of HF phone and digital privileges, so it attracts more people to the hobby AND get them more deeply engaged. This might actually work.

I am not an unbiased observer because I have plenty of fun playing around with radios on frequencies above 50 MHz. I originally thought I would be a Technician for life but gradually got pulled into the fun below 30 MHz. So part of my brain says “Technicians just need to figure out how to have fun on VHF/UHF.” There is a lot to be said for having the entry level license be focused on VHF/UHF to learn basic radio operating. HF can come later.

Another part of my brain sees the excitement and growing popularity of the WSJT-X digital modes, especially FT8. Why do Technicians get to use CW on some of the HF bands but not other digital modes? That seems kind of silly in the year 2019. And making HF contacts with other states and countries on SSB is lots of fun, too.

Another question to ask is “what harm could be done by this proposal?” We could see a lot more activity in the portions of the HF bands Technicians are given. Maybe so much that those subbands get overrun with signals…seems like a potential problem. Some people have argued that giving Technicians these HF privileges will cause them to not upgrade to General. That seems like a low risk…if they get hooked on HF operating, they will upgrade to get access to additional spectrum.

There are really two assumptions in play here:

1. Attract Assumption: More people will be attracted to ham radio due to the expanded Technician HF privileges.
2. Retain Assumption: That Technicians will be more engaged in ham radio activity due to the expanded HF privileges (perhaps upgrading to higher license classes).

The distribution of US amateur radio licenses is roughly Amateur Extra (20%), General (23%) and Technician (50%), the remaining 7% are Novice and Advanced. So roughly half of US radio amateurs have decided to get their “VHF oriented” license while the other half have gone on to get an “HF privileged” license. Frankly, I don’t see the General license exam as a big barrier…I see people studying for it in our license classes and 90% of them are successful on the exam. But the exam is yet another thing to do, so it does represent an obstacle to overcome, just not a big one. What I do see them struggling with actually getting on the air with HF. See Getting On HF: The Fiddle Factor. Easier licensing is not going to address that problem.

Who Wants HF?

A lot of Technicians are just fine with the operating privileges they have. I even noted some Tech’s complaining they are tired of OF hams telling them they need to fall in love with HF. Interesting. I don’t have reliable data on what Technicians think but I see several types of Technicians that are quite happy with their existing privileges:

• Family/Friend Communicators – these folks are not hard core radio amateurs but they got their license to communicate with friends and family.
• Outdoor Enthusiasts – these folks use ham radio to augment their outdoor activities: hiking, biking, offroad driving, camping, fishing, etc.
• Emcomm and Public Service Volunteers – these hams are involved in local emergency response, support of served agencies (Red Cross, Salvation Army, etc.) or providing communications support for marathons, parades, charity walks, etc.
• Technical Experimenters – many radio amateurs are into experimenting with technology and the bands above 50 MHz offer a lot of opportunity for that.

I don’t know what percentage of Technicians are unconcerned about HF privileges but it is significant (half of them? perhaps more?) Providing HF privileges to this group will not have much of an effect. It seems like the ARRL should have data on this before serving up a proposal to change the licensing structure.

My Thoughts

What do I think? I think this proposal most likely will not make a significant difference with regard to attracting and retaining new radio hams. Something else is needed to do that, such as effective training programs, strong local clubs and mentors available to help newbies get started and build skills.

But it might just work. Maybe HF is the bright shiny object that will motivate people to pursue amateur radio.

So count me as agnostic on this proposal. I won’t be filing comments with the FCC. What do you think?

73 Bob K0NR

The post FCC Considers Changes to Amateur Radio Licensing appeared first on The KØNR Radio Site.

We just got back from a very enjoyable trip to Roatan Island that included 8 friends vacationing together. The snorkeling and beach time were lots of fun. We stayed at the Seaside Inn, highly recommended.

Of course, I took along some ham radio gear and made radio contacts from the island using the Slacker DXpedition method. The station was a Yaesu FT-991 driving an end-fed half wave wire antenna, cut for either 20m or 40m. I operating as K0NR/HR9 and my co-slacker Denny was on the air as KB9DPF/HR9. (Reciprocal licensing info is available from the Radio Club De Honduras.) We started out on SSB but that was tough going with poor propagation, so we soon found that FT8 was more effective.

We were pleasantly surprised with how well FT8 worked out for us as it was very compatible with the Slacker DXpedition philosophy. Here are the Top Ten Reasons to Use FT8 for Island Time DX:

• You can listen to your “island time” playlist while working DX.
• You don’t annoy your fellow vacationers by screaming into the microphone.
• You don’t have to worry about remembering proper phonetics.
• You can read the other station’s QRZ page while the computer completes the contact.
• You have time to visit the restroom without missing any contacts.
• You can upload your log to LoTW while operating.
• You have time to mix up a rum punch while making QSOs.
• It doesn’t matter if you slur your speech a bit due to that extra rum punch.
• If the run rate is really slow, the pc screensaver will kick in to entertain you.
• You can actually make contacts when propagation sucks.

The post Top Ten FT8 Advantages For Slackers appeared first on The KØNR Radio Site.

Recently, my SOTA Activating Partner and Spousal Unit Joyce/K0JJW racked up more than 500 activating points for Summits On The Air (SOTA). This is halfway towards the coveted Mountain Goat award, so naturally this is referred to as Half Mountain Goat. Steve/WG0AT noticed this achievement and created this certificate for her.

She has activated 108 summits in 13 different associations (including HB Switzerland). All radio contacts have been on the VHF/UHF bands. She really likes it when another woman gets on the air with her, which she calls F2F (Female-to-Female) radio contact.

Congratulations, Joyce!

73 Bob K0NR

The post SOTA News: Joyce/K0JJW Is Half a Goat appeared first on The KØNR Radio Site.

When we teach our Technician License class, we normally differentiate between HF and VHF propagation by saying that HF often exhibits skywave propagation but VHF is normally line-of-sight. For the beginner to ham radio, this is a reasonable model for understanding the basics of radio propagation. As George E. P. Box said, “All models are wrong, but some are useful.”

In recent years, I’ve come to realize the limitations of this model and how it causes radio hams to miss out on what’s possible on the VHF and higher bands.

Exotic Propagation Modes

First, let me acknowledge and set aside some of the more exotic propagation modes used on the VHF and higher bands. Sporadic-e propagation allows long distance communication by refracting signals off the e-layer of the ionosphere. This is very common on the 6-meter band and less so on the 2-meter band. I like to think of this as the VHF bands trying to imitate HF. Tropospheric ducting supports long distance VHF communication when ducts form between air masses of different temperatures and humidities. Auroral propagation reflects the radio signal off the auroral ionization that sometimes occurs in the polar regions. Meteor scatter reflects signals off the ionizing trail of meteors entering the earth’s atmosphere. Earth-Moon-Earth (EME) operation bounces VHF and UHF signals off the moon to communicate with other locations on earth. These are all interesting and useful propagation mechanisms for VHF and higher but not the focus of this article.

Improved Line-of-Sight Model

Now let’s take a look at more “normal” VHF propagation that occurs on a daily basis, starting with the simple line-of-sight propagation model. The usual description of line-of-sight VHF is that the radio waves travel a bit further than the optical horizon (say 15% more) . Let’s refer to this as the Line-of-Sight (LOS) region where signals are usually direct and strong. What is often overlooked is that beyond the radio horizon, these signals continue to propagate but with reduced signal level. Let’s call this the Non-Line-of-Sight (NLOS) region. The key point is that the radio waves do not abruptly stop at the edge of the LOS region…they keep going into the NLOS region but with reduced signal strength. Now I will admit that this is still a rather simplistic model. Perhaps too simplistic. I’m sure we could use computer modeling to be more descriptive and precise, but this model will be good enough for this article. All models are wrong, but some are useful.

WORKING the LOS and NLOS Regions

Let’s apply the model for Summits On The Air (SOTA) VHF activations. If we are only interested in working the LOS region, we won’t need much of a radio. Even a handheld transceiver with a rubber duck antenna can probably make contacts in the LOS region. It’s still worth upgrading the rubber duck antenna to something that actually radiates to improve our signal (such as a half-wave antenna). We may pick up some radio contacts in the NLOS region as well but our success will be limited.

To improve our results in the NLOS zone, we need to increase our signal strength. We are working on the margin, so every additional dB can make enough difference to go from “no contact” to “in the log.” Think about another radio operator sitting in the NLOS zone but not quite able to hear your signal. Your signal is just a bit too weak and is just below the noise floor of the operator’s receiver. Now imagine that you improve your signal strength by 3 dB, which is just enough to get above the noise and be a readable signal. You’ve just gone from “not readable” to “just readable” with only a few dB improvement.

What can we do to improve our signal levels? The first thing to try is improving the antenna, which helps you on both transmit and receive. I already mentioned the need to ditch the rubber duck on your HT. My measurements indicate that a half-wave vertical is about 8 dB better than a typical rubber duck. This is only an estimate…performance of rubber duck antennas vary greatly. A small yagi (3-element Arrow II yagi) can add another 6 dB improvement over the half-wave antenna, which means a yagi has about a 14 dB advantage over a rubber duck.

On the other hand, if you believe that your VHF radio is only Line-of-Sight, then there is no reason to work on increasing its signal level. The radio wave is going to travel to anything within the radio horizon and then it will magically stop. This is the myth that we need to break.

More Power

When doing SOTA activations, I noticed that I was able to hear some stations quite well but they were having trouble hearing me. Now why would this be? Over time, I started to realize these stations were typically home or mobile stations running 40 or 50 watts of output. This created an imbalance between the radiated signal from my 5W handheld and their 50 watts. In decibels, this difference is 10 dB. Within the LOS region, this probably is not going to matter because signals are strong anyway. But when trying to make more distant radio contracts into the NLOS zone, it definitely makes a difference. So I traded my HT for a mini-mobile transceiver running 25W. See the complete story in Chapter: More Power For VHF SOTA.

Weak Signal VHF

Of course, this is nothing new for serious weak-signal VHF enthusiasts. They operate in the NLOS region all of the time, squeezing out distance QSOs using CW, SSB and the WSJT modes. They generally use large directional antennas, low noise preamps and RF power amplifiers to improve their station’s performance. They know that a dB here and a dB there adds up to bigger signals, longer distances and more radio contacts. A well-equipped weak-signal VHF station in “flatland geography” can work over 250 miles on a regular basis…no exotic propagation required.

Now you might think that FM behaves differently, because of the threshold effect. When FM signals get weak, they fade into the noise quickly…a rather steep cliff compared to SSB which fades linearly. FM has poor weak-signal performance AND it fades quickly with decreasing signal strength. This is why it is not the favored modulation for serious VHF work. But the same principle applies: if we can boost our signal strength by a few dB, it can make the difference between making the radio contact or not.

So VHF is not limited to line-of-sight propagation…the signals go much further. But they do tend to be weak in signal strength so we need to optimize everything under our control to maximize our range.

73, Bob K0NR

The post The Myth of VHF Line-Of-Sight appeared first on The KØNR Radio Site.