[FQP] [ARRL-LOTW] Mobiles
no5w at consolidated.net
Wed Apr 28 06:36:43 PDT 2010
I QSL 100% to requests from my mobile operations as long as an SASE is
included. Generally these are turned around in a couple of days
especially if an MRC is included. I'll even throw in a set of map QSLs
showing where we were when we worked you (see QSL gallery examples on my
web site <http://www.no5w.com>) or you could even print your own QSL
from my Log On a Map pages.
But the prospect of separating my log into county logs and submitting
each to LOTW just doesn't excite me and seems unnecessary based on the
(rather small) number of requests that I receive.
>>I would love to see the State Party sponsors require proper LoTW
submission as a requirement.
As the coordinator for a state QSO party (TX) I definitely would not
support such a requirement. Think about the effort and expense (gas,
lodging, etc) that the rovers already go to in order to put on an
operation. They don't need additional requirements. Heck, I'm just happy
when they submit electronic logs :-)
On 4/28/2010 5:14 AM, FireBrick wrote:
> I love to work QSOParties, cw mode.
> But I get almost no LoTW qsl from any Rovers no matter how I enter their
> I wish they would all submit as /M which would help a lot.
> But they would still have to separate their logs by county and submit each
> separately and changing the county for each log section.
> Very few Rovers do that....I almost decided not to work Rovers at all.
> The idea is to work counties, but the Rovers rarely ever give me a
> I would love to see the State Party sponsors require proper LoTW submission
> as a requirement. Or maybe offer extra points for submitting?
> What do you QSOP guys think?
More information about the FQP