M, You probably had already worked and been credited for the grids of the contacts that were blank in the VUCC column.
What were you using before the Elk? B --- On Mon, 2/21/11, Marvin Tamez <k5...@yahoo.com> wrote: From: Marvin Tamez <k5...@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [amsat-bb] Re: LOTW - improperly coded satellite contacts? To: "Bill Dzurilla" <billdz....@yahoo.com>, amsat-bb@amsat.org Date: Monday, February 21, 2011, 2:30 PM Patrick, I mentioned to Bill earlier, off group, that three of my confirmed QSL's are blank in the "VUCC" column. What could have caused that? Leaving out Propagation=SAT, maybe? Also on the 10th of this month I started using an ELK-L5 and it has made a noticable difference! Hearing at much lower elevations and making QSO's at and below 10*. Thanks for all your help and advice. 73, Marvin K5MLT From: Bill Dzurilla <billdz....@yahoo.com> To: amsat-bb@amsat.org Sent: Mon, February 21, 2011 11:19:29 AM Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: LOTW - improperly coded satellite contacts? Thanks, Patrick,, I have already sent an email to LOTW. If the other station failed to include Propagation Mode or Satellite Name, there should be no match at all. There is no basis for me to be credited with a 144mhz or 432 mhz grid. I spent a lot of time going through my log before uploading it, as LOTW demands perfection. The slightest error (e.g., writing vo-52 instead of VO-52, AO51 instead of AO-51) and the entry is rejected. 73, Bill NZ5N > > Most likely, the other station didn't include one or both > of the fields > used to mark a QSO as a satellite QSO (Propagation Mode, > Satellite > Name). I've seen this on a handful of QSOs I've > uploaded in the past > few weeks. > > > Anyone know how this is handled? > > Assuming your log has all the necessary fields for a > satellite QSO (all > of the QSLs I've gotten from you are showing as satellite > QSOs, so I > don't think your logs are missing anything), there is only > one way to fix > this - the other station has to upload the QSO record(s) > again, this time > making sure those additional ADIF fields are in their > log. As long as the > other QSO details like date, time, your call, etc. are the > same, the new > upload replaces what was originally uploaded. > > If the other station's log has the satellite-related > fields, then an e-mail to > lotw-help @ arrl.org is necessary. There could be > errors in how ARRL's > database queries run to match up QSO records and make > QSLs. ARRL > will not fix problems with other stations' log uploads, and > everything has > to be in there correctly in order to use the resulting QSLs > toward awards. _______________________________________________ Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb _______________________________________________ Sent via AMSAT-BB@amsat.org. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
