IARU Region 1 VHF Committee Interim Meeting 2004	
Vienna 28 – 29 February	

VHF/UHF/Microwaves Committee Report Interim Meeting - Vienna 2004

1.  Opening (Welcome, Apologies, Practical Information)
The Chairman, PA0EZ, opened the meeting at 0900 on Saturday 28th Feb 2004. In his opening address the Chairman noted that the meeting – as an Interim Meeting – had authority to make necessary decisions, provided that at least 2/3rds majority of the societies present were in agreement, and that those decisions must be ratified by the next meeting of the Executive Committee (April 2004), and subsequently confirmed by the next Conference.

Thanks were extended to ÖVSV, and OE1MCU in particular, for the excellent organisation and hosting for the meeting.

2.  Introduction of Delegates
The chairman welcomed delegates from:
CRC (Czech Republic), DARC (Germany), EDR (Denmark), HRS (Croatia), MRASZ (Hungary), NRRL (Norway), ÖVSV (Austria), REF (France), RSGB (Great Britain), SARA (Slovakia), SRAL (Finland), SSA (Sweden), UBA (Belgium), USKA (Switzerland), VERON (Netherlands), ZRS (Slovenia).
 
The minutes were taken by G0RDI.

All delegates then introduced themselves. A list of those present can be found at Appendix 1.

3.  Approval of the Agenda
OZ7IS asked that Documents Vie_03_EDR, Vie_04_EDR and Vie_05_EDR be considered and discussed in a different order (View_05_EDR, Vie_04_EDR and then Vie_04_EDR), and the Chairman agreed with this request. The Agenda was then otherwise approved as distributed, and the amended version can be found at Appendix 2.

4.  Setting up of Ad Hoc Committees
An ad hoc committee was created to ensure that the rewritten meteor scatter procedures document recently submitted by G4ASR remained consistent with the rules that were agreed at San Marino. This ad hoc committee comprised G4ASR, LA8KV, ON5OO, OH5LK, PA2DW and DF7VX.

5.  Action Points from San Marino
The following action points from San Marino were discussed.

1. Tropo propagation coordinator. OE1MCU stated that no further progress on the database had been made so far, but OE3FVU was now in a position to assist.

2.  VHF Allocations Table. Would be discussed separately at Agenda item 7.

3.  Propagation coordinators.  The Chairman had received an Email from ON7VZ who was willing to volunteer as Sporadic E coordinator, and he had directed him to contact ON5TH. Nothing further had been heard since that time. F6ETI noted that F8ACF was collating some information and forwarding that to ON7VZ, but this was not the same as a formal coordination role. The Chairman asked that UBA and REF once again try to establish communication with ON7VZ regarding this important role.					Action: UBA, REF

4. SRDs. The Chairman asked whether any national society had reports regarding SRD issues. OZ7IS reported that EDR had made repeated representations via the ECC Reference Group and had so far been successful in preventing an influx of phone devices. The Chairman reported that, in the Netherlands, SRD equipment for both 433 and 860 MHz remained on sale, and it was probable that 433 MHz should now be regarded as “lost”, in this respect.
PA2DW reported that there was some difference of opinion in the Netherlands whether 802.11b wireless LAN equipment should be considered to be SRDs, and Veron believed that it was. The Chairman asked everyone to remember that, while amateur radio enjoyed only Secondary status in many bands, these SRDs should be regarded as having Tertiary status, and we should not ignore the issues.
PB2T reported that some equipment that is sold as SRD does not comply with the SRD recommendations; for example, one German company was selling a 433 MHz device equipped with a 5 Watt power amplifier.

5. Galileo. The Dutch proposal for a draft WRC item to include a 1265 MHz downlink failed to be approved by CEPT; it had been withdrawn due to difficulties attempting to define the power flux density. G3VZV stated that Galileo is still not, for the most part, well known about or well understood in the amateur community, and he offered the opinion that we in R1 should seek a position from the IARU Executive Committee regarding future IARU policy on amendment of the existing ITURR footnote.
Action G3VZV, PA0EZ

6. Above 70 GHz. Would be discussed separately at Agenda item 11.

7. Computer Adjudication. The delegates from SARA had brought with them a computer presentation detailing the work so far, and reported that they had discovered logging errors that would not otherwise have been detected, so were of the opinion that their work had been successful. Software and instructions for use would be distributed to VHF Managers. The Chairman asked that information be sent to him suitable for inclusion on the R1 VHF Newsletter. 									Action SARA

8. Meteor Scatter Procedures. The necessary ad hoc committee had been established at Agenda item 4.

9. Beacons. Would be discussed separately at Agenda item 7.

10. Monitoring Service. Would be discussed separately at Agenda item 12.

At the conclusion of this item the Chairman asked all present to be aware that all meetings generate action items, and he would ask the Secretary to produce reminders in future. 
Action PA0EZ, G0RDI

Additionally, 02/SM/C3.15 had recommended that “… the Appointment of Vice-Chairmen in the permanent committees be recommended for consideration by the Chairmen of Committees C4 and C5 and that they be left to pursue this matter”. The Chairman therefore asked those present to consider whether, in their opinion, it was necessary for C.5 to have a Vice Chairman and to discuss the matter again at Agenda item 13, in due course.

6.  Chairman’s Report
The Chairman gave a brief report regarding his activities since the San Marino conference, which included:-
-	information exchange with the Region 1 Secretariat
-	updating the VHF Managers Handbook with the changes from San Marino
-	discussing meeting details with members of the HF Committee
-	attending part of an Executive Committee meeting in Amsterdam
-	creating and distributing newsletters

7.  Coordinator Reports
The VHF beacon coordinator G0RDI gave his report.  On the whole, the move of the 435 MHz beacons was progressing well in most countries, but there were difficulties in some others. For example, it had not been possible to commence the moves in the UK due to pressures from the Primary User. Also there were difficulties in Germany, and these would be discussed later during the meeting. Document Vie_04_10_DARC refers.
24 GHz beacons were also being moved into the Primary allocation segment as agreed at San Marino, and no coordination of these moves had been thought necessary. The owners were informing G0RDI as the moves took place, and this seemed to be trouble free.
Some beacon owners had begun to ask about “digital” beacons (JT44 et al) and the coordinator would therefore be submitting a paper for the consideration of the next Conference.
There were some concerns about uncoordinated beacons, especially in the 50 MHz band, and efforts were ongoing to make contact with the owners of those in an attempt to normalise the situation.
F6ETI reported that all of the French 435 MHz and 24 GHz beacons had now changed frequency. G0RDI wished to congratulate F6HTJ and thank him for his hard work.
9A6A reported that there were currently no beacons in Croatia, and attempts were being made to get permits for some, and the information about these will be sent to G0RDI as soon as possible. 
										Action 9A6A
The Chairman stressed the importance of ensuring that the Beacon Coordinator was fully informed of changes, plans, etc. and requested that every VHF manager provide him and G0RDI with current data no later than 1st June 2004. 								
Action All

Records coordinator. SM7NZB was not present at the meeting; OZ7IS reported that he was currently in the USA. The Chairman reported that the necessary tasks had been accomplished to his satisfaction, and that while no report had been sent for the meeting, some information was published in Newsletter #37.
The Chairman reported that he felt that the VHF Managers were not sending sufficient information; G4ASR stated that he felt that there were possibly notable contacts that we were not aware of. The Chairman stated that all VHF Managers should ensure that accurate information was sent to SM7NZB.
											Action All
Further, the Chairman would write to SM7NZB to express our thanks.		
Action PA0EZ

The Allocations coordinator DK2NH gave his report. All information received has been incorporated into the allocation tables, but there seem to be many discrepancies remaining. All Societies must check the data for their countries’ allocations and ensure that frequent updates were sent to DK2NH. The Chairman observed that the necessary information was readily available – all that was necessary would be for each VHF Manager to send a copy of his licence to DK2NH no later than 1st June 2004.
 			Action All
Several exchanges of information took place: S53WW reported that new rules were under discussion on Slovenia, and there was the possibility of beacons in the 40 MHz band. OZ7IS reported that Denmark had a 70 MHz allocation generally available from 1st February 2004. PB2T noted that DK2NH’s document was very useful, but it needed to be repopulated with fresh, authoritative data. Additionally, the ERO website was inaccurate, and we should take responsibility to keep ourselves better informed.
Some discussion regarding the possibility of a European common allocation within the 70 MHz band ensued. PB2T stated that this had been added to the IARU Spectrum Requirements document and would be progressed with CEPT at an appropriate time. OZ7IS noted that the (five year) process that EDR had endured had now been documented by OZ2M, and this was available for interested parties to view online at http://www.70mhz.org/access.htm.
The Satellite coordinator G3VZV gave his report. The satellite information for the VHF Managers’ handbook has been rewritten and now represents a very good information source. In terms of operational spacecraft, the position was not currently a good one. UOSAT-14 had died during the summer of 2003 and AO-40 is currently silent, with its status unclear.
AMSAT Echo has been delayed until June, while an Indian built linear transponder that was scheduled for launch late 2003 has now been rescheduled for later in 2004. There are 29 new satellite projects (which are listed on the IARU web site) currently in progress, with the vast majority being university projects consisting of 1 kg microsats; mostly these devices are not transponders, but are designed to assist in the development of emerging techniques and technologies. The coordinator will be attending an ARIS meeting to be held in the Netherlands during early 2004. Finally, the launch of the German Phase III E satellite was awaited.
Other coordinators. The Chairman noted that at San Marino it was agreed that we had no effective Auroral coordinator. PA2DW noted that DK5YA had a web site for SpE and A information. OHL5LK stated that DF5AI also had a web site that published professional-looking aurora studies. DF7VX noted that he had been discussing these with DF5AI previously. The Chairman stated that it was important that we were seen to be supporting these kinds of activities, and requested that the coordination system be examined in time for the next meeting.  				
Action DARC / REF / UBA
8.  Bandplanning
8.1  50 MHz
Doc Vie04_16_REF. This was an informational paper, and described the current bandplan as it was implemented in France. Some discussions ensued regarding the designation of 50.385 MHz as a PSK frequency as it was not in line with the IARU bandplan. It was concluded that the information from REF was useful, and further consideration needed to be given to details of designated frequencies for machine generated modes. A paper should be submitted for consideration at a future conference.
In the interim, advice should be presented via the VHF Newsletter. PA2DW would draft the text and send to PA0EZ.								
Action PA2DW / PA0EZ

8.2 145 MHz
Doc Vie04_06_UBA  This document was discussed and then withdrawn. It would be rewritten and resubmitted for the next meeting.					
Action UBA
Doc Vie04_07_REF. This document was discussed and the meeting concluded that the information should be sent to the IARU coordinator responsible for emergency communications (currently G3LEQ). Additionally, those member societies that have designated similar channels in their regional bandplan should also send this information to the coordinator. 			
Action All

8.3 435MHz
Doc Vie04_07_REF. This document also made references to the 435 MHz band. Comments at 8.2 (above) would apply equally.
Doc Vie04_15_REF. Proposes that a common frequency be designated for the use of APRS (et al) within the 435 MHz band. After a full discussion it was concluded that the use of APRS in this band was not desirable, but where found to be necessary 433.800 MHz should be used.
Doc Vie04_10_DARC. This was an information paper that described the current situation regarding the move of 435 MHz band beacons in Germany.
Doc Vie04_05_EDR. The meeting understood that there was today a strong case to accept that regional arrangements would necessarily differ with respect to repeaters in this band. Having noted that, for the time being, the UK 435 MHz beacons would be within the new repeater input band. This proposal was therefore accepted.
Doc Vie04_04_EDR. This document proposes a change to a footnote (i –1) that would be necessary to support the change proposed by Vie_04_05_EDR. Noting that the requirement for non-interference with linear transponders would remain, this proposal was accepted.
Doc Vie04_03_EDR. This document was withdrawn.

8.4 Microwaves
Doc Vie04_21_UBA. This document proposed the designation of an 8 MHz bandwidth channel centred on 1284 MHz to be used for digital ATV. After discussion it was agreed that the bandplan should be updated to reflect that the segment 1272 – 1291 MHz be marked additionally as “digital”, and that such a change would satisfy the requirement expressed in this document.		
Action UBA
Doc Vie04_18a_REF. This document proposes that member societies discuss their specific experiences with “WiFi” applications in the 2.4 and 5.7 GHz bands, preliminary to the (inevitable) introduction of amateur data networks using these frequencies and methods, but with higher power (etc). After discussions the meeting concluded that a statement regarding the common usage of the 2.4 GHz band would be useful.								
Action PA0EZ / G3VZV
Doc Vie04_09_VERON. This document notes that the San Marino conference overlooked the requirement for an EME working frequency in the Primary part of the 24 GHz band. After discussion it was decided that the Chairman would write to those users who were known to be active on this mode, informing them of the discussion and asking for their views.		
Action PA0EZ
Doc Vie04_10_DARC. The remarks at 8.3, above, were applicable.
Doc Vie04_08_VERON.  The proposal was accepted, with one minor modification: that the narrowband centre of activity be 47088.2 MHz.
Doc Vie04_12_DARC. After discussion it was concluded that this document should be considered as “information only”.

9.  Operational matters
9.1 Contests
Delegates from SARA kindly presented an overview of their contest log cross checking software, and there was some detailed discussion regarding the mechanisms employed for considering “errors”. The presentation was very welcome, and gave an insight into this quite complex subject. It was concluded that it was now appropriate to mandate that all logs submitted for IARU VHF contests should be in EDI format, and the contest rules should be updated accordingly.			
Action PA0EZ
Doc Vie_04_20_ZRS. Discussion resulted in an amended version of this proposal : “All the equipment of the station (transmitters, receivers and antennas, etc) must be located within a single circle of no greater than 500 metres diameter. “. It was additionally agreed that this rule would be applied to all IARU Region 1 VHF, UHF and Microwave contests. 					
Action PA0EZ
9.2 Other
Doc Vie04_17_REF. This was a document for discussion. It seems that the situation is different across many or all member societies. Papers should be prepared, where appropriate, and submitted for the next conference.								
Action ALL
Doc Vie04_13_VERON. The proposal was accepted.			
Action ALL
10.  Technical Standards
10.1 S-meter
Doc Vie04_19_Chair. After discussion it was agreed to adopt Proposal B, and the Handbook will be amended accordingly.							
Action PA0EZ
10.2 Digital Audio
Doc Vie04_11_DARC. This is an information paper. The Chairman has noted that there is an existing Technical Recommendation (D.2 in Handbook 6.b) that refers to the use of obsolete chipsets for digital voice CODECs, so this should be updated.				
ACTION DARC / ALL
Further information about APCO25 (in German) could be found at http://www.vfdb.net/vus/APCO25 rather than the URL given the document. DF7VX has a presentation that will be distributed and considered in time for next meeting.					
ACTION DF7VX
11.  ITU/CEPT matters
11.1 Microwaves
Vie04_24_Chair. This is an information document that calls upon member societies to ensure they consider what they would wish IARU’s position to be regarding the items discussed in that document. The Chairman needs to be informed of our wishes. 				
ACTION ALL
12.  Satellites
12.1 IARU Satellite Coordination
Doc Vie04_14_IARUSAT. This document is a copy of the report from the IARU Satellite Advisor to the IARU Administrative Council, together with a copy of the IARU Secretary’s response to the proposals in that report. Further documentation will be produced and submitted.	
ACTION G3VZV
Doc Vie04_25. This document described possible problems that will be encountered by AMSAT ECHO with QRM in its uplink passband. G3VZV reported that he was now in contact with DK2OM, and it seems that some progress in identifying the sources may now be made. It is important that satellite operators are encouraged to send interference reports via their national societies.	
ACTION ALL

13. Any Other Business

Vice Chairman.
Discussions concluded that there should be a Vice Chairman, and that it was the feeling that OE1MCU should be appointed. The Chairman stated that he would inform the Executive Committee of this recommendation.							
ACTION PA0EZ
Contest adjudication.
The Chairman noted that there were currently no adjudicators assigned for contests after 2005, and it would be necessary for this matter to be addressed at the next conference. Additionally at that time a decision should be made whether only electronic log submissions would be acceptable in the future.
ACTION ALL
Some confusion exists regarding where entries are to be sent, when the entrant is operating away from their home country. In these cases, the entry should be sent via the “host” country, and the VHF Managers Handbook would be updated to clarify this point.		
ACTION PA0EZ
The contest rules should be reviewed and any changes that are considered necessary should be submitted in time for the next conference.				
ACTION ALL
Meteor Scatter Operating Procedures.
G4ASR reported that the ad hoc committee had made minor edits. The reworked document was accepted and the Chairman thanked the ad hoc committee for their work. A copy of the final document is attached to this meeting report at Appendix 4
There being no other business, the meeting was closed at 11:58.

Appendix 1 – Attendees

	
IARU Region 1 VHF Committee Interim Meeting 2004	
Vienna 28 – 29 February	

Arie Dogterom, PA0EZ			Chairman IARU R1 VHF/UHF/Microwave Committee
Hans-Heinrich Ehlers, DF5UG		IARU R1 Executive Committee
Heinz-Günter Böttcher, DK2NH		IARU R1 VHF/UHF/Microwave Allocations Coordinator
Iain Philipps, G0RDI			IARU R1 VHF/UHF/Microwave Beacons Coordinator
Graham Shirville, G3VZV		IARU R1 Satellite Coordinator
Michael Kastelic, OE1MCU		IARU R1 Propagation Database Keeper
Hans Blondeel Timmerman, PB2T	IARU R1 Executive Committee

Zeljko Drazic-Karalic 9A4FW		HRS
Petar Milicic, 9A6A			HRS
Hellmuth Fischer, DF7VX		DARC
Philippe Martin, F6ETI			REF
Patrick Magnin, F6HYE			REF
Betty Magnin, F6IOC			REF
David Butler, G4ASR			RSGB
Laszlo Berzsenyi, HA5EA		MRASZ
Pirmin Kuehne, HB9DTE		USKA
Kjetil Toresen, LA8KV		NRRL
Franz Van Velzen, OE3FVU		ÖVSV
Jussi Liukkonen, OH5LK		SRAL
Karel Odehnal, OK2ZI			CRC
Richard Gasparik, OM2TW		SARA
Pavol Zajac, OM5CM			SARA
Jean-Claude Renard, ON5TH		UBA
Ivan Stauning, OZ7IS			EDR
Derk Willem Harms, PA2DW		VERON
Robert Vilhar, S53WW			ZRS
Anders Lahti, SM2ECL			SSA

Appendix 2 – Agenda

	
IARU Region 1 VHF Committee Interim Meeting 2004	
Vienna 28 – 29 February	

Vie04_01

Source: 	Chairman
Subject:	Meeting Agenda

1. Opening/Welcome/Apologies/Practical Information

2. Approval of the agenda							Vie04_01

3. Introduction of delegates

4. Setting up of ad-hoc committees (only if necessary )

5. San Marino Conference
-	Action points 							02/SM/C5.2 rev.1
-	Committee organisation 					02/SM/C3. 15

6. Chairman’s report (oral)

7. Reports from coordinators:
-	Beacons, G0RDI, oral and					VHF-NL37
-	Records, SM7NZB						VHF-NL37
-	Allocations, DK2NH, oral and				Vie04_22, Vie04_23
-	Satellites, G3VZV, oral and 					VHF-NL37

8. Bandplanning
50 MHz band
-	50 MHz usage in France				Vie04_16_REF

145 MHz band
-	EME calling frequency 				Vie04_06_UBA
-	Emergency communications channels		Vie04_07_REF

435 MHz band
-	Emergency communications channels		Vie04_07_REF
-	Repeater in/out spacing				Vie04_05_EDR
-	Digital segment					Vie04_04_EDR
-	FM calling channel					Vie04_03_EDR
-	APRS channel					Vie04_15_REF
-	Delay in moving beacon band			Vie04_10_DARC

Microwaves
-	Digital ATV in the 1,3 GHz band			Vie04_21_UBA
-	WIFI and the 2,4 and 5,7 GH bandplan		Vie04_18_REF
-	24 GHz EME channel					Vie04_09_VERON
-	24 GHz delay in moving beacons			Vie04_10_DARC
-	47 GHz Narrow Band Segment			Vie04_08_VERON
-	Definition of optical “bands/frequencies”		Vie04_12_DARC

9. Operational matters

Contests
-	IARU Region 1 VHF Contest rules			Vie04_20_ZRS

Other
-	“Echolink” discussion required			Vie04_17_REF
-	Stimulating VHF/UHF activity				Vie04_13_VERON

10. Technical standards

S-meter
-	S9 level between 30 and 144 MHz			Vie04_19_CHAIR

Digital audio
-	Digital voice experiments in Germany		Vie04_11_DARC and
IARU R1 Technical
Recommendation D.2 In Handbook 6.b

11. ITU/CEPT Matters

Microwaves								Vie04_24_Chair

12. Satellites
-	IARU Satellite coordination					Vie04_14_IARUSAT
-	Satellite interference						Vie04_25_SAT

13. Any other business

14. Closing of the meeting

Note :		“VHF-NL” indicates VHF Newsletter.
“02/SM” indicate San Marino conference documents

Appendix 3 – Disposition of Documents

	
IARU Region 1 VHF Committee Interim Meeting 2004	
Vienna 28 – 29 February	

Appendix 3 – Disposition of Documents

Doc ID	Title	Status	
Vie04_01	Draft Meeting Agenda	Approved with minor amendment	
Vie04_02	Draft Meeting Report	(This document)	
Vie04_03_EDR	435 MHz bandplan: FM calling channel	Withdrawn	
Vie04_04_EDR	435 MHz bandplan: digital segment	Adopted	
Vie04_05_EDR	435 MHz bandplan: repeater input/output spacing	Adopted	
Vie04_06_UBA	145 MHz bandplan: EME/Tropo MGM	Withdrawn	
Vie04_07_REF	Emergency networks in the 145 and 435 MHz bands	Information only; forward to G3LEQ for consideration	
Vie04_08_VERON	47 GHz bandplan: narrow band segment	Adopted with minor amendment	
Vie04_09_VERON	24 GHz bandplan: EME frequency	Adopted in principle	
Vie04_10_DARC	435 MHz and 24 GHz beacons in Germany	Information	
Vie04_11_DARC	435 MHz band: digital voice experiments	Information	
Vie04_12_DARC	Definition of “Optical Frequencies”	Information	
Vie04_13_VERON	Stimulating novice usage of VHF/UHF bands	Adopted	
Vie04_14_IARU	Report from IARU satellite advisor and AC reaction	Information ( 2 MB)	
Vie04_15_REF	435 MHz bandplan: APRS channel	Adopted with recommended frequency 433.800 MHz	
Vie04_16_REF	50 MHz band usage in France	Information	
Vie04_17_REF	Echolink and bandplanning	Information	
Vie04_18a_REF	WiFi in the 2.4 and 5.7 GHz bands	Information	
Vie04_19_Chair	S-meter standards 30-144 MHz	Proposal “B” Adopted	
Vie04_20_ZRS	IARU R1 VHF Contest rules	Adopted after modification	
Vie04_21_UBA	Digital ATV in the 1.3 GHz band	Adopted in principle	
Vie04_22_NH	Report from the allocations coordinator, DK2NH	Information	
Vie04_23_NH	Allocations survey in .XLS format	Information	
Vie04_23a_NH	Doc 23 in .ZIP format	Information(34 kB)	
Vie04_24_Chair	IARU and CEPT activities 24 / 76 GHz	Information(297 kB)	
Vie04_25_Sat	Possible problems for AMSAT ECHO in Region 1	Information	
Vie04_26_RSGB	Revised Meteor Scatter Operating Procedures	Adopted	
Vie04_DOCS	All above documents in single .ZIP file	3,5 MB	

Appendix 4 – Revised Meteor Scatter Procedures

	
IARU Region 1 VHF Committee Interim Meeting 2004	
Vienna 28 – 29 February	

Vie04_26_RSGB

OPERATING PROCEDURES FOR METEOR SCATTER QSOs

1. INTRODUCTION

The goal of the procedures described is to enable contacts to be made by meteor scatter (MS) reflection as quickly and easily as possible. Meteor scatter is unlike most other propagation modes, in that neither station can hear the other until an ionised meteor trail exists to scatter or reflect the signals. As the reflections are often of very short duration the normal QSO procedure is not readily applicable and specialised operating techniques must be taken to ensure that a maximum of correct and unmistakable information is received. The two stations have to take turns to transmit and receive information in a defined format, following the procedures as detailed below. Some meteor showers are strong enough to make some of these measures unnecessary but to encourage use of all generally listed showers there is no reason why the suggested procedures should not always be used. As with operating procedures in general, the virtues of the MS operating procedures are mainly that they are standard and are widely understood throughout IARU Region 1.

2. SCHEDULED and RANDOM CONTACTS

Two types of MS contacts, arranged in different ways, may be distinguished: 

a.	A scheduled contact, where two interested stations arrange in advance the frequency, timing and duration of the test, as well as the transmission mode (e.g. Telegraphy, SSB or FSK441) and call signs to be used. Scheduling may be carried out, for example, by exchange of letters or e-mail, by radio via the European VHF Net on 14.345MHz, by Internet chat-rooms or packet-radio.

b.	A non-scheduled contact, where a station calls CQ or responds to a CQ call. Such contacts are often called "random MS".  Random contacts are far more difficult and because you’re starting entirely from scratch, it’s particularly important for both stations to follow the standard IARU meteor scatter QSO procedures.

3. TIMING

Accurate timing of transmit and receive periods is important for two reasons: to maximise the chances of hearing the other station, and to avoid interference between local stations.

The recommended time period for random contacts is,

a.	Telegraphy 	- 	2.5 minute periods, 

b.	SSB 		- 	1 minute periods,

c.	FSK441 	- 	30 second periods. 

This practice gives quite satisfactory results. However growing technical standards make it possible to use much shorter periods and amateurs may wish to arrange 1-minute schedules for Telegraphy and shorter periods for SSB especially during major showers. If non-standard time periods are used the first priority is to avoid causing interference to local stations that are using the standard periods. 

The recommended standard period for both random and scheduled SSB contacts is 1-minute. However time periods shorter than this are encouraged during major meteor showers. Quick-break procedures within SSB contacts can be very effective. This could involve, for example, taking a break every 15 seconds in case the QSO can be completed within one long burst. 

Prior to any MS activity it is absolutely vital that clocks need to be set to better than two seconds of standard time. This can be accomplished, for example, by using TV Teletext, telephone ‘speaking-clock’ or GPS time signals. Any clock inaccuracy will result in wasted time and will cause unnecessary interference to other MS stations.

4.  TRANSMIT PERIODS

a.	All MS operators living in the same area should, as far as possible, agree to transmit simultaneously in order to avoid mutual interference. 

b.	If possible, northbound and westbound transmissions should be made in periods 1, 3, 5 etc. counting from the full hour. Southbound and eastbound transmissions should be made in periods 2, 4, 6 etc.

5. SCHEDULED DURATION

a.	Every uninterrupted scheduled period must be considered as a separate trial. This means that it is not permissible to break off and then continue the contact at a later time. 
 
b.	Scheduled contacts using Telegraphy or SSB are usually arranged for up to 1-hour duration although during shower periods this can be significantly reduced. Operators using the more efficient FSK441 transmission mode often use 30-minutes or less.
 
6. FREQUENCIES

Scheduled Contacts:
These contacts may be arranged on any frequency, taking into consideration the mode and band plan. Scheduled contacts should avoid using known popular frequencies and the random MS frequencies. 

Non-Scheduled Contacts:
For non-scheduled contacts reference should be made to the relevant IARU Region 1 band plan.

7. QSY FREQUENCIES

To avoid continent-wide interference, which results from a large number of stations attempting to complete contacts on the various MS calling frequencies, a QSY method is recommended. The procedure for moving a beginning QSO off the calling frequency without losing contact is as follows.

a. Telegraphy:

During the CQ the caller indicates on which frequency he/she will listen for a reply and carry out any subsequent QSO. Refer to the relevant band plan for QSY frequencies. 

i)	Select the frequency to be used for a QSO by checking whether it is clear of traffic and QRM. 
   
ii)	In the call, immediately following the letters "CQ", a letter is inserted to indicate the frequency that will be used for reception when the CQ call finishes. This letter indicates the frequency offset from the actual calling frequency used. For instance, CQE would indicate that the operator will listen on the calling frequency + 5kHz. 

		A = 1kHz	(CQA)			N = 14kHz	(CQN)	
		B = 2kHz	(CQB)			O = 15kHz	(CQO)
		C = 3kHz	(CQC)			P = 16kHz	(CQP)
		D = 4kHz	(CQD)  			Q = 17kHz	(CQQ)
		E = 5kHz	(CQE)			R = 18kHz	(CQR)
		F = 6kHz	(CQF)				S = 19kHz	(CQS)
		G = 7kHz	(CQG)			T = 20kHz	(CQT)	 
		H = 8kHz	(CQH)			U = 21kHz	(CQU)
		I = 9kHz	(CQI)				V = 22kHz	(CQV)
		J = 10kHz	(CQJ)				W = 23kHz	(CQW)
		K = 11kHz	(CQK)			X = 24kHz	(CQX)
		L = 12kHz	(CQL)				Y = 25kHz	(CQY)
		M = 13kHz	(CQM)			Z = 26kHz	(CQZ)

In all cases the letter used indicates a frequency higher than the CQ frequency. 
   
iii)	At the end of the transmitting period the receiver should be tuned to the frequency indicated by the letter used in the CQ call. 

iv)	If a signal is heard on this frequency it may well be a reply from a station who has heard the CQ call and replies on the frequency calculated from the letter used during this call. 

v)	When the caller receives a signal on the frequency indicated during the call and identifies the reply as an answer on his CQ, the transmitter is moved to the same frequency and the whole QSO procedure takes place there. 

b. FSK441:

A similar QSY procedure to that of Telegraphy is used by operators using FSK441 transmissions. However instead of using a letter system, operators should use a number system. 

Users of FSK441 should indicate the frequency they intend to carry out the QSO by adding the three digits of the nominated frequency. For example CQ383 indicates that the station will listen on 144.383 MHz for a subsequent contact.

c. SSB:
The letter system should not be used for SSB contacts!  

8. QSO PROCEDURE FOR SCHEDULED CONTACTS AND RANDOM OPERATION

a.	Calling

The contact starts with one station calling the other, e.g. "G4ASR OH5LK G4ASR ....". 

b.	Reporting system

The report consists of two numbers:

First number					Second number
(burst duration)				(signal strength)

2 : up to 5 sec.				6 : up to S3
3 : 5 - 20 sec. 				7 : S4 - S5
4 : 20 - 120 sec.				8 : S6 - S7
5 : longer than 120 sec.			9 : S8 and stronger

c.	Reporting procedure

A report is sent when the operator has positive evidence of having received the correspondent's or his own callsign or parts of them. 
   
The report is given as follows: "G4ASR OH5LK 37 37 G4ASR OH5LK 37 37 ....". 

The report should be sent between each set of call signs: three times for Telegraphy, twice for SSB and twice for FSK441. 

The report must not be changed during a contact even though signal strength or duration might well justify it. 

d.	Confirmation procedure

i) 	As soon as either operator copies both callsigns and a report he may start sending a confirmation. This means that all letters and figures have been correctly received. 
   
You are allowed to piece the message together from fragments received over a period of bursts and pings, but it’s up to the operator to ensure that it’s done correctly and unambiguously.  

Confirmation is given by inserting an R before the report: "G4ASR OH5LK R37 R37 OH5LK ...". 
A station with an R at the end of the call sign could send "SM7FJE G4ASR RR26 RR26 ...". 

ii)	When either operator receives a confirmation message, such as "R27", and all required information is complete he must confirm with a string of R's, inserting his own call sign after each eighth R: "RRRRRRRR HG5AIR RRRR ....". When the other operator has received R's the contact is complete and he may respond in the same manner, usually for three periods. 

e.	Requirements for a complete QSO

Both operators must have copied both callsigns, the report and a confirmation that the other operator has done the same. This confirmation can either be an "R" preceding the report or a string of "RRRR..."'s as explained in paragraph 8.d.ii.

Contacts using SSB are conducted in the same way as Telegraphy or FSK441. When attempting random contacts, speak the letters clearly, using phonetics where appropriate. It may not be necessary to use phonetics during a scheduled SSB contact, but still speak clearly. 

9. MISSING INFORMATION 

If a confirmation report (R**) is received it means that the other operator has copied both call signs and the report, yet you may still need something from that station. At that stage, you can try to ask for the information needed by sending a missing information code string.

The following strings may be utilised by operators using Telegraphy to ask for missing information: 

BBB....	both callsigns missing
MMM....	my callsign missing
YYY....	your callsign missing
SSS....	duration and signal strength missing
OOO....	all information complete
UUU....	faulty keying or unreadable

The other operator shall respond by sending only the required information. This approach must be used with great caution to prevent confusion.

Note 	
These procedures were adopted at the IARU Region 1 Conference in Miskolc-Tapolca (1978), later slightly amended at the IARU Region 1 Conference in Noordwijkerhout (1987), Torremolinos (1990), de Haan (1993), San Marino (2002). Due to significant advances and usage of machine generated modes (such as FSK441) these procedures were updated at the interim meeting, Vienna (2004).