On Wed, 24 May 2006 15:20:18 -0700, Wes Stewart wrote:

On Wed, 24 May 2006 09:48:16 -0500, Henry wrote:

David Thompson wrote:

came across some info from Hans Hannappel, DK9KX from the early 90's
about Scarborough Reef (now BS7H). Hans was a avid map junkie who has
identified several new DXCC entities. He had reviewed the points on a map
called Huangyan Dao (Scarborough) and passed on calling the islands a
possible
new one. Seems there is no real island just a series of rocks that appear
above low tide.
He decided a scaffold would be needed and ARRL had just deleted the
7J1RL (Okino Tori-Shima) which is a similar situation.

Well, along comes Marrti OH2BH. After a short operation there (which I
worked) he and the Chinese Radio Sports Association asked for separate
country (entity) status. DK9KX refused to go along on the OH2BH operation
and asked the operation be deemed a MM operation.

The ARRL and DXAC studied the situation and despite DK9KX's opposition and
the opposition of DXAC chairman, W4VQ (he pressed for a minimum size for an
island) the reef was added to DXCC but the initial operation was deemed MM
not land based.

One reason for the acceptance was that the nearby Philippines had made no
claim (so they thought).

Martti led another Dxpedition there and with some modification to the
paltform this one was accepted.
Few East Coast stations even heard the Dxpeditiion much less worked them. A
second Dxpedition was made several years later and on the second day lo and
behold, the Philippine Navy showed up in force and forced the Dxpedition and
Chinese navy support to leave.

It sure sounds like the ball game is over and its time to rethink the DXCC
credit. Either delete Scarborough Reef or measure the distance to the
nearest Philippine Island.

What do you think?

I personally agree with Gary K4MQG who said an island must be large enough
to at least put up a 80 meter dipole. The largest rock is only a metter of
a few feet across and 5 or 6 feet long thus the need for a platform.

73 Dave K4JRB



_______________________________________________


You must not have worked them huh?

Well, he said that he worked it once and it didn't count.

If it's the same physical situation as Okino Tori-Shima that was
deleted, then BS7 should be deleted too.

As far as I'm concerned, if there is no possible way a guy can work it
because the ownership is in dispute, it's impossible to operate from
there, or it's under water, it isn't a workable entity and should be
deleted until those conditions change (if ever).

Otherwise, give me back current credit for A15, KZ5, 8Z4, ST0, et.al.

I haven't checked recently but I recall a while back that there were
several on the list which wouldn't qualify under the current requirements.

I'm not sure if any which once deleted, were restored (possibly S0--ex
EA9, but I don't remember for sure).

Bob, N7XY