KB6NU's Ham Radio Blog

///////////////////////////////////////////
54321: readability reports

Posted: 25 Jul 2016 12:16 PM PDT
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/kb6nu...m_medium=email


Yesterday, I saw the following Tweet re-Tweeted:




Charlie M0PZTÂ*@M0PZT

Blog updated: RST and Speed Matters m0pzt.com/blog/rst-and-s…#hamradio



Being a CW geek, of course I was interested.Â*Charlies point is that if you
get a bad report, you probably should slow down. Theres certainly no
argument about that.

What I do take a little bit of an issue with is that Charlie says, A
Readability 4 report should really make it known that information needs to
be brief, but repeated – Certainly no ANT/RIG/WX waffle! According to most
sources, Readability 4 means, Readable with practically no difficulty. I
replied on Twitter that the report should probably have been 319 or even
219.

Of course, RST reports are definitelyÂ*open to interpretation. With that in
mind, heres how I decide whatÂ*Readability report to give to the other
station:
R5: Perfectly readable. To me, this means that I dont really have to work
much at copying the signal, and it sounds like its coming out of a code
practice oscillator. I can put my feet up on the desk or putter around the
shack while Im ragchewing with the other operator.
R4: Readable with practically no difficulty. Practically no difficulty is
the key phrase here. There may be some QRN or QSB on this signal, and I
have to pay some attention while copying. An R4 is still solid copy,
though, and ragchewingÂ*is definitely possible.
R3: Readable with considerable difficulty. A signal that rates an R3 needs
my full attention. I have to work at copying the signal, and even then
might miss characters here and there. Even though I dont copy every single
character, Im able to fill in the gaps. An R3 signal might not be good
enough for a ragchew, and repeating information is probably a good idea.
R2: Barely readable, occasional words distinguishable. A signal that rates
an R2 is usually so weak that its below the noise level. At this level, the
contact will definitely be brief and any important information, such as the
callsignÂ*needs to be repeated.
R1: Unreadable. Generally, I would never give out this report, as I would
never attempt making contact if a signal was truly unreadable.

So, what do you think? How do you decide what Readability report to give?





The post 54321: readability reports appeared first on KB6NUs Ham Radio Blog.