In DX-World’s opinion, it’s reasonable to assume the following IOTA Management update is in response to the K6VVA Endicott Island NA-004 expedition whereby the operator regularly called for “HRAL“.

IOTA Management attaches importance to the maintenance of fair play as far as is practicable. From time to time a set of circumstances occurs where official intervention is considered justified. One such case is where there is seen to be apparent intentional unfair, even discriminatory, treatment of people in the making of contacts or issue of QSL cards or QSO matches. An example of this is where an expedition to a rare IOTA group follows a clear practice of discriminating against contacts with non-participants in the IOTA Programme or, post-event, of deleting them from the log. In this regard the cardinal principle to be followed must be that it is immaterial whether the contact is a known participant or not in IOTA. Failure to observe fair play in cases like this is sufficient justification for rejection of the operation for IOTA credit on grounds of it bringing the IOTA Programme into disrepute. All participants are asked to have regard for our long established tradition of acting in accordance with the best of ham spirit. [Source]

Note: The image used in this post has no bearing or link to IOTA Management. 


  1. Paul, I do not know K6VVA at all other than for his quite infamous antics. My point on the slippery slope was that K6VVA’s method was righteous and his own moral code. Sanctioned by no one until IOTA says that any of his Qs count. And that the next person could say that they will delete Qs made for $$ purposes. Note that this is different than requiring $$ to get a QSL. this is DELETING FROM THE LOG even though the Q happened.

    Why not? K6VVA did it and he decided what was important to him, ands as king, ruled the rock so to speak.

    A Q should be a Q. Period. Its a record of what happened on the air. Nothing more.

    A QSL policy to provide written record as necessary for an award is another matter that takes additional cost and time. Such activity should be eligible for compensation if needed, in my opinion.

    Sorry that you left the program. Clearly it was important to you with over 1000 confirmed.

    73 Ed N1UR

  2. Ah yes, the ol slippery slope.

    Thank God for IOTA committee diligence.

    I should point out that K6VVA received no money whatsoever for this operation because he declined to provide paper qsls and as far as I am aware did not accept any donations. Contrast this with the mandatory US$5 qsl cost imposed by IOTA committee members on some of their previous dxpeditions. I personally have no problem with the US$5 qsl fee but for n1ur to suggest that this rule change was about stopping K6VVA and others favouring monetary donors is just ridiculous.

    If anything, the rule change is about protecting IOTA revenues which I suspect are probably a reasonable little earner for the RSGB off the back of mainly volunteer labour force administering IOTA.

    I have now exited the IOTA program after 25 years of activity and 1084 confirmed and pa3exx has kindly confirmed the deletion of my data from the IOTA system. I have no personal animosity toward any one involved with IOTA administration – they have always been courteous to me – and I wish them the best with the direction in which they are now taking the program. With the justice warriors now in charge of the agenda it is just no longer my cup of tea.

    Paul – vk4ma

  3. A very slippery slope folks. Deleting Qs that were legit on the air because of a “higher moral code”. Shame on IOTA for not DQing this clown. It undermines their program.

    What’s next, comparing the log to the donation list and deleting all that didn’t donate?

    K6VVA came up with his own righteous criteria. That’s now been sanctioned by IOTA. No reason the donor list can’t be next.

  4. To Lars: As I stated in email, Count again hops from W7 to EU, get on plaine and work EU from W7 in same conditions we had with same equipment, then post your observations. You felt being discriminated against? Pardon my French.
    RE K6VVA, Rick, you waisted lots of energy and valuable QSO time to prove nothing. Move on. 73! Yuri N3QQ

  5. Repost of my earlier comments to the IOTA reflector:
    “Obviously well-intentioned, but they are punishing the wrong party for violation. Instead of rejecting the operation (which remove credit for people who legitimately worked the station), might it not be better to bar the perpetrator from further participation in the program?”

    That said, I question whether K6VVA’s actions rise to the level of requiring an official response. I don’t believe he was acting with malice, it just wasn’t well thought out. His repeated looong explanations of HRAL/ATNi (on cw!) turned out to be counter-productive. It killed his rate, and the time spent might very well have prevented some HRAL types from ever getting in the log.

  6. VK4MA: Spot on as usual.

    SP5IT: Your comments probably justify why K6VVA operated the way he did. You don’t care about IOTA but you are free to tell the longstanding IOTA activators/participants how to conduct their operations. K6VVA’s intention was to avoid having anything to do with operators like you who really don’t care about the IOTA program but nevertheless, will be clogging the IOTA pileups anyways thus preventing those who care about IOTA to make a QSO with that rare island.

    I don’t recall anyone in EU crying “Discrimination, discrimination!” when MM0RAI/p Rockall island (the rarest EU IOTA) chose to operate on 40m SSB only (good enough for EU only), or when 7O6T AF-028 was not allowed to work with 4X Israel but IOTA management approved the operation anyway etc, etc…
    Let’s just give participation trophies to all “justice warriors” so everyone is happy…
    This is probably the real goal of the new IOTA management rule. Not to bring new IOTA participants…

  7. I am still confused that this operation got approved from IOTA . -VVA say QRT QRT to those he
    did´nt like to except. Those lines dosen´t give a clear info. I asume that this opr is approved – No ham sprit at all.
    Sorry for this.
    -VVA is the guy that loose a lot himself…see what he say in comming next Visalia.

  8. I’m not ashamed of my call sign, just posting from other machine.
    I’m not iota fanatic, so I do not care about that one.
    Gl to those who have NA-004 cfm.
    Someday, someone will be transmitting from P5 calling “no USA” and deleting all USA stations from log.
    Can’t wait to read comments afterwards.

  9. “Mike” is SP5IT. Note to him & others: If you don’t have the common decency to provide your callsign (something you should be proud of because you worked for your ticket and ultimately your call) then don’t post at all.

  10. I am all in favour of free speech and I commend Col for his open mindedness in this regard.

    But I think it should be a requirement that people include their callsigns when commenting here. I know that people can use false callsigns and I have no expectation of Col to be doing sleuth work around callsigns used…..but

    Frankly I think the comment made to Mike, zs1a is pretty disgusting, and although I defend Mikes right to say it , I think he should at least be required to provide his callsign when doing so (even if it is a made up one).

    I also agree that the picture selected to head this topic is just about perfect – unfortunately k6vva has been the past leader of similar posse groups so I do not feel sorry for him on a personal level. I do however feel that the IOTA rule change is a huge over reaction and based more on personal acrimony to the Locust (which may be justified) than anything else.

    What does the new rule even me? Its drafting is simply awful. Does the new rule apply retrospectively to the recent NA-004 operation (I certainly hope not)? What is unfair about the HRAL process? Why is it different from calling for EU only? The Locust made no personal gain out of this process, in fact, he probably made less qsos as a result of deploying HRAL.

    So it is now a requirement it seems that IOTA dxpeditioners treat all callers fairly -what does this actually mean? I for one will be ignoring any requests for EU only or NA only in future when calling an IOTA dxpedition – and if castigated by the dxpedition op, I will refer him to this rule and his failure to treat me fairly. And heaven forbid if he decides not to log me as a result of my cheekiness.

    I frankly think the IOTA committee has stepped into new and dangerous territory here – Award committees make program rules around entity qualification and dxpedition compliance (approval) – they should not tell dxpeditioners how to run their pileups or who should or should not be in the log.

    Paul – vk4ma

  11. Mike (Too shy about his call sign) with the silly comment: “Johan ZS1A: Fair time by making 2qso’s/h calling hral only? Ur kidding.
    What will be next? CQ white people only?”
    You are so far behind, it looks like you are in front.
    You are at least 20 years behind.

  12. BEWARE of those who claim to stand on the moral high ground and point their fingers at us lesser beings. If you don’t like ‘HRAL’ (whatever the hell that is), go to the shipping hazard yourself and being the pure of heart perfect person you are, open your kimono for anyone/everyone/HRAL or not to call you. Quit whining, get a life.

    PS. Great picture! It captures the moral indignation PERFECTLY.

  13. Wow – this seems to be an incredibly harsh response from the IOTA committee to me.

    I have been involved in chasing IOTAs since 1995 but this may well signal the end of my participation in the program.
    I do not want some central committee telling me how best to control my pileups or who should or should not be in my log, particularly when I have paid for my own expedition in its entirety.

    What has K6VVA done wrong exactly?

    1 He has devised a system that favours keen IOTA participants over casual or non participants.
    2 He has made the decision to remove a station from HIS Log.

    I am no friend of the Locust and I do not necessarily agree with all aspects of his operating conduct but I vigorously defend his right to control his dxpeditions pileups and logbooks as he sees fit.

    You guys spent years on here bleating about the fact that dxpeditions do not do enough to maximise unique qso numbers and complaining about the “dx pigs” working dxpeditions multiple times or when the entity was not needed.
    K6VVA agreed with all this garbage and tried to devise a system that would favor more uniques to the most passionate program participants – and now you guys have turned on him.

    Unbelievable hypocrisy

    Paul – vk4ma

  14. Sorry, I can’t see how this new rule and this statement will help to improve IOTA. If “it is immaterial whether the contact is a known participant or not in IOTA” what is the incentive to participate in the IOTA program? Then any IOTA activity is nothing more than “just another rare one to bag” “just because I can”. Is it really that strange for an island activator to focus on working his fellow IOTA participants? I hope next time management will show better vision towards those who loyally participate in the program.

  15. The same for K7TRI. Suddenly it was posseble to work them from Scandinavia. Then they went QRT.All the other dayes they mostly work NA and JA.

  16. Mike SP5IT: Absolutly right! This is the only way the IOTA Management can go to stop those Hams!
    How can IOTA beginners came forward when they can not make qso’s???

  17. Johan ZS1A: Fair time by making 2qso’s/h calling hral only? Ur kidding.
    What will be next? CQ white people only?

  18. All the crazy things that K6VVA wanted to showcase the last few years were just stupid things or served in his twisted self-portrayal.

  19. Not clear, K7VVA/KL7 NA-004 operation has been finaly approved by IOTA Management Team or not? Otherwise, all writen above..

  20. I have been accused by one of his friend to have written a ‘rude comment’ when i requested to VOID that operation ! Now i know that i was in the right to ask so! Heard him only when he was calling ‘HRAL’ ,what i wasnt qualifiying for! Strangly, his signal was pretty much more readable those times…may be its just a coincidence..

  21. May I assume this rule will be applied retro-actively to the recent activity of that “insect” ? Really hope so …

  22. Let’s hope that this activity by K6VVA is not recognized or rated! The peculiarities of this OP have been more than strange for a long time.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here