Month: September 2018

IARU Region 1 ARDF rules currently contain the following rule regarding the use of satellite-based navigation devices:

Part B, Appendix 1, Section T4.2 The use of satellite positioning devices is allowed provided they do not contain digital map of the terrain (“nonmapping” devices).

The above rule is currently being interpreted by some ARDF equipment manufacturers and competitors to permit the use of GPS modules integrated into ARDF receivers, provided that digital maps are not used.

By integrating a GPS module with a microcontroller and a digital compass module within the circuitry of an ARDF receiver, the following navigational assistance is currently available in some competitors’ receivers used at ARDF Championship competitions.

1. Distance Measuring – The ability to set waypoints and then read the straight-line distance between one’s current position and the recorded waypoint. This is useful for determining when an exclusion area border (e.g., around the Start, or around a located Fox) has been reached.
2. Heading Following – The ability to follow a straight line from one point in a particular direction. This is useful for navigating along a straight path, such as along a particular bearing toward a Fox. Using geometrical formulae in an embedded software program, the receiver is able to calculate cross-track error information and present it audibly through the earphones, allowing precise navigation along the heading direction without any need to refer to a map or the features shown on a map. Note: this feature is more accurate and foolproof than using compass guidance alone because GPS can ensure precise steering to the actual rhumb line with high accuracy.
3. Bearing-Crossing Calculations – The processor can calculate the position where bearing lines converge, and then provide distance measurements and heading-following assistance to the convergence location. Note: since GPS positioning is used to determine the location from which each bearing direction was taken, one significant source of bearing error is reduced. So bearings are significantly more accurate and more useful for following and convergence calculations when GPS is used to establish the precise point at which each bearing was taken.
4. Range and Angle – Range (or distance) is the same as “distance measuring” described above. The angle between a waypoint lat/lon and one’s current position lat/lon can also be easily calculated without using a compass. This allows, for instance, a competitor to read from an alphanumeric display both the distance and the compass angle from the start to his current position. That lets a competitor  quickly locate their precise position relative to the start on a paper map.

A future concern: Short-range radio communication technology (currently banned) could theoretically be used to share all the course data wirelessly receiver-to-receiver between competitors in the field.

The same logic that allows the rules to be interpreted as permitting the above functionality, should also permit simple monochrome graphical displays to be integrated into ARDF receivers. Although to my knowledge this is not yet being done, it is almost certain to happen at some point in the future. With a simple small graphical display, lacking any terrain map whatsoever, the following features will be possible.

1. Waypoint Display – Similar to the distance measuring feature described above, the small graphical display will permit setting and viewing waypoint positions relative to one another.
2. Bearing-Crossing Display – By taking several bearings toward the Finish beacon, an accurate Finish location can be determined and displayed relative to the Start, found foxes, and bearing convergence locations for unfound foxes.
3. Exclusion Area Display – Similar to the distance measuring feature described above, the small graphical display will permit seeing one’s current position relative to the Start and the exclusion area around the Start, estimated Finish, found Foxes, and fox bearing-convergence locations.
4. Track Display – As a competitor traverses a course, this feature will allow viewing one’s current location and the path traversed relative to all the waypoints and exclusion areas recorded during the run.
5. Bearing Display – Bearing lines taken toward Foxes can be shown relative to all of the information listed above.

So a simple graphical display would allow the entire course, and a competitor’s location and track to be displayed relative to one another with overlaid bearing lines. Only a terrain map would be missing.

While a graphical display would increase the advantage provided by integrated GPS modules, it should be kept in mind that all of the capabilities listed for the graphical display scenario could, theoretically, be provided using audio and textual cues. Such an audio-and-text interface would be less intuitive and would require more learning on the part of the competitor. But the fact remains that all of the information listed above can be conveyed with or without a graphical display, and without a terrain map.

Accuracy: GPS position accuracy depends on the antenna, atmospheric conditions, satellite constellation geometry, use of filtering (e.g., Kalman filtering), and other factors. Experimentation has shown that for typical GPS modules +/- 10m accuracy is readily achieved and rarely does the error exceed +/- 30m. Weather and vegetation are rarely a factor. Extremely steep terrain (more extreme than found on most ARDF courses) combined with low elevation can sometimes cause higher position error or even loss of position. GPS tends to be unreliable indoors.

The use of GPS for navigation assistance, even without terrain maps, can provide advantages over using only the traditional personal navigation skills historically used for ARDF. This fact is readily admitted by most competitors who use receivers with built-in GPS modules, and of course, it is the reason that such such receivers are used at all.

It is a truism often repeated, but in my opinion, never justified: ARDF must take hold in more Region 2 countries before there can be a Region 2 ARDF Working Group (WG).

An ARDF WG consists of representatives from those countries whose member societies wish to participate in the sport. Those representatives working within the context of the ARDF WG then take actions to administer and promote the sport regionally: defining a rules set, establishing protocols for sanctioning Regional Championships, creating educational material for competitors and organizers, cooperating with other Regions in order to promote the sport, etc.

An ARDF WG consists of representatives from those countries whose member societies wish to participate in the sport.

Clearly, one or two delegates cannot possibly be representative of all 42 countries/territories in IARU Region 2. And it would never do for a non-representative WG to exercise authority over all of Region 2.

One or two delegates cannot possibly be representative of all 42 countries in IARU Region 2.

But promoting ARDF throughout the Region is a large part of the work of the IARU Region 1 ARDF WG (See *). It should be likewise for a Region 2 ARDF WG. So consider: what if the Region 2 ARDF WG were only empowered to take actions in support of propagating ARDF throughout Region 2? In other words: until a representative number of countries is participating in the Region 2 ARDF WG, the WG’s activities could be limited to the business of increasing the number of participating countries. It would have no authority to establish rules or policies that would apply to ARDF in Region 2 as a whole until a threshold of Regional representation is achieved. But even without such authority, a promotion-only ARDF WG might be just what is needed to break out of the chicken-and-egg situation that ARDF finds itself in. We can’t have a Region-wide group to promote ARDF in the Americas until the sport takes hold broadly, and the sport can’t spread broadly until it has a body with Region-wide standing and reach.

Until a representative number of countries is participating in the Region 2 ARDF WG, the WG’s activities could be limited to the business of increasing the number of participating countries. Such a “promotion-only ARDF WG” might be just what is needed to break out of the chicken-and-egg situation that ARDF finds itself in. 

ARDF promotion doesn’t mean just getting the word out. It means identifying the barriers to the sport’s spread in Region 2, and effectively removing those barriers. It also means communicating in the languages of our Region: Spanish, English, Brazilian Portuguese, and Canadian French. The job requires the talents of a diverse group: not necessarily a large group, but probably not a single individual.

ARDF promotion doesn’t mean just getting the word out. It means identifying the barriers to the sport’s spread in Region 2, and effectively removing those barriers.

For the IARU Region 2 Organization to consider a proposal to establish a promotion-only working group, the facts must be laid out, a reasonable recommendation based on those facts must first be made to the Executive Committee, and the recommendation must be affordable to the IARU Region 2 Organization.

On that final point, the proposal could stipulate that the “promotion-only Region 2 ARDF Working Group” operate independently of financial support from the IARU Region 2 Organization – at least initially. The WG could be self-supporting through volunteer labor and donations from ARDF supporters in the USA and elsewhere. Some official accountability for any funds raised would need to be put into place in order to give contributors confidence that their donations are being used as intended.

In its “promotion-only” state, an ARDF WG could be self-supporting through volunteer labor and donations from ARDF supporters.

Proposal: Our IARU Region 2 ARDF leadership should explore possibilities for making such a Region 2 ARDF Working Group happen, and soon. ARDF established a foothold in the Americas nearly a generation ago: if it does not take the next step soon, we could lose the opportunity to enjoy the benefits of this unique radiosport in our hemisphere.

---

* ARDF Working Group Promotional Tasks

The IARU Region 1 ARDF Working Group lists the following responsibilities for itself. Those responsibilities related to promotion and communication, rather than the regulation or administration of the sport are highlighted.

1. To disseminate information related to ARDF.
2. To develop ARDF materials and answer questions from other IARU bodies.
3. To provide ARDF advice and help to IARU Member Societies, to prepare bulletins and educational material, to assist the IARU Regional Member Societies in ARDF activities.
4. To submit ARDF advice, proposals, and recommendations to the Executive Committee.
5. To participate in the organization of IARU ARDF events.
6. To undertake ARDF activities on behalf of the IARU Region.
7. To organize IARU international events and championships.
8. To support sport and technical progress in ARDF.
9. To prepare the ARDF competition rules.
10. To provide for skilled referees serving at International, Regional and World Championships.
11. To cooperate with similar bodies in other IARU regions that promote and administer the sport, helping promulgate and standardize the sport throughout the regions, and coordinating ARDF activities between the regions.

This posting examines the role of the Region 2 ARDF Coordinator.

IARU Background

The IARU constitution makes it clear in Article 1, sec. 7 “The authority of the IARU resides collectively in the Member-Societies, who exercise this authority by voting.” So the IARU, rather analogously to the US government, is representative of the electorate, derives its authority from the societies that it “governs”, and serves to promote the interests of Amateur Radio under the authority given to it by the member societies.

The authority of the IARU resides collectively in the Member-Societies.

Somewhat analogously to the relationship between the individual States and the US Federal Government, the IARU does not take any of the authority away from the member societies, rather the member societies voluntarily agree to be governed by the decision-making of the IARU for the collective good of Amateur Radio worldwide. One point being: the member societies retain all the authority and responsibility that they have not delegated to the IARU.

The member societies retain all the authority and responsibility that they have not delegated to the IARU.

IARU and ARDF

ARDF is administered by the IARU Regional organizations. There is no overarching IARU administration of ARDF worldwide. ARDF exists as a regional sport, and only in those IARU regions that have adopted it. Region 2 has defined the sport and has defined and appointed a Coordinator position to perform specific duties.

ARDF exists as a regional sport, and only in those IARU regions that have adopted it.

Region 2’s definition of ARDF, and the Coordinator’s authority and responsibilities are detailed in the IARU R2 ARDF Coordinator Terms of Reference recorded in a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) approved by the Extraordinary Assembly of Delegates in Guatemala, Guatemala, on September 2001. The ARDF Coordinator duties detailed therein are, in effect, the position’s job description.

Region 2 and its ARDF Coordinator

According to the IARU Region 2 Bylaws section 2.10, it is the Assembly of Delegates that established the IARU R2 ARDF Coordinator position and specified its Terms of Reference that define the role’s purpose, responsibilities, and authority. So although the position reports to the Executive Committee (EC), the EC does not have the authority to change the position’s Terms of Reference: the Assembly of Delegates retains authority over the job description.

A careful reading of the IARU Region 2 ARDF Coordinator’s Terms of Reference reveals that the position is not granted any decision-making authority or any real authority of any kind. It has only duties:

4. ARDF Coordinator Duties.

(a) The Region 2 ARDF Coordinator shall become aware of, and shall encourage and support, ARDF activities within Region 2 and shall report on such activities from time to time to the Region 2 Executive Committee.

(b) The Region 2 ARDF Coordinator shall, in general, be aware of ARDF activities in IARU regions 1 and 3 and shall report on such activities from time to time to the Region 2 Executive Committee. The Region 2 ARDF Coordinator shall also cooperate with the ARDF coordinators from Regions 1 and 3 for the purpose of promoting ARDF activities worldwide.

(c) The Region 2 ARDF Coordinator shall make any such recommendations as are reasonably necessary and appropriate to the Region 2 Executive Committee to promote ARDF activities within Region 2.

That isn’t to say that the position is powerless. The position has the ear of the Region 2 Executive Committee, giving it a platform for presenting facts and persuasive arguments to the EC. The position also, by virtue of being an IARU entity, has standing as an authority in its area of responsibility. And as such, the position can more readily establish relationships with those entities with which it coordinates and can leverage those relationships to further the cause of ARDF in Region 2.

The IARU Region 2 ARDF Coordinator position, by virtue of being an IARU entity, has standing as an authority in its area of responsibility.

But a position of responsibility that lacks commensurate authority can be very frustrating. Success requires keen skills of persuasion, patience, and perseverance.

Sadly, sometimes the obscurity of a position is leveraged by the office holder to obfuscate the limitations on the office’s authority. It is sometimes tempting, for expediency’s sake, to simply assume authority for the good of the cause so long as that authority is not questioned. But such tactics ultimately result in disillusionment, distrust, and the eventual dissolution of the office. Clearly, such behavior must be avoided.

The ARRL and The ARDF Coordinator

Here we return to the point made earlier: that the member societies retain all the authority and responsibility that they have not delegated to the IARU. The IARU Region 2 organization has defined the sport of ARDF but has not assumed or assigned any authority over the sport. Thus, the member societies retain full domestic authority over ARDF within Region 2. The ARRL, then, retains full authority over the sport for the events it sanctions in the USA. The ARRL chooses which events to sanction, decides who will be on Team USA, and sets the rules by which the sport is played at the USA Championships. Likewise for all the other Region 2 member societies.

For now, the member societies retain full domestic authority over ARDF within Region 2.

Summary

The role of IARU Region 2 ARDF Coordinator is that of trusted and informed advisor to the Region 2 Organization on all things ARDF. The position requires being informed of ARDF activities and issues in all IARU Regions and passing that information along to the Executive Committee as appropriate. The position also serves as an interface between Region 2 and the ARDF entities of other Regions, cooperating on matters affecting the advancement of the sport. And perhaps most importantly, the Coordinator must advise the Executive Committee regarding actions that the Region 2 Organization should take in order to best promote ARDF within Region 2.

---

Disclaimer

Although I’ve tried to ensure accuracy and provided links to references supporting the information provided, there could be errors or omissions. Documents might have been superseded without my knowledge, or my interpretation might be in error. Please let me know if you are aware of inaccuracies in the text above, or if you have suggestions for making it more clear and understandable.

Updates will be made as new information is received.

In order for IARU Regions 2 and 3 to understand what technologies are allowed and which are banned under Region 1 ARDF rules, and to ensure fairness to all competitors, we need the IARU Region 1 ARDF Working Group to please provide answers to two questions below.

 Regarding 2018 ARDF Rules Part B:

“T4.2 The use of satellite positioning devices is allowed provided they do not contain digital map of the terrain (“nonmapping” devices).”

---

Question 1: Does Region 1 ARDF WG want T4.2 be interpreted to mean it is OK for competitors to use GPS technology for navigation assistance as long as the navigation assistance is provided audibly or textually instead of using a map display?

---

If the answer to Question 1 is “Yes”, then regarding 2018 ARDF Rules Part A: “2.4 The guiding principle in the interpretation of these rules shall be fairness.” the next question is:

---

Question 2A: To ensure fairness to those who do not use satellite navigation, would Region 1 ARDF WG consider adding text similar to the following in the next revision of the rules?

---

If however, the answer to Question 1 is “No”, then the next question is:

---

Question 2B: Would Region 1 ARDF WG please change T4.2 to make it clear that satellite navigation assistance is not allowed in ARDF competitions? Language similar to the International Orienteering Federation (IOF) might be considered:

---