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.
“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?
Suggested revised wording:
T4.3 Those using satellite-navigation technology for navigation assistance, including ARDF receivers containing integrated GPS or GLONASS receivers, shall be classified in a separate competitive category from those relying solely on personal navigation skills.
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:
Suggested revised wording:
T4.2 GPS-enabled devices (watches etc.) can be carried provided that they have no map display and are not used for navigation purposes. The use of satellite positioning devices by competitors for any navigation purpose is prohibited. Navigation purposes include setting waypoints, measuring distances, heading following, and any other assistance with directing one’s course.
There has been some talk recently on the subject of establishing an ARDF club in the USA: a nationwide club to promote and support ARDF activity. Some considerations for such an endeavor are presented below.
If you are not familiar with how ARDF is currently administered then a review of the current hierarchy might help with understanding the remainder of this post.
IARU/ARRL and OUSA Working Together
One option might be to charter a club under the Orienteering USA (OUSA) structure while leaving the overall administration of the sport unchanged from what it is today. The new OUSA club would promote ARDF as an IARU regionally-administered sport.
To form an OUSA member club, OUSA will require that the club’s mission align with its own: to promote and support Orienteering. Many folks see ARDF as a special form of Orienteering that adds radios to maps and compasses. Some of the OUSA leadership has in the past expressed the opinion that ARDF is just another form of Orienteering. This has allowed Orienteering clubs to extend OUSA insurance coverage to ARDF events. So, from OUSA’s perspective, they might be happy to accept a member club that focuses only on “Radio Orienteering”.
But the IARU does not define ARDF as a form of Orienteering. IARU Region 2 defines ARDF as “… a technical, sport activity within the framework of the amateur radio service.” And IARU Region 1 defines the sport as “… an amateur radio sport in which competitors by means of a direction-finding receiver and a map are to find a number of transmitters hidden in the competition area in the shortest possible time.”
Perhaps the IARU and OUSA could agree to disagree on how to define ARDF, but there are potential conflicts that are likely to arise at some point. Consider that OUSA requires its affiliated clubs to “agree to abide by the Constitution and Bylaws of the United States Orienteering Federation.” And if you read the OUSA bylaws they state the following:
“… competition includes orienteering meets that may be sanctioned by the Federation (“Class A” meets. Among the Class A sanctioned meets shall be one or more annual national championships, as determined by the Federation Board of Directors.”
OUSA “acting through appropriate committees, appointed and approved as provided in Article IX, shall provide for the selection of competitors to represent the United States in any International Orienteering competition or any other International or Regional Competition, subject to the rights of appeal and arbitration as provided in Article IX, Section B.6.3.”
In other words, OUSA requires its chartered clubs to consent to OUSA sanction of national championships and OUSA selection of competitors who will represent the USA at regional and world championships. If ARDF is a form of Orienteering, then an OUSA chartered club should look to OUSA to sanction championships and select USA team members. But if ARDF is not a form of Orienteering then a club promoting just ARDF is not a legitimate OUSA Orienteering club since it does not support OUSA’s mission. So there are potential problems regardless of which side of the argument one takes.
The ARRL and IARU are likely to take the position that ARDF is not a type of Orienteering sport at all, but rather a radio sport that can (when conducted with a map and compass) have much in common with Orienteering. That argument has merit. Consider that while Orienteering is almost always defined as a sport involving map and compass, we know that a map and compass are not indispensable in ARDF. Some forms of ARDF competition exist that do not involve a map or compass at all, such as ARDF for the blind. If that line of reasoning holds sway at the ARRL, then the ARRL is likely to offer only limited cooperation with any club whose mission is to promote Orienteering.
There are various ways that this conundrum might be addressed. But the most obvious ones could prove to be quite complex. For instance, OUSA might consent to “adopting” ARDF and appointing the ARRL as the team-selection and USA event-sanctioning committee. Or the ARRL could assign its authority in those areas to OUSA. Either way, it seems that a memorandum of understanding would need to be agreed to by both groups’ Directing Boards to ensure smooth operation and cooperation. Simply ignoring the issues could someday result in problems with insurance coverage, multiple USA teams being selected, or contested sanctioning of events. And there might well be other issues yet to be identified lurking in the bylaws.
Another possibility would be for “Radio Orienteering” to be established under the IOF/OUSA umbrella with no official coordination with the IARU sport. This should require little or no cooperation between OUSA and the IARU/ARRL since a new ARDF organizational structure would come into existence. For this approach to succeed it would probably require recognition of a radio-guided orienteering activity by the International Orienteering Federation (IOF), perhaps as its own discipline among foot, mountain bike, ski, and trail orienteering disciplines; or perhaps as a sub-discipline of foot or trail orienteering. An OUSA-chartered ARDF club would then work exclusively with OUSA and the IOF to promote and administer the sport. World Championships would be IOF-sanctioned events, and USA Championships would be sanctioned by OUSA.
The IARU sport would, presumably, continue to exist independently. The IOF brand of Radio Orienteering would still be dependent on the IARU for the preservation of the radio spectrum utilized for the sport – so there would necessarily be at least some dependency on the IARU’s support.
Beyond the dubious eventuality of convincing the IOF to recognize a new orienteering discipline, it seems that the absence of coordination between OUSA and IARU would eventually result in the two independent Radio Orienteering sports diverging over time.
A Stand-Alone Club or Organization
Another option for forming a nationwide ARDF club would be to establish an independent organization. Such a club would not be chartered under an umbrella organization at all and would be free to create its own Constitution and Bylaws without consideration for any external organization’s requirements. The downside, of course, is that an independent club would receive none of the benefits associated with being chartered under a larger organizational umbrella. An independent club would also require more work and financial support from its membership in order to establish itself, and for it to provide the necessary support for ARDF such as insurance coverage, promotional materials, and such.
An ARRL Specialty Club
An ARDF Club might be formed under the ARRL umbrella as an ARRL Affiliated Club. The ARRL offers liability insurance to the activities conducted by its affiliated clubs, though it would need to be researched whether regular ARDF practices and competitions would be included as covered activities.
The ARRL allows clubs to specialize in certain activities, so it would seem that ARDF as an IARU/ARRL-recognized radio sport would be considered a legitimate specialty.
The ARRL allows regionally or nationally organized Amateur Radio groups to apply for affiliation, so a USA ARDF club would seem to be allowed. Though it might be the first such “nationally organized” club to seek ARRL affiliation.
There is also the requirement that at least 51% of the club’s voting members must be ARRL members.
Attempts to explore the possibility of affiliating a national ARDF group as a club or a “Regional or national organized Amateur Radio group” did not identify any issues that would preclude such affiliation. But inquiries were met with a lukewarm reception. Close coordination with the ARRL ARDF Committee and ARRL Regional Directors, and the IARU Region 2 ARDF Coordinator will likely prove helpful in order to gain approval.
While the rules of affiliation seem to preclude having a single club that is chartered under both OUSA and the ARRL, there might be a way around that. Two very closely coupled clubs might be chartered: one under OUSA and the other under the ARRL. The clubs could share membership so that joining either club makes one a member of both. The clubs could also share (equitably divide) all income and expenses. Both club constitutions and bylaws would differ in order for them to satisfy the requirements of affiliation under their respective umbrella organizations.
The two clubs would “agree to disagree” on the precise definition of the sport in their constitutions, but would write their bylaws to ensure agreement and collaboration on all matters related to promoting and supporting ARDF. Neither club would be allowed to operate independently from the other on any matter affecting the sport. Board and Executive Committee meetings might be held jointly.
A dual club arrangement, while confusing, might make it possible for ARDF to enjoy the support of both the ARRL and OUSA while providing flexibility to avoid conflicts between the two organizations. For instance: the ARRL club might define ARDF as a radio sport, and be responsible for working directly with the ARRL ARDF Committee. The OUSA club might define ARDF as “orienteering + radio” and be responsible for coordinating with OUSA and promoting ARDF from a “maps and compasses” perspective. A practical example: The OUSA club might organize a national radio orienteering event and secure insurance coverage through OUSA, and the ARRL club might work with the ARRL Committee to get the event sanctioned as a USA Championship competition.
Could such an arrangement be made to pass muster with both umbrella organizations? Are there real advantages to all the added complexity? It isn’t clear to me. But perhaps this approach is worth considering.
Below is a diagram depicting the current way that ARDF is administered with a focus on Region 2. The diagram is intended to show all the entities responsible for how ARDF is defined, practiced or promoted in IARU Region 2. The lines between the various entities imply the type of relationship or interaction between them.
Click on diagram for full-size view
The intent of the diagram is to depict diagrammatically the current ARDF-related entities and their relationship to one another. Their roles and responsibilities are discussed below.
ITU & IARU
If we focus on the sport of ARDF, the ITU and the top level of the IARU have no direct influence on the sport. Radio sports are not specifically mentioned in their constitutions or bylaws and are not managed at that level. The ITU and IARU are included in the diagram only to complete the “big picture”.
IARU Regions
IARU Regions are autonomous and operate in accordance with their own Constitution. Their members are comprised of national societies representing each region’s member countries. See ARRL IARU.
The IARU regional organizations are at the top of the ARDF hierarchy, in that they have responsibility for defining, supporting, and managing the sport. Having three autonomous organizations all managing ARDF from the top could lead to divergence in how the sport is played and organized around the world. Such divergence could be beneficial by allowing the regions to customize ARDF to maximize interest among their member societies. But too much divergence would be detrimental if it were to result in three separate incompatible sports. Fortunately, the regions have insisted on making inter-regional coordination a priority.
IARU regional organizations are not obligated to recognize ARDF at all. The autonomous regions are free to address the needs of their regional membership as appropriate to fulfill their missions. If ARDF plays an insignificant role in a particular region, and the member societies consider it unimportant, a region need not support it in any fashion. That was the case in IARU Region 2 until about seventeen years ago.
In September 2001 IARU Region 2 approved Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) that recognized the sport of ARDF in the region:
ARDF, the activity. Amateur Radio Direction Finding is a technical, sport activity within the framework of the amateur radio service. It deals with the taking of radio bearings and finding hidden transmitters, constructing direction-finding equipment, and the training of amateurs involved in and with the organizing of relevant sport and social events.
IARU Region 2 ARDF Coordinator
In the same September 2001 Standard Operating Procedures, IARU Region 2 defined a new role: IARU Region 2 ARDF Coordinator. That role was created as a “special advisory committee” by the Executive Committee (EC) and reports directly to the EC.
The Region 2 ARDF Coordinator was assigned duties related to investigating the popularity of the sport in the region, keeping track of ARDF activities in the other regions, and reporting back to the Executive Committee with findings and recommendations:
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.
ARDF Working Groups & Permanent Committees
The creation of an IARU Region 2 ARDF Coordinator position was a significant step forward, but still left ARDF’s stature in Region 2 in a very different state from other regions. IARU Regions 1 and 3, where ARDF is more established and widespread, have established ARDF working groups or permanent committees by resolutions passed by the Member Societies at regional General Assemblies (GA).
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.
ARDF’s disparity between Region 2 and the other two regions remains to this day. Unless the Region 2 Organization can be persuaded otherwise, this situation might not change so long as the sport is isolated to only a small number of Region 2 countries.
In the absence of an entity tasked with administering the sport at the regional level, the responsibilities above are not officially supported by Region 2. Instead, ARDF coordination and administrative responsibilities fall to the member societies and individuals, where they are addressed on an ad hoc basis if they are addressed at all.
The creation of a Permanent ARDF Working Committee for Region 2 would require passage of establishment legislation (a resolution) at a Region 2 General Assembly. Region 2 General Assemblies are triennial events, with the next one scheduled to occur in 2019 at Radio Club Peruano in Lima, Peru. The resolution to create a Region 2 ARDF Working Committee would need to be sponsored by one or more Region 2 Member Societies.
IARU Member Organizations (Member Societies)
The members of the IARU Regional organizations are those societies of radio amateurs situated within Region 2 that are members of the International Amateur Radio Union. The IARU Constitution states that there shall be only one Member-Society representing a country or separate territory.
The American Radio Relay League (ARRL) is the member organization representing the USA. The ARRL is a member of IARU Region 3 as well as Region 2 because it represents the radio amateurs of Guam, the Northern Marianas and American Samoa which are located in Region 3.
In Regions 1 and 3 where ARDF is the responsibility of working groups or committees comprised of representatives of member societies, those member societies retain at least the following ARDF-related responsibilities:
1. Maintain their full membership in a regional IARU organization.
2. Assign a society representative to the ARDF Permanent Working Committee or Working Group.
3. Delegate single competitors or teams to participate in intra-regional competitions.
4. When authorized by its corresponding IARU regional organization it may organize a World Championship.
5. When authorized by its corresponding IARU regional organization it may organize a Regional Championship. A Regional ARDF Championship is the event to award the title of Regional Champion in ARDF.
In Region 2, there are no specific ARDF responsibilities nor authority assigned to the member societies. So the ARRL is able to exercise the authority afforded by other regions to member societies from outside those regions. Within the borders of the USA the ARRL is authorized and constrained by its own Articles of Association, Bylaws and internal policies, and by a desire to best serve its membership and cooperate with its fellow societies within and outside Region 2.
USA ARDF Coordinator
In June 1999 the ARRL established the position of USA ARDF Coordinator and assigned Joe Moell, KØOV to fill it. The ARRL does not have an ARDF Department to track ARDF activities in the USA, to vote on who should comprise the national team, or organize regional or world championship events. There are no ARDF sports experts at the ARRL to write copy for announcements, USA championship results, or team USA results at the World Championships. All that and a whole lot more falls to Joe Moell and one new member of the ARRL’s ARDF committee. (Correct me if I’m wrong, Joe or Jerry!)
The purpose of the USA ARDF Coordinator position, according to the Report to the ARRL Board of Directors, January 2018 is: “to promote the development of this sport within the country and to work with ARDF Coordinators of other IARU countries to organize ARDF events and activities. The focus is on international-rules on-foot foxhunting (also called foxtailing and radio-orienteering), but not mobile hidden transmitter hunting.”
Local Organizations and Individuals
The folks participating in ARDF activities, and the clubs and groups that directly support them are the grassroots of the sport. Collectively they hold ultimate control over the sport, for without them there would be no ARDF activity to manage.
What Might Be Falling Through the Cracks?
The amount of work and responsibility assigned to the USA ARDF Coordinator might be manageable for a few very talented and industrious persons. And with ARDF activity isolated to so few countries in our region, there might be little need for coordination amongst member organizations. But perhaps there are important issues that are not being addressed, and which might be slowing ARDF’s growth and even risking the sport’s future.
In ARDF’s current state in Region 2, the ARRL, local clubs, and individuals have a significant interest in investigating and addressing concerns affecting their IARU region. But without direction and coordination at the Region-2 level, it might be difficult to prioritize the issues and coordinate efforts to effectively address regional concerns:
How should ARDF be promoted in Region 2? Who should be responsible for promoting the sport and identifying promotional opportunities? How should the effectiveness of promotional efforts be measured and reported?
What factors are holding ARDF back from becoming more popular in our region? What can be done to increase ARDF’s popularity? Who is responsible for implementing needed changes?
How can more women and youth be brought into the sport?
Might our region benefit from an official web-based “one-stop shop” of information for “all things ARDF” in our region? Who would maintain it?
Would an ARDF rule set specific to Region 2 be more effective for our region? Who would create it? Who would approve it? How would it be maintained? How would it be coordinated with the rules of other regions?
Could ARDF instruction be made more accessible and higher quality? Should there be a training program for ARDF instructors? Should there be a program for certifying ARDF instructors? Who would implement it? How would it work?
Should there be a well-equipped and maintained equipment pool made available to sanctioned event organizers? How could that be brought about?
How are we measuring ARDF’s growth and progress in Region 2? What is the best way to measure it? Who should be responsible for gathering, compiling, and disseminating the data? Who would be responsible for acting on what it reveals?
How can ARDF equipment costs be brought down? How can equipment availability be improved? How can equipment reliability be improved?
Is cheating a problem in the sport? What should be done to address it? Who is responsible for addressing it? How do we coordinate our efforts with other regions?
Are we developing skilled referees in our region? What should be the qualification of a referee? Should referees be trained and certified? How do we coordinate these efforts with other regions?
You Are ARDF in Region 2
Though their number remains relatively small, ARDF enthusiasts in Region 2 include enough individual talent to fix all that ails ARDF. But it is up to the grassroots to insist on leadership and organization that will utilize that talent to make ARDF prosper.
As a citizen residing in Region 2, you are the sport of ARDF in your country and in the region. The fun and enjoyment of ARDF can be there for our children, grandchildren, friends, and neighbors if we all insist on effective and responsive ARDF governance throughout our region.
If you can help complete or correct the information presented above please let me know. Although I’ve attempted to make it accurate, it might contain errors or omissions. Please let me know if you are aware of changes that should be made, or if you have suggestions for making it more clear and understandable.
Updates will be made as new information is received.
Test your knowledge of satellite navigation systems and how they relate to ARDF. Take the quiz!
Q1. From the list below, select the answer that is most similar to: “A multi-billion dollar constellation of satellites, designed and deployed by armies of scientists and engineers, providing precise navigation data only to persons carrying GPS radio receivers.”
a) Local measurements of the Earth’s magnetic field taken with a compass device.
b) Noting the direction toward the rising sun.
c) Map-reading skills honed for determining one’s position on a map.
d) Collaborators outside an ARDF course during a competition communicating guidance information to competitors using out-of-band receivers.
Q2. Select the technology that is most likely to alter the nature of a sport that emphasizes reliance on individual navigation skills:
a) Metal cleats on orienteering shoes.
b) Lightweight equipment.
c) Improved battery technology.
d) A sophisticated navigation system capable of 10-meter position accuracy.
Q3. Complete the sentence: If someone is interested in sports that emphasize reliance on individual navigation skills, then they are most likely to be interested in a different sport that…
a) … includes unbridled use of satellite navigation devices.
b) … requires a $250 equipment purchase just to be competitive with other beginners.
c) … works more like geocaching and less like orienteering.
d) … emphasizes individual navigation skills just like their other sports interests.
Q4. Complete the sentence: Using satellite navigation to travel a straight line through a region of forest lacking many features…
a) … will always require swimming across a lake not shown on the map.
b) … is of no advantage since real orienteers don’t need no stinkin’ features.
c) … isn’t possible using current technology.
d) … can provide a significant advantage on some courses.
Q5. If you purchase an ARDF receiver with built-in GPS, but the receiver provides position information that compares unfavorably with your cell phone or wrist-mounted GPS device, the most reasonable conclusion is:
a) GPS has an allergy to ARDF.
b) Gravity waves from distant pulsars are attracted to fox transmitters.
c) Satellite navigation systems have a negligible impact on the sport of ARDF.
d) The manufacturer has failed to implement a Kalman filter in your receiver’s software. (Hint)
Q6. Choose the false statement regarding the use of GPS in orienteering:
a) The International Orienteering Federation’s (IOF) latest rules only allow competitors to carry GPS-enabled devices provided that they are not used for navigation purposes, and don’t have a map display. (Hint: this might not be false at all!)
b) Until recent changes to IARU Region I ARDF rules, ARDF had always adhered to IOF rules related to the use of GPS in sporting competitions.
c) The Region 1 ARDF Rules allowing the use of satellite-based systems for navigation is a divergence of ARDF away from orienteering, and toward geocaching.
d) ARDF competitions have never relied on the orienteering community for maps, participants, insurance, or any other resource; so ARDF stands to lose nothing by diverging from that sport.
Q7. Choose the wording that correctly completes the sentence: Technological improvements to ARDF receiver sensitivity, or compass accuracy…
a) … wouldn’t be fair in ARDF competitions because they would provide precise lat/lon position data to certain competitors.
b) … would allow collaborators outside a competition to provide navigation assistance to those competitors using that technology.
c) … would make it possible for an inkjet printer to precisely mark fox locations on an official course map.
d) … are in keeping with the spirit of innovation that has always been part of ARDF.
Q8. Which of the following statements about satellite-navigation receivers makes that technology inappropriate for integration into ARDF receivers?
a) Satellite-navigation receivers provide precise position information effortlessly, which is precisely the information that competitors in navigation sports are challenged to derive using their own personal navigational skills.
b) Without a terrain map or even a display, position data can be used to derive helpful navigational assistance such as waypoint distance, rhumb line following, and bearing convergence locations.
c) It is not fair to require humans to compete against machines.
d) All of the above.
Q9. Choose the wording that most truthfully completes the sentence: So long as superior navigation skills afford ARDF competitors some advantage…
a) … satellite-derived position data cannot possibly provide an unfair advantage to those who use it.
b) … the swallows will return to San Bernardino. (Hint: this answer might not be correct!)
c) … any type of technology can be permitted without any negative impacts to the sport.
d) … the sport will remain a navigationsport, but not necessarily a navigation sport that is fair to competitors who rely solely on their own navigation skills.
Q10. Choose the wording that most accurately completes the sentence: An inertial reference system, or a pedometer-based dead-reckoning navigation system…
a) … is no different from a GPS receiver.
b) … can easily provide 10m position accuracy over an entire ARDF course.
c) … is self-calibrating because it determines an initial position using cosmic background radiation.
d) … accumulates error over time much like a human navigator.
The remaining are BONUS QUESTIONS related to the administration of the sport of Amateur Radio Direction Finding.
Q11. Choose the only wording that truthfully completes the sentence: ARDF in IARU Region 2 …
a) … must by law always be conducted in accordance with the rules crafted by the IARU Region 1 ARDF Working Group.
b) … is promoted and administered by a democratically-elected board of directors representing all the participants in the Region.
c) … is organized in a transparent and accountable manner, with medium and long-term goals for ARDF that are documented and tracked to ensure progress toward those goals.
d) … has its own website. (Hint.)
Q12. Choose the wording that correctly completes the sentence: Since the IARU Region 2 Organization has not defined rules for use by Region 2 member societies…
a) … Region 1 rules must be enforced throughout Region 2.
b) … there are no rules in Region 2 and chaos reigns!
c) … foxhunting must be conducted from automobiles.
d) … IARU Region 2 member organizations are free to apply any rules set, constrained only by their Constitutions, Bylaws, internal policies, and by a desire to best serve their membership and cooperate with their fellow societies within and outside Region 2.
Q13. Complete the sentence: A bright future for ARDF in all IARU Regions…
a) … can be ensured by bringing home the most medals from World Championships competitions.
b) … demands maximum participation from competitors in the 50+ age groups.
c) … can’t be influenced by the competitors since they have no impact on the sport.
d) … requires youth participation, transparency and accountability in the sport’s administration, and a strategy with clear goals and support from the ARDF community.
Grade Yourself:
There are no wrong answers though, granted, some of the choices were a bit far-fetched. Well, OK, in most cases choices “a”, “b”, and “c” were just plain wrong, except for a few cases where those choices were dope-slap blow-me-down ding-dong crazy wrong. But we don’t want anyone to feel discouraged!
If after careful review you answer “d” to just about everything, then isn’t it about time to call for changes to how ARDF is administered in Region 2?
ARDF has a number of problems that keep it from being more popular: cost, complexity, and (sadly) cheating – particularly following. But a few changes to the way the sport is conducted might go a long way toward removing the advantage to be gained by following one’s competitors.
Unless things have changed significantly since 2008, IARU World Championship events are rife with followers. In fact, sometimes the Championships have resembled a herd sport, with groups of a dozen or more migrating about the course. Following wasn’t and still isn’t allowed under the official rules, so participating in it could have resulted in disqualification. But rules against following were almost never enforced – in fact, if they had been, a large minority of competitors might have received DQs at some championships.
The root of the problem isn’t a lack of rules, or even a lack of rules enforcement, but rather a fundamental defect in the design of events. Consider: what if competitors had no way of knowing if other competitors were visiting the same transmitters they are seeking? There would be no point in following since doing so might result in not completing the proper course.
How then to remove the common transmitter assignment without introducing the unfairness of imposing different route requirements on competitors in the same age/gender category? The answer: Let the competitors choose!
An event that includes a greater number of foxes than any competitor is required to locate, would allow each competitor to choose which subset of transmitters to find. Provided that competitors don’t know which subset of transmitters the competition has chosen, they would be ill-advised to follow others who might have chosen other transmitters to find.
The next problems then are when a competitor must commit to their subset selection, and how to record the selection. If competitors were required to select and submit their subset selections shortly after starting a competitive run, say before they locate their first “fox” transmitter, then the advantage of following would be largely obviated. An example of how this might work will help illustrate the concept.
Example Event: Select Four of Six
The course:
One Start
One Finish
Six Foxes: three on two different frequencies, each transmitting for 1 minute on a 3-minute cycle.
The Instructions:
Each competitor must find four foxes, with the winner decided by the most foxes found and ties settled by shortest time on the course.
Each competitor must select which four foxes to find, and make that selection before arriving at the first fox
Each competitor must record their fox choices and submit them to organizers using a private, verifiable, time-stamped method
Locating foxes that are not among one’s selected subset will not count toward one’s total fox count
Example Benefits
The above rules preserve an emphasis on competitor skill since those who are able to choose and locate the most optimal fox subset in a short period of time will have an advantage. The event is fair because all competitors have exactly the same selection options on the identical course. Following is discouraged because, if the course designers did a good job, there is the likelihood that another competitor has selected a different subset of foxes. The example above provides 15 different combinations of fox selections!
Skilled course designers would need to carefully design such courses so as to prevent the winners from being determined by chance. It must be possible for a sufficiently-skilled competitor to determine the best subset of transmitters to visit by the time the decision point is reached. Only one subset should be best, and no others equally good. Yet, it should not be obvious which is the best subset to choose.
Another tricky part of implementing the above event is the private, verifiable, time-stamped method for competitors to submit their subset selections. This could be implemented using pure technology (e.g., a “personal electronic selection-recording device”), or by the addition of course-selection submission station(s) marked on competitors’ maps (e.g., drop an envelope in one of several boxes shown on the map), or by some other method.
A cleverly-crafted event might even allow for mass starts, or at least for more competitors to start together, thus resolving another headache associated with the status quo: long drawn-out starting sequences that aren’t always fair and can take hours to complete.
An OTFOP navigation system is any technology that supplies navigation information derived from sources outside the competition boundaries. They include navigation beacons someone might erect outside a competition venue, or teammates radioing their fox bearings taken from outside the course to those in competition, and of course they include multi-billion dollar satellite systems such as GPS and GLONASS that provide satellite-based signals for precise geographical locating and progression tracking. IARU rules allow the use of satellite systems for navigation in ARDF.
Practical reasons to oppose OTFOP navigation as permitted under current IARU rules:
1. OTFOP systems are banned for any navigation purpose in orienteering; and the more ARDF diverges from the sport of orienteering, the less support and participation ARDF should rightly expect to receive from the orienteering community.
2. The inclusion of OTFOP technology adds cost to the equipment used by those participating in the sport, raising the cost barrier to newcomers’ participation in ARDF.
3. Having OTFOP users compete against those without is not fair play, but there is no distinction made in the rules allowing segregation of OTFOP navigation users from competitors relying solely on their own navigation skills.
Philosophical reasons to oppose OTFOP navigation as permitted under current IARU rules:
1. OTFOP navigation systems significantly diminish the need for some navigation skills that make ARDF unique from geocaching and similar satellite-based navigation sports.
2. Allowing OTFOP navigation opens the door to all forms of supplemental navigation technology that might be argued as no more detrimental to the sport: drone guidance, on-foot guidance by Google/Apple maps, etc.
3. Although fairness dictates that those who choose to utilize OTFOP technologies compete in a separate category from those who don’t, currently there is no effective way to influence the rules applying to Region 2 (much less inter-regionally) in order to correct that unfairness.
There are currently three major projects underway, and six separate printed circuit boards supporting them. All projects are experimental at this time, meaning that the designs have not been fully implemented or tested to confirm that they sufficiently meet design goals. But progress continues steadily, and prototype designs are likely to be achieved in one or more projects in 2018. Here is how things stand in each project and subproject at this time:
Dual-band ARDF Transmitter
Digital Interface Board:Ver X2 has been fully built and tested, and was found to meet all design goals. The software was developed sufficiently to test hardware and to confirm product concept. Needed X2 rework has been implemented in the design for the next schematic and PCB versions. Next version: X2A or P1
Transmitter Board:Ver X2 has been built to ~80%. The need to redesign both 2m and 80m transmitter blocks was identified and Ver X2A board respin was required to proceed. Ver X2A redesign was completed and new PCB boards ordered and should arrive early Mar 2018, with assembly to commence immediately thereafter. Next version: X2B or P1
Transmitter Power Supply:Ver X2 has been built to 95%. Ver X2 was found to work well enough to support transmitter development, but needed a redesign to achieve zero-voltage power-off state, requiring a board respin. Version X2A redesign was completed, and new boards will be ordered once Version X2A Transmitter Board build and test is complete. Next version: X2A or P1
Antenna Matching Board: Ver X2 has been designed, but no boards are yet on order. The Antenna Matching board will be built and tested after there are working transmitters. No current activity.
Dual-Band ARDF Receiver
Digital Interface Board: This board is identical to that used for the Dual-band Transmitter. See above.
Receiver Board:Ver X1 has been fully built at NC location, but not fully tested. The same version has been 50% built at the NM location, and build-out continues as testing confirms adequate performance. The 2m receiver has achieved sufficient sensitivity for ARDF use, and testing continues to confirm other performance goals are met. The 80m receiver has achieved basic functionality, and testing will continue after 2m receiver work is complete. Next version: X2 or P1
80m ARDF Antenna
80m ARDF Antenna Board: Ver X1 has been fully built and tested at OR location. Numerous design changes were identified, implemented, and tested to confirm that it will function as a stand-alone 80m DF antenna. Design changes have been incorporated into the schematic and PCB design. Next version: X2
ARDF has been practiced, historically, as Orienteering with the addition of radio direction-finding receivers, and transmitters placed at the control points. It is natural and proper then that we should look to Orienteering for guidance on the appropriate application of GPS in our sport.
The International Orienteering Federation (IOF) is the international governing body of the sport of orienteering. Founded in 1961, the IOF governs four orienteering disciplines: foot orienteering, mountain bike orienteering, ski orienteering, and trail orienteering. The IOF was recognised by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) in 1977.
The IOF defines Orienteering as “a sport in which the competitors navigate independently through the terrain. Competitors must visit a number of control points marked on the ground in the shortest possible time aided only by map and compass”.
Beginning in January 2017 new Orienteering rules came into effect allowing GPS devices to be worn with the condition that they will be of no help during the competition: “GPS-enabled devices (watches etc.) can be carried provided that they have no map display and are not used for navigation purposes.”
IOF’s orienteering rules are in stark contrast to the IARU Region I ARDF rules which leave out the final seven words: “…and are not used for navigation purposes.” Clearly, ARDF as defined by IARU’s Region I ARDF Working Group has diverged significantly from IOF’s definition of an Orienteering sport.
There are no formal agreements in place between the IARU and the IOF, and nothing prevents the IARU (or its regional ARDF working groups) from redefining the sport. But there has been considerable collaboration at the community level over the years between Orienteers and the ARDF community. Almost every USA and Region II sanctioned ARDF championships competition has had an OUSA-affiliated orienteering club (OUSA, formerly USOF, is a USA partner organization of the IOF) providing maps, insurance, volunteers and other support to the effort. Several OUSA-affiliated orienteering clubs have members active in ARDF, many of whom support the sport by organizing practices, and participating in competitions. Without the resources and support of the Orienteering community as organized and promoted under IOF, it would be very difficult for ARDF to exist in the USA.
IARU Region I’s ARDF rules changes, permitting broad use of satellite systems for navigation in competition, has taken ARDF down a path that diverges sharply from Orienteering. Given ARDF’s dependence on the orienteering community, that divergence will only hinder progress towards ARDF’s recognition and acceptance worldwide.
The addition of navigation-by-$20B+ satellite system to a map-and-compass sport is literally a game changer. There is no avoiding that fact. If the sport of ARDF continues down the trail toward becoming a satellite navigation sport, it will lose all semblance of an orienteering sport. Along with that it will lose its support among the orienteering community, and perhaps its future as a sport.
