RMS PACTOR Statistics

Please provide additional information that shows where the statistics are incorrect. It's difficult to pull much of anything from your problem report other than you feel there is a problem.

Logs sent to Vic, Rick, Steve, Lee and Lor through Winlink. In addition to Rick, Steve, Lee and Lor on email added the winlink.org statistics for RMS Pactor LA3F.
The statistics do show no P1 traffic. That is not true.
There was yesterday done P1 file transfer to a P1,2,3 40m freq on RMS LA3F using RMS Express and a PK232 running only P1 now documented by logs for both stations.
73 de la7um Finn

These continued rants prove nothing and help no one. As has been asked before, provide concrete examples of the problem and it will be investigated. Simply sending logs without specifics and then posts such as this most recent one containing accusations of lies and even conspiracies does nothing to further your claims of inaccuracy.

Please further check out the impact to the credibility of statistics regarding the whole Winlink RMS Pactor system by comparing the whole WORLD 8 P1 all febr. 2011 with LA3F TRUE station log statistics ONE day 9 P1 with web page statistics for LA3F for whole febr 2011 saying 0 P1.

Multiply the number: 9 P1 (unaccounted for) by 28 days in febr = 252 (P1) for ONE RMS Pactor alone.
I have not had time to check logs for all days by summarizing the real numbers.

The Winlink Message Traffic page on the web site has been taken off-line until the reported issues can be reviewed.

When this investigation is being done, please do it thoroughly, with an added particular attention also to P2 traffic done on P1,2,3 channels.
There is a serious possibility that those contacts have been registered as P3 contacts in the same manner that P1 contacts have been registered as P3 contacts when being done on those P123 channels.
P1 was registered as P2 when done on P1,2 channels. Possibly that maybe was the only channels where P2 connects as well were corrrect registered as P2.

When talking WW aggregated figures and maybe conclusions based upon them, then a correct interpretation may be of some importance.

It is a pity that the eventual transition from P1 into WINMOR cannot be  read out by correlaton  of reduction in correct P1 figures. They were erroneously presented as almost "zero" from the very introduction of WINMOR.

I hope  the new P1234 channels in the future do not imply presentaton of every lower level contacts registered as P4.

Good luck. LA7UM/Finn RMS Pactor 1234 LA3F,  RMS WINMOR LA3F-5