Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#21
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , "Ryan, KC8PMX" writes: "Larry Roll K3LT" wrote in message ... In article , "Carl R. Stevenson" writes: However, the requirements for licensure should be reasonable and rational, and while the written tests meet that criteria, the requirement for Morse proficiency no longer does. Carl - wk3c Carl: Jim, N2EY, just said, in so many words, that since today's amateur radio equipment can no longer be designed, built, or serviced by any but the tiny handful of hams who possess professional-grade technical knowledge, skill, and facilities, that most of the technical knowledge in the present written tests can also be eliminated as a licensing requirement. I totally agree. In what way is it "reasonable and rational" for someone to know Ohm's Law or even the most basic digital theory, if they'll never have to use it in their actual practice as a radio amateur? I say it isn't, and nothing could prove this better than eliminating the code testing requirements for the same reason. After all, code testing has the effect of exposing prospective radio amateurs to what is always going to be a practical and useful communications tool which allows radio amateurs to practice basic radio communication with only entry-level skill and technology. I would not necessarily totally agree with that statement as even though I am not a master electronics tech, I still can debug a problem with a few basic pieces of equipment and a schematic. Also, the electronics/electricity knowledge is important in dealing with alot of different things in amateur radio, not just "debugging" a Icom 706 (or other radio) radio problem. Ryan, I suggest you read what I actually wrote, rather than Larry's interpretation. You may have read it already. I was going more on Larry's interpretation for that particular message.... My point was not that hams *cannot* take care of their equipment, but rather that there is not much of an absolute *need* for theory testing compared to years ago because of the changes in typical modern amateur equipment. Yes, the equipment has changed, but I still see the need for some knowledge in that direction. That you can troubleshoot equipment is admirable, but I bet most of that knowledge and skill came from your own interest, not from having to pass written tests. I would honestly say a little bit of both. I have always been a tinkerer since almost back in the toddler days, which usually drove my parents completely nuts!!!!! I just gotta know how something works or I am not satisfied!! ![]() If we eliminate the code testing requirement, we therefore demonstrate that basic communications skills are no longer necessary to be a licensed amateur radio operator. I, for one, would like to think that the present syllabus of the written tests still represents "basic communications skills." So, which will it be? Code testing, written testing, both, or neither? I personally believe that the written tests need to be more stringent, as most of the tests I have had to take were definitely more than 35-50 questions, more like 100-250 range. I agree - but the FCC thinks the opposite. Try to convince them that they're wrong. Actually, the VE groups need to push the issue since they are (for the most part) the persons responsible for administering the tests etc. That needs to be a collective effort between the arrl, w5yi and any other VE groups out there, if they could get together and WORK TOGETHER in that respect at least. As far as the question pool, I have no problem with the questions themselves being released, but the answers shouldn't. At least if the question pool (questions only) was that way, it would encourage people to research the correct answer. That is what I did as a final study tool, after reading and re-reading many times....... They could also incorporate "scenario" questions as well. Wouldn't work. Somebody would do the Dick Bash thing and get the answers. Expand the size of the question pool maybe?? Or is there a better solution??? -- Ryan, KC8PMX FF1-FF2-MFR-(pending NREMT-B!) --. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-. ... --. .... - . .-. ... |
#23
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article , Dick Carroll
writes: Jim: Like it or not, we're definitely heading in that direction. I'd like to think it's possible to hold the line somewhere, but in light of the fact that abolition of the code testing requirement is almost a sure thing, the rest of the dominoes will surely fall shortly thereafter. Once they do, we'll most likely experience a major loss of spectrum allocations in the ARS. Ironically, that will surely happen in the regions above 500 MHz, where there hasn't been any code testing at all for over a decade. Don't forget BPL and all that goes with. Just because Cmsr Powell may leave doesn't mean it goes too. The less ham radio is percieved to have full value the less important it is to protect it and where it lives. Dick Dick: I agree. And the best way to prove that the ARS has less than "full value" is to continue to reduce licensing standards. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
#24
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#26
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article , Leo
writes: Personally, I'd like to see practical operating knowledge become part of the licence procedure. There are a few questions about operating procedures in the US tests. I presume the Canadian tests are similar. But a new ham can get all those questions wrong and still pass the tests. Not for the sake of testing , or making the licence harder to get, or screening out the incompetent and unmotivated - but to ensure that when you do get the licence, you have an excellent idea what is required to actually use it. Like driving a car, for example - if folks got their licence based entirely on the written test, we might not all be reading this post right now..... ![]() But if it's not actually part of the test, there's no guarantee that it will be learned. In the bad old days, almost all hams started out listening to the amateur bands - if for no other reason than to get code practice! Many hams were experienced SWLs before they got licensed. Others "discovered" ham radio by hearing AM ham stations, back when it was common for broadcast receivers to have SW bands. So they had a lot of "listen time" before the test. That's a lot less prevalent today. It is my understanding that in the UK, part of the licencing process is *mandatory* attendance and a passing grade at an approved training course. Doesn't matter if a prospective ham is a child or a grizzled graybeard witha Ph.D. in EE - the course is *required*. How about this approach: Two typical ham rigs are set up so that the operators of each one cannot see or hear each other. The rigs might be connected to dummy loads which are located adjacent to each other. (The idea is to permit a "contact" from one rig to the other, without putting much of a signal on the air). The testee and a VE sit at one rig, and another VE sits at the other. The testee is given a sealed envelope and a few minutes to get familiar with the operation of the rig. (The operating instructions for the rig would be available at any time). When the actual test begins, the testee opens the sealed envelope and a timer is started. Inside the envelope are a set of instructions telling the testee to go to a specific frequency and call the VE at the other rig, make contact, and send the enclosed formal message. The VE at the other end has a similar sealed envelope, but with a different message, which is to be received by the testee. The idea is to test the actual radio operating skills of the testee under controlled conditions. There would be a time limit, too. (That's what the timer is for). The testee would have the choice of CW, voice or a digital mode for the test. Time limits and exact instructions would vary with the mode and the class of license being tested. Higher class tests could have shorter time limits, longer messages, and more complicated instructions, such as having to change frequency at a certain point in the contact, having to pick the frequency from a list that includes "wrong choices", etc. Scoring would be on the basis of mistakes. If a word in the messages is missing or misspelled, that's a mistake. If nonstandard procedure or phonetics are used, each deviation is a mistake. If the time limit is exceeded, each minute over the limit is a mistake. Exceed a certain number of mistakes and the test is failed. Asking for a repeat of a missed word would NOT be a mistake. Typical exams (but not the exact exams themselves) would be available as study guides. Audiotapes of typical tests could be used for study as well. Yes, it's a bit more complex than a straight code receiving test, and requires some equipment and two VEs to conduct it. (Perhaps the VE at the testee's position isn't really needed). But it could be done quite easily, and in such a way as to test real operating skills. The rigs used need not have lots of features, and QRP power levels would be more than adequate. Or a "rig simulator" that's really a gussied-up intercom could be used. Is there any real reason such testing could not be done? Is it expecting too much that a prospective ham be able to pass such a test? I think not! Waddya think? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
#27
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jim,
As in the US tests, there are indeed a few station operating questions on the Canadian exams. Our Basic exam consists of 100 questions, with a pass mark of 60%. You're right - it is possible to miss all of the operating questions (and more!) and walk out with a licence. I'm told that the test requirements have gone from very difficult (drawing schematics and essay-type questions back in the Fifties ans Sixties) to multiple choice questions and published question pools today. Perhaps because the equipment has evolved to the point where it is more of an appliance today (my HT sure is - select a frequency and talk! Not much radio theory needed there...) Your proposed practical test is an excellent idea. It creates a real-world operating scenario to test the applicants' ability to operate a station, and would be a step in the right direction for ensuring that the new licencee has the skills, both theoretical and hands-on, to set up and properly use his or her radio equipment. Might increase the role of the local radio clubs too, as they could set up for both the hands on training and practice sessions to prepare folks for the tests. A definite improvement over the status quo, in my opinion anyway! 73, Leo On 27 Sep 2003 11:01:45 GMT, (N2EY) wrote: In article , Leo writes: Personally, I'd like to see practical operating knowledge become part of the licence procedure. There are a few questions about operating procedures in the US tests. I presume the Canadian tests are similar. But a new ham can get all those questions wrong and still pass the tests. Not for the sake of testing , or making the licence harder to get, or screening out the incompetent and unmotivated - but to ensure that when you do get the licence, you have an excellent idea what is required to actually use it. Like driving a car, for example - if folks got their licence based entirely on the written test, we might not all be reading this post right now..... ![]() But if it's not actually part of the test, there's no guarantee that it will be learned. In the bad old days, almost all hams started out listening to the amateur bands - if for no other reason than to get code practice! Many hams were experienced SWLs before they got licensed. Others "discovered" ham radio by hearing AM ham stations, back when it was common for broadcast receivers to have SW bands. So they had a lot of "listen time" before the test. That's a lot less prevalent today. It is my understanding that in the UK, part of the licencing process is *mandatory* attendance and a passing grade at an approved training course. Doesn't matter if a prospective ham is a child or a grizzled graybeard witha Ph.D. in EE - the course is *required*. How about this approach: Two typical ham rigs are set up so that the operators of each one cannot see or hear each other. The rigs might be connected to dummy loads which are located adjacent to each other. (The idea is to permit a "contact" from one rig to the other, without putting much of a signal on the air). The testee and a VE sit at one rig, and another VE sits at the other. The testee is given a sealed envelope and a few minutes to get familiar with the operation of the rig. (The operating instructions for the rig would be available at any time). When the actual test begins, the testee opens the sealed envelope and a timer is started. Inside the envelope are a set of instructions telling the testee to go to a specific frequency and call the VE at the other rig, make contact, and send the enclosed formal message. The VE at the other end has a similar sealed envelope, but with a different message, which is to be received by the testee. The idea is to test the actual radio operating skills of the testee under controlled conditions. There would be a time limit, too. (That's what the timer is for). The testee would have the choice of CW, voice or a digital mode for the test. Time limits and exact instructions would vary with the mode and the class of license being tested. Higher class tests could have shorter time limits, longer messages, and more complicated instructions, such as having to change frequency at a certain point in the contact, having to pick the frequency from a list that includes "wrong choices", etc. Scoring would be on the basis of mistakes. If a word in the messages is missing or misspelled, that's a mistake. If nonstandard procedure or phonetics are used, each deviation is a mistake. If the time limit is exceeded, each minute over the limit is a mistake. Exceed a certain number of mistakes and the test is failed. Asking for a repeat of a missed word would NOT be a mistake. Typical exams (but not the exact exams themselves) would be available as study guides. Audiotapes of typical tests could be used for study as well. Yes, it's a bit more complex than a straight code receiving test, and requires some equipment and two VEs to conduct it. (Perhaps the VE at the testee's position isn't really needed). But it could be done quite easily, and in such a way as to test real operating skills. The rigs used need not have lots of features, and QRP power levels would be more than adequate. Or a "rig simulator" that's really a gussied-up intercom could be used. Is there any real reason such testing could not be done? Is it expecting too much that a prospective ham be able to pass such a test? I think not! Waddya think? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
#28
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article , Dick Carroll
writes: N2EY wrote: How about this approach: Two typical ham rigs are set up so that the operators of each one cannot see or hear each other. The rigs might be connected to dummy loads which are located adjacent to each other. (The idea is to permit a "contact" from one rig to the other, without putting much of a signal on the air). Could be done using Part 15 rules levels with any type of gear. But the best way is to use real live ham gear. The testee and a VE sit at one rig, and another VE sits at the other. The testee is given a sealed envelope and a few minutes to get familiar with the operation of the rig. (The operating instructions for the rig would be available at any time). When the actual test begins, the testee opens the sealed envelope and a timer is started. Inside the envelope are a set of instructions telling the testee to go to a specific frequency and call the VE at the other rig, make contact, and send the enclosed formal message. The VE at the other end has a similar sealed envelope, but with a different message, which is to be received by the testee. The idea is to test the actual radio operating skills of the testee under controlled conditions. There would be a time limit, too. (That's what the timer is for). The testee would have the choice of CW, voice or a digital mode for the test. Time limits and exact instructions would vary with the mode and the class of license being tested. Higher class tests could have shorter time limits, longer messages, and more complicated instructions, such as having to change frequency at a certain point in the contact, having to pick the frequency from a list that includes "wrong choices", etc. Scoring would be on the basis of mistakes. If a word in the messages is missing or misspelled, that's a mistake. If nonstandard procedure or phonetics are used, each deviation is a mistake. If the time limit is exceeded, each minute over the limit is a mistake. Exceed a certain number of mistakes and the test is failed. Asking for a repeat of a missed word would NOT be a mistake. Typical exams (but not the exact exams themselves) would be available as study guides. Audiotapes of typical tests could be used for study as well. Yes, it's a bit more complex than a straight code receiving test, and requires some equipment and two VEs to conduct it. (Perhaps the VE at the testee's position isn't really needed). But it could be done quite easily, and in such a way as to test real operating skills. The rigs used need not have lots of features, and QRP power levels would be more than adequate. Or a "rig simulator" that's really a gussied-up intercom could be used. Is there any real reason such testing could not be done? Is it expecting too much that a prospective ham be able to pass such a test? I think not! Waddya think? What??? Make them *WORK* for a license??? Not about "WORK" at all. Doing radio the right way is fun! Whadda ya think this is, the old Soviet Union or something?? Not at all. It's about operating skills. For a fact applicants would have to spend some time around active hams first, instead of just on the CB band. Whatta concept, huh? It's probably no surorise that so many of htem show up on ham radio using CB operating procedures and lingo. In most cases that's because they don't know any better. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
#29
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#30
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Amateur Radio Newslineâ„¢ Report 1412 Â September 3, 2004 | General | |||
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1400  June 11, 2004 | Dx | |||
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1379 – January 16, 2004 | General | |||
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1379 – January 16, 2004 | Dx | |||
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1366  October 17 2003 | Dx |