"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!)
--. --- -.. ... .- -. --. . .-.. ... .- .-. . ..-. .. .-. . ..-.
... --. .... - . .-. ...

In article , ospam
(Larry Roll K3LT) writes:

In article ,
(N2EY)
writes:

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 think Clint has already said he only sees a need for regs and safety
testing.


There's "the future".

Jim:

Like it or not, we're definitely heading in that direction.

Been that way for decades.

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.

More like 12 years, anyway.

btw, didja see where a US and a Czech ham had a successful EME QSO on 24 GHz?
Used relatively small dishes and less than 100 W at each end of the QSO. Pretty
snazzy bit of homebrewing to put together the required stations.

And the mode used? One guess.

73 de Jim, N2EY

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

In article , (N2EY)
writes:

I suggest you read what I actually wrote, rather than Larry's interpretation.
You may have read it already.

Jim:

If I failed to paraphrase your comments accurately, I apologize. I admit that
I
did add my own "spin."

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article , (N2EY)
writes:

More like 12 years, anyway.

btw, didja see where a US and a Czech ham had a successful EME QSO on 24 GHz?
Used relatively small dishes and less than 100 W at each end of the QSO.
Pretty
snazzy bit of homebrewing to put together the required stations.

And the mode used? One guess.

Prolly that new digital mode developed specifically for EME/AMSAT
work. I don't recall it's name.

Waaaaait...you don't mean...naaawww. Not the Morris Kode?

73 de Larry, K3LT

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

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

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

In article , (N2EY)
writes:


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

Jim:

I think that the voice mode would be chosen 100% of the time. To make
your idea into a valid test, three QSO's should be required; one CW, one
voice, one digital.

73 de Larry, K3LT

On 27 Sep 2003 11:01:45 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:

Scoring would be on the basis of mistakes. If a word in the messages is missing
or misspelled, that's a mistake.

How does one misspell a word when using a voice mode?

If nonstandard procedure or phonetics are
used, each deviation is a mistake.

Welp...that lets out half the contesters I know. Kilowatt Five Texas
Radio, please submit your license for cancellation.

73 DE John, KC2HMZ
Tonawanda, New York