Alun L. Palmer wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote in
:

Alun L. Palmer wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote in
:


Alun L. Palmer wrote:


Mike Coslo wrote in
:

some snippage



I don't know if any of us geniuses have though about it, but
lets say
in a country where a business can get successfully sued for a
woman
not knowing that here hot coffee was hot, and burning herself
when
trying to hold the darn thing between her legs. (sorry Phil, but
what if she simply ruined her dress because the coffee was wet?-
negligent design of the cup?)

The case centered around the fact that the coffee was *extremely* and
unreasonably hot.

So lets have a newbie ham that fires up his/her kilowatt
rig,
and is
half fried because no one told him not to touch the wirey
thingies
on the back of the box thingy. Ohh, I can see the successful
lawsuits already!

So what?

There's no license required to operate houshold appliances, nor power
tools,
which can be extremely dangerous. There's no skills test to pump your
own
gasoline. Or to climb a ladder.

I've nailed myself with 50 watts, enough to produce a
painful
burn and
a cute little scar on the boo-boo finger. Some dunce that
catches a
ride on a thousand watts might just have a very successful
lawsuit
if we don't train them well.

Who are they going to sue? And on what grounds, compared to other
electronic devices?

RF Safety should be the FIRST order of the day, and NO one
should be
a Ham until they are tested for RF safety to the ability to
handle
full legal limit.

The reason for the RF safety questions is to prevent exposing *others*
to
a hazard.

And the FCC has determined that the RF safety requirements of the
Tech test are adequate for hams who use up to 1500 W power output on
"meat-cooking frequencies".

And those who think that limiting the finals voltage, or
some
other
weird thing is the answer, are advised to think about things
such as
Technician Hams operating under supervision. It only takes a
second
to drop a paper and reach behind a Rig. Less time than the
control
op can react. I want those Technicians to be exposed to full
power
safety requirements.

Anything else is criminally negligent.

But they are already tested on full-power requirements.

It would be interesting to see what the JA 4th class *written*
exam
looks like.

And as mentioned before, the number of JA station licenses and
new
operator licenses is way down.

That's 18, I didn't count both Austria and Australia!

OK. But it's still a small fraction of the number of hams
and the number of countries.

The big questions: Must all countries drop the code test
because
a few have decided to? Or can each country decide for itself.



Each country can do as it chooses, but the trend is to abolish
the
code test.

The trend in most countries is to ban or severely restrict
individual ownership of firearms, too.

Has the change caused lots of new growth in countries that
have
dropped code testing?

No, but it's increased HF activity in those countries


So all it's done is to permit *existing* hams to upgrade. But
it
*hasn't* brought in lots of new folks.

Which means the Morse code isn't the "problem" some people
make
it out
to be.


- Mike KB3EIA -

Well, it is a problem. No-coders may have been in the hobby, but
they
couldn't do everything that they wanted to do.

People who have not passed the test have been kept out of things
they
want to do in the hobby too.

Not that I'm saying that the
Tech theory should get you full privileges,

Why shouldn't they?

What is so special about HF that it requires so much more
testing than VHF/UHF?

There's propagation - big deal, it's already covered in the
Tech test, since Techs who have passed code can operate on
4 HF bands.

There's band edges - another no-counter, just add a couple
of questions.

There are no modes, technologies, or power levels allowed
to Generals or Extras that are not allowed to Techs.

So if you say that there is no *need* for code testing
to get a General or Extra, then you must logically also
accept the argument that there is no *need* for about
95% of what's in the General and Extra tests as well.

but there have always
been many Techs who could pass Extra class theory.

Most could not.

Yup, Like me. But I apparently showed the character flaw od
learning Morse code! ;^)

So did I, but it was hell!

Yeah, for me too! 6 months of daily studying, one failed test,
and
finally passing it. I think that my brain processes audio
differently
than does those people with normal hearing.


I have not posted this point for a long time, as it provokes extreme
reactions from the pro code test lobby, but I can beat your 6 months.
It
took me 22 years.

The most extreme reactions I see are those of a few anticode types. Not
you,
Alun.

Can you honestly wonder that I feel the way I do?

Why did it take 22 years?

And didn't you wind up passing the 20 wpm test?

If it wasn't a hazing process, then I'm a Dutchman

Don't take it personally! Some people learn Morse pretty
easily,
and
for some it is hard. Is it a hazing process if it is easy? Same
goes
for the writtens.

Exactly!

Some people have a very hard time with math. Others with rote
memorization
of things like band edges.

I can assure you that no group of Hams ever sat down and said
"Let's
give this Coslo guy a rough time and make him learn Morse code".

As a guy who can't "hear" people unless he can see the mouth
of
the person speaking, I have just a little trouble figuring out the
problem with normal people for which the test is too hard to make
it
worth getting a license.

But it is! Witness all those who are dropping off the ranks
when
their license expires.

I predict the next tack of the NCI's is that not allowing the
codeless Techs HF access is why they aren't renewing their
license.

Certainly that must be true of some of them. What proportion, I
couldn't say.

That would certainly be an interesting outlook for a person.
Let
us say
that a person became a ham in 1994, and has a combined intense
interest
in operation below 30 MHz, and deep seated conviction against Morse
code testing, leading to refusal to take the Element 1 test.

Somehow doesn't ring true.

It was true enough of me, although I became a no-code ham in 1980 (in
the
UK), more or less in defeat at having tried unsuccessfully to learn
Morse
code ever since 1970, and passed a code test in 1992.

Getting a no-code licence was something I only did because I was
resigned
to not getting the HF access that I wanted. It was a case of thinking
it
was silly to stay off the air altogether just because I couldn't get
on HF,
and it took me a long time, i.e. 10 years, to grudgingly reach that
conclusion.

WHat were the tesrt requirements in the UK then? Here in the USA, the
Novice
and Tech were 5 wpm in that time period.

Eventually passing the code test was helped by software that didn't
exist
back in 1970, and the help of dear friends who took turns to send
slow CW
transmissions several times a week that I knew were being done mainly
just
for my benefit. Sure, others tuned in, but they stopped sending them
when I
passed! I owe them a great deal.

Code training software for PCs was common here in EPA by the early
1980s. I still have old copies that run on DOS 3.2..

In the 1970s and 1980s, HF was full of non-amateur Morse operation. And
the
now-changed treaty required code tests.

Here's another interesting fact. I was teaching ham radio classes for
years
before I passed the bleeping code!

If none of this rings true, I can assure that every word is the
truth.

But why did it take you so long, Alun?

What study methods did you use?

And note that here in the USA, full privileges have been available
with just a 5 wpm code test *since 1990*. Of course a medical waiver
was needed before 2000, but all such a waiver required was a simple
letter from a medical doctor.

As I said, all of this has been posted here before, but not recently.
My
own history hasn't proved as effective as an argument as simply
pointing
out that none of the arguments in favour of retaining code testing
hold as
much water as a leaky bucket!

Apply you anticodetest arguments to the written tests. Tell us why most
of the written tests must remain. Heck, NCVEC is already trying to
trash the writtens even more...

Is it *really* so unreasonable to require Element 1? Particularly
considering the training aids and accomodations now available?

73 de Jim, N2EY