Thread: SO2R Policy?
View Single Post
  #92   Report Post  
Old June 19th 05, 01:58 AM
bb
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Dee Flint wrote:
"bb" wrote in message
oups.com...


Dee Flint wrote:
"bb" wrote in message
oups.com...


Dee Flint wrote:

I and the OM also worked some of the VHF contest and noticed a very
strange
thing. Only 10% of the contacts that we made were Technician
operators.
On
the other hand, 80% of them were Extra class operators. So where are
all
the Techs who are "trapped" in VHF and above because they "can't" pass
the
code (as some would have us believe)?

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee, I'm going to guess (i.e., don't ask me for facts, figures,
substantive studies, reports from the FCC/ARRL, etc) that of the Techs
that have stayed in amateur radio, most have done so for the emergency
communications aspect of the service. As such, they would typically
stay on FM.

The ones who could learn Morse Code and have had to time to do so have
moved up. Those who didn't have the time or couldn't learn it have
moved on.


There are none who cannot learn the code.


Really? Why do you say that?


Because they have already learned many things far tougher than the code.


What kind of things?

However there are those for whom
other activities can and should have priority on their time. However
that
is no excuse for eliminating it as a test element since the same argument
can be applied to the theory.


You hold a very interesting point of view. You say that since everyone
can learn the code, that it must be retained as a test element?


No it should be retained because it is one of the basics of amateur radio
along with things like Ohm's law, propagation, etc.


No other operating mode/skill has a practical pass/fail exam. That
makes it arbitrary.

I say that it should be removed as a test element because it no longer
serves a regulatory purpose.


That's a matter of opinion.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


Please state the regulatory purpose that a Morse Code exam and CW use
provides.