Dee D. Flint wrote:
"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
gy.com...

"Brian" wrote in message
e.com...

I disagree that it is reasonable. First, there is no other pass/fail
mode test. If there were, then your assertion that it was reasonable
would not fail so badly.


If it were practical to set up and administer pass/fail tests on other
modes, I would certainly support doing so. It is unfortunate that it is
only practical to administer code testing and written testing.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

It actually could be done. Example; Pass a basic written test for say

the

General class.

This would give you basic privlidges of say SSB, FM, at 200 watts on HF.
Possible retaining the sub bands also.

Then have a ENDORSEMENT to be added for additional modes, i.e. SSTV,
Digital, even CW, etc.

This could be the pass or fail part of things. Given at a local ham club,
by those that already have the endorsement or are grandfathered into it by
past experience.

Just a thought.

Dan/W4NTI



I would insist on an operational test for SSB and FM too besides the
written. And I would insist that the operationals be conducted by a VE team
to an established standard not just a "well he is doing OK" sort of thing.

You know Dee, there is some real wisdom in that. I think many people
would be served well by having an HF contact - possibly their first -
at the time of testing. It would get that first contact out of the way,
it would possibly calm the person down and be a little bit of fun, and
would really keep people thinking about good on the air procedures and
manners.

It would also be enjoyable to be on the other side of that QSO. I would
suspect that an Op that was a volunteer "first contact" would be a part
of the VE team.

What a nice/good idea!

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Dee D. Flint wrote:
"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
gy.com...

"Brian" wrote in message
e.com...

I disagree that it is reasonable. First, there is no other pass/fail
mode test. If there were, then your assertion that it was reasonable
would not fail so badly.


If it were practical to set up and administer pass/fail tests on other
modes, I would certainly support doing so. It is unfortunate that it
is
only practical to administer code testing and written testing.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

It actually could be done. Example; Pass a basic written test for say

the

General class.

This would give you basic privlidges of say SSB, FM, at 200 watts on HF.
Possible retaining the sub bands also.

Then have a ENDORSEMENT to be added for additional modes, i.e. SSTV,
Digital, even CW, etc.

This could be the pass or fail part of things. Given at a local ham
club,
by those that already have the endorsement or are grandfathered into it
by
past experience.

Just a thought.

Dan/W4NTI



I would insist on an operational test for SSB and FM too besides the
written. And I would insist that the operationals be conducted by a VE
team
to an established standard not just a "well he is doing OK" sort of
thing.

You know Dee, there is some real wisdom in that. I think many people
would be served well by having an HF contact - possibly their first -
at the time of testing. It would get that first contact out of the way,
it would possibly calm the person down and be a little bit of fun, and
would really keep people thinking about good on the air procedures and
manners.

It would also be enjoyable to be on the other side of that QSO. I would
suspect that an Op that was a volunteer "first contact" would be a part
of the VE team.

What a nice/good idea!

- Mike KB3EIA -


In Europe, mostly the old Iron Curtain ones, required a certain amount of
SWL time. Documented etc.

Dee do indeed have some good ideas.

Dan/W4NTI

In article k.net,
"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com writes:

I would insist on an operational test for SSB and FM too besides the
written. And I would insist that the operationals be conducted by a VE
team
to an established standard not just a "well he is doing OK" sort of
thing.

You know Dee, there is some real wisdom in that. I think many people
would be served well by having an HF contact - possibly their first -
at the time of testing. It would get that first contact out of the way,
it would possibly calm the person down and be a little bit of fun, and
would really keep people thinking about good on the air procedures and
manners.

It would also be enjoyable to be on the other side of that QSO. I would
suspect that an Op that was a volunteer "first contact" would be a part
of the VE team.

What a nice/good idea!

I did a writeup on how that sort of test could be done. All it would take is a
couple of QRP rigs and some dummy loads (wouldn't actually have to be on the
air).

But NCVEC would have a cow. Too much of a "burden".

In Europe, mostly the old Iron Curtain ones, required a certain amount of
SWL time. Documented etc.

Even more than that. They required that a prospective ham actually BUILD a
receiver of a certain complexity from scratch, then use it to receive and log a
certain number of stations and countries using both 'phone and CW. They'd have
to explain the receiver's design, construction and operation, too.

Once all that was done, they'd get a beginner's license and authority to build
a transmitter of a certain complexity and power. Which would then be used to
make verified contacts in order to earn an upgraded license.

There were also written and code tests, of course. But those tests alone would
not earn a license - those hams had to build their rigs, then demonstrate
understanding of their theory and operation as well as actually use the dern
things.

What a concept.

73 de Jim, N2EY

I think that these licenses we have should be retested every so often, such
as every ten years! All applicable elements for the respective licenses
including the morse code test. Most every other license out there issued
requires some form of retesting. At least this way we will find out if
anyone has learned anything along the way or not... And it could be that if
you were, for example a 20wpm Extra, you would have to pass all the elements
required for that back then, or the license class you would have/get would
be whatever elements a person DID pass on the retest. Definitely would show
if anyone bothered to "grow" in the ten year period.

Ryan, KC8PMX


"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
.com...

"Brian" wrote in message
om...
I disagree that it is reasonable. First, there is no other pass/fail
mode test. If there were, then your assertion that it was reasonable
would not fail so badly.


If it were practical to set up and administer pass/fail tests on other
modes, I would certainly support doing so. It is unfortunate that it is
only practical to administer code testing and written testing.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article k.net,
"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com writes:

I would insist on an operational test for SSB and FM too besides the
written. And I would insist that the operationals be conducted by a
VE
team
to an established standard not just a "well he is doing OK" sort of
thing.

You know Dee, there is some real wisdom in that. I think many people
would be served well by having an HF contact - possibly their first -
at the time of testing. It would get that first contact out of the way,
it would possibly calm the person down and be a little bit of fun, and
would really keep people thinking about good on the air procedures and
manners.

It would also be enjoyable to be on the other side of that QSO. I would
suspect that an Op that was a volunteer "first contact" would be a part
of the VE team.

What a nice/good idea!

I did a writeup on how that sort of test could be done. All it would take
is a
couple of QRP rigs and some dummy loads (wouldn't actually have to be on
the
air).

But NCVEC would have a cow. Too much of a "burden".

In Europe, mostly the old Iron Curtain ones, required a certain amount of
SWL time. Documented etc.

Even more than that. They required that a prospective ham actually BUILD a
receiver of a certain complexity from scratch, then use it to receive and
log a
certain number of stations and countries using both 'phone and CW. They'd
have
to explain the receiver's design, construction and operation, too.

Once all that was done, they'd get a beginner's license and authority to
build
a transmitter of a certain complexity and power. Which would then be used
to
make verified contacts in order to earn an upgraded license.

There were also written and code tests, of course. But those tests alone
would
not earn a license - those hams had to build their rigs, then demonstrate
understanding of their theory and operation as well as actually use the
dern
things.

What a concept.

73 de Jim, N2EY


I'll tell you this Jim...the Ruskies had and probably still do have the best
CW operators in the world.

I used to have to listen to them a lot in a job I had. Amazing how so many
of them sounded like the hams on 20meters...hi.

Dan/W4NTI

Unfortunately for you I guess that idea would never come to light...
the actual tide of events is against you on that one; testing
requirements are being reduced at a slow pace and not increased.
I'm afraid you'd be spitting in the wind if you petitioned the FCC
and said "I would like to add to your administrative worries and
an already stretched budgetary problem."

Clint
KB5ZHT

Hmm... I wonder how I could work that concept into my study strategy...

73 de KG6SGY



"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message
...


Brian wrote:

"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message
thlink.net...



I'll tell you this Jim...the Ruskies had and probably still do have the
best
CW operators in the world.

I used to have to listen to them a lot in a job I had. Amazing how so
many
of them sounded like the hams on 20meters...hi.

Dan/W4NTI



And the ones that washed out of CW school? The Gulag?




Only you and a few like you washed out. Russian military, as our own,
don't.
When one is sitting trying to learn code, realizing that if you "just
can't" then
it.s off to the infantry, the failure rate is unsurprisingly low to
nonexistant.

"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message ...
Brian wrote:

"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message thlink.net...



I'll tell you this Jim...the Ruskies had and probably still do have the best
CW operators in the world.

I used to have to listen to them a lot in a job I had. Amazing how so many
of them sounded like the hams on 20meters...hi.

Dan/W4NTI



And the ones that washed out of CW school? The Gulag?




Only you and a few like you washed out.

Poor DICK. I was never in a Russian dittybopper school.

Russian military, as our own,
don't.

Poor DICK. I was never in a US dittybopper school.

When one is sitting trying to learn code, realizing that if you "just
can't" then
it.s off to the infantry, the failure rate is unsurprisingly low to
nonexistant.

Poor DICK. I'm sure the failure rate was quite high. Why the big
rush to RTTY and other modes which don't require the operator to be a
human modem?

Perhaps Len could shed some light on this.

"Greg Courville" wrote in message ...
Hmm... I wonder how I could work that concept into my study strategy...

73 de KG6SGY

Raise your right hand and take an oath. Be sure to get a guaranteed
Morse Code MOS, though, or you might find yourself peeling taters in
an Infantry Division in Korea.

"Brian" wrote in message
om...
"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message
...
Brian wrote:

"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message
thlink.net...



I'll tell you this Jim...the Ruskies had and probably still do have
the best
CW operators in the world.

I used to have to listen to them a lot in a job I had. Amazing how
so many
of them sounded like the hams on 20meters...hi.

Dan/W4NTI



And the ones that washed out of CW school? The Gulag?




Only you and a few like you washed out.

Poor DICK. I was never in a Russian dittybopper school.

Russian military, as our own,
don't.

Poor DICK. I was never in a US dittybopper school.

When one is sitting trying to learn code, realizing that if you "just
can't" then
it.s off to the infantry, the failure rate is unsurprisingly low to
nonexistant.

Poor DICK. I'm sure the failure rate was quite high. Why the big
rush to RTTY and other modes which don't require the operator to be a
human modem?

Because RTTY could be run in the 'secure', or 'green' mode. And RATT was
more capable of sending LARGE volumes of messages. Due mainly to the
untrained CW operators in the US Military at the time you are referencing.

Ten groups a minute is all that was required of a O5C MOS back then.

Dan/W4NTI


Perhaps Len could shed some light on this.