"KØHB" wrote in message
k.net...
"Dwight Stewart" wrote

To cover the same material an Extra has covered today ("similar
difficulty"), your new test would have to include the material covered
in
all three current tests (with over 120 questions in one sitting).

I expect it would be a longer test than todays Extra, but probably not 120
questions (since some things, like band segments for example, would be the
same as for the learner-permit level), and perhaps not necessarily in one
sitting -- could be structured to be taken in 2 (or 3?) sessions for those
who are intimidated by lengthy exams or have weak bladders.

My Extra exam was 100 questions. You were allowed 3.5 hours to complete
it.

73, de Hans, K0HB

Maybe I missed a post somewhere. What would be the difference,
other than name, between a Class A and the Extra? If the
only difference is the name, why would any Extra waste time
to pass a class A test whenit buys them nothing?

Also, why would the FCC want to maintain the name difference
in their database if that is all it is?

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"N2EY" wrote


What about vanity calls?

No change from current rules.

Exactly the idea. A person would have to get a passing grade in each
subject
area on the same test, so it would still be one test, not three.

I'd even suggest doing the something similar to the Class B test.

No, my vision for the Class B test is similar to the original Novice exam.
Some basic stuff to ensure the applicant has an acquaintence with the
subject matter, and not heavily weighted in any single area, and not such a
tight screen that it blocks those with 'casual interest'.

73, Hans, K0HB

"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
"Kim" wrote in message
...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
gy.com...

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , Alun
writes:

I think you're missing the point. I took _code_ tests to get
_phone_
subbands. There's no logic in that. Never was, even from the
beginning.

Sure there is. Here it is, though you may argue that it doesn't hold
much
water
today:


In addition, anyone one who thinks they took the code tests to get
phone
subbands isn't really viewing it from the right perspective anyway.
The
code test, as well as the additional writtens, was to get HF
privileges or
should have been. It happens that phone privileges are included when
one
earns HF privileges.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


I endured the study of and took the test for CW *just* for the phone
privleges on 10M, specifically to join in on a nightly ragchew with a
whole
bunch of local folks--which is no longer going on but it was neat while
it
did. That is the *only* reason I did anything involving CW. So, you
can
word it any way you want, Dee, but what compels one person to work with
CW
at all, may not be what compels someone else.

Exactly!

And consider this:

I know hams who "endured" the study and *written* tests for the
Technician, General, Advanced and Extra, because they wanted the
*CW/data* privileges. (Code test was no problem for them).

Hans' proposal would cause all new hams to "endure" the study for and
taking of a written test just to *keep* an amateur license beyond 10
years.

73 de Jim, N2EY


I think I like that idea!

Kim W5TIT

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

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

So please cite the statistical data that shows
people have had enough exposure to Morse
code to be able to evaluate it even though
they don't know it.


I'll tell you what, Dee. You show me where such statistical data is
collected and I'll cite it for you. Until then, it is clear that my
comments
were nothing more than opinions. Of course, you knew that before
responding.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/


The angle of argument that Dee is trying to use is old, tired and
*yawn*....

Kim W5TIT

No Kim it is not. He made a statement as if it were fact rather than his
personal opinion that most people had had exposure to Morse code. I
challenged him to prove it. This is standard operating procedure in
debate.
Since he is the originator of the statement, then in a debate, he must be
prepared to back it with facts. That the subject here is Morse code does
not negate debate procedures even if he wishes it did.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


I was actually commenting, allbeit out of synch, on your defense that
someone can't know they don't like something without experience...etc. I
think that argument is quite indefensible...since it's quite common to
decide that one doesn't like something (or does, for that matter) without
any particular experience with it. For example, things I don't, or
wouldn't, like that I've never tried:

parachuting
picking up clothes at a cleaners
dropping off babies to daycare
raising grandchildren
holding snot in my hand
bungee jumping
parasailing
rough sex
working in a foundry
getting a tattoo
being bald
all kinds of food
spelunking
building a computer...or anything for that matter
being a man

Add countless other things to that list.

If you accept the premise above that I don't like those things without ever
having tried them, then you should accept that I know I would not like CW
without having any real experience with it.

Kim W5TIT

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
nk.net...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

No Kim it is not. He made a statement as
if it were fact rather than his personal opinion
that most people had had exposure to Morse
code. I challenged him to prove it. This is
standard operating procedure in debate.
Since he is the originator of the statement,
then in a debate, he must be prepared to
back it with facts. That the subject here is
Morse code does not negate debate
procedures even if he wishes it did.


This is a newsgroup, not a debating society, Dee. As such, there are no
debate procedures. Instead, simple common sense applies in newsgroup
discussions (as in most discussions). Since you're aware that nobody
collects such data, simple common sense should have prevented you from
even
asking for that.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/


Nope. I disagree, but only because I approach this venue exactly in the
same manner as Dee. I like debating and there are few people who can do it
artfully. But, I don't think I've ever expected anyone else to approach it
the same way I do. However, to engage one in discourse almost dictates that
you must be willing to communicate at their level and in their manner. For
example, Waddles is way down below my league, so I don't even get his posts
any more. Same for Dan. Larry's just fun...

Kim W5TIT

"Mike Coslo" wrote

I'm almost afraid to ask, Hans. What is QCAO?

Quarter Century Appliance Operators club, sorta like the QCWA (Quarter
Century Wireless Association). See press release below.

73, de Hans, K0HB


-----------------------------------------------------------------
News Release:

QCAO Reorganizes

-----------------------------------------------------------------

The Quarter Century Appliance Operators was founded in the
early 1950's by a small group of Amateur Radio operators from
the Pacific Northwest. They had been active in their hobby for
over 25 years, yet still lacked the basic knowledge of radio
electronics and had no idea of how their equipment worked.

They banded together to try and protect each others honor
and pride. At radio gatherings and club meetings in the 1950s
one was considered unworthy of the name Ham Radio Operator if
he or she couldn't not only name components, but know how to
solder them together and make a radio work, or fix a broken set!

When faced with insults and dreision, those few hardy
pioneers banded together and formed the First Chapter and
National Organization of the QCAO. This was known as the "Cold
Solder" Chapter. They even coined the now-famous club byword
"e pluribus ignoramae" which is Latin for "We don't have to know
how to solder, we just wanna talk on our radios."

No veterans of that first chapter are known to be active on
the air today. In the late 1950s and early '60s, with the
worldwide interest in science and space and technology, the QCAO
membership went underground.

It is with great pride and dignity that today in the 21st Century
the revived QCAO stands ready to rise from the ashes, and become
the standard of mediocrity it once proudly was. In honor of
those first pioneering members, QCAO hereby invites all eligible
applicants to step forward and join!

The benefits of QCAO include not only the pride of
membership. Think of the warm glow you will feel at club
meetings and gatherings showing off your new all-plastic
imprinted QCAO pocket protector! And that's not all! For your
minimal membership fee, you will also receive a handsome,
suitable-for-framing, certificate of honor, with hand-lettered
name and Charter Membership Number. Other QCAO memorabilia
will soon be available for members, including T-shirts, caps,
pins, etc. At this date charter membership numbers are still
available. Membership requires a 25 years (more or less)
interest in Amateur Radio, coupled with a basic ignorance of how
radios work and how to repair them.

Think of meeting other QCAO members on the air! No more
embarrassing pauses when someone in the QSO mentions an RF choke
or a parasitic bleeder...Be able to exchange meaningful sharing,
talk about real things, yes, even swap QCAO numbers with each
other! And soon perhaps . . . a worldwide QCAO contest!

You no longer have to shrink to the back of the room at post-
meeting sessions of your radio club. Just display your QCAO
protector and others will be able to identify you immediately.
Who knows? Perhaps one of the originals from that old QCAO
Chapter is just waiting for you to find him. Join now! Remember
"We don't have to know how to solder, we just wanna talk on our
radios"! Don't let technoids embarrass you and kick jargon in
your face. Stand up for what's right! Join QCAO!

"e pluribus ignoramae"

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

Dwight Stewart wrote:
"KØHB" wrote:

Nope, you keep getting it wrong, Dwight.
I'd also drop the Extra examination, and
institute a **new** Class A examination,
similar in difficulty (but with obviously
different content) than the current Extra.

I don't think so, Hans. You're advocating a test "similar in difficulty"
to the Extra.

But emphasis on different things.

However, an Extra hasn't just taken that one test - he also
took the Tech and General prior to that.

Depends what vintage Extra you're talking about.

The material on each test is
different, with later tests building on the material in the earlier tests.

Yet if lots of time elapsed between upgrades, that's not going to be completely
accurate.

To cover the same material an Extra has covered today ("similar
difficulty"), your new test would have to include the material covered in
all three current tests (with over 120 questions in one sitting).

Not really. It would only have to cover the stuff not covered in the Class B
test.

And if it takes a 120 or 150 question test, is that really a problem? We're not
talking EE or PE level questions here, just multiple choices from a published
pool.

So, are
you advocating that, advocating some type of reduced content test (less
questions), or did you simply forget the material on the first two tests.

Well said, Dwight. Everything is built on what went before it. So now
what sounded kind of easy is not so easy. Someone here, perhaps Jim,
pointed out how the Extra license tests did not address RF safety much
if at all.

I don't recall saying that, but maybe I did.

Point is that a Tech today needs to be tested on RF safety at the 1500 W level
for VHF/UHF/microwaves, which are obvioulsy present the most hazard (as WK3C
says "meat-cooking frequencies"). Generals need to be tested on *all* RF
exposure, because they have *all* bands and full power.

Meanwhile us *old* (pre-1996) hams never had any RF safety stuff in our tests.
(At least some of us - ahem - learned the stuff anyway so we'd be current with
the current tests)

But is RF safety really that tough a subject?


But wait! the Class B tests are apparently not going to
address RF safety either because the power is limited to a "safe"
amount. So now safety related learning is confined to the second test
for class A.

Dat's gonna be one big test!

If so, is that really a problem?

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Bert Craig" wrote


I don't know what's so fascinating about it, Kim. It stands to reason that
to make an "educated" decision regarding anything, one should be...well,
somewhat educated on the subject.

Sounds reasonable to me.

That includes some practical experience.

Not necessarily. I've made decisions to do (or not to do) many, many things
without a lick of practical experience. I have decided not to be a surfer,
I've decided not to eat chocolate covered insects, I've decided not to
engage in same-gender sex, I've decided not to be a vegetarian, I've decided
not to be a Hindu, all with some 'education' on the subject but without a
bit of practical experience. I'm sure some folks make the same decision
about whether to learn Morse code.


However, many of these anti-code
folks are about to diminish the value (As a whole.) of a hobby I dearly
love...despite having a very generous chunk of no-code RF real estate.

Bert, with all due respect, how are they diminishing the value of Amateur
Radio? I truly enjoy Morse code, and use it frequently, but I'm not
persuaded that we need a Morse qualification test any longer. I'm a member
of FISTS and I'm a member of NCI. I see both organizations as having goals
which advance Amateur Radio for me. FISTS encourages people to use Morse
code, and NCI encourages regulatory agencies to modernize the qualification
process for new licensees.

If some new guy/gal gets on HF without knowing Morse code, the value of
Amateur Radio has not been diminished for me.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...

I was actually commenting, allbeit out of synch, on your defense that
someone can't know they don't like something without experience...etc. I
think that argument is quite indefensible...since it's quite common to
decide that one doesn't like something (or does, for that matter) without
any particular experience with it. For example, things I don't, or
wouldn't, like that I've never tried:

parachuting
picking up clothes at a cleaners
dropping off babies to daycare
raising grandchildren
holding snot in my hand
bungee jumping
parasailing
rough sex
working in a foundry
getting a tattoo
being bald
all kinds of food
spelunking
building a computer...or anything for that matter
being a man

Add countless other things to that list.

If you accept the premise above that I don't like those things without
ever
having tried them, then you should accept that I know I would not like CW
without having any real experience with it.

Kim W5TIT



I do NOT accept the premis that a person can know what they like without
trying something. While there are many valid reasons for not trying these
things, you cannot know if you would like them or not. For example, the
fear of heights and the potential risk factor stops me from trying
parachuting. Thus I can never know whether I would actually like it. In
the case of the 5th item on your list, it could be downright unhealthy and
should NOT be tried even if you think you would like it.

There's lots of things in life that I thought I would not like until
experience proved me wrong. I originally got into ham radio simply because
my husband at that time insisted I do this with him. Of course I "knew"
that I wouldn't like it and was only doing it to please him but in the end I
was proven wrong. It is one of my favorite pastimes.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

In article , Alun
writes:

Four years ago there were 6 license classes open to new hams. Now there
are only 3, but the other 3 classes are still held by almost 200,000
hams. Was that an "absurd" change? Tell it to the FCC!

Hans' proposal would create 2 new license classes and close off the
other 6 to new licensees. Is it really so absurd, given the changes
we've already seen?

His proposal is no more absurd than the claim that a single 5 wpm code
test is a "barrier".....

73 de Jim, N2EY



It's not really three, though. Although the 'Tech Plus' was abolished in
theory it still exists in practice. That particular absurdity will go away
when Element 1 is abolished, which it soon will be. To avoid actually
taking away any privileges the FCC will have to give the Novice subbands
to all Techs (assuming Element 1 will no longer be mentionned anywhere in
Part 97, the only other alternative would be to take them away from those
Techs who have them now, which would be very unpalatable).

And also without any purpose.

I don't agree with all aspects of Hans' proposal. In particular, I oppose
all time limits and time in grade requirements.

Do either of them really create a problem? I entered ham radio with both of
those features (Novice license only good for two years, upgrade or go off the
air, and a two-year experience rule for Extra). I don't think they were such
awful ideas.

However, I doubt FCC will go for either. Just MHO.

However, I think that
something ultimately will have to be done about the status of Novice and
Advanced licences.

Why? They're just entries in a database. Since no new ones are being issued,
they involve no more admin work than other license classes.

At the end of 1952, FCC stopped issuing new Advanceds. They allowed existing
Advanceds to keep those licenses, renewing and modifying as needed. Most of the
approximately 40,000 Advanceds of that time did just that.

Then, almost 15 years later, FCC reopened the Advanced to new issues.

It is just too messy to maintain closed licence classes
indefinitely.

How is it messy?

I would have no problem with automatically upgrading them
all, but I know that many others would not like it. Maybe the way around
this is to have new (or at least re-named) licence classes. Someone who
objects to Advanced licencees getting a free pass to Extra may aquiesce to
both becoming Class As, for example.

I doubt that!

A rose by any other name would smell
as sweet?

Renaming isn't going to fool anyone that is against free upgrades.

Is the current 50 question Extra test so tough that it presents a serious
"barrier" to existing Advanceds?

What is the problem of keeping old license classes on the database and rules?

73 de Jim, N2EY