Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#371
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"KØHB" wrote:
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. In the end, I've described several, what I consider, serious faults in your proposal, and that's without even getting into what I think the FCC's perspective might be. I don't even think you're being realistic at this point. Because of that, I don't think your proposal has a chance in Hades of getting any further than a passing discussion in this newsgroup. As such, I'll pass on any further discussion about it until something more substantial is added to the discussion. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
#372
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Dwight Stewart" wrote I'll pass on any further discussion about it until something more substantial is added to the discussion. Thank you. I was kind of hoping you might have something to add but so far you've only been a detractor, so it's probably just as well that you have decided to withdraw from the discussion. Have a great holiday season. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
#373
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Dwight Stewart" wrote in message news ![]() "Dee D. Flint" wrote: You made a statement that most people had such exposure and while I naturally knew that was only your opinion, you stated it as if it were a fact. Therefore I was justified in asking you to provide the data to support that statement. That doesn't change my response. Again, show me where such statistical data is collected and I'll cite it for you. Of course, you know it isn't collected, and therefore my comment could not have been based on that, so your question was clearly disingenuous. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ No I was illustrating that your statement was clearly disingenuous. Hiding an opinion by making a statement that was couched in terms to make it appear as if it were a fact. Therefore as a debater it is not only my right but my duty to challenge it and ask you for proof. And you can't provide it. Instead, you attempt to ask me to prove your statement, which is an invalid debating technique. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
#374
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "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) Since you are aware that nobody collects such data, simple common sense should have prevented you from making such an unprovable statement in the first place. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
#375
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"N2EY" wrote:
Depending on when someone gets their Extra, they may have taken as many as 5 separate written tests (snip) Of course, Jim. However, I was under the impression we were talking about the present (the three written tests). "Similar difficulty" doesn't mean the same material. Obviously a lot of the basics would be covered in the Class B. (snip) I've looked over the existing exams and there isn't a lot of repeated material. By the way, are the "Class B" operators going to be prohibited from building their own equipment also? If not, how would one really make the test simplier? And with the simplified structure, some of the questions like subbands-by-license-class would go away. (snip) So we're now going to restructure the sub-bands also? This whole thing is getting more absurd with each message posted. Related question for Hans: Would existing Extras get Class A licenses automatically, or would they have to retest? Oh, you know Extras are going to be grandfathered into the new license structure, Jim. Hans has no intention of messing with his fellow, perfect as is, Extras (just the rest of the ham community). Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
#376
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article et, "Dwight
Stewart" writes: "N2EY" wrote: Depending on when someone gets their Extra, they may have taken as many as 5 separate written tests (snip) Of course, Jim. However, I was under the impression we were talking about the present (the three written tests). We *are* talking about the present. Present-day Extras took a wide variety of written tests. For example, Hans took a single 100 question written test to go from General to Extra. I took two 50 question writtens to make the same transition. An April-16-2000 Extra took a single 50 question written. But all of us prenetly hold the same license with the same privileges. "Similar difficulty" doesn't mean the same material. Obviously a lot of the basics would be covered in the Class B. (snip) I've looked over the existing exams and there isn't a lot of repeated material. Sure - but the emphasis would be different. By the way, are the "Class B" operators going to be prohibited from building their own equipment also? Just the opposite, I think! But it's Hans' proposal - ask him. If not, how would one really make the test simplier? Take the current Tech test. Remove some of the RF exposure stuff (because Class Bs can't use more than 50 W). Add in some HF and Class B rules stuff. Done. Since Techs are authorized to design/build/modify/repair/align/operate amateur gear using any mode and any technology, the Tech written test must be adequate for homebrewing, right? How different is homebrewing for HF from homebrewing for 6 meters? (If anything, homebrewing for 6 meters is more critical because of the higher frequency). Remember that Novices and Tech Pluses are already authorized to design/build/modify/repair/align/operate amateur gear using any CW and SSB on 10 meters, and CW on 80. 40, 1nd 15 meters, using any technology. And with the simplified structure, some of the questions like subbands-by-license-class would go away. (snip) So we're now going to restructure the sub-bands also? Nope.Haven't you read Hans' proposal? Both Class B and Class A hams would have access to all amateur frequencies. For example, on 40 meters/Region 2 they would have: 7000-7150 CW/data 7150-7300.CW/phone/image Compare this to the current mess of subbands on 40 for Extras, Advanceds, Generals, Tech Pluses and Novices. This whole thing is getting more absurd with each message posted. Why "absurd"? Hans is proposing to dramatically simplify things for new hams. Lots of privileges for new hams. No more big divide at 30 MHz. No more having to memorize lots of little subbands which then become obsolete as one upgrades. And existing hams don't have to give up anything they already have. If an existing ham wants to join the new system, just take a test. My Extra license is up for renewing soon. I'd take the Class A just to avoide that little chore.... Related question for Hans: Would existing Extras get Class A licenses automatically, or would they have to retest? Oh, you know Extras are going to be grandfathered into the new license structure, Jim. Not according to Hans' answer to the above question. Hans has no intention of messing with his fellow, perfect as is, Extras (just the rest of the ham community). Do you really think such a test would be a problem for most of us Extras? I say "Bring it on!! - I got yer Class A right here!" I don't agree with Hans' proposal in some areas, but I'd hardly call it "absurd". 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 |
#377
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#379
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Alun" wrote in message ... [snip] However, I think that something ultimately will have to be done about the status of Novice and Advanced licences. It is just too messy to maintain closed licence classes indefinitely. 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. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet? Why is it "just too messy?" Afterall the databases are computerized. Renewals will have to be processed regardless of whether the person stays at the same level or upgrades. There is no problem generated by having the old classes and no advantage whatsoever to combining them. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
#380
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article et, "KØHB"
writes: "N2EY" wrote Related question for Hans: Would existing Extras get Class A licenses automatically, or would they have to retest? My inclination would be for current Extras to remain Extras unless they took the new test. Bring it on! Lots of guys (Larry comes to mind) attach a certain cachet to their current license, having "done it the old way". I've no problem with honoring that. There would be no difference in privileges, right? What about vanity calls? And I like your notion of splitting the Class A test into broad subject areas --- off the top of my head "Electronics/Communications theory", "Regulations and Safety", and "Operating Practices" would make a nice three way division with perhaps 35 questions per segment. 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. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
The 14 Petitions | Policy | |||
Responses to 14 Petitions on Code Testing | Policy | |||
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1362– September 19 2003 | Policy | |||
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1362– September 19 2003 | General | |||
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1362– September 19 2003 | Dx |