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

"Steve Silverwood" wrote in message
...
I don't know if they keep the exams. From what I understand, the exams
are administered and retained by the VE team rather than the FCC. But I
definitely DO feel that the number of questions should be increased for
each license, with additional weight given to the questions regarding
Part 97 and operating practices, especially for the Tech exam.

Actually I'd like to see a new, separate element that is devoted entirely
to
rules and regulations that would have to be passed before taking the
technical elements for the license classes.

I believe Jim N2EY and I have a similar viewpoint as to making
the written into two or more specific and separate elements for
each class. Where I would differ from your suggestion is that
it makes no difference which element(s) are passed first as long
as each stands on its own.

One should not be able to get
on the air if they miss a significant percentage of the rules. As some
have
commented, right now it is quite possible to miss the majority of the
regulatory questions on an exam yet still pass the exam. The exams for
the
various classes could then focus on operating procedures and technical
elements. For example, let's call the rules test Element R and then for
the
various licenses we could have a system as follows:

Technician - Element R, Element 2
Technician with HF - Element R, Element 1, Element 2
General - Element R, Element 1, Element 2, Element 3
Extra - Element R, Element 1, Element 2, Element 3

Although if it is a truly comprehensive rules test, I'd would find it
acceptable to eliminate element 1 for Tech with HF thus combining the
current Tech & Tech with HF and perhaps even for General.

Too many people just gloss over the rules and are not willing to look them
up. They then rely on other people who have also glossed over the rules
when they have a question and get some really bad information.

Seems reasonable to me.

Cheers
Bill K2UNK

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

(snip) As some have commented, right
now it is quite possible to miss the majority
of the regulatory questions on an exam yet
still pass the exam. (snip


Theoretically possible, but not really very likely. A person that poorly
prepared would likely miss several other questions on the exam, meaning he
or she would almost have to get the majority correct on each part of the
exam to pass the overall exam. That is one of the strengths of this type of
exam.


The exams for the various classes could then
focus on operating procedures and technical
elements. (snip)


What about the rules specific to each license class (VE rules, for
example)? Also, some important rules are reenforced by repeating them at
least one more time in another exam. How would you handle that?


For example, let's call the rules test Element
R and then for the various licenses we could
have a system as follows: (snip)


The rules are already in the current Technician exam and reenforced in the
General (and a few even reenforced in the Extra). A single exam for the
rules would eliminate that system of reenforcement. Also, there are about
100 questions in the current written exams, from a pool of about 600
questions. Beyond the rules, how would you break those questions down for
each element?

Finally, I have to wonder if there is any reason to change the exams at
all. The current exams have evolved over many years, and I just don't see
how the suggested changes I've seen (yours and others) offer a real
improvement.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:38:08 GMT, Dee D. Flint wrote:

Actually I'd like to see a new, separate element that is devoted entirely to
rules and regulations that would have to be passed before taking the
technical elements for the license classes. One should not be able to get
on the air if they miss a significant percentage of the rules.

I agree with you 150 %.

Let's have the present Element 1 replaced by this "rules" element -
it is more relevant to all amateurs on any band, any class, any mode.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

"Dee D. Flint" wrote


Actually I'd like to see a new, separate element that is devoted entirely
to
rules and regulations that would have to be passed before taking the
technical elements for the license classes.


If there were a broad problem with rules compliance I might agree with you.
But there isn't, and most of the scofflaws we hear on the bands know the
rules just fine --- they've just decided to ignore them or apply tortured
interpretations to support their egotistical agenda. K1MAN comes to mind.

73, de Hans, K0HB

[This followup was posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy and a copy was
sent to the cited author.]

In article om,
says...
Actually I'd like to see a new, separate element that is devoted entirely to
rules and regulations that would have to be passed before taking the
technical elements for the license classes. One should not be able to get
on the air if they miss a significant percentage of the rules.

That's a reasonable proposal. Unfortunately, that means it will
probably never be given serious consideration.... ;-)

--

-- //Steve//

Steve Silverwood, KB6OJS
Fountain Valley, CA
Email:

PS: I'm not a cynic, but I play one on TV....

"Steve Silverwood" wrote in message
...
In article , says...
...is simply this:

Know code = Know ham
No code = No ham

The eternal truth, proven every day.

I have a feeling that this issue about the code will never be resolved,
at least not while the "old guard" of CW loyalists are still around.

The issue has been resolved internationally in July of
this year. There is NO code requirement necessary
anymore to stay compliant with international treaty
agreements.

Since July '03, a number of countries, including Great Britain,
Netherlands, Belgium and others have already ended
or announced an end date for morse testing in their
contry's requirments.

At some point the FCC will drop all code testing
also. The direction is clear, the path has been taken,
there's no turning back. The FCC provided every
opportunity to pro-code advocates to argue their
case and the pro-coders failed to convince the FCC
as to there being any need (other than the ITU treaty
at the time) for code testing at all.

The only thing at issue will be how soon?

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

(Observer) wrote in message ...
...is simply this:

Know code = Know ham
No code = No ham

The eternal truth, proven every day.

Bovine excrement.

Did you learn how to crank an engine to start your car before you took
a driving test? Did you have to learn to run to the outhouse and use
dried leaves (or corn cobs) before the days of indoor plumbing and
toilet paper? Whether you did or didn't, it's irrelevant to the rest
of us. Exactly the same as Morse code.

Nobody worth mentioning uses CW any more; the military dropped its'
use years ago and their communications are necessary (unlike amateur
radio). The Coast Guard doesn't even use it any more. So, given the
facts, why should I have to learn it to please you?

TROLL!

On 30 Dec 2003 16:07:59 -0800, Brian wrote:

Phil, I said it before the restructuring and I''ll say it again.

"What I fear most about the restructuring is a lack of enforcement,
and what I fear most about maintaining the status quo is a lack of
enforcement."

Having people memorizing the rules is completely meaningless unless
the FCC enforces them.

I said that long before you were a ham and I'll continue to say it.
I and others did our parts to make it happen, and I'm sad that it
degenerated as it did. I can point fingers 40 years back as to why
but it wouldn't do any good.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
et...
On 30 Dec 2003 16:07:59 -0800, Brian wrote:

Phil, I said it before the restructuring and I''ll say it again.

"What I fear most about the restructuring is a lack of enforcement,
and what I fear most about maintaining the status quo is a lack of
enforcement."

Having people memorizing the rules is completely meaningless unless
the FCC enforces them.

I said that long before you were a ham and I'll continue to say it.
I and others did our parts to make it happen, and I'm sad that it
degenerated as it did. I can point fingers 40 years back as to why
but it wouldn't do any good.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane




I believe the downward spin began with Dick Bash.

Dan/W4NTI

I said that long before you were a ham and I'll continue to say it.
I and others did our parts to make it happen, and I'm sad that it
degenerated as it did. I can point fingers 40 years back as to why
but it wouldn't do any good.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane




I believe the downward spin began with Dick Bash.

Dan/W4NTI

Which in turn Dan was IMHO due to the incentive debaucle. I think we all
need to kick our collective asses for allowing a lot of things to happen
over the years.

Film at 11 as this is New Years Eve ....

73 God Bless KI3R Tom Popovic Belle Vernon Pa