RadioBanter

RadioBanter (https://www.radiobanter.com/)
-   Policy (https://www.radiobanter.com/policy/)
-   -   South Africa! (https://www.radiobanter.com/policy/64629-south-africa.html)

[email protected] February 23rd 05 02:51 PM


Alun L. Palmer wrote:
wrote in news:1109088706.576066.237160
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:


Alun L. Palmer wrote:
wrote in news:1109065656.859950.28030
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:


Alun L. Palmer wrote:
wrote in news:1109009984.323422.143080
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

snip


5wpm isn't very fast, but why is it required to operate phone?

A couple of reasons:

For the same reason hams have to pass written *theory* tests to
use *manufactured* rigs with no critical tuneup adjustments.

For the same reason hams have to pass written tests on VHF/UHF

to
operate HF, high-power RF exposure questions to operate QRP,

etc.

And because code is a big part of amateur radio, and a ham who
doesn't know any just isn't fully qualified.

73 de Jim, N2EY

I think we can agree to differ on that last point.


Perhaps.

Do you agree that Morse code is a big part of amateur radio? Not

that
it needs a test, but just that it is a big part of today's amateur
radio, particularly on HF?


Well?

Agreeing that something is a big part of amateur radio does *not*
mean that something deserves its own stand-alone test.

As a matter of fact, even directly after passing the US 20wpm test

I
couldn't have passed the UK 12wpm test.


Perhaps. But I thought we were discussing *US* code test

requirements.

5wpm is not too difficult, especially the way it is tested in the

US,
but until recently it only gave access to the 'novice' subbands in

the
US, all of which except for 10m didn't allow phone. From my PoV,

it
would only have given me 10m at that time. I never took 5.


Since 1990 it has been possible to get an Extra (or any other
HF-privileges amateur radio license) with just the 5 wpm code test

and
a waiver. 15 years - hardly "recently".

I probably could have passed 5 when I came to the US, but I simply
didn't realise how much easier the tests were here. Thinking it

would
have been as hard as a UK test I didn't bother to take it.


The test procedures here aren't secret. Never were.

I was operating above 30MHz
on a 610A permit, and when the 'no code' licence was introduced I
decided to get a US call. Having 'aced' the Novice and I think

dropped
one question in the Tech paper, I was given the General paper, for
which I hadn't looked at the syllabus or question pool atall, and

I
passed that. Ditto the Advanced, but they didn't have a spare

Extra
paper. None of this really surprised me, as the UK B licence had

the
same theory as the A licence, and I have an EE degree anyway, but

it
surprised the VEs.


Why should it? The US writtens were *never* very hard - if you knew

a
little radio and some regs.

Back in 1968 I went for General at the FCC office in early summer.

Did
not pass 13 wpm code because the examiner couldn't read my

longhand.
Got credit for 5 wpm, took the written (which was same as General

back
then), walked out with a Tech. Could not use the new privs until

the
actual license arrived in the mail, though.

Went home, taught myself Signal-Corps-method block printing and

more
practice until I could do 18 wpm W1AW bulletins solid. Went back

and
passed 13 wpm code easily, sending and receiving.

Then the examiner says "why not try Advanced while you're here?".

Now
in those days the Advanced was supposedly the toughest of the

writtens,
with all sorts of math and circuits and such. But one did not say

No to
The Man, so I tried, with zero preparation. Passed easily and wound

up
with Advanced instead of General.

That was back before question pools, Bash books and computerized
practice tests. Didn't have an EE back then either - I was 14 years

old
and it was the summer between 8th and 9th grades.

Two years later I went back to get the Extra. Would have been

sooner
but in those days you had to have two years experience as General

or
Advanced to even *try* the Extra.

This gave me 12 months to pass 13wpm if I didn't want to have to

take
the General and Advanced theory again. With the help of computer
software and slow Morse transmissions I did it in six months.


Bingo.

How long do you think it would have taken


*you*

to get to 5 wpm, tested the
way the USA does?


Hmm?

Note that Mike got there
in that amount of time from scratch even with hearing problems,

and it
took me that long when I wasn't starting from the beginning, and
there's no problem with my hearing. Also, I had a relay of all the

VEs
sending code on 2m five nights a week. They saw it a a challenge

to
teach me code. I almost passed 20, but I had to come back a couple

of
months later.

To get up to 13wpm meant copying whole characters instead of dits

and
dahs, no matter how easy the type of test. OK, so that's gone, but
that means the remaining Element 1 doesn't test the ability to

copy
complete characters, so on the one hand it's relatively easy, but

on
the other hand it's pointless.


Not at all.

If the code uses Farnsworth spacing, you copy characters, not dits

and
dahs. This isn't anything new - W1AW has been sending code practice
that way since at least 1966 (first time I heard it, anyway).

Why preserve a test that doesn't test an adequate level of a skill

as
a requirement for access to a particular part of the spectrum,

when
there's no requirement to use that skill anyway?


Same reason for written tests. Do the writtens guarantee that all

who
pass can design/build/modify/repair/operate all amateur equipment

they
are authorized to use? Or do they test basic knowledge?

5 wpm is basic Morse skill, that's all.

Why is it too much to ask?


I think that one major reason some people are so
against the code test is that it isn't something
you can learn by reading a book or watching a
video.

Tradition? That's a
weak reason, but it seems to be the only one. Sure, 40% of HF may

be
CW, but I can (and do) operate 100% phone .


And my HF operation is 99% CW on 80/40/20, with 100 watts or less
output, yet I had to learn all kinds of stuff about high power,

'phone
modes, RTTY, SSTV, other HF bands, VHF/UHF, etc. Most of that

knowledge
I've never needed, and some of it (like band edges) has changed

since I
took the test. So why did I have to learn all that in the first

place,
just to operate a QRP rig on 7015 CW?

73 de Jim, N2EY


I'm not sure this is getting us anywhere. This is all old ground.

Let's boil it down to basics:

Your argument is that nobody should have to learn Knowledge A in order
to
do Activity B if Activity B can be done without Knowledge A.

In this case

Knowledge A = basic Morse skill, Activity B = amateur radio HF phone

The problem is that if you accept that reasoning, you must logically a
accept a lot mo

Knowledge A = radio theory, Activity B = operate modern manufactured
rig

Knowledge A = limits of Band X, Activity B = operate on Band Y

Knowledge A = SSB theory, Activity B = operate Morse

Knowledge A = high power RF exposure safety, Activity B = operate QRP

and much more.

Despite all the colorful false analogies with buggywhips and such, no
one has been able to show why the above arguments don't follow.

In fact, the NCVEC proposal takes it to that level, not only dumping
code testing but further watering down the *written* requirements to
an almost absurd level.

Do you think NCVEC has the right idea?

Suppose someone proposed to eliminate the Extra and Advanced class
licenses, give those hams Generals - and give all Generals full
privileges.

And suppose the proposal argued that since a General was qualified to
use
all modes, bands and power levels allowed to Advanceds and Extras,
there
was no need for the two higher level license classes.

How would you counter that argument?

73 de Jim, N2EY


Alun L. Palmer February 23rd 05 11:04 PM

wrote in news:1109166707.942384.171130
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:


Alun L. Palmer wrote:
wrote in news:1109088706.576066.237160
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:


Alun L. Palmer wrote:
wrote in news:1109065656.859950.28030
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:


Alun L. Palmer wrote:
wrote in news:1109009984.323422.143080
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

snip


5wpm isn't very fast, but why is it required to operate phone?

A couple of reasons:

For the same reason hams have to pass written *theory* tests to
use *manufactured* rigs with no critical tuneup adjustments.

For the same reason hams have to pass written tests on VHF/UHF to
operate HF, high-power RF exposure questions to operate QRP, etc.

And because code is a big part of amateur radio, and a ham who
doesn't know any just isn't fully qualified.

73 de Jim, N2EY

I think we can agree to differ on that last point.

Perhaps.

Do you agree that Morse code is a big part of amateur radio? Not
that it needs a test, but just that it is a big part of today's
amateur radio, particularly on HF?


Well?

Agreeing that something is a big part of amateur radio does *not*
mean that something deserves its own stand-alone test.


It's maybe about 40% of HF, so I suppose it's big enough.


As a matter of fact, even directly after passing the US 20wpm test
I couldn't have passed the UK 12wpm test.

Perhaps. But I thought we were discussing *US* code test
requirements.

5wpm is not too difficult, especially the way it is tested in the
US, but until recently it only gave access to the 'novice' subbands
in the US, all of which except for 10m didn't allow phone. From my
PoV, it would only have given me 10m at that time. I never took 5.

Since 1990 it has been possible to get an Extra (or any other
HF-privileges amateur radio license) with just the 5 wpm code test
and a waiver. 15 years - hardly "recently".

I probably could have passed 5 when I came to the US, but I simply
didn't realise how much easier the tests were here. Thinking it
would have been as hard as a UK test I didn't bother to take it.

The test procedures here aren't secret. Never were.

I was operating above 30MHz
on a 610A permit, and when the 'no code' licence was introduced I
decided to get a US call. Having 'aced' the Novice and I think
dropped one question in the Tech paper, I was given the General
paper, for which I hadn't looked at the syllabus or question pool
atall, and I passed that. Ditto the Advanced, but they didn't have
a spare Extra paper. None of this really surprised me, as the UK B
licence had the same theory as the A licence, and I have an EE
degree anyway, but it surprised the VEs.

Why should it? The US writtens were *never* very hard - if you knew
a little radio and some regs.

Back in 1968 I went for General at the FCC office in early summer.
Did not pass 13 wpm code because the examiner couldn't read my
longhand. Got credit for 5 wpm, took the written (which was same as
General back then), walked out with a Tech. Could not use the new
privs until the actual license arrived in the mail, though.

Went home, taught myself Signal-Corps-method block printing and more
practice until I could do 18 wpm W1AW bulletins solid. Went back and
passed 13 wpm code easily, sending and receiving.

Then the examiner says "why not try Advanced while you're here?".
Now in those days the Advanced was supposedly the toughest of the
writtens, with all sorts of math and circuits and such. But one did
not say No to The Man, so I tried, with zero preparation. Passed
easily and wound up with Advanced instead of General.

That was back before question pools, Bash books and computerized
practice tests. Didn't have an EE back then either - I was 14 years
old and it was the summer between 8th and 9th grades.

Two years later I went back to get the Extra. Would have been sooner
but in those days you had to have two years experience as General or
Advanced to even *try* the Extra.

This gave me 12 months to pass 13wpm if I didn't want to have to
take the General and Advanced theory again. With the help of
computer software and slow Morse transmissions I did it in six
months.

Bingo.

How long do you think it would have taken


*you*

to get to 5 wpm, tested the way the USA does?


Hmm?


I think that's probably about where I was when I came here in '89, so I
could just say 19 years. I suppose you would have to knock something off
that as I had been stuck at that level for a while!


Note that Mike got there
in that amount of time from scratch even with hearing problems, and
it took me that long when I wasn't starting from the beginning, and
there's no problem with my hearing. Also, I had a relay of all the
VEs sending code on 2m five nights a week. They saw it a a
challenge to teach me code. I almost passed 20, but I had to come
back a couple of months later.

To get up to 13wpm meant copying whole characters instead of dits
and dahs, no matter how easy the type of test. OK, so that's gone,
but that means the remaining Element 1 doesn't test the ability to
copy complete characters, so on the one hand it's relatively easy,
but on the other hand it's pointless.

Not at all.

If the code uses Farnsworth spacing, you copy characters, not dits
and dahs. This isn't anything new - W1AW has been sending code
practice that way since at least 1966 (first time I heard it,
anyway).

Why preserve a test that doesn't test an adequate level of a skill
as a requirement for access to a particular part of the spectrum,
when there's no requirement to use that skill anyway?

Same reason for written tests. Do the writtens guarantee that all
who pass can design/build/modify/repair/operate all amateur
equipment they are authorized to use? Or do they test basic
knowledge?

5 wpm is basic Morse skill, that's all.

Why is it too much to ask?


I think that one major reason some people are so
against the code test is that it isn't something
you can learn by reading a book or watching a
video.

Tradition? That's a
weak reason, but it seems to be the only one. Sure, 40% of HF may
be CW, but I can (and do) operate 100% phone .

And my HF operation is 99% CW on 80/40/20, with 100 watts or less
output, yet I had to learn all kinds of stuff about high power,
'phone modes, RTTY, SSTV, other HF bands, VHF/UHF, etc. Most of that
knowledge I've never needed, and some of it (like band edges) has
changed since I took the test. So why did I have to learn all that
in the first place, just to operate a QRP rig on 7015 CW?

73 de Jim, N2EY


I'm not sure this is getting us anywhere. This is all old ground.

Let's boil it down to basics:

Your argument is that nobody should have to learn Knowledge A in order
to
do Activity B if Activity B can be done without Knowledge A.

In this case

Knowledge A = basic Morse skill, Activity B = amateur radio HF phone

The problem is that if you accept that reasoning, you must logically a
accept a lot mo

Knowledge A = radio theory, Activity B = operate modern manufactured
rig

Knowledge A = limits of Band X, Activity B = operate on Band Y

Knowledge A = SSB theory, Activity B = operate Morse

Knowledge A = high power RF exposure safety, Activity B = operate QRP

and much more.

Despite all the colorful false analogies with buggywhips and such, no
one has been able to show why the above arguments don't follow.

In fact, the NCVEC proposal takes it to that level, not only dumping
code testing but further watering down the *written* requirements to
an almost absurd level.

Do you think NCVEC has the right idea?

Suppose someone proposed to eliminate the Extra and Advanced class
licenses, give those hams Generals - and give all Generals full
privileges.

And suppose the proposal argued that since a General was qualified to
use
all modes, bands and power levels allowed to Advanceds and Extras,
there
was no need for the two higher level license classes.

How would you counter that argument?

73 de Jim, N2EY



Just the same way I did before when discussing it with you, Jim (shades of
deja vu?). The Morse test is a skill test, and all the others are theory
tests. I have no objection to theory tests on all aspects of the hobby,
including Morse code. That would be a balanced approach.

73 de Alun, N3KIP

Dee Flint February 24th 05 12:56 AM


"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Mike Coslo wrote:



[snip]


clean up. The accident was related to a snow squall that blew up
unexpectedly, and the excessive speed that the whole group was

traveling

at. While no charges were filed against anyone at the time, the

families

of the deceased are filing suit against the truck drivers *and* the
companies they worked for. Hopefully the trucking companies have a

good

safety program.

If someone was following too close for conditions, shouldn't they be
liable?



Since both my current and previous husbands are/were truck drivers, I
tend to observe what trucks are doing on the road. Though I cannot speak
for this particular accident, normally it is the CARS following the
trucks too close for conditions. How can the truckers prevent that and
the sometimes tragic consequences?


The speeds were well over 70. A truck that was passing the line of traffic
jackknifed and the rest is history. The police did not see fit to issue
any citations. All were traveling over the speed limit, and when the storm
blew up, they were waaayy too fast for the conditions.

As for who is at fault, I have several times had to speed up to ridiculous
speeds to not get run over by truck drivers who want to get a run for the
next hill At speeds of 85 and more, they will get close enough for you to
count how many bugs were caught on their radiators. I've seen a number of
accidents where a truck has simply run right over the car in front of them

I carry a CB, and I must say that there is an urban myth, believed by most
truck drivers, that they *never* do anything wrong. What was especially
funny was the time a truck jackknifed in front of a line of cars during a
bad snowstorm - about 10 years ago - also on I-80, and by the time ten
minutes had passed, the story passed around by radio was that a 4 wheeler
had passed the truck, and cut him off, causing the jackknife. The
offending 4 wheeler was never found. Not surprising to those of us who
were close enough to see the accident happen!

Truck drivers are professionals, and almost always much better drivers
than those in the automobiles. But that doesn't mean they are never to
blame.

- Mike KB3EIA -


Did not mean to imply that truckers are never to blame. I too have had
truckers run right up on my bumper at excessive speeds and then honk to
attempt to bully the other drivers to move. Just noting that I have all too
often observed drivers in cars behaving like idiots around trucks and then
blaming the trucker.

I actually saw a case where a woman was circling a truck and causing a
hazard to everyone on the road because she was bound and determined to find
the phone number on the guys truck so she could turn him in. All that he
had done was make a left turn onto the street that I was traveling on.
Naturally, something that big is going to impede traffic slightly no matter
what he does. He did NOT cut in front of any of us. We all had sufficient
time to see him and adjust our speeds. This woman apparently thought he
ought to wait until there was no one whatsoever on the road before entering
it. Well he'd have been sitting there until he died of old age as that
street is NEVER clear regardless of the weather or time of day. After this
truck got on the road, the woman first sped up and pulled in front of him
and looked in her mirror. When she couldn't find a phone number, she pulled
over into my lane and braked and slowed down to examine the side of the
truck. She paid no attention to the cars already in the lane and created a
major hazard. The car ahead of me had to brake severely to keep from
hitting her. When she found no phone number, she braked even more causing a
major slowdown on a busy street and pulled in behind the truck to try to
find it.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE



bb February 24th 05 02:28 AM


wrote:
Jim,
, wrote on Tues, Feb 22 2005 1:47 am
Alun L. Palmer wrote:
wrote in news:1109009984.323422.143080
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:


5wpm isn't very fast, but why is it required to operate phone?


A couple of reasons:

For the same reason hams have to pass written *theory* tests to
use *manufactured* rigs with no critical tuneup adjustments.


1. The FCC decided it needed to test radio amateurs as
part of their task of regulating all U.S. civil radio.

2. The VEC Question Pool Committee decides WHAT
the questions are; FCC only specifies a total number
and the percentage correct for passing.

3. Any other reason is meaningless... ;-)


The USA VEC decided to return the Morse Code exam to 13-15WPM rate
despite FCC regulations to the contrary.


bb February 24th 05 02:38 AM


wrote:

Michael Coslo wrote on Feb 22 2005 9:58 am


Buy a rig, an antenna, and pay some people to put it up.

Presumably the
only requirement is to know how to read, talk and mash the PTT

button.

"Mash" the push-to-talk button? That means those
owners have to know where to get the PTT control
fixed! :-)


Yep, he said "mash," but must have been mistaken when he said they
would know how to read.

You see, people that use a microphone are clods. They would never
"depress" the ptt button, nor would they "press down" on it. They are
of low intelligence and barely human, and only know how to "mash" said
button. If no one is looking, they may actually step on the microphone
with bare, dirty feet and yell into it.

People who use a telegraph key are genteel. They know how to properly
close the contacts, form a character, and move on. They do so with
their pinkie finger extended, and have no dirt under their nails.

For it is written.


Kim February 24th 05 04:26 AM

"bb" wrote in message
ups.com...

wrote:

Michael Coslo wrote on Feb 22 2005 9:58 am


Buy a rig, an antenna, and pay some people to put it up.

Presumably the
only requirement is to know how to read, talk and mash the PTT

button.

"Mash" the push-to-talk button? That means those
owners have to know where to get the PTT control
fixed! :-)


Yep, he said "mash," but must have been mistaken when he said they
would know how to read.

You see, people that use a microphone are clods. They would never
"depress" the ptt button, nor would they "press down" on it. They are
of low intelligence and barely human, and only know how to "mash" said
button. If no one is looking, they may actually step on the microphone
with bare, dirty feet and yell into it.

People who use a telegraph key are genteel. They know how to properly
close the contacts, form a character, and move on. They do so with
their pinkie finger extended, and have no dirt under their nails.

For it is written.


I think I just found Larry Roll.

Kim W5TIT



Alun L. Palmer February 24th 05 05:19 AM

"bb" wrote in news:1109208496.863217.225020
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:


wrote:
Jim,
, wrote on Tues, Feb 22 2005 1:47 am
Alun L. Palmer wrote:
wrote in news:1109009984.323422.143080
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

5wpm isn't very fast, but why is it required to operate phone?

A couple of reasons:

For the same reason hams have to pass written *theory* tests to use
*manufactured* rigs with no critical tuneup adjustments.


1. The FCC decided it needed to test radio amateurs as
part of their task of regulating all U.S. civil radio.

2. The VEC Question Pool Committee decides WHAT
the questions are; FCC only specifies a total number
and the percentage correct for passing.

3. Any other reason is meaningless... ;-)


The USA VEC decided to return the Morse Code exam to 13-15WPM rate
despite FCC regulations to the contrary.



Not exactly. It's Farnsworth method with an overall speed of 5wpm. That
gives the brain longer to decode each character, and the hgiher speed of
the individual characters still doesn't force you to read the character as
a whole. It's still possible to read the individual dots and dashes.
Bearing all that in mind, I have no problem with it.

What did annoy me was that the NCVEC did eliminate the multi-choice option
in direct response to the abolition of the 13 and 20wpm tests, so the 5wpm
test is now harder than it was before, for no other reason than to make it
harder.

Alun L. Palmer February 24th 05 05:22 AM

"Kim" wrote in news:tPbTd.56982$iC4.24423
@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com:

"bb" wrote in message
ups.com...

wrote:

Michael Coslo wrote on Feb 22 2005 9:58 am


Buy a rig, an antenna, and pay some people to put it up.
Presumably the only requirement is to know how to read, talk and
mash the PTT button.

"Mash" the push-to-talk button? That means those
owners have to know where to get the PTT control fixed! :-)


Yep, he said "mash," but must have been mistaken when he said they
would know how to read.

You see, people that use a microphone are clods. They would never
"depress" the ptt button, nor would they "press down" on it. They are
of low intelligence and barely human, and only know how to "mash" said
button. If no one is looking, they may actually step on the microphone
with bare, dirty feet and yell into it.

People who use a telegraph key are genteel. They know how to properly
close the contacts, form a character, and move on. They do so with
their pinkie finger extended, and have no dirt under their nails.

For it is written.


I think I just found Larry Roll.

Kim W5TIT




I almost plonked him before I realised it was just Lenny being sarcastic!

Alun N3KIP

[email protected] February 24th 05 08:04 PM


Alun L. Palmer wrote:
"bb" wrote in news:1109208496.863217.225020
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:


wrote:
Jim,
, wrote on Tues, Feb 22 2005 1:47 am
Alun L. Palmer wrote:
wrote in news:1109009984.323422.143080
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

5wpm isn't very fast, but why is it required to operate phone?

A couple of reasons:

For the same reason hams have to pass written *theory* tests to

use
*manufactured* rigs with no critical tuneup adjustments.

1. The FCC decided it needed to test radio amateurs as
part of their task of regulating all U.S. civil radio.


And that testing includes both written and code testing. FCC has
decided
that both are necessary for HF/MF license privileges. Of course that
could have been changed any time after mid-July of 2003, but so far FCC
has decided not to.

2. The VEC Question Pool Committee decides WHAT
the questions are; FCC only specifies a total number
and the percentage correct for passing.


INCORRECT!

*ALL* questions in the written exam pools have to be approved by FCC,
both for inclusion and removal. While the questions, answers and
distractors are
created by the QPC, they must be approved by FCC.

3. Any other reason is meaningless... ;-)


The plain, simple fact of the matter is that the same arguments used
against the code test can be used - and are being used - against
almost all of what is in the written test.

The USA VEC decided to return the Morse Code exam to 13-15WPM rate
despite FCC regulations to the contrary.


INCORRECT!

The use of Farnsowrth-spaced Morse is simply a recommended practice,
not a requirement. If someone wants non-Farnsworth Morse for Element 1,
the VEs will accomodate them.

Not exactly. It's Farnsworth method with an overall speed of 5wpm.

That
gives the brain longer to decode each character, and the hgiher speed

of
the individual characters still doesn't force you to read the

character as
a whole. It's still possible to read the individual dots and dashes.


It may be possible for *some* individuals to count dits and dahs at
13-16 wpm character speed, but for most people who have been evaluated
it is easier to hear the letter or number as a unit of sound. The
exaggerated spacing between the letters/numbers allows more recognition
time, and particularly more time to write or type the letter/number.
Hence Farnsworth spacing usually makes it *easier* to pass the test.

Bearing all that in mind, I have no problem with it.


Nor I.

What did annoy me was that the NCVEC did eliminate the multi-choice

option
in direct response to the abolition of the 13 and 20wpm tests, so the

5wpm
test is now harder than it was before, for no other reason than to

make it
harder.


IIRC, FCC outlawed multiple choice code tests. While NCVEC may have
commented against them, FCC makes the rules.

Multiple-choice was eliminated because FCC decided it didn't really
test the skill as required. There was a *lot* of comment against the
multiple choice code test.

Perhaps a compromise could be used. Suppose the code test were replaced
with a test of - say - skill in solving transmission-line problems with
the Smith Chart...

73 de Jim, N2EY


Phil Kane February 24th 05 08:23 PM

On 24 Feb 2005 11:04:24 -0800, wrote:

Perhaps a compromise could be used. Suppose the code test were replaced
with a test of - say - skill in solving transmission-line problems with
the Smith Chart...


Or more practical skills which I have found sorely lacking even in
appliance operators but are essential even for a non-code Tech:

Questions on how modern equipment is set up and tuned. Not for
specific models, but for equipment in general:

Understanding how a receiver is set up for SSB, FSK, CW, AM
reception. Functions of bandwidth and notch filters and
filters, and when to use or not to use them. How to detect
receiver overload/spurious responses and what to do about it.

Understanding on how a transceiver is set up for simplex and
repeater operation. What the offset and tone code functions
do, and how to determine what the settings should be for any
desired operations.

Electrical and rf safety considerations in installation and
operation of ham gear.

My two electrons worth.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane




All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:47 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com