On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 17:51:14 -0400, "L." wrote:

I once seen a copy of the "code" used by other countries. There were
"some" - if not many differences.

Because there are some differences in alphabets.

I also seen a copy of "supposedly" the old
west code - used .......... Man, what a difference - IF ALL WERE TRUE - that
is

That's American Morse, as opposed to International Morse, which is
used on the air. American Morse is composed of dots, dashes and
spaces. (Spaces are parts of the letters, not just the spaces between
them.) International Morse uses just dots and dashes - the spaces are
just spaces.

Not true. Hams care much more about saving lives than operating appliances.
I'm betting a great number of them have their CPR cards,
ready for action. Self-cleaning ovens run a sad second place to standing
tall at the 911 center.

On your other point..
Most hams are men and they generally don't know how to operate any appliance
except the refrigerator door,
and maybe the microwave oven. A few are versed in toaster operation, I hear.

However; they will indeed spend hours installing flashy lights and
noisemakers on their cars, as well as
spend hours 'standing by' and preparing for the life-saving moment. They'll
spend grocery money to purchase a
plethora of other "necessary" equipment and "uniforms/ID/look-at-me" items.
Be it weather watching, crowd control, parade control, or just control in
general, hams are standing by to manage the world, after the "big one"....
Hams just like you, Dirk. And for that, I thank you.

I can only pray for peace on these hams as they spend their last days
brushing the fallen hair
from their rigs. Saving countless lives in the aftermath, diligently
tapping away; giving
needed instruction to all the elderly survivors crowded around their
homemade QRP
battery operated rigs..... Oh, and lest we not forget the generator owners
crowded around their swans, drakes and 101e's... burning precious fuel to
strain an ear
for the faint but all-knowing dit-dah that will be their salvation.
I'd bet with a 100w rig pushing a 600-1Kw amp [and a break in the fallout],
they could work weak signal maybe 10-20 miles
through the new noise floor.

As for me, I'll be listening too,
voice, morse and digital.
Coz by that time, the only appliance I'll be operating is that new
one-button rig from GLOCK.
.....and I love ham.

LOL...
btw, trolls suck.





"Dirk" wrote in message
...
Ham's care more about operating appliances than knowing how to save a
lives.

:-(

Al Klein wrote:
On 2 Aug 2006 20:05:21 -0700, wrote:

Al Klein wrote:
On 23 Jul 2006 07:26:05 -0700, wrote:

how balanced is to to place CW over all over ham knowledge?

No one is, any more than by requiring people to know the law one is
putting the law "over all ham knowledge".

CW is pass/fail. To fail CW denies all HF privs (except for Alaska).

Theory is also pass/fail. To fail to get the required number of
correct answers denies all privs - HF, VHF, UHF ...

There is no pass/fail practical for SSB, FM, AM, FSTV, SSTV, RTTY, FAX,
Packet, PSK, etc, etc, etc.

There's no test at all, so those claiming that the reason they want a
test for CW dropped because it's not "modern" have no argument - they
want no test for FSTV, SSTV, RTTY (which is also pretty old hat),
packet, PSK, etc. They want no test at all, unless they can memorize
a few answers to "pass" it.

You couldn't be more wrong. If there were practical exams for SSB, FM,
AM, FSTV, SSTV, RTTY (which is pretty darned old), packet, PSK, etc,
then it would be CRYSTAL clear that a Morse Code exam is valid.

However, there are no such practical exams for the other modes. So
there need be no exam for Morse Code, either.

How progressive is it?

How progressive is it to not require people to know ... oh, yeah,
that's progressive, since the new thing is to hand out licenses
because people have some kind of "right" to get on the air.

Then why is it with the prospect of losing the CW Exam, that you'se
guys want to "beef up" the written exams?

We don't.

That is not true.

Sure it is. "Beefing up" the written exam is a counter to "drop CW
because it's old fashioned". If you want modern you want the testing
to be turned from CW to modern modes.

That is not true. You wish to change the written exams, not add
practical exams for SSB, FM, AM, FSTV, SSTV, RTTY (which is pretty
darned old), packet, PSK, etc.

Those who want CW dropped just
want what they can't memorize dropped so they can get a ticket without
really being tested on anything.

So all ham radio is is Morse Code on HF? Or is it more than that?

Actually knowing anything is so old
fashioned, isn't it?

Not at all.

We want to get back the level it used to be before it was
dumbed down to the point that you could almost pass it if you never
heard of the FCC, ham radio or electronics.

You're referring to the Conditional license, right?

No, I'm not addressing *where* the test is held at all - I'm
addressing *whether* there's any real test, which there isn't, except
for CW right now. Spitting out something you memorized is only a test
of memory.

Sounds like the Conditional License to me.

Just by guessing at the
answers. It used to require that you draw (was it 3?) schematics.

You tell me? Was it 2 or was it 3?

I don't remember after almost 50 years - but I could still draw them
today, and it's not a test of remembering what's on the test, it's a
test of knowing what's in a radio.

Then advocate passing the current exam at every license renewal. You'd
probably be weeded out pretty quickly.

From scratch. Let's see how many people could do that today. A
Colpitts oscillator, a Hartley oscillator and some other circuit that
I've forgotten at the moment.

You should self-modify your license and cease amateur operation until
you remember.

Why? Testing isn't about memory, it's about knowledge.

What if you forgot your band edges?

The amateur is self-policing, and you no longer meet your own standard.

Sure I do. The test wasn't to remember what circuits to draw, it was
to draw them. And I can draw them any time.

Then do so. Quit complaining to me that you can't remember what it was
that you were supposed to draw.

They're still as relevant today as they were 50 years ago.

Other things are relevant today that weren't even known 50 years ago.

So let's have them on the test.

But if a practical exam is necessary for Morse Code, why isn't it
necessary for other modes? If all radio is merely plug and play, why
do the services still have radio schools (that aren't teaching Morse
Code)?

Oops, that's right - no more relevant testing, isn't that what people
are asking for? Just give me the answers so I can memorize them and
pick them out on the test.

Who said that? We absolutely NEED relevant exams. That is my whole
argument!

how loyal is it to denny the nation the benifits of allowing more
operators

What "benefits" does the country get from more people using radios who
don't know the first thing about them? (Whatever "denny" means.)

It's always been that way. You could even buy Heathkits already
assembled.

But you had to actually *know* a little theory to use one legally.

No you didn't.

Yes, you did - you had to pass a test to show that you did.

There has never been a practical test to show that you could operate a
radio. Ever.

All you
have to do now is memorize a few answers.

That's all you had to do then.

I used radios in the military. I never used a CW key in the military.
I never jammed another operator, although Brandywine asked me to reduce
power once.

But you had to learn how to use the radios.

I did?

Hams today don't - they
memorize a few answers, buy equipment and get on the air - with no
understanding of what they're doing, and no desire to learn.

Then it hasn't changed much since you were first licensed.

That's exactly what he's talking about. Give someone a radio and a
"license" to use it and he'll "acquire the skill to be ready for
service to country and community". That's what Mark said, right up
above. How does one acquire skill by playing radio?

We self-train.

You may, but I can see from many of the comments that have been posted
here that a lot of people don't. They don't want to learn, they want
to get on the air. Period.

W3RV didn't wait to get a ham license before operating! He just wanted
to get on the air. Period.

It is a continuous process of improvements. You
mistakenly believe that at the conclusion of The Exam, the "operator"
is 100%.

And you mistakenly believe that most hams today want to learn how to
operate properly. Listen to 75 some evenings.

Lots of OFs on there who should know better. That's why I hold the
opinions that I hold. Your generation doesn't have a lock on decency,
respect, or apatite for knowledge. Far from it.

But that's what Mark and his ilk want - we'll have "skilled operators"
if we allow people to buy radios and put them on the air with no skill
or knowledge. By osmosis? Or by magic?

I've listened to emergency responders on a scanner before. They don't
use Morse Code, they don't use CW. They use FM/Voice. Somehow they
are effective at it, not having taken a Morse Code test. How can this
be?

They were trained.

Not in Morse Code. If you must retain a Morse Code Exam, then you must
also administer practical exams for SSB, FM, AM, FSTV, SSTV, RTTY
(which is pretty darned old), packet, PSK, etc.

So you'd get a license not knowing CW, build a radio (you couldn't buy
one then) and ... what? Sit and look at it. Some things are just too
obvious to need mentioning.

Please diagram that radio from "Scratch."

Any time. Filter or phasing? BFO receive or quadrature detection?
I've designed them, built them and used them, and still could.

What is/was your profession?

Evidently not, or I'd be the only one in the world advocating that a
test should actually test for something. There are actually millions
of us who don't think lack of instant gratification is the worst thing
in the world.

Dial 911 and tell the operator that you don't need instant
gratification, take your time.

Very bad example of an attempt at sarcasm and a misunderstanding of
"gratification".

What next? DXCC awards for those who *want* to work 100 countries?

You seem to be confused. DXCC is an award offered by the ARRL, not the
FCC. It has nothing to do with licensing.

But an award for wanting has to do with "I want it so it's my right to
have it", which is what I'm talking about. No one has any "right" to
get on the air.

Correct. And no one has a right to force their favorite mode on
everyone else. Your days of doing so are numbered.

Cecil Moore wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
Testing isn't about memory, it's about knowledge.

Then why isn't knowledge of Morse code and the CW mode
sufficient? Why must someone be forced to memorize
the individual characters?
--
73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

We aren't made to memorize every value of resistor and capacitor, or
every offset for the six meter repeater subband.

clfe wrote:
"clfe" wrote in message
...

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
. ..
K4YZ wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
Then why isn't knowledge of Morse code and the CW mode
sufficient? Why must someone be forced to memorize
the individual characters?

Probably, Cecil, since it would then make it difficult to pass the
test.

You missed the point. The Morse code skill exam requires
memorizing the characters. Memorizing is being condemned
as an evil act. Since memorizing is evil, the Morse code
skill exam should be the first thing to be eliminated.
--
73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

In some cases, it "could" be said that hairs are being split. To have
"knowledge" of the code - could mean basically - you know it exists and
why it is used. To "know" the Morse Code, usually refers to KNOWING the
characters sufficiently to use them at whatever speed it is you can. On
the other hand, someone who isn't involved could say - that a Ham operator
is "knowledgable" in the code. Heck, to someone not IN Ham radio - they
could easily assume a NO CODE tech - KNOWS code.

Just to clarify my point - many "assume" a Ham Operator - regardless the
license - KNOWS code. So, if a "No Code" tech simply says "I"M A HAM
OPERATOR" to someone not knowing the license class structure, the
"assumption is made. AND unless that NC tech clarifies it, the unsuspecting
person will go on in ignorance "assuming" ALL hams "know" code. Morse Code
(per my recollection) has always been and most likely - even if only in
history books - always will be known and associated with HAM RADIO.

Heaven forbid that someone assumes that a lowly, unwashed Technician
know the CODE.

lou

Many "assume" that an Old Timer knows more than they actually know.
Most Old Timers are guilty of this kind of thinking. Furthermore, many
"assume" that newcomers to the hobby know little or nothing, and have
no desire to learn. Most Old Timers are guilty of this klind of
thinking.

On 9 Aug 2006 19:14:54 -0700, wrote:

You couldn't be more wrong. If there were practical exams for SSB, FM,
AM, FSTV, SSTV, RTTY (which is pretty darned old), packet, PSK, etc,
then it would be CRYSTAL clear that a Morse Code exam is valid.

However, there are no such practical exams for the other modes. So
there need be no exam for Morse Code, either.

That's my point - there's no test any longer. For anything more than
the ability to memorize answers.

That is not true. You wish to change the written exams, not add
practical exams for SSB, FM, AM, FSTV, SSTV, RTTY (which is pretty
darned old), packet, PSK, etc.

Add SSB, FM, etc., to the nothing there is today.

So all ham radio is is Morse Code on HF? Or is it more than that?

It's a lot more. The question isn't what ham radio is, it's whether
one should be required to pass a realistic test to get a license.

No, I'm not addressing *where* the test is held at all - I'm
addressing *whether* there's any real test, which there isn't, except
for CW right now. Spitting out something you memorized is only a test
of memory.

Sounds like the Conditional License to me.

The Conditional was whatever class was being tested for, but not at an
FCC office. It had nothing to do with the class, only with the
location.

I don't remember after almost 50 years - but I could still draw them
today, and it's not a test of remembering what's on the test, it's a
test of knowing what's in a radio.

Then advocate passing the current exam at every license renewal.

What current exam? Memorizing answers and writing them down isn't a
test.

You'd probably be weeded out pretty quickly.

I doubt it - if I couldn't pass an Extra theory exam - a real one, not
the nonsense that passes for one these days - I'd lose my job in a
second.

From scratch. Let's see how many people could do that today. A
Colpitts oscillator, a Hartley oscillator and some other circuit that
I've forgotten at the moment.

You should self-modify your license and cease amateur operation until
you remember.

Why? Testing isn't about memory, it's about knowledge.

What if you forgot your band edges?

What if you addressed what I said when you answer me? Your dishonest
tactics are transparent.

The amateur is self-policing, and you no longer meet your own standard.

Sure I do. The test wasn't to remember what circuits to draw, it was
to draw them. And I can draw them any time.

Then do so. Quit complaining to me that you can't remember what it was
that you were supposed to draw.

Quit putting words in my mouth. I wasn't complaining to anyone, and
we weren't discussing remembering 50 year old tests.

They're still as relevant today as they were 50 years ago.

Other things are relevant today that weren't even known 50 years ago.

So let's have them on the test.

But if a practical exam is necessary for Morse Code, why isn't it
necessary for other modes?

Maybe we should have one - show the ability to put a clean PSK signal
on the air. Show the ability to interpret a waterfall display. Show
the ability to tell the difference between various digital modes. The
bands would be pretty QRM-free.

If all radio is merely plug and play, why do the services still have radio schools

That's my point, not yours. Or don't you understand what you just
said?

Oops, that's right - no more relevant testing, isn't that what people
are asking for? Just give me the answers so I can memorize them and
pick them out on the test.

Who said that? We absolutely NEED relevant exams. That is my whole
argument!

So you're in favor of exams that test knowledge of theory? "Draw the
schematic of ..."? "Explain why long path 2400 bps is impossible on
14 MHz"? That kind of relevance?

Or the "pick the answer with the resistor like we showed you in the
example" kind of relevance?

But you had to actually *know* a little theory to use one legally.

No you didn't.

Yes, you did - you had to pass a test to show that you did.

There has never been a practical test to show that you could operate a
radio. Ever.

Do you understand what the word "theory" means?

All you
have to do now is memorize a few answers.

That's all you had to do then.

How do you draw a schematic and explain the functions of parts by
memorizing answers? You can't explain phase shift by memorizing "10k"
or "coil".

I used radios in the military. I never used a CW key in the military.
I never jammed another operator, although Brandywine asked me to reduce
power once.

But you had to learn how to use the radios.

I did?

They just gave you a radio and said "use it"?

Hams today don't - they
memorize a few answers, buy equipment and get on the air - with no
understanding of what they're doing, and no desire to learn.

Then it hasn't changed much since you were first licensed.

When I was licensed you had to show an understanding of theory, by
answering questions that were more than just multiple choice from a
published answer pool.

You may, but I can see from many of the comments that have been posted
here that a lot of people don't. They don't want to learn, they want
to get on the air. Period.

W3RV didn't wait to get a ham license before operating! He just wanted
to get on the air. Period.

Point?

And you mistakenly believe that most hams today want to learn how to
operate properly. Listen to 75 some evenings.

Lots of OFs on there who should know better. That's why I hold the
opinions that I hold. Your generation doesn't have a lock on decency,
respect, or apatite for knowledge. Far from it.

Very few of "my" generation there.

I've listened to emergency responders on a scanner before. They don't
use Morse Code, they don't use CW. They use FM/Voice. Somehow they
are effective at it, not having taken a Morse Code test. How can this
be?

They were trained.

Not in Morse Code.

You must be sitting on oil. Can't you stick to a topic long enough to
be coherent? You were discussing how someone can be efficient at
voice commo, not in Morse.

If you must retain a Morse Code Exam, then you must
also administer practical exams for SSB, FM, AM, FSTV, SSTV, RTTY
(which is pretty darned old), packet, PSK, etc.

I have no problem with that.

So you'd get a license not knowing CW, build a radio (you couldn't buy
one then) and ... what? Sit and look at it. Some things are just too
obvious to need mentioning.

Please diagram that radio from "Scratch."

Any time. Filter or phasing? BFO receive or quadrature detection?
I've designed them, built them and used them, and still could.

What is/was your profession?

Trained as an EE. Spent years designing RF circuitry, then went into
digital design. "Is", not yet "was" - I'm still alive.

What next? DXCC awards for those who *want* to work 100 countries?

You seem to be confused. DXCC is an award offered by the ARRL, not the
FCC. It has nothing to do with licensing.

But an award for wanting has to do with "I want it so it's my right to
have it", which is what I'm talking about. No one has any "right" to
get on the air.

Correct. And no one has a right to force their favorite mode on
everyone else.

I'm advocating real testing for whatever mode. Right now the only
test is "do you have the fee, can you get to the testing place, and
have you memorized enough answers to pass". Let's have a test that
shows whether the testee knows anything. CW, APRS, AX25, PSK - all of
it. Or separate the licenses. You want to operate FM, you take a
test on FM and, if you pass, you get an FM license. Want to operate
SSB, you take a different test.

Not "want to get on the air? memorize some answers and pay your fee".

On 9 Aug 2006 19:18:06 -0700, wrote:

Cecil Moore wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
Testing isn't about memory, it's about knowledge.

Then why isn't knowledge of Morse code and the CW mode
sufficient? Why must someone be forced to memorize
the individual characters?

We aren't made to memorize every value of resistor and capacitor, or
every offset for the six meter repeater subband.

And anyone copying CW character by character is never going to get any
further than someone talking letter by letter. Those who don't
understand it denigrate it.

On 9 Aug 2006 19:27:57 -0700, wrote:

clfe wrote:

Just to clarify my point - many "assume" a Ham Operator - regardless the
license - KNOWS code. So, if a "No Code" tech simply says "I"M A HAM
OPERATOR" to someone not knowing the license class structure, the
"assumption is made. AND unless that NC tech clarifies it, the unsuspecting
person will go on in ignorance "assuming" ALL hams "know" code. Morse Code
(per my recollection) has always been and most likely - even if only in
history books - always will be known and associated with HAM RADIO.

Heaven forbid that someone assumes that a lowly, unwashed Technician
know the CODE.

Why would you assume that a NO CODE tech knows code?

Many "assume" that an Old Timer knows more than they actually know.

There's a difference between "know" and "proved".

Furthermore, many
"assume" that newcomers to the hobby know little or nothing, and have
no desire to learn.

Most of those are the assumptions of newcomers about the assumptions
of old timers. Most old timers don't make that assumption. We've
been around long enough to have seen different.

From: Al Klein on Wed, Aug 9 2006 9:24 pm
Groups: rec.radio.amateur.antenna, rec.radio.amateur.policy,
rec.radio.scanner, rec.radio.swap


On 9 Aug 2006 19:14:54 -0700, wrote:

You couldn't be more wrong. If there were practical exams for SSB, FM,
AM, FSTV, SSTV, RTTY (which is pretty darned old), packet, PSK, etc,
then it would be CRYSTAL clear that a Morse Code exam is valid.
However, there are no such practical exams for the other modes. So
there need be no exam for Morse Code, either.

That's my point - there's no test any longer. For anything more than
the ability to memorize answers.

1. The FCC does NOT generate the questions on any amateur
radio license test. The VEC Question Pool Committee does.
By LAW the VEC QPC is composed of radio amateurs.

2. The FCC does NOT mandate the maximum number of questions
on any amateur radio license exam written test. The FCC
specifies only the MINIMUM number of questions. The VEC
QPC can generate as many questions as it cares to.

3. At some point a LARGE number of questions could defeat
even the most eidetic of humans, thereby destroying your
rant of "it isn't a real test because all can memorize
the questions-answers."


So all ham radio is is Morse Code on HF? Or is it more than that?

It's a lot more. The question isn't what ham radio is, it's whether
one should be required to pass a realistic test to get a license.

"Realistic test" = Collitch-level BS to make one a 1930's
radio expert? :-)

Define "realistic test" remembering that ALL the VEs are
also VOLUNTEER radio amateurs.


I don't remember after almost 50 years - but I could still draw them
today, and it's not a test of remembering what's on the test, it's a
test of knowing what's in a radio.

Then advocate passing the current exam at every license renewal.

What current exam? Memorizing answers and writing them down isn't a
test.

Oh, my, are you taking on the ENTIRE Academic Community now?

Last college-level course test I had required MEMORIZING
and WRITING THEM DOWN! Damn, all that work leading up to
it and it wasn't a "real" test!


You'd probably be weeded out pretty quickly.

I doubt it - if I couldn't pass an Extra theory exam - a real one, not
the nonsense that passes for one these days - I'd lose my job in a
second.

[getting Donald Trump wig] "You're fired!" :-)

So, Al, what did you get for a license? A BS-HAM?

Define "real test," show your work.

What if you addressed what I said when you answer me? Your dishonest
tactics are transparent.

WHAT "dishonest tactics," olde-tymer?

You've gotten rather self-righteous about "real" without giving
any real answers as to what defines "real."

You got stomped on, par for the newsgroup course. If you don't
like disagreements over your disagreeability, try another venue.


Quit putting words in my mouth. I wasn't complaining to anyone, and
we weren't discussing remembering 50 year old tests.

You WERE COMPLAINING...all about "today's tests are not 'real'".

Self-righteousness is readily transparent...


But if a practical exam is necessary for Morse Code, why isn't it
necessary for other modes?

Maybe we should have one - show the ability to put a clean PSK signal
on the air. Show the ability to interpret a waterfall display. Show
the ability to tell the difference between various digital modes. The
bands would be pretty QRM-free.

You did NOT answer Brian's question.

Does self-righteousness negate having to answer questions?


So you're in favor of exams that test knowledge of theory? "Draw the
schematic of ..."? "Explain why long path 2400 bps is impossible on
14 MHz"? That kind of relevance?

Or the "pick the answer with the resistor like we showed you in the
example" kind of relevance?

Now you are putting words in Brian's mouth. Tsk, tsk.

Explain how the VEs will love and embrace your collitch-level
AMATEUR radio license exam, needing hours per test applicant.

In case you hadn't been up to speed, the FCC does NOT normally
do any testing of either Commercial or amateur radio licenses.
That's been privatized.

If you wish to change AWAY from privatized testing, you have
ready access to the Proposal method with the FCC. They explain
the whole process.


All you
have to do now is memorize a few answers.

That's all you had to do then.

How do you draw a schematic and explain the functions of parts by
memorizing answers? You can't explain phase shift by memorizing "10k"
or "coil".

Gosh, olde-tymer, did the ham exams of a half century ago get
into vectors and phases? I had none of that in my First 'Phone
exam. I missed a collitch-final kind of exam? :-)


I used radios in the military. I never used a CW key in the military.
I never jammed another operator, although Brandywine asked me to reduce
power once.

But you had to learn how to use the radios.

I did?

They just gave you a radio and said "use it"?

Soldiers and Airmen weren't "given" radios. They were ISSUED them.
A half century ago you had damn well take CARE of them or you HAD
to pay for them! By the way, the FCC does NOT regulate federal
government radio use...the NTIA does that, for both federal folks
and military personnel use.

I can give you a brief summation of the "instruction" in using
an AN/PRC-6 HT: About 10 minutes, word of mouth and hands-on
"training." A VHF radio transceiver, it wasn't designed for
AMATEUR radio activities. It couldn't be...didn't have any
place to plug in a code key. :-)

I can easily remember the "training" on lots of other real radios
in the military plus a few more as a civilian working on DoD
contract projects. The AN/PRC-119 took a lot longer, especially
for the Hopset entry. [I had to learn it from its big TM] You
familiar with the PRC-119? A quarter-million of them have been
built. All the military branches have them.


When I was licensed you had to show an understanding of theory, by
answering questions that were more than just multiple choice from a
published answer pool.

Sunnuvagun! In 1956 one of the four parts I successfully
completed was MULTIPLE-CHOICE! How about that? :-)

But that was at an FCC Field Office. 80 miles away in Chicago.
No "conditionals" for Commercials then, senior. "Privatized
testing" would be a laughable subject in '56. :-)



I've listened to emergency responders on a scanner before. They don't
use Morse Code, they don't use CW. They use FM/Voice. Somehow they
are effective at it, not having taken a Morse Code test. How can this
be?

They were trained.

Not in Morse Code.

You must be sitting on oil. Can't you stick to a topic long enough to
be coherent? You were discussing how someone can be efficient at
voice commo, not in Morse.

I have no problem with understanding Brian...and I HAVE been
around radio communication for a rather long time. Try asking
me about "efficiency" or "throughput" on any mode, any radio
service.

Can you explain where all the other radio services got their
"training" in radio use? If any at all, that is. You can't
find any other radio service users who get NO "training"
whatsoever nor need anything but an equipment license to use
it? [I'm not talking about CB]


If you must retain a Morse Code Exam, then you must
also administer practical exams for SSB, FM, AM, FSTV, SSTV, RTTY
(which is pretty darned old), packet, PSK, etc.

I have no problem with that.

I daresay a whole bunch of VEs would argue with you after
spending HOURS separately with each test applicant for
one of those "realistic test" ideas of yours.


I'm advocating real testing for whatever mode. Right now the only
test is "do you have the fee, can you get to the testing place, and
have you memorized enough answers to pass". Let's have a test that
shows whether the testee knows anything. CW, APRS, AX25, PSK - all of
it. Or separate the licenses. You want to operate FM, you take a
test on FM and, if you pass, you get an FM license. Want to operate
SSB, you take a different test.

Not "want to get on the air? memorize some answers and pay your fee".

Tsk, tsk. Plan out a "real test" and then get an estimation
of the TIME it would take for each VE and each license
applicant. Remember that US amateur radio licensing is now
an ALL-VOLUNTEER process. Just WHO are you expecting to PAY
for all the equipment necessary to do your "real testing" on
ALL modes now allocated to US radio amateurs? Government?
VEs? Who will be responsible for their maintenance?

[this group has ALREADY beaten that subject to death in here]

You will have to Petition the FCC for a drastic change in
the number of "endorsements" to the various parts and classes.
You will have to get in touch with the VEC QPC to change the
number of written test questions.

I don't think you will do anything, just sit in here and blow
off steam like the usual self-righteous Olde-Tymer. Geez.

US amateur radio is "working DX on HF with CW." Know CW and
you don't need any theory or other BS. Ipso facto. [or
something fancy in Latin to show 'book-larnen'...:-) ]

Al Klein wrote:
The Conditional was whatever class was being tested for, but not at an
FCC office. It had nothing to do with the class, only with the
location.

On the contrary, the Conditional was the General Class
license given away from an FCC office. At the time I got
mine, the distance from an FCC office was set at 75 miles.
Quoting the 1957 ARRL License Manual: "The Conditional
Class license conveys privileges identical to those of
the General Class ..." which incidentally at the time,
was all amateur frequency operating privileges.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp