"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
"Bert Craig" wrote in message
et...
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Bert Craig" wrote in message
om...
Lets's save some bandwidth, snip!
I'm not talking about "knowing" the code, Bill. Very few people
actually "know" the code from preparing for and passing Element 1.
I'm
addressing the self-discipline required to accept the challenge and
meet the requirements to upgrade one's privileges rather than
complain
about how one never plans on using it.

Translation, I did it, so should everyone else.
Using your philosophy, the FCC should never change requirements...
even when a specific requirement no longer has justification.

That's not it at all. The fact is that Morse code IS the second most
popular
mode in use in the ARS today. IMHO, that in itself is sufficient
justification. Remember, we're talking about the 5-wpm test, NOT 13 0r
20.


Bert, if you're using popularity as a justification--and the test
questions
may have changed to inlcude this since I entered ham radio--then why are
there no questions or demonstration required during testing for the
*number
1* most popular mode of operation?

Because for 99.9% of ARO's, speach is a skill that's already in our toolbox
upon entry into the ARS.

Not that I am arguing against your desire to see CW stay as a test
element--that is your desire and I have no problem with it at all. But,
the
argument of popularity probably doesn't, in fact doesn't with me, hold
water
for importance--and can be turned around to my question above: why not
have
questions based on phone operation and also have the mode tested? A net
condition is easy to establish for testing, doesn't even really require
radio at all (it could be "pretended" in any room with more than one
person).

I understand, Kim...and I agree. Whatever the questions or "requirements"
are, bring 'em on. I'd be willing to make the effort to meet the
requirements for the desired privies.


No problem there and I don't oppose "knowledge" questions
about CW the mode. The issue is the stand alone skill test
for morse which is a separate pass fail element. NO other
mode is set on that pedestal.

Is this really an issue at 5-wpm, Bill?


For me, there is an issue at *any* speed for CW testing. It's validity
has
waned.

See the language post I pasted into my reply to Bill's post. I can
communicate effectively with my Japanese counterpart without actually
speaking Japanese. Let 'em try that on phone.


You are free to propose any changes you wish. Others already
have done so.

The changes I find acceptable are already in a RM proposal. I've sent
multiple letters and/or e-mails to my elected representatives, the
entire
ARRL leadership, and the FCC. That'll suffice for now, thanks.


heh heh...see...I haven't sent any, as the issue isn't that important to
me
and I can live with it either way. I really never intend on upgrading,
and
already 5 wpm. I leave the real meat of this issue to those who are that
passionate about it.

A reasonable stance.


You'd rather we continue mandating a skill test for a mode that
is all but totally gone from the world of radio communications
except within amateur use? Again, per my comment above,
NO other mode has its own unique test. That's the point.

YEAH BABY!!! You are THE BEST, Bill...thank you, thank you, thank you!
Yes,
I would very much "like to continue mandating a skill test for a mode
that
is all but gone from the world of radio communications EXCEPT WITHIN
AMATEUR
USE." Thats because it's a skill test for upgrading within, not entry
into,
the ARS and the mode is the second most popular mode in use in the ARS
today. Too easy, Bill.


Again, I point out that it would probably not be a plus for the FCC to
continue facilitating a CW test, when it is nearly only the ARS that has
it
in use today. I am not sure what costs are associated with administering
the CW test, but one must inlcude any time spent/wasted (depending on your
point of view) for the FCC, congresspersons, etc., to read and deal with
the
issue.

I agree that time and expenditure is at the heart of the FCC's support of
ending code testing.


So let me get this straight. You wantis some undefined,
unmeasurable amount of effort that the FCC should be
trying to have in place for any license level?

No Bill, I want a very defined (Element 1) very measurable (5-wpm)
effort
for two (Not any.) license levels.


I think it's OK to have two license levels. But, rather than a CW test,
I'd
support nearly anything else but a mode test--any mode. Written tests
suffice for any level of license.

Mee too, just can the published Q&A pools.


Irrelavent. The point is NOT the effort, and the FCC has
already chimed in on the. The test must exist or go based
on a clear and understood need for the knowledge. EFFORT
is not now and never has been recognized as a valid test requirement
determinator.

You mean the second most popular mode in use today doesn't rate as a
valid
test requirement determinator. Gee, we could have one for the first most
popular, SSB, but we already know how to talk. That's way the
stand-alone,
Bill. It's a learned skill that's an unknown coming in. (Unlike speech.)


Ruh roh...there you go again with the "second most popular mode." If that
is justification, then the first most popular mode needs to be tested, not
the second.

Bring it on.

Kim W5TIT

73 de Bert
WA2SI