wrote in message
ups.com...
Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Bill Sohl wrote:
I really have no problem with an experience criteria
(e.g.a time interval between General and Extra).

Nor I, but it would make more work for FCC. Right now
anyone can go from any license class or no license at all
to Extra in one exam session. An experience requirement
would mean that many hams would need at least two exam
sessions and two FCC paperwork cycles to get to Extra.
More admin work = not something FCC would like.

Any idea what percent of people actually pass both
the General and the Extra in one session?

Probably a considerable number. The number of Generals is pretty stable
while the number of Extras just keeps growing.

Note too that for one VE fee you get one chance at every element you
haven't already passed. If someone goes to a VE session for General,
there's no harm or cost (except time) if they try the Extra while
they're at it. I've known more than a few hams who went to a VE session
intending on the General and who came home with an Extra.

Not a new thing, either. Way back in 1968, when I went to the FCC
office at 2nd & Chestnut to take the General, the examiner suggested
that I try the Advanced while I was there. No additional cost and since
I had the General in the bag, it would actually save him some work in
the future. A 14-year-old with any sense at all did not say "no" to The
Man, so I tried the Advanced written, and passed.

I suspect the number is relatively small.

Check the AH0A site under "new licenses".
While most hams start out as Techs,
every month a small but not negligible
number go straight to General or Extra.

That's my question, how small is that number?
Also, the AH0A site doesn't truly indicate if
someone went immediately from Tech to Extra
at the same VE session so the ability to determine
how many did so via AH0A stats isn't accurate

It's impossible to accurately determine *upgrades* from AH0A's
numbers. An upgrade is classed as a modification, same as an address
or name change.

But if you look at the number of new licenses, it's clear that at least
some
new hams bypass Tech and go straight for General or Extra. AH0A's
numbers only count as "new" licenses where the licensee was not
in the database at all during the previous month.

Of course some "new" licenses are actually "retread" hams, who let
their licenses lapse for whatever reason and now are back.

Regardless of the number,
I doubt FCC would bring back the experience
requirement after 30 years without one.
Particularly since they'd have to enforce it.

What's to enforce? All it comes down to is license issuing.

Seems all the FCC need do is not allow the upgrade unless
the applicant has 'N' years of elapsed time since getting their
General. The FCC database system could automatically
withhold issuing the Extra unless the time interval is elapsed.
It could even be automatic so the person might pass their
Extra at some point and the FCC system having been notified
of the person passing Extra would then be updated and at
the elapsed time interval, the FCC could then automatically
issue the Extra upgrade. Just some basic software application
reprograming as I see it.

Actually the enforcement would fall upon the VEs anyway. They'd
be required to only give the Extra test to those who could show
a General or Advanced license that had been issued at least
X amount of time previously. Form 605 could be changed so
that you'd have to indicate the effective date of the General, etc.

Why should an applicant be prohibited from taking and passing
the test? The time interval should be limiting the actual
license issuance...not serve as a roadblock to taking the
test at any time.

So it really wouldn't be an FCC enforcement thing at all.

OTOH, it would increase FCC admin work slightly because they'd
have more upgrades to process.

The big hurdle would be selling FCC on the idea that an experience
requirement is needed, after 30 years without one. That selling job
would rival convincing them that a 5 wpm code test is still
needed.......;-)

We'll likly never know :-)

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK