On Jan 7, 1:01�pm, Jeffrey D Angus wrote:
wrote:
On Jan 7, 11:16 am, Jeffrey D Angus wrote:
wrote:

Suppose that in 1980 someone had developed a wonderful new way to learn
Morse Code that would take a typical person from 0 to 25 wpm in 1 hour,
simply by watching a videotape.

Do you think the code tests would still have been an issue?

I'm certain that they would. All those that passed via that method of
learning would be scorned as "Drive-thru" Licensees. The standard
comments built on the "But 'real hams'" had to...." mindset.

That is - most unfortunately - true. I was reminded again of my
"license gotten by sending in some cereal box tops" this morning. Once
I had accomplished my morning communication, I just shut down. Nobody
needs that sort of attitude.

Prior to the Novice license, the easiest way to get on the air with a
limited budget and skill set was to make a simple CW transmitter. Of
course, to be able to use it, you're going to have to be able to send
and receive Morse code, unless the only QSL cards you want to receive
are from OO's and / or the FCC.

Yes, you could get your ticket, throw your key away and buy phone stuff
but it was still easier to just get on the air with Morse code.

The Novice license was introduced as a way to get on the air with a
limited skill set, and spend time ON THE AIR to give you the incentive
to upgrade your skills with the promise of frequency agility and phone
operation when you upgraded.

Or, at least in the last decade, legally take all tests in one test
session and get the "highest" class license. shrug

I know, and the FAA still uses CW to ID beacons. But the write things
like ".-.. .- -..-" on the maps right next to LAX rather than force
pilots to learn Morse code.

I passed my FAA general aviation written test in 1964 at VNY. There was
no question on that test in regards to any morse code. Back then the
standard method of radionavigation was by VOR (Vhf Omnidirection radio
Range) that did not use a precise singular azimuth of the pre-WWII "A-N"
beacons that were the cause of many early aircraft missed-navigation
errors. One can rather easily triangulate a position over the ground
using just the bearing information from two VORs. That is still there
today.

And if I remember right, joining the military (as an example) didn't
require you to learn code to use a rifle. If you wanted to learn code
and get a different job, that was up to you.

Well, as a vountary enlistee in the U.S. Army in 1952, we didn't have
much choice at all as to assignment. Also we ALL HAD to know how to
"use a rifle." Period. All.

I just can't see inter agency communications between police, fire,
medical �and the Red Cross being handled by some guy wearing a
celluloid eye shade, sleeve garters and hunched over a code key. *

Why not?

Because human life and safety is _dependent_ on quick and accurate
communications. By ANYONE.

Absolutely true! I could expound on that from personal experience but
that would probably be deleted...as has happened before. :-)

However, as I suspected, the discussion has drifted into the standard
"People that haven't had to learn code like *I* did, or "make the
effort" (as it is sometimes referred to) are somehow less than real
hams."

That is endemic in USA amateur radio. Unfortunate for the radio service
and trying to bring in anyone. My first exposure to the BIG World of
radio came in early 1953 (56 7/8 years ago, give or take). I only pull
out that factoid to show where I'm coming from, not to say I'm "better
than anyone." :-)

I've discovered that nothing of my exposure or experience is "good
enough" for amateur radio or their long-timers. ??? :-)

73, Len K6LHA