I do believe that the licence that the qualification would have earned in
the 60s was rendered defunct and transferred to the current version when
the tiered system was introduced. So yes, obsolete.

Ignorance is no defence .....

On Mon, 26 Aug 2013, Jerry Stuckle wrote:


Hmmm, I don't know about over there, but here in the U.S., the tests were
MUCH harder 42 years ago when I passed my Amateur Extra exam. Tests were
administered by FCC personnel, not volunteer examiners. The question pool
was not published, and you had to actually know and understand electronics
and the laws to pass it. In fact, I found the Amateur Extra to be harder
than either the Second or First Class Radiotelephone (commercial) test i had
passed 9 months earlier (back then you had to have General or above to test
for the Amateur Extra).

Nowadays here you can sit in class, memorize the answers and pass all of the
tests before going home for dinner.

I suspect it's subjective, people not having that vantage point.

I recently saw something in a more mainstream place about the test here in
Canada, and it was referred to as "hard". I find that hard to believe,
since when I took the test in 1972, it gave me full privilege except for
voice on HF. I had to draw some diagrams of simple equipment, and explain
what was going on. I don't really remember the written questions, I think
they were multiple choice. But I had no problem passing the test, except
I had to go back the next month to pass the code receiving test.

Now, the "starter" license doesn't allow one to build a transmitter, so
surely the test was simplified on that tradeoff.

But I guess someone coming into the hobby may see it as "hard" as I did
decades ago, simply because they have nothing to compare it to.

Of course, one difference was that I was actually interested in
electronics and radio, so I read everything I could get my hands on for
the year and a half before I took the test. I didn't really do much
studrying for the test, since at the time you had to be over 15 to take
the test, and I was 12 in 1972. But that rule was dropped in April of
1872, there was some warning, and I went and took the test as soon as I
could, May 1972. I think it would be a different thing if I thought the
test was burden to get over, and I set out to "pass the test" rather than
to learn things.

Michael VE2BVW

In article ,
Ian Jackson wrote:

In message , Stephen Thomas Cole
writes
Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Stephen Thomas Cole
writes
Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
Wymsey wrote:
On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 09:26:55 +0000, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

Someone please explain to the wally what provable lies about a person
can
lead to. I can't be bothered!

You can't be bothered, yet you're firing off replies all over the shop?
Looks like you're gotten to.


Libel 1: "The pirate 2E0WYM here"

Libel 2: "masquerading as a full licensee"

Libel 3: "cashing in an allegedly 40 year old RAE pass certificate
to dodge the current, rigorous Full Licence exam."


Chaz, you admitted that you dodged the Full exam by cashing in an old
pass
certificate.


Not only old, but also obsolete.

IIRC, the RAE pass certificate was valid for life. However, the morse
pass was only valid for 6 months, so if you didn't apply for a licence
within 6 months after passing the morse, you had to retake (and pass)
the test.

Obsolete insofar as it was a pass for a long defunct qualification. That
there existed some bizarre loophole that Charlie was able to exploit in
order to dodge sitting the Full exam is, frankly, outrageous.

Apart from having to go through the motions of obtaining Foundation and
Intermediate passes, an 'Advanced' pass isn't a higher qualification
than the RAE (or a HAREC) pass. Although OFCOM probably never foresaw
the possibility of some oddball coming forward after 40 years to claim
his prize - and so presumably wouldn't have made any provision for such,
I can see no real reason why an RAE pass should not be accepted.

Indeed, given the licensing terms at the time it would require
retrospective legislation to withdraw the RAE pass as a qualification.
Generally retrospective changes are avoided unless there is an important
reason they have to be made.

--

Percy Picacity

In article ,
Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Stephen Thomas Cole
writes
Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Stephen Thomas Cole
writes
Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
Wymsey wrote:
On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 09:26:55 +0000, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

Someone please explain to the wally what provable lies about a person
can
lead to. I can't be bothered!

You can't be bothered, yet you're firing off replies all over the shop?
Looks like you're gotten to.


Libel 1: "The pirate 2E0WYM here"

Libel 2: "masquerading as a full licensee"

Libel 3: "cashing in an allegedly 40 year old RAE pass certificate
to dodge the current, rigorous Full Licence exam."


Chaz, you admitted that you dodged the Full exam by cashing in an old
pass
certificate.


Not only old, but also obsolete.

IIRC, the RAE pass certificate was valid for life. However, the morse
pass was only valid for 6 months, so if you didn't apply for a licence
within 6 months after passing the morse, you had to retake (and pass)
the test.

Obsolete insofar as it was a pass for a long defunct qualification. That
there existed some bizarre loophole that Charlie was able to exploit in
order to dodge sitting the Full exam is, frankly, outrageous.

Apart from having to go through the motions of obtaining Foundation and
Intermediate passes, an 'Advanced' pass isn't a higher qualification than
the RAE (or a HAREC) pass.

No, they're the same, that I accept. What I don't accept is that Chaz has
been tested to any competency with regards to current licence conditions
and regulatory matters, as he dodged sitting the correct exam for his
callsign by cashing in a decades old bit of paper. Whilst the RAE may be a
perfectly thorough qualification, what relevance does a pass certificate
from a 40 year old RAE have on the current licence conditions that
competence must be demonstrated in?

Although OFCOM probably never foresaw the possibility of some oddball
coming forward after 40 years to claim his prize - and so presumably
wouldn't have made any provision for such, I can see no real reason why
an RAE pass should not be accepted.

I'm tempted to write to OFCOM and point out this loophole, truth be told.
This is a backdoor that needs to be locked shut, quick.

The direct implication of your suggestion, which will not be universally
welcomed, is that licensed amateurs should be retested regularly for the
same reason. In any case, I cannot think of any way in which the
requirements have become more onerous or significantly different;
rather the reverse.

--

Percy Picacity

Percy Picacity wrote:
In article ,
Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Stephen Thomas Cole
writes
Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Stephen Thomas Cole
writes
Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
Wymsey wrote:
On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 09:26:55 +0000, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

Someone please explain to the wally what provable lies about a person
can
lead to. I can't be bothered!

You can't be bothered, yet you're firing off replies all over the shop?
Looks like you're gotten to.


Libel 1: "The pirate 2E0WYM here"

Libel 2: "masquerading as a full licensee"

Libel 3: "cashing in an allegedly 40 year old RAE pass certificate
to dodge the current, rigorous Full Licence exam."


Chaz, you admitted that you dodged the Full exam by cashing in an old
pass
certificate.


Not only old, but also obsolete.

IIRC, the RAE pass certificate was valid for life. However, the morse
pass was only valid for 6 months, so if you didn't apply for a licence
within 6 months after passing the morse, you had to retake (and pass)
the test.

Obsolete insofar as it was a pass for a long defunct qualification. That
there existed some bizarre loophole that Charlie was able to exploit in
order to dodge sitting the Full exam is, frankly, outrageous.

Apart from having to go through the motions of obtaining Foundation and
Intermediate passes, an 'Advanced' pass isn't a higher qualification than
the RAE (or a HAREC) pass.

No, they're the same, that I accept. What I don't accept is that Chaz has
been tested to any competency with regards to current licence conditions
and regulatory matters, as he dodged sitting the correct exam for his
callsign by cashing in a decades old bit of paper. Whilst the RAE may be a
perfectly thorough qualification, what relevance does a pass certificate
from a 40 year old RAE have on the current licence conditions that
competence must be demonstrated in?

Although OFCOM probably never foresaw the possibility of some oddball
coming forward after 40 years to claim his prize - and so presumably
wouldn't have made any provision for such, I can see no real reason why
an RAE pass should not be accepted.

I'm tempted to write to OFCOM and point out this loophole, truth be told.
This is a backdoor that needs to be locked shut, quick.

The direct implication of your suggestion, which will not be universally
welcomed, is that licensed amateurs should be retested regularly for the
same reason.

That sounds like a perfectly reasonable idea to me. A "top up" test every 5
years to retain your licence would certainly help raise standards. The same
can be said for driving licences, whilst I'm I'm on my soapbox...

In any case, I cannot think of any way in which the
requirements have become more onerous or significantly different;
rather the reverse.

The fact is, though, that the licence conditions and regulatory matters
that are an integral part of the full licence are completely different to
those from the 1960s. By dodging the Full exam, Charlie has not
demonstrated competence in those areas as they pertain to the current
situation, yet his M0 call allows him to build equipment and run it at full
power.

Consider for a moment if Brian had done what Chaz has. There would be a
dozen people in ukra out for his blood over it.

--
If the above message is full of spelling mistakes or the snipping is duff,
it's probably because it was sent from my iPhone, likely whilst walking.
Apologies!

That sounds like a perfectly reasonable idea to me. A "top up" test every
5
years to retain your licence would certainly help raise standards.

I don't think we could stoop THAT low ......


The same
can be said for driving licences, whilst I'm I'm on my soapbox...

just ban mummin drivers...job done...


In any case, I cannot think of any way in which the
requirements have become more onerous or significantly different;
rather the reverse.

what about valves then? .... hammy mens should not be allowed to operate
valve equipment .....is that what you are saying? ...


The fact is, though, that the licence conditions and regulatory matters
that are an integral part of the full licence are completely different to
those from the 1960s. By dodging the Full exam, Charlie has not
demonstrated competence in those areas as they pertain to the current
situation, yet his M0 call allows him to build equipment and run it at
full
power.

Consider for a moment if Brian had done what Chaz has. There would be a
dozen people in ukra out for his blood over it.

naw ...he just became an M3 ........

On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 14:40:33 +0100, Percy Picacity wrote:

What I don't accept is that Chaz
has been tested to any competency with regards to current licence
conditions and regulatory matters, as he dodged sitting the correct
exam for his callsign by cashing in a decades old bit of paper. Whilst
the RAE may be a perfectly thorough qualification, what relevance does
a pass certificate from a 40 year old RAE have on the current licence
conditions that competence must be demonstrated in?

What STC does not realize is that I have the same qualifications as he
does plus a proper C & G qualification and decades of appropriate
experience. He really should do some research before he spouts off.

On 30th March 2007 I took the Foundation Examination and passed,
Candidate Number 17526.

On the same evening, 30th March 2007 I took the Intermediate Examination
and passed. Same Candidate Number.

His continual insulting behaviour is now terminally boring.

I suggest we close this thread and let him get on with it.

--
M0WYM
Sales @ radiowymsey
http://stores.ebay.co.uk/Sales-At-Radio-Wymsey/
http://sales-at-radio-wymsey.ebid.net/

Wymsey wrote:
On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 14:40:33 +0100, Percy Picacity wrote:

What I don't accept is that Chaz
has been tested to any competency with regards to current licence
conditions and regulatory matters, as he dodged sitting the correct
exam for his callsign by cashing in a decades old bit of paper. Whilst
the RAE may be a perfectly thorough qualification, what relevance does
a pass certificate from a 40 year old RAE have on the current licence
conditions that competence must be demonstrated in?

What STC does not realize is that I have the same qualifications as he
does plus a proper C & G qualification and decades of appropriate
experience. He really should do some research before he spouts off.

None of which are pertinent in demonstrating competence in the licence
conditions and regulatory matters that are germane to the licence class
that you now hold and operate under having cashed in your RAE 40 years
after the fact.


On 30th March 2007 I took the Foundation Examination and passed,
Candidate Number 17526.

On the same evening, 30th March 2007 I took the Intermediate Examination
and passed. Same Candidate Number.


So, you acknowledge that you have been tested and shown competent to
operate under your 2E0WYM call and no higher. Thank you.

His continual insulting behaviour is now terminally boring.


Says the guy following me around unn.* hurling insults at me.

I suggest we close this thread and let him get on with it.

I'm happy to walk away from this, my position having been vindicated.

--
If the above message is full of spelling mistakes or the snipping is duff,
it's probably because it was sent from my iPhone, likely whilst walking.
Apologies!

I'm happy to walk away from this, my position having been vindicated.


no such thing...

On 26/08/13 14:40, Percy Picacity wrote:

The direct implication......is that licensed amateurs should be retested regularly for the
same reason. In any case, I cannot think of any way in which the
requirements have become more onerous or significantly different;
rather the reverse.

About 3 years ago someone kindly posted in link to the sample paper on
the IRTS site - the 60 questions in 2 hours one.

I finished in 20 minutes with a score of 90%, let down through two
arithmetical errors and a lack of familiarity with the EI licence
conditions.

A real exam would have got me a HAREC, and the club-administered Morse
test would be simplicity itself. Two-letter EI call in prospect?

If regular re-testing was brought in, just think of the thousands of
lifetime FLs that would fail - but it won't happen, the income stream's
too much of a draw.

--
Spike