No I am not doing a memorizing of each dit and dah and converting
method. My problem is my brain does not react fast enough to decide what
each character is before the next one is sent. I just get further
behind. I practice at least 20 to 30 minutes usually twice a day if not
more. I use computer programs and ARRL training CDs.

I will check "The Art and Skill of Radiotelegraphy". Thanks for the
encouragement.

C.



In article m,
"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

If you were memorizing the code, that was the problem. That's not the right
way to learn it. There's quite a bit of material out there on the internet
on the right way to learn code. For starters, work towards a reflex
reaction. i.e. Hear the sound, write the letter. Don't think about the
dots and dashes. Practice every day for 30 mintues per day EVERY day or
almost everyday. There are lots of computer programs out there you can
download from the internet and every person has their favorite. Set it for
an 18wpm character speed but 5wpm word speed. Try the G4FON program. It's
available for free on the internet. I apologize for not posting the website
but I don't happen to have it anymore.

Practicing once or twice a week won't get it. You fall too far backwards
between sessions. Memorizing dots and dashes and then trying to write the
letter slows you down so that you can't keep up.

Read "The Art and Skill of Radiotelegraphy". It's available for free on the
internet. The author did extensive research on how code should be studied.
The biggest problem is that too many people are told to use study methods
that hold a person back rather than move them forward. Another problem is
unrealistic expections. They see the whiz kids get it in a week and think
they should be able to do the same. They're the exception not the rule.

The code is far easier than most things that you have learned in life if you
find the correct way to study it and put in the amount of time needed.


If my General CSCE expires again (this will be #2) I will never take it
again and will have lost desire in a hobby that I grew up working in for
the last 39 years.......

C.

Don't give up. Work with modern training methods and you can do it.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Jim Hampton" wrote in
:

Please re-read Phil's reply again. You missed the point as to each
administration is free to do as they please. So far, the FCC has not
seen to eliminate the Morse requirement. Period.

73 from Rochester, NY
Jim



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.504 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 7/24/03




No I am well aware of that point. However, the FCCs implementation of
requiring a code test is different for Techs than it is for Generals and
Extras. Generals and Extras are required to pass Element 1, and Techs are
not. Access for Techs to the Novice HF subbands is __not__ conditioned on
passing Element 1, but only upon having "received credit for proficiency
in telegraphy in accordance with the international requirements" (from
rule 97.301(e)).

Given that s25.5 leaves it open for each administration to determine if a
code test is required, with no mention of any specific frequencies, the
only rule the FCC chooses to make for Tech HF access is 97.301(e), which
in turn includes the words "in accordance with international
requirements", i.e. in accordance with s25.5.

So, the FCC rule implies that a code test is required if s25.5 requires
it, and s25.5 says that a code test is required if the administration (the
FCC) requires it! This is a circular process, in fact one that could go
around in ever decreasing circles! Each rule appears to be conditional
upon the other! Obviously those who drafted the rules did not intend this,
but the ITU rule has changed in a way that was not anticipated.

It would seem to me that if two rules each require that a specific
condition must be met only if the other rule requires it, then in fact
that condition does not have to be met.

"C" wrote in message
...

No I am not doing a memorizing of each dit and dah and converting
method. My problem is my brain does not react fast enough to decide what
each character is before the next one is sent. I just get further
behind. I practice at least 20 to 30 minutes usually twice a day if not
more. I use computer programs and ARRL training CDs.

I will check "The Art and Skill of Radiotelegraphy". Thanks for the
encouragement.

C.

None of us could react fast enough at first. You are not alone. When you
are copying and miss a letter, just skip it and catch the next one. If you
let your mind focus on what you missed, you will then miss several others
that come after. DON'T TRY TO GET THE MISSED LETTER AT THAT TIME. Just
write an underscore and go on so that you don't miss following letters.
This takes a little practice by the way as we all want to be perfect so we
sit there and try to figure it out while falling further behind. If you get
a lot of blanks at first, that's OK. Just keep working on it.

When you take the test, you are allowed time to go back over your paper and
fill in what you think the missing material might be. Here is an example
(using an underscore for characters that you miss on the copy).

What you originally copied: NAM_ IS JO_N.
Now if you look back over your copy, fill in what you believe the missing
letters should be. In this case, the text sent was most likely: NAME IS
JOHN.
Then on the test questions, you will probably be asked the name and there
you have it right there on your paper.

When I took my extra code test (20wpm), I had a lot of underscores on my
paper but despite that I was able to successfully answer the country
question (it was Switzerland) even though I only had about half the letters
copied on my sheet.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Phil Kane wrote:
On 26 Jul 2003 04:49:22 GMT, Alun Palmer wrote:

OK Phil, read 97.301(e) and let us know how you understand it, parsing
each part carefully.

OK - I presume that you mean the following text, not the frequency
table:

(e) For a station having a control operator who has been
granted an operator license of Novice Class or Technician Class

This is self-explanatory.

and who has received credit for proficiency in telegraphy in
accordance with the international requirements.

The key to this discussion is, or course, "what are the
international requirements".

Up until the 2003 revision of S25.5 of the IRR, each Administration
was required to determine the proficiency of each applicant for a
license valid for operation below 30 MHz. In the US, this was done
by requiring the applicant to pass Element 1.

Upon the 2003 revision of S25.5 of the IRR, the requirement to
determine proficiency was made optional for each Administration.

That is the only change in the "international requirement" - each
Administration can now decide by its own rules/regulations whether
to require a code test. The code test is no longer mandatory for
each Administration. Each Administration's requirement for code
testing has not been automatically "dropped" or "eliminated" solely
by the revision of S25.5.

If it's OPTIONAL (on a country-by-country basis, but that doesn't matter; any
basis will do), then it's NOT A REQUIREMENT. One cannot comply with a
requirement that doesn't exist - and that's the problem.

Until the FCC changes the rules concering Element 1, the
requirement in the US remains that Element 1 must be passed.

But that's not the requirement. 47 CFR 97.301(e) made DIRECT REFERENCE to the
international requirement, not to "element 1 credit." Certainly, there's no
need to cite "element 1 credit" for the novice license!

If it had cited "element 1 credit" as the second requirement for technican
licenseholders (novice licenseholders already have it by definition in .501),
then I would agree that nothing had changed. But that's not how the FCC wrote
..301(e) and you know it! ;-)

The question of -when- and -how- the FCC Rules will be changed is a
separate item from -what- the rule requirement is up until they
-are- changed. Ditto for how the FCC will handle the issue of
giving -what- privileges to folks who hold a Technician license
but have never passed the code test.

I don't believe that's the correct question. It's not a matter of no-code
technicians now having HF privileges. It's a question of "coded techs" and
Novices having their HF privileges STRIPPED on account of one of the two
requirements now being untenable.

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003, Bill Sohl wrote:
"Keith" wrote in message
...
On 25 Jul 2003 22:56:38 GMT, (Michael Black)
wrote:

No, the rules are what counts, not some preamble.

The FCC rules are based on that international requirement.
Now the FCC could have said you must pass the 5 wpm test to operate on HF
frequencies. But they said based on the international proficiency
requirements
a tech can operate on HF.

Today there are no international proficiency requirements for morse code.

Actually, the new treaty sez each country can decide for itself.

....And that means that it is an OPTION, not a requirement.

A requirement cannot be bypassed like an option can.

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Phil Kane wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 10:16:05 -0500, Kim W5TIT wrote:
See?! I knew the argument would get very interesting! I wonder if
it will ever get debated in a court of law...man that would be good!

Nah...this will be short-circuited by the FCC changing the Rules
long before it could ever be brought to trial, and any competent
regulatory attorney in or out of the government service knows just
how to thusly delay such things.

But until the FCC acts to remove such a reference, that doesn't mean that it's
not operative in the meantime.

How does one comply with a requirement that doesn't exist?

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003, JJ wrote:
D. Stussy wrote:
The FCC, as a government agency, is bound by international treaty and law, and
here, the international law HAS CHANGED, so any regulation that refers to it
CAN (and in this case, HAS) been affected.

It's not "element 1 credit" by itself that determines a Technician class
licensee's operating privilege on HF. If it were, then I would agree that
nothing has changed - but that's simply not the situation here.

Suggest you read Phil Kane's posting on the subject. As he states, the
law has changed only in respect that each Administration can choose
themselves about the requirement for a code test. It does not mean that
the FCC has to abolish a code test. So like Phil says, nothing has
changed yet.

But if it's an OPTION for each country, it's NOT an international REQUIREMENT.

Words have definitions. These terms are self-evident.

How does one show compliance with a REQUIREMENT that does not exist?

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Alun Palmer wrote:
"Phil Kane" wrote in
.net:

On 26 Jul 2003 04:49:22 GMT, Alun Palmer wrote:

OK Phil, read 97.301(e) and let us know how you understand it, parsing
each part carefully.

OK - I presume that you mean the following text, not the frequency
table:

(e) For a station having a control operator who has been
granted an operator license of Novice Class or Technician Class

This is self-explanatory.

and who has received credit for proficiency in telegraphy in
accordance with the international requirements.

The key to this discussion is, or course, "what are the
international requirements".

Agreed


Up until the 2003 revision of S25.5 of the IRR, each Administration
was required to determine the proficiency of each applicant for a
license valid for operation below 30 MHz. In the US, this was done
by requiring the applicant to pass Element 1.

Upon the 2003 revision of S25.5 of the IRR, the requirement to
determine proficiency was made optional for each Administration.

That is the only change in the "international requirement" - each
Administration can now decide by its own rules/regulations whether
to require a code test. The code test is no longer mandatory for
each Administration. Each Administration's requirement for code
testing has not been automatically "dropped" or "eliminated" solely
by the revision of S25.5.


So far, so good

Until the FCC changes the rules concering Element 1, the
requirement in the US remains that Element 1 must be passed.


That's not what 301(e) says, though, is it?

The problem I have in your analysis is that 301(e) itself is one of the
rules concerning element 1. It mentions Element 1 per se nowhere, but
there is no other rule tying Technician HF privileges to Element 1.

This last statement of yours is indisputable re the General and Extra, in
that Element 1 is still required to obtain those licences. However, there
is nowhere in Part 97 any statement that a Technician needs Element 1 for
anything, instead there is only the wording in 97.301(e).

The question of -when- and -how- the FCC Rules will be changed is a
separate item from -what- the rule requirement is up until they
-are- changed.

Agreed

Ditto for how the FCC will handle the issue of
giving -what- privileges to folks who hold a Technician license
but have never passed the code test.

Does that answer your question?

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane
ARRL Volunteer Counsel

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon




Not really. The question comes down to the meaning of "and who has
received credit for proficiency in telegraphy in accordance with the
international requirements". If there is no international requirement to
have "received credit for proficiency in telegraphy" for access to any
frequency, then a person who has not "received credit for proficiency in
telegraphy" is "in accordance with the international requirements" if they
operate on those frequencies.

Can we deem that a Tech who has not "received credit for proficiency in
telegraphy" has nevertheless "received credit for proficiency in
accordance with the international requirements", i.e. is "in accordance
with the international requirements"?

I've taken exactly the opposite approach: IF there is no international
requirement (it's now OPTIONAL), then how can one show compliance with a
requirement that itself no longer exists? My answer is that one CANNOT be in
compliance with a non-existant requirement, and thus HF privileges defined in
..301(e) have been STRIPPED effective July 5, 2003 from those who previously
held them, not granted to those who didn't have them.

Granted that s25.5 as revised allows each administration to determine
whether a code test is required. That being the case, the FCC does so in
respect of Tech HF operation only through 97.301(e) and in no other rule.
If that rule is conditional upon a code test being required by
international requirements, then there is nothing therein indicating that
the FCC chooses to require a code test for that particular purpose.

Having a choice (regardless of whom holds the choice) means that it is an
OPTION, and options aren't requirements. A requirement means that there is no
choice; no option. These are OPPOSITES.

To cut a long story short, the argument rests upon whether "in accordance
with international requirements" is a necessary condition in the sentence.
If it is, then no-code Techs have the Novice HF frequencies*, and if not,
then they will have to wait. This is really what I am seeking comment on,
although all other observations are welcome.

What novice HF bands? Novice licenseholders are likewise affected despite the
fact that their licenses DO include element 1 credit, because that credit has
no bearing on the ability to use those bands. If element 1 were an important
fact, then 47 CFR 97.301(e) would have been written that way instead of making
reference to the "international requirement" [that no longer exists.]

*(Although possibly not until after ratification of the new treaty)

Ratification won't make a difference here. Rejection of the treaty might!

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Alun Palmer wrote:
"Bill Sohl" wrote in
:
"Keith" wrote in message
...
On 25 Jul 2003 22:56:38 GMT, (Michael Black)
wrote:

No, the rules are what counts, not some preamble.

The FCC rules are based on that international requirement.
Now the FCC could have said you must pass the 5 wpm test to operate on
HF frequencies. But they said based on the international proficiency
requirements a tech can operate on HF.

Today there are no international proficiency requirements for morse
code.

And before July, there was no specific "code speed"
international requirement...yet that didn't allow techs who
could do 2 wpm morse on HF...the FCC mandated 5 wpm
even though the ITU had no speed minimum.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

The rule includes the words "has received credit", which gives the FCC
control over what speed they will give credit for.

Receive credit for what? A requirement that no longer exists?

How does one demonstrate compliance with a non-existent requirement?

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Keith wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 10:36:26 -0600, JJ wrote:
It does not mean that
the FCC has to abolish a code test. So like Phil says, nothing has
changed yet.

Phil is not unbiased in this since he is part of the ARRL legal goons that
want to ram morse code down the throats of Americans so they can pick a
microphone to talk on HF. Read 97.301(e) it depends on the International
requirement for morse code proficiency. The requirement for morse code
proficiency is GONE.

Which means that NO ONE can be compliant with meeting the now non-existent
regulation, and therefore, no technician or novice licensee has any operating
privilege below 30MHz.