|
Forty Years Licensed
In article ,
Phil Kane wrote: On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 17:39:10 EDT, Bruce in Alaska wrote: I spent 5 years working for them, untill the ALGORE BloodLetting, that destroyed Field Operations as we knew it. That was the first time that I heard Internet Al blamed for it. I had always thought that it was Der Hundt, when The Congress laid the task of rewriting the Cable TV rules on the agency but refused to approve any more slots (money) for the reg-writers. and he looked around to see who was expendable. He had no understanding of what the field did, no matter how hard we tried, and so the blood-letting of the field started. The then-Bureau chief (Beverly Baker, one of my law school mentors) resigned rather than go through with it. She was replaced by a former Chief Recruiting Sergeant for the Marine Corps.... (no further comment) I took early-out 10 seconds after it was offered. That's how good morale was under that cloud 12 years ago. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net ALGORE was the guy who was incharge of the "Reinvention Of Government" movement under the Clinton Administration. The Commission was one of first agencies that got "ReInvented", and FOB was the first Bureau that got slashed. It was interesting that the total number of employees stayed fairly static thru the whole process..... $60K Engineers and $45K Field Techs, replaced with $120K Economists, and $100K Lawyers.... and this saved money, How? Oh well, I really enjoyed my time with the Commission, and the friends I made, and still have, some of whom are still there. Although fewer, each year. Bruce in alaska -- add path before @ |
Forty Years Licensed
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 10:29:37 EDT, Ralph E Lindberg
wrote: Some 20 years ago I had a job interview with the Regional Engineer, she was crowing about the $100K budget plus-up he just got, I didn't have the heart to tell him that I had a $100K pin money budget (as a minor project lead for the DoD) One year in the 1980s the annual budget for the FCC was less than DoD's expenditure for toilet paper. For enforcement budget and staffing shortfalls, we can thank JEdgar Hoover who made sure that enforcement activities of agencies other than his fiefdom were starved for funds. His legacy lives on. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net |
Forty Years Licensed
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 15:53:39 -0400, AF6AY wrote:
It's a cool late February weekday in the year 1956. I am 23 and a month out of active US Army duty, having spent the last three Army years in radio communications, I had decided to get a civilian commercial radio operator license two weeks prior. I've done the cram thing on over- drive, practically memorizing all of the looseleaf notebook FCC rules borrowed from a new friend at a broadcast station. I walk several blocks from the train station to the Federal Building in Chicago. I am alone, have never been walking in downtown Chicago before...but I am confident although a bit tired. The train ride was an hour and a half and the flat Illinois prarie boring as usual. The FCC Field Office is upstairs and I find it. Everything seems to be utilitarian-government. World War II ended 11 years prior and all federal offices look "war surplus" furnished. Three visible officials are brusque, bored, not effusive; i.e., it's like being back in the Army. Familiar. FCC guys are fussing with a paper-tape code machine Believe it or not, in 1974 I took my General code test on the same paper-tape code machine you saw the inspectors fussing with in 1956. The pitch jumped briefly about halfway through. Didn't faze most of us, but when the tape was over one of the guys being tested protested loudly & insisted on being tested again. Don't know if he passed on the second try. (the rest of us all passed on the first try, even with the jumping pitch) By the time I took the 20wpm for the Extra two years later, they were using a cheap portable cassette player. It worked, but most of the "soul" was missing. The train ride was from Milwaukee; I suspect the Federal Building was somewhat taller; and there was a Sears Tower along the walk from the train station, but I suspect it was a similar experience. |
Forty Years Licensed
On Oct 23, 7:24?am, Doug Smith W9WI wrote:
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 15:53:39 -0400, AF6AY wrote: Believe it or not, in 1974 I took my General code test on the same paper-tape code machine you saw the inspectors fussing with in 1956. Heh, heh, I'll bet the government-issue furniture was the same...:-) The pitch jumped briefly about halfway through. Didn't faze most of us, but when the tape was over one of the guys being tested protested loudly & insisted on being tested again. Don't know if he passed on the second try. (the rest of us all passed on the first try, even with the jumping pitch) I would insist the group would have to be interrupted by a fire drill... :-) By the time I took the 20wpm for the Extra two years later, they were using a cheap portable cassette player. It worked, but most of the "soul" was missing. Well, according to Phil Kane, money is the real soul of the FCC. I don't think it is that bad. I moved from the Midwest to California in November of 1956. The Field Office of the FCC is in Long Beach, CA, and that office doesn't look furnished in WWII-surplus. I rather like my local area's Communications Auxilliary. It seems to have been put in place some time around the Attack on America ("9/11"). The Old Firehouse had been replaced by the LAFD years ago by a larger station somewhat close by...to all intents and purposes it looked like an unused building. But, inside there is a converted bus as a mobile radio station and there is a permanent base station in the rear of the firehouse which can do HF to UHF comms. The LAFD is responsible for the Communications Auxilliary and they kindly let the VEC do test exams there. Seemed like the Old Firehouse is still kept up nicely as if it could house a regular crew of firemen. We couldn't get to inspect the Auxilliary's radio stuff but could see in through a window set in the door. From the listing of amateur radio test sites, I could have gone to a Denny's Restaurant reserved room near me or a private residence somewhat farther away. At a mile away, the Old Firehouse and on a Sunday afternoon was better. Getting a closer look at one of the Communications Auxilliary's stations was a plus. The train ride was from Milwaukee; I suspect the Federal Building was somewhat taller; and there was a Sears Tower along the walk from the train station, but I suspect it was a similar experience Heh, probably. I haven't been back to "The Loop" since then but been through Chicago Midway and, certainly, O'Hare, many a time since then, even a trip to Meigs Field right on the lakefront. But, 51 1/2 years ago I was just out of four years in the Army and could walk just about any distance needed. :-) I wouldn't think of trying that walk now. :-) One thing I remember being amazed at in a 2001 trip back to northern Illinois for the Big 50 Reunion of our high school class of '51 was that WMCW in Harvard, Illinois, was still operating. I worked there a few months in 1956 when it was literally a converted farmhouse. 500 W daylight only, it was "the voice of Boone, McHenry, and Walworth Counties" sitting just off a two-lane highway and I did the whole works as the only employee. The 'studio' was the old living room and the control room was converted from the former dining room. :-) The farmhouse is gone and the studios for WMCW are now 'downtown' in Harvard, a bigger wide place in the road than it was 45 years prior. Only the single vertical for 1600 KHz remains, where I once replaced a mandatory warning light bulb that had gone out as a favor to the station owner, Esther Blodgett (of Blodgett Broadcasters). 73, Len AF6AY |
Forty Years Licensed
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message 36... Klystron wrote in : Perhaps one of the reasons that many people believe that the old time tests were so much more difficult is that at the time, they were for the test taker! Some yougster taking a General test back in 1957 would indeed find the test hard. After a few decades of college, practical learning, work, and experience, and a look at the new tests, one can be excused in thinking that they are "easy", because after all the knowledge accumulation, they are easy. Precisely my experience! In my day to day work I picked up a LOT of electronics knowledge and experience. NOT to BRAG but one day in 1983 I just happened to be in Detroit. I just walked in and took the General test. The secretary looked up my Novice license and then gave me the General test and I upgraded to Tech Plus ( it ws just called TECH then). The hardest part of the exam for me was the parts rules and regs that were just arbitrary like Band limits and how many days you had to respond to a violation notice. Same with the EXTRA exam I took in 2000. Day to day working knowledge was more than enough to pass the exam. But not for everyone, and certainly the testing regimen should not be tailored to the highest denominator, so to speak. No I think the exam should have more questions to test not just hit the high points but also test the depth of the testee's knowledge, that is I think the exam should have more questions, not harder just more questions. |
Forty Years Licensed
Posted by Mike Coslo on Sun, 21 Oct 2007
22:54:39 EDT Klystron wrote in : You could get the same result, effectively, by increasing the size of the question pool. Just go from the present 8 or 10 to 1 ratio (pool size to test size) to something larger. It could be easily accomplished with the issuance of the next set of pools. And yet, it begs the question of *should* the tests be harder? And were they harder back in the day? This is an oft contentious issue that I think it is possible that memory might be playing a sort of trick on people. As an FYI on the tests up to mid-2007, I've counted the number of pool questions from my printout of the pools available in Februrary 2007: Technician pool had 392 (35 required). Ratio of pool to requred 11.20:1 General pool had 485 (35 required). Ratio of pool to required 13.86:1 Extra pool had 802 (50 required). Ratio of pool to required 16.04:1 The pools have gone beyond 10:1 by a fair margin...even if I've mis- counted slightly. My printouts (single spaced, both sides) FILL a 1" loose-leaf notebook. Some time back I showed the notebook to an acquaintance who is an aspiring actor, not a radio hobbyist. He is used to memorizing lines of a script and being as letter-perfect as possible, his lines as well as others in the same scene. His main comment went something like, "Holy ##$%&!!! You had to memorize all that?!?" :-) "No," I said, "Only certain things about regulations...theory and practice should be known enough to pass." Out of 120 questions, I missed 6 (counting the marks made by the VEC team leader) and am sure that 5 of those were on certain regulations like bandplan numbers and satellite operation. That was satisfactory to me with 95 percent correct. I've got a little chart of bandplans and don't expect to get to outer space to operate satellites. :-) 73, Len AF6AY |
Forty Years Licensed
AF6AY wrote:
As an FYI on the tests up to mid-2007, I've counted the number of pool questions from my printout of the pools available in Februrary 2007: Technician pool had 392 (35 required). Ratio of pool to requred 11.20:1 General pool had 485 (35 required). Ratio of pool to required 13.86:1 Extra pool had 802 (50 required). Ratio of pool to required 16.04:1 The pools have gone beyond 10:1 by a fair margin...even if I've mis- counted slightly. My printouts (single spaced, both sides) FILL a 1" loose-leaf notebook. Did you exclude from that count the questions that were later disqualified? When I took the tests, most of the questions about band edges had to be dropped because of the rule change. A few others were dropped due to errors or poor wording. I think the current pool size has been chosen to allow for a safety margin for the elimination of some erroneous questions. (I am currently studying for the GMDSS operator test and the worst questions on the amateur tests are worded better than a large number of these.) My figure of 8 or 10 pool questions to 1 test questions was very rough and not intended for 4 significant digit precision. However, other FCC test pools bring the average a bit closer to it, such as the GMDSS test pool (600 in pool, 100 on test). Some time back I showed the notebook to an acquaintance who is an aspiring actor, not a radio hobbyist. He is used to memorizing lines of a script and being as letter-perfect as possible, his lines as well as others in the same scene. His main comment went something like, "Holy ##$%&!!! You had to memorize all that?!?" :-) "No," I said, "Only certain things about regulations...theory and practice should be known enough to pass." Out of 120 questions, I missed 6 (counting the marks made by the VEC team leader) and am sure that 5 of those were on certain regulations like bandplan numbers and satellite operation. That was satisfactory to me with 95 percent correct. I've got a little chart of bandplans and don't expect to get to outer space to operate satellites. :-) Beat you. I got 100 on all three tests (amateur elements 2, 3 and 4). I will admit that there was some rote memorization involved, especially on the parts that I didn't know anything about (calculations involving imaginary numbers, for example). -- Klystron |
Forty Years Licensed
On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 19:53:24 EDT, AF6AY wrote:
I don't think it is that bad. I moved from the Midwest to California in November of 1956. The Field Office of the FCC is in Long Beach, CA, and that office doesn't look furnished in WWII-surplus. Until 1975 the LA office was in downtown LA, and its last location was on the top floor of the U S Courthouse. When the judges made them move, the deal was cut to move to Long Beach with G.I. 1960s-era furniture. It helped that one of the engineers there (a good friend and ham who rose to become the Western Regional Director but died much too young 15 years ago) was a superior surplus scrounger who found the newest-looking stuff. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net |
Forty Years Licensed
Klystron posted on Wed 24 Oct 2007 17:25
AF6AY wrote: As an FYI on the tests up to mid-2007, I've counted the number of pool questions from my printout of the pools available in Februrary 2007: Did you exclude from that count the questions that were later disqualified? I only counted the applicable pool questions. Yes, I also printed out the NCVEC website listing of question changes, but only as a very general reference, not to be used specifically for my 25 Feb 07 test. www.ncvec.org When I took the tests, most of the questions about band edges had to be dropped because of the rule change. A few others were dropped due to errors or poor wording. I took my test before an ARRL VEC team. The ARRL-supplied test question sheets had already excluded changed questions (and answers). Good security was practiced by the ARRL VEC team leader and the other three in the team, all materials for testing kept in a small padlocked carrying box. Scoring templates were translucent plastic sheets, blue and imprinted with the ARRL logo, if memory serves me correctly. My figure of 8 or 10 pool questions to 1 test questions was very rough and not intended for 4 significant digit precision. However, other FCC test pools bring the average a bit closer to it, such as the GMDSS test pool (600 in pool, 100 on test). After doing the total count of questions on my printout, I used a pocket calculator to derive the percentages. It has flexible significant digit settings and I used my standard setting of two significant digits in the fraction of percentages. I apologize if that offends anyone. [HP-32S II, cost $60 in 2001 off-the-shelf, just got an HP-35S, $60 still, the latest in the 35-year history of scientific pocket calculators, direct from HP on-line shop] GMDSS testing would be done in front of a COLEM since it is a Commercial radio license group. Different from the VEC. My First Class Radiotelephone (Commercial) Operator license test was taken at an FCC Field Office in Chicago, IL, 51 1/2 years ago. There were no COLEMs or VECs then and testing was not privatized. All commercial radiotelephone licenses were changed to the General Radiotelephone Operator License (GROL) much later and my First 'Phone was changed automatically to that. I kept that GROL renewed also until it became a lifetime license, no renewals required. I am not interested in obtaining any other commercial license now. Out of 120 questions, I missed 6 (counting the marks made by the VEC team leader) and am sure that 5 of those were on certain regulations like bandplan numbers and satellite operation. That was satisfactory to me with 95 percent correct. Beat you. I got 100 on all three tests (amateur elements 2, 3 and 4). I concentrated only on passing my three required test elements. I wasn't in 'competition' with anyone else but myself. The FCC sets the limits on the pass versus fail and the FCC grants the license. I passed. I mentioned my observed scoring only as an afterthought. The percentage of questions passed didn't seem to be logged by any in the VEC team. Scores aren't in the data- base from the FCC. I will admit that there was some rote memorization involved, especially on the parts that I didn't know anything about (calculations involving imaginary numbers, for example). Complex number quantities are not an absolute necessity in amateur radio...unless one wants to be successful in designing certain parts of radio and electronics or doing a more in-depth realization of what actually comprises impedance or admittance. I learned complex number quantities from a third- or fourth-hand used reference on mathematics given to me in 1959. [I still have it and use it as a refresher on other math from time to time] They are not hard to learn, just a bit strange to those who haven't yet gone beyond scalar quantities. Both the HP-32 and HP-35S will do complex number arithmetic as a built-in function on the keyboard and the HP-35S has a much larger program storage. I wish you well on your GMDSS test before a COLEM. 73, Len AF6AY |
Forty Years Licensed
AF6AY wrote:
Out of 120 questions, I missed 6 (counting the marks made by the VEC team leader) and am sure that 5 of those were on certain regulations like bandplan numbers and satellite operation. That was satisfactory to me with 95 percent correct. I've got a little chart of bandplans and don't expect to get to outer space to operate satellites. :-) Hi Len, The bandplan frequencies and satellite operations are a real issue with me. I always thought that better questions were available, since like you note, you look at a chart. I do too. At least with the band plans, the better question for the test would be to see if the testee knew where to look them up. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
Forty Years Licensed
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 14:34:11 EDT, Michael Coslo wrote:
At least with the band plans, the better question for the test would be to see if the testee knew where to look them up. Another approach would be to have a sample chart with the segments labeled by their emission designators, such as A1A or J3E, and ask for the segment allowed to Phone or Morse, or Data, etc. This would be independent of "real life" band plans or regulations, which are subject to frequent changes, and would test another phase of the knowledge of The Compleat Ham. The California Bar Exam does just that - they give you a set of laws and a fact pattern and you have to write something - an argument, a petition, etc based on those, not on "real life" which can be something different depending on the latest court cases. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net |
Forty Years Licensed
On Oct 26, 2:34 pm, Michael Coslo wrote:
AF6AY wrote: Out of 120 questions, I missed 6 (counting the marks made by the VEC team leader) and am sure that 5 of those were on certain regulations like bandplan numbers and satellite operation. The bandplan frequencies and satellite operations are a real issue with me. I always thought that better questions were available, since like you note, you look at a chart. I do too. At least with the band plans, the better question for the test would be to see if the testee knew where to look them up. With all due respect, I think there's a bit of terminology confusion here. In amateur radio use, "bandplan" refers to voluntary, suggested usage of frequencies, not regulations. For example, AM operation on 75 meters centers around 3885 kHz even though it is legal (for Region 2 Extras) to use AM anywhere from 3600 to 4000 kHz (as long as the sidebands are inside those limits). "Subbands" refers to the frequency limits in the regulations themselves, by mode, class of license, or both. For example, 'phone modes are not allowed from 3500 to 3600 kHz for any class of FCC-licensed radio amateur in Region 2. That CW/data-only subband is part of the regulations, not the bandplan. Or the rule that only Extras can use 3500 to 3525 kHz, etc. - regulations, not bandplan. Yes, some hams do use the term "bandplan" to refer to the regulations. But doing so leads to confusion, because the term usually means voluntary agreements, not regulations. Why not use the term that most clearly expresses the concept? On 160 meters there are no subbands by mode or license class, but there is a bandplan! Same for 30 meters. The problem with removing direct questions on the regs is that such an approach has a proven record of not working as a regulatory tool. Back when FCC licensed cb users, the license form required a signed statement that the licensee had read the regulations, understood them, and would follow them to the letter. Compliance with the regulations for that radio service turned out to be less than FCC anticipated, however. Putting specific questions on the regs in the tests is one way of saying that knowing those regs is important for all hams. If they are replaced by questions about "where do you look up the band edges" or some such, why can't the whole exam be replaced by such questions? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Forty Years Licensed
Michael Coslo posted on Fri, 26 Oct 2007 14:34:11 EDT
AF6AY wrote: Out of 120 questions, I missed 6 (counting the marks made by the VEC team leader) and am sure that 5 of those were on certain regulations like bandplan numbers and satellite operation. That was satisfactory to me with 95 percent correct. I've got a little chart of bandplans and don't expect to get to outer space to operate satellites. :-) Hi Len, The bandplan frequencies and satellite operations are a real issue with me. I always thought that better questions were available, since like you note, you look at a chart. I do too. Mike, I agree with you but don't see it as anything worth arguing about. At least with the band plans, the better question for the test would be to see if the testee knew where to look them up. That could be a solution. I'm still wondering about all those space questions, though. Like there's not going to be many DXepiditions to earth orbit specifically for radio amateurs.. :-) 73, Len AF6AY |
Forty Years Licensed
Phil Kane posted on Fri, 26 Oct 2007 16:08:04 EDT
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 14:34:11 EDT, Michael Coslo wrote: At least with the band plans, the better question for the test would be to see if the testee knew where to look them up. Another approach would be to have a sample chart with the segments labeled by their emission designators, such as A1A or J3E, and ask for the segment allowed to Phone or Morse, or Data, etc. This would be independent of "real life" band plans or regulations, which are subject to frequent changes, and would test another phase of the knowledge of The Compleat Ham. "Compleat Ham?" :-) 'Armour plated?' Or Farmer John? :-) The California Bar Exam does just that - they give you a set of laws and a fact pattern and you have to write something - an argument, a petition, etc based on those, not on "real life" which can be something different depending on the latest court cases. With all due respect, Phil, a Bar Examination is for a professional license, not an amateur radio license. No one is expecting the theory part to be taken from a state Professional Engineer license, yet that would be as applicable in the same sense, yes?. While there is so much hoo-hah about 'privatization' of amateur radio examinations, the NCVEC are all composed of licensed amateurs. They seem to have done good in the last two decades and one can communicate with them about what should be the questions. Could anyone but the FCC discuss things about the FCC amateur radio test questions before privatization? I ask because I was unaware that there was any possibility of suggesting anything about that before privatization. 73, Len AF6AY |
Forty Years Licensed
On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 01:13:50 EDT, AF6AY wrote:
With all due respect, Phil, a Bar Examination is for a professional license, not an amateur radio license. No one is expecting the theory part to be taken from a state Professional Engineer license, yet that would be as applicable in the same sense, yes?. I wasn't referring to the content level, but to the process of using and applying "given" information rather than "memory guesses". -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net |
Forty Years Licensed
On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 01:13:50 EDT, AF6AY wrote:
Could anyone but the FCC discuss things about the FCC amateur radio test questions before privatization? I ask because I was unaware that there was any possibility of suggesting anything about that before privatization. In real life the FCC exams were mode up by engineers who were knowledgeable in the fields being tested. I myself wrote several questions on television standards and measurements for the Radiotelephone First Class License revision in 1972. The questions on the amateur exams were composed by staff engineers who were active amateurs. Yes, there was a provision for input from the "outside" by writing a letter to the Examinations and Licensing Branch of the Field Operations Bureau with the suggestions. This was not a "secret" process, either, because lots of such letters were received and reviewed by the committee that was responsible for examination revisions. Some suggestions were accepted, others were rejected. My gripe with privatization is that these are functions that should be done by the FCC, not by others. Dumping them on someone else is not the proper way to solve the problems that existed. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net |
Forty Years Licensed
|
Forty Years Licensed
"Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... [snip] Thanks for the correction Jim. I should have stated that what I don't like on the tests is questions about what particular frequencies you are allowed to operate on by your class. Yet there are times such as mobile or portable operation that we don't have that band chart with us. So it's nice to know our frequencies. Of course taking into account the bandwidth of the transmitted signal, another question that would be better on the test than the simple statement of frequencies. I definitely agree that this should be a possible test question as one can be out of band simply due to the width of the signal. A lot of people don't understand this until they get "dinged" so to speak. When I teach a class, I try to emphasize this. Dee, N8UZE |
Forty Years Licensed
"Dee Flint" wrote in message ... "Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... [snip] Thanks for the correction Jim. I should have stated that what I don't like on the tests is questions about what particular frequencies you are allowed to operate on by your class. Yet there are times such as mobile or portable operation that we don't have that band chart with us. So it's nice to know our frequencies. how many mobiles will premit out of band op Dee? none of mine will only on HF can this be an issue since only hthere does the rules contiue the insanity ofparts of bands to deferent class (amoug the classes we still issue) Of course taking into account the bandwidth of the transmitted signal, another question that would be better on the test than the simple statement of frequencies. I definitely agree that this should be a possible test question as one can be out of band simply due to the width of the signal. A lot of people don't understand this until they get "dinged" so to speak. When I teach a class, I try to emphasize this. I thought it was such a question Dee, N8UZE |
Forty Years Licensed
"konstans" wrote in message
: : "Dee Flint" wrote in message : : ... : : : : : : "Michael Coslo" wrote in message : : : ... : : : : [snip] : : : : Thanks for the correction Jim. I should have stated : : : : that what I don't like on the tests is questions : : : : about what particular frequencies you are allowed : : : : to operate on by your class. : : : : : : : : : : Yet there are times such as mobile or portable : : : operation that we don't have that band chart with us. : : : So it's nice to know our frequencies. : : : : how many mobiles will premit out of band op Dee? none : : of mine will They can be programmed or modified to. For example my Icom IC-V82 2m handie will transmit anywhere from 136-174 MHz. This was apparently necessary to allow it to operate on the US 2m band 144-148 MHz. Here in Region 1 (UK) we only have 144-146 on 2m so so in order to keep the warranty intact, I asked the importers to modify it for the US band when I bought it, as I travel there on holiday regularly. They told me that opening it up to 134-174 was the only way it could be done, apparently the firmware in US versions that cover 144-148 only is different. 73 Ivor G6URP |
Forty Years Licensed
"konstans" wrote in message ... "Dee Flint" wrote in message ... "Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... [snip] Thanks for the correction Jim. I should have stated that what I don't like on the tests is questions about what particular frequencies you are allowed to operate on by your class. Yet there are times such as mobile or portable operation that we don't have that band chart with us. So it's nice to know our frequencies. how many mobiles will premit out of band op Dee? none of mine will All HF rigs that I have permit one to set and transmit SSB in the CW/Data portion. That is operating out of band. Happened to a lot of continental US folks last weekend in the CQ WW contest. I suppose they got excited and weren't paying attention to the frequency readout. only on HF can this be an issue since only hthere does the rules contiue the insanity ofparts of bands to deferent class (amoug the classes we still issue) You are overlooking the splits by mode. For example it is against FCC rules for continental US stations to transmit any voice mode in the CW/DATA portion. Of course taking into account the bandwidth of the transmitted signal, another question that would be better on the test than the simple statement of frequencies. I definitely agree that this should be a possible test question as one can be out of band simply due to the width of the signal. A lot of people don't understand this until they get "dinged" so to speak. When I teach a class, I try to emphasize this. I thought it was such a question Even if there is a question in the pool, it may not show up in an actual test. Basically the pool needs to contain several questions of this type to insure that one does show up on the actual test taken. Dee, N8UZE |
Forty Years Licensed
On Nov 1, 7:09 am, "Dee Flint" wrote:
All HF rigs that I have permit one to set and transmit SSB in the CW/Data portion. All the HF amateur rigs I have seen will also permit one to transmit data modes in the 'phone/image subbands, which is also against US regs. Some will permit things like too-wide-for-the-regs FM on HF, too. That is operating out of band. Happened to a lot of continental US folks last weekend in the CQ WW contest. I suppose they got excited and weren't paying attention to the frequency readout. Or they don't know the rules well enough to apply them all the time. For example it is against FCC rules for continental US stations to transmit any voice mode in the CW/DATA portion. Whether we like it or not, subbands-by-license-class are a reality for FCC-licensed amateurs. That's a reality which isn't going to change soon, because FCC has repeatedly denied all proposals to eliminate subbands-by-mode or subbands-by-license-class on the HF amateur radio bands. We might someday go to subbands-by-bandwidth, if someone can come up with a reasonable proposal, but the situation won't change much if that happens. We'll still have the case of 'you can't transmit that mode on this frequency'. There's also the fact that we US amateurs - all of us - are allowed by the regs to design, build, repair and modify our rigs, and they don't have to be formally type-accepted or certified. So it makes sense to require us to know the regs rather than expecting our rigs to prevent our mistakes. Even if there is a question in the pool, it may not show up in an actual test. Basically the pool needs to contain several questions of this type to insure that one does show up on the actual test taken. Even if the question shows up on the test, the person can get it wrong. IMHO, one of the fundamental weaknesses of the written tests today is that all subjects and questions are lumped together so that a person can have huge holes in their knowledge yet still pass. This is of particular concern because the holes can be in subjects like safety and regulations. I think it would be better if each test were broken down into subelements-by-subject, and marked in such a way that you'd need a passing grade in each subelement to pass the whole exam. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Forty Years Licensed
Dee Flint wrote:
Even if there is a question in the pool, it may not show up in an actual test. Basically the pool needs to contain several questions of this type to insure that one does show up on the actual test taken. Remember that the exam is built by choosing a given number of questions from each subelement. For example, there are four questions on the Tech exam from subelement 1, which is FCC Rules and station license responsibilities. When the pool was constructed one of the aspects was a weighting of the various topics. There are, for example, only two questions from subelement 7 (Operating in the field. Contests. Special events. Satellite operation). I don't envy the committee that formulated the pool. No matter what they come up with, a lot of folks will criticize it. A fine example of a thankless job. 73, Steve KB9X |
Forty Years Licensed
|
Forty Years Licensed
On Nov 1, 6:34?am, Steve Bonine wrote:
Dee Flint wrote: Even if there is a question in the pool, it may not show up in an actual test. Basically the pool needs to contain several questions of this type to insure that one does show up on the actual test taken. Remember that the exam is built by choosing a given number of questions from each subelement. For example, there are four questions on the Tech exam from subelement 1, which is FCC Rules and station license responsibilities. When the pool was constructed one of the aspects was a weighting of the various topics. There are, for example, only two questions from subelement 7 (Operating in the field. Contests. Special events. Satellite operation). I don't envy the committee that formulated the pool. No matter what they come up with, a lot of folks will criticize it. A fine example of a thankless job. Steve, I've got to agree with you 100% on that. :-) I did pause a moment to reflect on a few years of lots of folks' comments, on-line, off-line, in-print, in-person. There's some relationship to "instant gratification" that is a catch-phrase in all the complaints. As I sense it, all the "experienced experts" on everything want the TEST to prove all successful applicants become Instant Experts almost as good as the complainers. :-) The predecessors of the FCC and the FCC itself continued to use licensing (and tests for same) as a regulatory tool for their lawful charter of all US civil radio. It was never, ever intended to be any academic test good enough for award of a degree in a subject...yet so many others blur the distinct difference of an amateur radio license TEST verses expertise a la academia. Back when the FCC 'personally' tested radio operators, it was proclaimed a 'Real Test.' From expeience of many of my contemporaries, that 'reality' didn't exist. There was no way one could 'test' for radio equipment of 1956 to make anyone 'expert.' When the FCC revamped a lot of their work to include privatization - which included Frequency Coordinaton of many PLMRS users as well as amateur repeaters - it became a 'bad thing.' The TEST was no longer 'real' since all the questions and right-wrong answers were public...which came about through other political work, not the fact of privatization. I cannot see where the Volunteer Examiner Coordinator system is so 'bad.' It is composed of active fellow amateur radio licensees and I doubt that any of them could be considered dummies. That's better than having questions and answers thunk up by a faceless few at the FCC, ones whose primary task is radio regulation, not boosting amateur radio nor trying to get more licensees. All in all, I think the VEC QPC is doing a FINE job given their virtual free rein on what to ask in every test element. It is even better when one considers the first word in their description: Voluntary. Those on the Committee have guts as well as experience in volunteering for a sometimes thankless task. I salute their work and dedication (with all five fingers, properly) for keeping up that task for two decades (give or take). 73, Len AF6AY |
Forty Years Licensed
On Thu, 1 Nov 2007 13:51:51 EDT, Steve Bonine wrote:
I would like to see the flexibility in a piece of equipment that I just shelled out big bucks for to keep me from doing this, That separates the "Compleat Ham" who is in control of the station from the "appliance operator". while at the same time giving me the flexibility to program the segments that apply to my license class or if I take the rig to a different location where the rules are different. An interesting thought. Or maybe this is already a feature of the new rigs. I wouldn't know, not having bought any HF equipment in this century. I acquired an Elecraft K2/100 about 18 months ago. It has been augmented by the K3 now. Both are top-of-the-line HF rigs in kit or modular form (think of a Heathkit on steroids). Neither has the feature that you are describing. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net |
Forty Years Licensed
The new generation of HF transceivers -- the ones that have quite a bit of
computing ability built in -- do they have the ability to enforce sub-bands? Certainly they *could* have that ability, since they already "know" the band edges and in most cases won't allow you to transmit completely outside a band allocation, but why not support the next step and not allow SSB in the CW band? I should imagine that this facility would be easily added as a feature. But they never will. When I moved from the UK to Australia, I took my region 1 HF radios to region 3. I contacted Kenwood and Icom to find out if I could reprogram the band edges to allow use of the larger 40m band. Both were very helpful and told me how to "wide band" them, which fixed the problem. I found out that the radios were available in 3 versions. One for each region. And it was not possible to make one version into another without replacing ICs at the factory. If "mode sensitive" sub bands were programmed, every time someone moved, or a change in bandplan was brought in, it would be nessesary to go to the Yaecomwood dealership and ask to have the radio changed. An expensive, time consuming and unnecessary exercise :o) Besides. I wouldn't buy a radio that was restrictively programmed in a manner I wasn't able to undo. Just for the principle of it. -- Jack VK2CJC / MM0AXL FISTS #9666 CW Ops QRP Club #753 Mid North Coast Amateur Radio Group www.mncarg.org |
Forty Years Licensed
"Steve Bonine" wrote in message ... Dee Flint wrote: Even if there is a question in the pool, it may not show up in an actual test. Basically the pool needs to contain several questions of this type to insure that one does show up on the actual test taken. Remember that the exam is built by choosing a given number of questions from each subelement. For example, there are four questions on the Tech exam from subelement 1, which is FCC Rules and station license responsibilities. When the pool was constructed one of the aspects was a weighting of the various topics. There are, for example, only two questions from subelement 7 (Operating in the field. Contests. Special events. Satellite operation). I don't envy the committee that formulated the pool. No matter what they come up with, a lot of folks will criticize it. A fine example of a thankless job. 73, Steve KB9X Very true. Dee, N8UZE |
Forty Years Licensed
"Phil Kane" wrote in message ... On Thu, 1 Nov 2007 13:51:51 EDT, Steve Bonine wrote: I would like to see the flexibility in a piece of equipment that I just shelled out big bucks for to keep me from doing this, That separates the "Compleat Ham" who is in control of the station from the "appliance operator". while at the same time giving me the flexibility to program the segments that apply to my license class or if I take the rig to a different location where the rules are different. An interesting thought. Or maybe this is already a feature of the new rigs. I wouldn't know, not having bought any HF equipment in this century. You can program many new rigs to auto mode switch based on frequency but they also allow you override that auto mode at any time. Dee, N8UZE |
Forty Years Licensed
Jack VK2CJC wrote:
If "mode sensitive" sub bands were programmed, every time someone moved, or a change in bandplan was brought in, it would be nessesary to go to the Yaecomwood dealership and ask to have the radio changed. An expensive, time consuming and unnecessary exercise :o) Today's ham equipment has plenty of computing capacity to be able to handle band edges, sub-bands, and band plans. These rigs can be connected to a PC and programmed using software specific to the equipment. For example, it's common to program local repeaters (and not-so-local repeaters) into the memory of VHF/UHF rigs using the software on the owner's PC then downloading the information into the rig. It would be an easy programming effort to do the same kind of thing for HF. Let the owner pick a starting place, perhaps by ITU region, and modify it based on license class and/or personal preference. Essentially I'm asking for the capability to program the details of band plans into the rig and to easily change this information as desired. Besides. I wouldn't buy a radio that was restrictively programmed in a manner I wasn't able to undo. Just for the principle of it. No, neither would I (except that I've bought rigs that won't transmit outside of amateur allocations, presumably something that I could undo given proper motivation). But that's not at all what I am suggesting. For those of you who are upset with me as an "appliance operator", I don't see anything wrong with using available technology to keep me from doing something stupid. |
Forty Years Licensed
" The radio has to be set for "SSB" to use AFSK. The effect on the receiving end is identical to using FSK and so is a perfectly legal way to do RTTY.. If you put this as a "hard point" in the radio, you eliminate using AFSK for RTTY. Something along the lines of the "law of unintended consequences". Dee, N8UZE Indeed, it is also a problem if you use the HF set as the driver for a transverter to a band where the bandplan is entirely different. 73 Jeff |
Forty Years Licensed
On Nov 1, 12:51?pm, Steve Bonine wrote:
wrote: So it makes sense to require us to know the regs rather than expecting our rigs to prevent our mistakes. I agree with this, but it brought a question to my mind. The new generation of HF transceivers -- the ones that have quite a bit of computing ability built in -- do they have the ability to enforce sub-bands? I don't know of any that do, in terms of subbands-by-mode or subbands- by-license-class. But I don't think it would be a big feat of software engineering to have a lookup table that compared the mode selection with the transmit frequency, and allowed transmission only if the selection was in the lookup table. Certainly they *could* have that ability, since they already "know" the band edges and in most cases won't allow you to transmit completely outside a band allocation, but why not support the next step and not allow SSB in the CW band? As N8UZE points out, this would limit flexibility, because all sorts of "soundcard data modes" are often implemented by putting the rig in SSB mode and feeding audio into it. This may become less of a problem as more rigs incorporate data modes internally. (The Elecraft K3 can send and receive RTTY and PSK31 without a computer, monitor, or keyboard). I don't think that most folks who find themselves doing something stupid like using SSB outside of the US sub-bands do so because they don't know the regulations. They get caught up in the excitement of a contest or chasing DX or their mind slips out of gear, and when they realize what they've just done they feel about two inches tall. With all due respect, if someone forgets the regs by being caught up in the excitement, they really don't know them in a practical sense. I would like to see the flexibility in a piece of equipment that I just shelled out big bucks for to keep me from doing this, while at the same time giving me the flexibility to program the segments that apply to my license class or if I take the rig to a different location where the rules are different. The second problem is that, for flexibility, you'd have to include the ability to defeat/disable the feature. Which means it could be left in the off position unintentionally, and provide no protection. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Forty Years Licensed
"Steve Bonine" wrote in message [snip] : : For those of you who are upset with me as an "appliance : : operator", I don't see anything wrong with using : : available technology to keep me from doing something : : stupid. Your brain is available technology and has been around for a lot longer than computers ;-) Seriously, I know what you're saying and I sort of agree, but I wouldn't want to see anything forced on us. If you feel you may "do something stupid" without assistance, fine, for my part I prefer the flexibility of using my equipment how I want to, not how a computer tells me I should. 73 Ivor G6URP |
Forty Years Licensed
On Nov 2, 12:27?am, Steve Bonine wrote:
Jack VK2CJC wrote: Today's ham equipment has plenty of computing capacity to be able to handle band edges, sub-bands, and band plans. These rigs can be connected to a PC and programmed using software specific to the equipment. It would be an easy programming effort to do the same kind of thing for HF. I don't know how 'easy' it would be, but it could be done. The classic 'bell-the-cat' question is: who will do the actual work? Let the owner pick a starting place, perhaps by ITU region, and modify it based on license class and/or personal preference. Essentially I'm asking for the capability to program the details of band plans into the rig and to easily change this information as desired. Or, the rigmakers could offer downloadable firmware options. When the rules change, download an update. Some rigmakers, like TenTec and Elecraft, do this already. Another approach is that as SDRs become more popular, the feature would be part of the user interface. Besides. I wouldn't buy a radio that was restrictively programmed in a manner I wasn't able to undo. Just for the principle of it. No, neither would I (except that I've bought rigs that won't transmit outside of amateur allocations, presumably something that I could undo given proper motivation). But that's not at all what I am suggesting. Ultimately you'd want the ability to defeat the feature, in case the rig were sold or loaned to someone with a higher license class, or the rules changed, or you traveled somewhere with different rules. For those of you who are upset with me as an "appliance operator", I don't see anything wrong with using available technology to keep me from doing something stupid. I think it depends on the intent. It's one thing to build in features that prevent problems. For example, the power supplies of my non-QRP homebrew rigs built since 1980 have built-in time delay protection so that the high voltage cannot be applied until the final amplifier and rectifier tubes have had 60 seconds to warm up, and the bias supply is operating. That protection is not essential to the operation of the rig, but it has probably saved me from a few problems along the way. It's quite a different thing, IMHO, to build in features with the intent that the features remove the need for the licensed operator to know things, like the subband edges. IOW, the feature is a backup, not primary protection. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Forty Years Licensed
|
Forty Years Licensed
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1 In . com writes: On Nov 2, 12:27?am, Steve Bonine wrote: Jack VK2CJC wrote: Today's ham equipment has plenty of computing capacity to be able to handle band edges, sub-bands, and band plans. These rigs can be connected to a PC and programmed using software specific to the equipment. It would be an easy programming effort to do the same kind of thing for HF. I don't know how 'easy' it would be, but it could be done. The classic 'bell-the-cat' question is: who will do the actual work? Another angle on the same challenge would be who would be motivated to develop a vendor-independent standard, that would actually be widely adopted by vendors, to implement this? Witness the various permutations of DC power connectors (with amateur radio emergency groups driven to distraction trying to establish at least local standards). Witness the inability to develop working, vendor-independent, interoperable standards for high-speed radio modems (9600 baud and above) that could be found in commonly-available commercial amateur radio gear. Amateur radio equipment manufacturers appear to prefer to differentiate their products by unique, and unfortunately incompatible, means of interfacing and control, with few economic incentives to standardize with other brands. Let the owner pick a starting place, perhaps by ITU region, and modify it based on license class and/or personal preference. Essentially I'm asking for the capability to program the details of band plans into the rig and to easily change this information as desired. Or, the rigmakers could offer downloadable firmware options. When the rules change, download an update. Some rigmakers, like TenTec and Elecraft, do this already. Will your amateur radio that is programmed to recognize band edges and allowed modes be able to be modified via reasonably available tools and techniques for the indefinite future? Examples that may cause me to think otherwise include: - Most amateur radio equipment in the past couple of decades, for economic reasons, tends to use custom bit-masked EEPROM's to implement their internal programming, something that would not be economical to duplicate by third-party manufacturers. Though amateur radio equipment would seem to be covered by the Magnuson Moss Act (i.e., availability of parts on the open market for some period of time after the end of manufacture, preservation of warranty even if third party parts and service are used, etc.), I also recall letters to QST complaining about repair depots simply being unable to fix amateur radio equipment, some of which was less than 10 years old. - I recall a legal dust-up from some years ago, discussed on the newsgroups, where Motorola was cracking down on efforts to reverse-engineer radio interfaces and the software that is used to modify the configurations of their radios. Regardless of whether Motorola was taking a legally defensible position, if the software is proprietary, or unable to run on current computers, or otherwise unavailable or unusable in some way, you may be left holding the bag. Consider the problem with VCR's and the recent change in the start of Daylight Savings Time in the U.S., and no way to modify them. Another approach is that as SDRs become more popular, the feature would be part of the user interface. This would appear to offer more promise of future compatibility and programmability, though might still run afoul of legal problems with regard to reverse engineering or otherwise developing openly-published specifications and third-party software tools. Whether or not these positions would be legally defensible might not prevent manufacturers from attempting to chill the open market for these tools via intimidation tactics. Also, how long would it take for software-defined radios to propagate out to the amateur radio community in significant enough numbers to make a meaningful impact? Besides. I wouldn't buy a radio that was restrictively programmed in a manner I wasn't able to undo. Just for the principle of it. No, neither would I (except that I've bought rigs that won't transmit outside of amateur allocations, presumably something that I could undo given proper motivation). But that's not at all what I am suggesting. Ultimately you'd want the ability to defeat the feature, in case the rig were sold or loaned to someone with a higher license class, or the rules changed, or you traveled somewhere with different rules. For those of you who are upset with me as an "appliance operator", I don't see anything wrong with using available technology to keep me from doing something stupid. I think it depends on the intent. It's one thing to build in features that prevent problems. For example, the power supplies of my non-QRP homebrew rigs built since 1980 have built-in time delay protection so that the high voltage cannot be applied until the final amplifier and rectifier tubes have had 60 seconds to warm up, and the bias supply is operating. That protection is not essential to the operation of the rig, but it has probably saved me from a few problems along the way. It's quite a different thing, IMHO, to build in features with the intent that the features remove the need for the licensed operator to know things, like the subband edges. IOW, the feature is a backup, not primary protection. 73 de Jim, N2EY I think that's the important distinction. It's also related to a classic conundrum in developing safety systems in other fields. I would welcome an amateur radio that had fault protection to keep me from blowing the finals if I accidentally transmitted into no load or an infinite load. I'm not so sure about an amateur radio that would keep me from transmitting out of band or in an unauthorized mode if assumptions about what constituted "out of band" or "authorized mode" changes, or if I find myself in a true, bona-fide, communications emergency. The Usenet newsgroup comp.risks (aka, "Risks Digest") has touched on many of these types of issues. For example, while a rev-limiter on a motor would increase safety by preventing a blown engine, putting speed limiters on automobiles to keep them within speed limits may increase accidents by denying the necessary amount of power to get you out of a reasonably unanticipated emergency situation while passing or merging. An airplane whose controls would keep you from overstressing the airframe, or flying into restricted airspace, might also keep you from making appropriate emergency maneuvers, where landing alive with your crew and passengers, but with an airframe you have just end-of-lifed, or under fighter escort to be whisked off to a friendly interview with the authorities, might be far preferable to the alternatives. - - -- 73, Paul W. Schleck, K3FU http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/ Finger for PGP Public Key -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (SunOS) iD8DBQFHK5SL6Pj0az779o4RAqO+AJ9xxoDtAggjbx5/2VFmBJSHqmiibgCgxP/K RCO/Au67cS5M2dwZJsV0TUg= =Fvin -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Forty Years Licensed
On Nov 2, 2:04?pm, Phil Kane wrote:
On Fri, 2 Nov 2007 11:44:34 EDT, wrote: (The Elecraft K3 can send and receive RTTY and PSK31 without a computer, monitor, or keyboard). Couple of other modes, too. See the website - the manual is online now: www.elecraft.com Good trick. I can see using the front-panel display for the monitor but how does one input alphanumeric characters without a keyboard of sorts? You send Morse Code to the rig and it translates/encodes the Morse into the PSK31, RTTY, etc. Paddles are the usual input device. Built in, not an add-on device. The decoder is reputedly very good too, its only limitation being the limited display space. Then again, what do I know? I'm just as lowly K2 "appliance operator" ggg bwaahaahaaa.... 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Forty Years Licensed
On Nov 1, 1:09?pm, AF6AY wrote:
On Nov 1, 6:34?am, Steve Bonine wrote: Remember that the exam is built by choosing a given number of questions from each subelement. For example, there are four questions on the Tech exam from subelement 1, which is FCC Rules and station license responsibilities. Yet it is possible to get all four of those questions wrong and still pass the test. The result is a licensed amateur with big 'holes' in his/her knowledge of certain areas. I don't envy the committee that formulated the pool. No matter what they come up with, a lot of folks will criticize it. A fine example of a thankless job. The big question is whether the criticism is constructive, or just a form of complaining. IOW, does the critic offer a way to make the process better? The predecessors of the FCC and the FCC itself continued to use licensing (and tests for same) as a regulatory tool for their lawful charter of all US civil radio. It was never, ever intended to be any academic test good enough for award of a degree in a subject...yet so many others blur the distinct difference of an amateur radio license TEST verses expertise a la academia. Who are these people, making such claims, Len? It seems to me that one main purpose of license testing is to insure that the licensee knows enough about the thing being licensed for so that s/he can reasonably do what the license allows. For an amateur license, that means knowing the basics of amateur radio, in the form of technology, rules & regs, and operating practices. Most important is that the tests focus on what *amateurs* are allowed to do on the air, and how they typically do it. Experience and knowledge of other radio services may or may not be relevant. A Ph.D. in EE with multiple patents is not necessarily qualified to be a radio amateur if s/he doesn't know the amateur radio regulations. Back when the FCC 'personally' tested radio operators, it was proclaimed a 'Real Test.' From expeience of many of my contemporaries, that 'reality' didn't exist. From my personal experience, and from that of many of *my* contemporaries, that reality certainly did exist. Not that the tests for an amateur or commercial radio license were equivalent to what I later encountered in EE school, but they were real tests of what the licensee knew with regards to amateur radio. There was no way one could 'test' for radio equipment of 1956 to make anyone 'expert.' Agreed - but that wasn't the purpose. The tests were to see if the licensee had met a certain minimum level of knowledge and skill, not that the person was an expert. Anyone knowledgeable about Morse Code will tell you that even the old 1 minute solid copy 20 wpm Morse Code test wasn't "expert" level.....;-) When the FCC revamped a lot of their work to include privatization - which included Frequency Coordinaton of many PLMRS users as well as amateur repeaters - it became a 'bad thing.' The TEST was no longer 'real' since all the questions and right-wrong answers were public...which came about through other political work, not the fact of privatization. The question-and-answer pools became public knowledge in two steps. The first was the publication of the "Bash books" in the 1970s, whose information was gathered by means that, IMHO, clearly violated the law. But the top folks at FCC decided not to prosecute Dick Bash nor those who helped him, so the books made it possible for those willing to spend the money to see a pretty close replica of the actual exams. The second step was the creation of the Question Pool Committee and the VEC system in the early 1980s. This replaced the work of paid Federal government employees with that of unpaid amateur volunteers. I cannot see where the Volunteer Examiner Coordinator system is so 'bad.' I think the main criticism is not of the VEC system itself, but rather the fact that prospective licensees can see the exact questions and answers that will be on the test. In the pre-Bash-book days, a prospective licensee did not have access to the exact Q&A. There were study guides which indicated the general areas of information that would be on the test, and in some cases the test followed the study guide closely, but that was not the same thing as seeing the exact questions and answers. For example, the study guide showed some Ohm's Law problems in essay format. The actual test would show some Ohm's Law problems in multiple- choice format, but the prospective amateur did not know much else about the Ohm's Law problems on the test. The logical response in most cases was to learn enough Ohm's Law theory to be able to solve all sorts of problems in that subject. With the actual test questions available, it becomes possible to "study the test" rather than actually learning the material. In another thread in this NG, there have been discussions about using a class to teach the test rather than an understanding of the material. Which is better - learning and understanding the material, even at a basic level, or simply learning the test questions by rote memory, to be forgotten? It is composed of active fellow amateur radio licensees and I doubt that any of them could be considered dummies. That's better than having questions and answers thunk up by a faceless few at the FCC, ones whose primary task is radio regulation, not boosting amateur radio nor trying to get more licensees. Again, the perceived problem is not the VEC system itself, but the fact of public Q&A. Note too that the Question Pool Committee is, in practice, almost as much of a "faceless few" as the FCC was. VECs do not make up the questions and answers directly. Nor do they make any decisions on the process other than selecting specific questions for each exam, to insure randomness. They only proctor the exams. All in all, I think the VEC QPC is doing a FINE job given their virtual free rein on what to ask in every test element. I agree that within their limitations they are doing a good job. The problem is the limitations they have to work under. Those limitations are not of their doing. There have also been a few *documented* instances of irregularities in the administration of exams by specific VEC groups. (See FCC Enforcement Letters). It is even better when one considers the first word in their description: Voluntary. Those on the Committee have guts as well as experience in volunteering for a sometimes thankless task. I salute their work and dedication (with all five fingers, properly) for keeping up that task for two decades (give or take). It's good to see you saluting and thanking them, Len. Particularly considering your criticism of certain VECs in the past. What changed your mind? Volunteer examiners go back a lot longer than the 1980s. They date back at least to the 1930s, when the Class C license was created for those who lived too far from an FCC exam point, or who were disabled. Later (1954), all routine exams for Novice and Technician licenses, as well as the Conditional, were done by volunteer examiners. My first amateur radio license exams were given by a volunteer examiner, K3NYT, when I was a little past my 13th birthday. I realize now that it took him some time and effort to make the exam sessions possible for me. That Novice license of 1967 opened up the world of amateur radio to me, and led to a career in electrical engineering. And yes, I thanked him. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Forty Years Licensed
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:47 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com