"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

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

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

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? 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 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. 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.

Or maybe this is already a feature of the new rigs. I wouldn't know,
not having bought any HF equipment in this century.

73, Steve KB9X

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

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

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 )

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

"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

"Steve Bonine" wrote in message
...
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? 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?


This will cause a problem for those who use AFSK for RTTY rather than FSK.

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

"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