Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
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 @ |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
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 - |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
shorty forty (G5RV) little brother | Antenna | |||
FA: FORTY(40) NOS HITACHI J56 POWER MOSFET TRANSISTORS T-03 | Equipment | |||
FA: FORTY(40) NOS HITACHI J56 POWER MOSFET TRANSISTORS>T-03 | Equipment | |||
60S TOP FORTY RADIO RETURNS | Broadcasting | |||
Does this Shorty Forty Antenna work? | Antenna |