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

wrote:
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.

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.

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?


That is kind of slippery sloping my point. Knowing that we are supposed
to ID at certain intervals, or what a wavelength is, or what unit is
used to describe electrical power (all questions from the Technicians
test) are things that require some knowledge, and simply knowing where
to look them up would be troublesome and time consuming in a real time
situation if one had no knowledge of what they were - or even what, in
which case knowing would not be possible.

While printing out that nice little chart from ARRL and posting it by
the rig is simple to the point, and can be looked at before transmitting
to make sure you are within the limits.

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.


- 73 d eMike KB3EIA -

"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

"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

"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

"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

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

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

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