Count Floyd CountFloyd@MonsterChillerHorrorTheater wrote:
Yes, that's the ticket, back to the past. As if enough people weren't
abandoning ham radio already. I have never thought that code was
essential. It is just another "hoop" that someone has to jump
through. Once I passed the code test, I never used it again. Get
real, this is 2006, and with all the innovations on the radio
spectrum, code is the last thing on people's minds.

Well, if that's the case, why not test them on use of the new innovations?

How about making them demonstrate competence operating five different
modes of their choice? They can choose between HF SSB, VHF/UHF FM, CW,
SSTV, fax, RTTY, packet, what have you. That way folks who want to learn
code and might use code have an advantage, but folks who can type 130 wpm
also have an advantage...
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 22:46:20 UTC, (Scott Dorsey)
wrote:

Count Floyd CountFloyd@MonsterChillerHorrorTheater wrote:
Yes, that's the ticket, back to the past. As if enough people weren't
abandoning ham radio already. I have never thought that code was
essential. It is just another "hoop" that someone has to jump
through. Once I passed the code test, I never used it again. Get
real, this is 2006, and with all the innovations on the radio
spectrum, code is the last thing on people's minds.

Well, if that's the case, why not test them on use of the new innovations?

How about making them demonstrate competence operating five different
modes of their choice? They can choose between HF SSB, VHF/UHF FM, CW,
SSTV, fax, RTTY, packet, what have you. That way folks who want to learn
code and might use code have an advantage, but folks who can type 130 wpm
also have an advantage...
--scott
Scott,
I agree with you! It is organizations like ARRL who continue to
insist on Code! Keep up with the times and test over what is current
and actually being used. I have a restored 1940 Chrysler but I also
have a 2005 PT Cruiser with A/C and all the options. I enjoy the
1940, but I would not take it on a cross-country trip.

--
"What do you mean there's no movie?"

Count Floyd CountFloyd@MonsterChillerHorrorTheater wrote:
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 22:46:20 UTC, (Scott Dorsey)
wrote:

How about making them demonstrate competence operating five different
modes of their choice? They can choose between HF SSB, VHF/UHF FM, CW,
SSTV, fax, RTTY, packet, what have you. That way folks who want to learn
code and might use code have an advantage, but folks who can type 130 wpm
also have an advantage...

I agree with you! It is organizations like ARRL who continue to
insist on Code! Keep up with the times and test over what is current
and actually being used. I have a restored 1940 Chrysler but I also
have a 2005 PT Cruiser with A/C and all the options. I enjoy the
1940, but I would not take it on a cross-country trip.

Well, the argument is that you have to do _something_ to ensure that people
licensed are competent operators and have some usable skills. I think the
code requirement is not the best way of doing that, but it's better than
nothing. The only alternative I ever seen proposed is just that, nothing.

So, I am in favor of dropping the code requirement, IF it can be replaced
with something else that helps ensure licensed operators are competent and
skilled.
--scott

But then, I _would_ take a 1940 Chrysler cross-country.
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 14:34:17 UTC, (Scott Dorsey)
wrote:

Count Floyd CountFloyd@MonsterChillerHorrorTheater wrote:
On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 22:46:20 UTC, (Scott Dorsey)
wrote:

How about making them demonstrate competence operating five different
modes of their choice? They can choose between HF SSB, VHF/UHF FM, CW,
SSTV, fax, RTTY, packet, what have you. That way folks who want to learn
code and might use code have an advantage, but folks who can type 130 wpm
also have an advantage...

I agree with you! It is organizations like ARRL who continue to
insist on Code! Keep up with the times and test over what is current
and actually being used. I have a restored 1940 Chrysler but I also
have a 2005 PT Cruiser with A/C and all the options. I enjoy the
1940, but I would not take it on a cross-country trip.

Well, the argument is that you have to do _something_ to ensure that people
licensed are competent operators and have some usable skills. I think the
code requirement is not the best way of doing that, but it's better than
nothing. The only alternative I ever seen proposed is just that, nothing.

So, I am in favor of dropping the code requirement, IF it can be replaced
with something else that helps ensure licensed operators are competent and
skilled.
--scott

But then, I _would_ take a 1940 Chrysler cross-country.

Scott,
I took the 1940 Royal Coupe on a mini-cross country trip here in
Florida, managed 60-65 with the overdrive, the original factory AM
radio pulling in at least 10 states, remember those days! Got about
19-21mpg with the old flathead 6, but the 2/60 A/C wasn't really up to
snuff. Once I opened the cowl vent and the vent windows turned all
the way in on us, it became tolerable. Waiting for the winter months
here in Florida to really enjoy the old car.
"What do you mean there's no movie?"