Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old July 20th 03, 03:22 AM
N2EY
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , "Phil Kane"
writes:

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 22:38:20 GMT, Dee D. Flint wrote:

Actually the fact that other services don't use it very much is a strong
argument to require hams to learn it. This is the place to preserve the
skill in case of need and to prevent this capability from becoming a lost
art. Plus of course the fact that quite a few hams do use it.


The original reason for requiring CW/Morse proficiency of amateur
operators was to ensure that they would be able to read signals
directed at their station by government stations who came up on the
amateur's frequency to tell them to leave the air because they were
interfering with the governemnt (usually Navy) communications - WW-I
era stuff.


OK, fine.

Everything else was superfluous - the need for "trained operators"
for CW/Morse circuits went away after WW-II.


Then why did the Navy (at least) keep training them, and to high levels of
proficiency?

Civil aviation CW went
away right after that war, too. Marine CW persisted another 60
years or so, but amateur radio operators were never trained nor
recruited to be the "reserve force" for the merchant marine'd Radio
Officers.


But then why was the FCC so hot for more code testing in the 1960s? From the
1930s to the 1960s a ham could get full privs with a 13 wpm code test. Yes, the
Extra and its 20 wpm code test was reintroduced in 1951, but then FCC gave all
privs to Generals so nobody had to get an Extra for full privileges. And in
fact very few did - in 1967, at the dawn of incentive licensing, there were
maybe 4000 Extras out of about 250,000 US hams.

At one point (1965), FCC proposed four code tests - 5, 13, 16, and 20 wpm. When
the dust settled it took 20 per to get a full privileges. Why was FCC so hopped
up on code testing back then?

73 de Jim, N2EY


  #2   Report Post  
Old July 20th 03, 02:39 PM
Brian
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article , "Phil Kane"
writes:

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 22:38:20 GMT, Dee D. Flint wrote:

Actually the fact that other services don't use it very much is a strong
argument to require hams to learn it. This is the place to preserve the
skill in case of need and to prevent this capability from becoming a lost
art. Plus of course the fact that quite a few hams do use it.


The original reason for requiring CW/Morse proficiency of amateur
operators was to ensure that they would be able to read signals
directed at their station by government stations who came up on the
amateur's frequency to tell them to leave the air because they were
interfering with the governemnt (usually Navy) communications - WW-I
era stuff.


OK, fine.

Everything else was superfluous - the need for "trained operators"
for CW/Morse circuits went away after WW-II.


Then why did the Navy (at least) keep training them, and to high levels of
proficiency?

Civil aviation CW went
away right after that war, too. Marine CW persisted another 60
years or so, but amateur radio operators were never trained nor
recruited to be the "reserve force" for the merchant marine'd Radio
Officers.


But then why was the FCC so hot for more code testing in the 1960s? From the
1930s to the 1960s a ham could get full privs with a 13 wpm code test. Yes, the
Extra and its 20 wpm code test was reintroduced in 1951, but then FCC gave all
privs to Generals so nobody had to get an Extra for full privileges. And in
fact very few did - in 1967, at the dawn of incentive licensing, there were
maybe 4000 Extras out of about 250,000 US hams.

At one point (1965), FCC proposed four code tests - 5, 13, 16, and 20 wpm. When
the dust settled it took 20 per to get a full privileges. Why was FCC so hopped
up on code testing back then?

73 de Jim, N2EY


Jim, the FCC probably had some misguided ham employee pushing Morse.

Brian
  #3   Report Post  
Old July 21st 03, 04:13 AM
Hans Kohb
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"N2EY" wrote


Then why did the Navy (at least) keep training them, and to high levels of
proficiency?


Because until about 1960, most of the "small boys" (destroyers,
submarines, frigates, and fleet tugs) still used Morse for passing
traffic ashore. With the advent of Orestes (covered Baudot) in these
hulls, about 1963, the widespread training of Navy Morse code operators
ceased. After that point, each ship had a complement of 2 or 3 Morse
capable operators "just in case" until the late 70's when even that
modest capability was no longer maintained. We're talking about a
quarter century ago!


But then why was the FCC so hot for more code testing in the 1960s?


Because ARRL had the ear of FCC minions like Johnny Johnston, et. al.
In that same era others at FCC were pushing a "dual ladder" licensing
structure
with 4 or five levels of progressively more technical no-code or
minimal-code "VHF/UHF Communicator" licensees. ARRL didn't think these
guys would be "real hams" and used their "inside guys" at FCC to squash
such progressive thinking.

73, de Hans, K0HB


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1380 – January 23, 2004 Radionews Dx 0 January 30th 04 09:55 AM
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1379 – January 16, 2004 Radionews Dx 0 January 18th 04 09:34 PM
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1366 ­ October 17 2003 Radionews Dx 0 October 17th 03 06:51 PM
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1366 ­ October 17 2003 Radionews Dx 0 October 17th 03 06:51 PM
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1353 – July 18, 2003 Radionews General 0 July 19th 03 05:06 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:30 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017