RadioBanter - FISTS petition to the FCC

In article , Bob Brock
writes:

On 06 Sep 2003 11:22:30 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:

In article , Bob Brock
writes:

On 5 Sep 2003 10:57:03 -0700, (N2EY) wrote:

Bob Brock wrote in message
m...
On 05 Sep 2003 11:19:23 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:

In article , Bob Brock
writes:

On 05 Sep 2003 03:41:16 GMT, (WA8ULX) wrote:

I think that they should know what all those nifty buttons
actually do.

That's a problem, because many rigs have so many features and menus that
almost
nobody knows *all* of them. But if you're talking about basic operation and
operating practice, there's no reason it couldn't be done.

They should know how to enter into a conversation. A
list of "critical tasks" and "non-critical tasks" should be developed
and a person not be licensed until they can actually show competence
in those tasks. Those are the types of issues that I'd like to see
the ham community discussing rather than the endless code/no-code
debate that detracts from everything else.

Actually, this very idea was discussed here over 5 years ago. Here's what I
proposed:

(BEGIN QUOTE):

It seems to me that just dropping the code test would remove the last
vestige
of skills testing from the licensing process. Perhaps the code test should
be
replaced by a real practical operating test.

Such a test could work like this:

Two typical ham rigs are set up so that the operators of each one cannot see
or
hear each other. The rigs are connected to dummy loads which are located
adjacent to each other. (The idea is to permit a "contact" from one rig to
the
other, without putting much of a signal on the air). The testee and a VE sit
at
one rig, and another VE sits at the other. The testee is given a sealed
envelope and a few minutes to get familiar with the operation of the rig.
(The
operating instructions for the rig would be available at any time).

When the actual test begins, the testee opens the sealed envelope and a
timer
is started. Inside the envelope are a set of instructions telling the testee
to
go to a specific frequency and call the VE at the other rig, make contact,
and
send the enclosed formal message. The VE at the other end has a similar
sealed
envelope, but with a different message, which is to be received by the
testee.

The idea is to test the actual radio operating skills of the testee under
controlled conditions. There would be a time limit, too. (That's what the
timer
is for). The testee would have the choice of CW, voice or a digital mode for
the test.

Time limits and exact instructions would vary with the mode and the class of
license being tested. Higher class tests could have shorter time limits,
longer
messages, and more complicated instructions, such as having to change
frequency
at a certain point in the contact, having to pick the frequency from a list
that includes "wrong choices", etc.

Scoring would be on the basis of mistakes. If a word in the messages is
missing
or misspelled, that's a mistake. If nonstandard procedure or phonetics are
used, each deviation is a mistake. If the time limit is exceeded, each
minute
over the limit is a mistake. Exceed a certain number of mistakes and the
test
is failed. Asking for a repeat of a missed word would NOT be a mistake.

Typical exams (but not the exact exams themselves) would be available as
study
guides. Audiotapes of typical tests could be used for study as well.

Yes, it's a bit more complex than a straight code receiving test, and
requires
some equipment and two VEs to conduct it. (Perhaps the VE at the testee's
position isn't really needed). But it could be done quite easily, and in
such a
way as to test real operating skills. The rigs used need not have lots of
features, and QRP power levels would be more than adequate. Or a "rig
simulator" that's really a gussied-up intercom could be used.

Is there any real reason such testing could not be done? Is it expecting too
much that a prospective ham be able to pass such a test? I think not!

(END QUOTE)

That description was part of a longer post from June 19, 1998. For the
original, see:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...892%40ladder03.
news.aol.com&output=gplain

Note that one of the features of the test is that the person being tested
gets
to choose the mode used. Those who like Morse best can be tested using that
mode, etc.

I reposted the idea a few times but always got the same response from the
nocodetest folks: Opposition to the idea of ANY form of practical skills
test.

Well, I guess I'm an exception to the rule. I'd support exactly
something along those lines.

That makes two of us.

Have them set up a very simple radio
into dummy loads and actually have a conversation.

Better yet, have them handle a simple message so there is something measurable
and related to public service communication.

All of the name calling and false accusations from both sides makes us
look silly to those who read it.

That's true.

I'm really glad that it will be ending soon.

You know something we don't? FCC has been extremely slow in acting on
various
proposals over the past few years. The 2000 restructuring took almost two
years, start-to-finish.

Frankly, given the FCC's words in the Report and Order to 98-143 (the
restructuring), I'm surprised that Element 1 is still in place. FCC said
there
was "no regulatory purpose" for code testing *except* meeting the treaty
requirement. Treaty requirement is gone. Based on its own logic, FCC now
has
no
reason at all to keep Element 1. Yet they are going through the whole NPRM
cycle again. Why? Could it be they have changed their minds?

However the issue is decided, I doubt that all of the name calling and false
accusations will stop. You should see some of the names I've been called for
daring to disagree with some folks, and for pointing out their mistakes in
fact, logic and math.

Perhaps then, we can move on to more important issues.

Maybe - but given the resistance to my idea of 5+ years ago, I doubt it.

I don't know. Although the posts to the ng haven't changed over the
years, people and positions do change.

Maybe. From what I've seen, there's more change in the posts than in people's
positions.

I've had a few people post
dissatisfaction with the knowledge level of the current testing and
they seem to agree that the current tests allow people to be licensed
that don't know protocols or even how to set up and operate the
equipment.

Agreed! But I have also seen lots of stuff in the other direction. Check out
the flak I'm getting from the irony-impaired over the "Smith Chart Test" post.

The people that need convincing are the FCC, and from their actions over the
past 25+ years it looks to me like they are not about to improve the written
tests.

Your proposal sounds like a step in the right direction.

Thanks - but I imagine that W5YI and NCVEC would oppose it even more bitterly
than the code test.

I'm sure that not everyone will agree with performance based testing
in addition to a written test.

That's an understatement. Google up the responses I got from the above post.
Some of 'em aren't pretty.

However, perhaps a consensus could be reached.

Even if that happens, the FCC then has to be sold on the idea.

If a consensus was reached in the ham coumunity that testing was
inadequate at its current level, would selling the idea to them really
be that hard?

Probably - but I doubt we'd ever get a consensus anyway. FCC is into
deregulation; their actions speak louder than words.

Afterall, it hams who would have to bear the burden of
administering the additional test requirements.

And they complain loudest of all. Look at the NCVEC petition - they talk about
the code tests being a burden on the VEs. Huh? Play the tape, check the answer
sheets for 7 or more correct fillins or 25 correct characters. If that's a
"burden", what do you think NCVEC will say about having to have an actual
simulated QSO?

I don't think that
anyone wants to see people licensed to operate radios who don't know
the basics of setting them up and using them within established
protocols.

You'll get no argument from me on that idea, but you WILL get one from other
folks over whose protocols should be followed and what constitutes following
them.

So, how would we go about starting a movement towards perfromance
based testing? I would be willing to do what I could to help.

You could start by writing up a petition to the FCC suggesting replacement of
the code test with an operating skills test. Use my description if you want,
modiufy it, whatever. There are 8 petitions now, what could one more hurt?

The big stumbling blocks that I see a

- NCVEC will have a fit.
- Some hams will too.
- You need an objective testing and marking method that minimizes the need for
VE judgement
- You need to convince FCC that we really *need* this sort of test, and that
serious problems will result without it. (That's the toughest part.)

Good luck!

73 de Jim, N2EY