In article , Bob Brock
writes:

I'm
here to see if the ham community will then move on to something really
important like revising the written tests and the test pools so that
when someone passes the test, they actually know how to use a radio,
set up or build an antenna, the protocols on the frequencies they are
authouized to use, how to minimize RF exposure and stay within safe
levels.

The test pools are under constant revision. Anyone can submit proposed Q&A to
the QPC for consideration.

If someone doesn't know what all those buttons do on their
radio, they shouldn't be licensed to use it.

Then we'd need rig-specific licenses.

And what would you do about homebrew rigs like mine?

If they don't know
enough not to use repeater imputs for simplex operation, they
shouldn't be licensed to use the frequency.

Now that makes sense! But such things are already addressed in the question
pools.

The problem is that what needs to change is the test methodology. By lumping
all of the subjects into a one-size-fits-all written test, prospective hams can
have huge holes in their knowledge and still pass because of strenghts in other
areas. One answer to that is subelements.

The big problem is convincing FCC that testing at such a level is needed. For
more than 25 years, FCC's view towards amateur radio testing is to reduce the
license requirements and make the licenses easier to get, not harder. That's
one of the reasons some folks defend the code test so diligently - they know
that if it goes, it will not be replaced by any other test, nor will the test
methods used for the written be improved.

It's my hope that when it is all over with Morse, that the ham
community will address the real important issues and Morse ain't it.

Morse will continue to be a major part of amateur radio with or without a test.
The test, however, is symbolic of the changes that have been ongoing for a long
time.

It is at best a scapegoat that hams can argue about while the more
important issues of licensing inept operators is ignored. IMO, the
ham community has some really screwed up priorities and hopefully,
with the endgame for code in sight, they may....just may come to grips
with some real issues.

I'm hopeful, but not expectant.

I think you will find that the exact same problems will arise in connection
with any move to increase license requirements. The "Smith chart solution" post
in another thread is only half in jest.

There are already folks like W5YI campaigning for less WRITTEN testing, saying
the Tech test is too hard.

73 de Jim, N2EY