Good idea. When I passed the Basic test (Canadian licence, same type
of questions and format as the entry-level US one - Technician, I
think...?), I walked out of the room with two things: A licence.
And no real practical idea on how to operate a radio station. I had
the theory, and legally what not to do, but how to set up a station
and initiate a QSO? On-air procedures and etiquette? Missing details
galore....

I bought a used 2M HT and the RAC Operating Guide, downloaded a
repeater list, listened on-air for a while, and figured out how to get
through the first few QSOs. From there, the kind folks on the air
guided me through the process, overlooking my frequent errors. Trial
by fire. No I=E/R stuff to help me through here!

Going on HF was worse - passed the morse test, then...learning curve
again (and still - 6 months later) - some of the VHF knowledge worked,
but new skills were required. And the equipment is more complex to
set up and use than my HT....had to build an antenna (a Big Antenna
!), and go from there. And a dummy load. And an SWR meter. Etcetera.
Still learning, but the folks on 40M have been great, and got me up to
speed pretty quickly.

Personally, I'd like to see practical operating knowledge become part
of the licence procedure. Not for the sake of testing , or making the
licence harder to get, or screening out the incompetent and
unmotivated - but to ensure that when you do get the licence, you
have an excellent idea what is required to actually use it. Like
driving a car, for example - if folks got their licence based entirely
on the written test, we might not all be reading this post right
now......

And the best possible resource for creating a syllabus like that - the
experienced amateur user community. (not me - I'm still learning!
Maybe later....)

Just my .02....

73, Leo

On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 23:24:06 GMT, "Dee D. Flint"
wrote:


"N2EY" wrote in message
...
I think Clint has already said he only sees a need for regs and safety
testing.


There's "the future".

73 de Jim, N2EY


Given the detail and extent of the rules, we could right a killer test on
rules and regs. Then require people to take and pass that before taking any
of the elements for specific licenses. i.e. They have to know the rules in
detail before being tested on the theory, technical knowledge, and operating
practices for the licenses classes.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

In article , Leo
writes:

Personally, I'd like to see practical operating knowledge become part
of the licence procedure.

There are a few questions about operating procedures in the US tests. I presume
the Canadian tests are similar. But a new ham can get all those questions wrong
and still pass the tests.

Not for the sake of testing , or making the
licence harder to get, or screening out the incompetent and
unmotivated - but to ensure that when you do get the licence, you
have an excellent idea what is required to actually use it. Like
driving a car, for example - if folks got their licence based entirely
on the written test, we might not all be reading this post right
now......

But if it's not actually part of the test, there's no guarantee that it will be
learned.

In the bad old days, almost all hams started out listening to the amateur bands
- if for no other reason than to get code practice! Many hams were experienced
SWLs before they got licensed. Others "discovered" ham radio by hearing AM ham
stations, back when it was common for broadcast receivers to have SW bands. So
they had a lot of "listen time" before the test. That's a lot less prevalent
today.

It is my understanding that in the UK, part of the licencing process is
*mandatory* attendance and a passing grade at an approved training course.
Doesn't matter if a prospective ham is a child or a grizzled graybeard witha
Ph.D. in EE - the course is *required*.

How about this approach:

Two typical ham rigs are set up so that the operators of each one cannot see or
hear each other. The rigs might be 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!

Waddya think?

73 de Jim, N2EY

Jim,

As in the US tests, there are indeed a few station operating questions
on the Canadian exams. Our Basic exam consists of 100 questions, with
a pass mark of 60%. You're right - it is possible to miss all of the
operating questions (and more!) and walk out with a licence. I'm told
that the test requirements have gone from very difficult (drawing
schematics and essay-type questions back in the Fifties ans Sixties)
to multiple choice questions and published question pools today.
Perhaps because the equipment has evolved to the point where it is
more of an appliance today (my HT sure is - select a frequency and
talk! Not much radio theory needed there...)

Your proposed practical test is an excellent idea. It creates a
real-world operating scenario to test the applicants' ability to
operate a station, and would be a step in the right direction for
ensuring that the new licencee has the skills, both theoretical and
hands-on, to set up and properly use his or her radio equipment. Might
increase the role of the local radio clubs too, as they could set up
for both the hands on training and practice sessions to prepare folks
for the tests.

A definite improvement over the status quo, in my opinion anyway!

73, Leo

On 27 Sep 2003 11:01:45 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:

In article , Leo
writes:

Personally, I'd like to see practical operating knowledge become part
of the licence procedure.

There are a few questions about operating procedures in the US tests. I presume
the Canadian tests are similar. But a new ham can get all those questions wrong
and still pass the tests.

Not for the sake of testing , or making the
licence harder to get, or screening out the incompetent and
unmotivated - but to ensure that when you do get the licence, you
have an excellent idea what is required to actually use it. Like
driving a car, for example - if folks got their licence based entirely
on the written test, we might not all be reading this post right
now......

But if it's not actually part of the test, there's no guarantee that it will be
learned.

In the bad old days, almost all hams started out listening to the amateur bands
- if for no other reason than to get code practice! Many hams were experienced
SWLs before they got licensed. Others "discovered" ham radio by hearing AM ham
stations, back when it was common for broadcast receivers to have SW bands. So
they had a lot of "listen time" before the test. That's a lot less prevalent
today.

It is my understanding that in the UK, part of the licencing process is
*mandatory* attendance and a passing grade at an approved training course.
Doesn't matter if a prospective ham is a child or a grizzled graybeard witha
Ph.D. in EE - the course is *required*.

How about this approach:

Two typical ham rigs are set up so that the operators of each one cannot see or
hear each other. The rigs might be 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!

Waddya think?

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , (N2EY)
writes:


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!

Waddya think?

73 de Jim, N2EY

Jim:

I think that the voice mode would be chosen 100% of the time. To make
your idea into a valid test, three QSO's should be required; one CW, one
voice, one digital.

73 de Larry, K3LT

On 27 Sep 2003 11:01:45 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:

Scoring would be on the basis of mistakes. If a word in the messages is missing
or misspelled, that's a mistake.

How does one misspell a word when using a voice mode?

If nonstandard procedure or phonetics are
used, each deviation is a mistake.

Welp...that lets out half the contesters I know. Kilowatt Five Texas
Radio, please submit your license for cancellation.

73 DE John, KC2HMZ
Tonawanda, New York

Radio Amateur KC2HMZ wrote in message . ..
On 27 Sep 2003 11:01:45 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:

Scoring would be on the basis of mistakes. If a word in the messages is missing
or misspelled, that's a mistake.

How does one misspell a word when using a voice mode?

The messages would have a certain number of proper names and place
names that would be uncommon enough to require phonetics.

If nonstandard procedure or phonetics are
used, each deviation is a mistake.

Welp...that lets out half the contesters I know. Kilowatt Five Texas
Radio, please submit your license for cancellation.

Is it really too much to ask that 'phone operators learn and be able
to use 26 standard words for a test, even if they don't absolutely
have to use them on the air?

oh wait - somebody asked that question about the 43 morse code
symbols...

73 de Jim, N2EY

Radio Amateur KC2HMZ wrote in message . ..
On 27 Sep 2003 11:01:45 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:

Scoring would be on the basis of mistakes. If a word in the messages is missing
or misspelled, that's a mistake.

How does one misspell a word when using a voice mode?

If nonstandard procedure or phonetics are
used, each deviation is a mistake.

Welp...that lets out half the contesters I know. Kilowatt Five Texas
Radio, please submit your license for cancellation.

Agreed. Real phone contesters use ICAO phonetics. K5TR oughta be "Kilo
Fife Tango Reddio".


73 DE John, KC2HMZ
Tonawanda, New York

Whiskey Thuree Romeo Viktor.

Dewar's please and thankew.