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