|
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
And I think the three classes of license are reasonable and appropriate. Tech becomes the "entry" license, general is "mid-grade," and extra is "top." I don't see anything wrong with that ... What do you think would be a good division knowledge wise between the classes? The tech and general are not too bad now, knowledge to privileges. I lean a bit toward having the Extra require a bit more knowledge, or perhaps experience. I know a few no-experience Extra's and it just seems (to me) that some "time in grade" might make the license more meaningful. - Mike KB3EIA - |
I do not expect the overall licensing requirements
to be made "harder" in any way, since that would only raise objections from the knuckle-draggers and the subsequent petitions which that would produce. Theres no Question the License will be easier.The Knuckle draggers would really cry if the FCC went and made it something where they would actually have to know something. |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message t... Carl R. Stevenson wrote: And I think the three classes of license are reasonable and appropriate. Tech becomes the "entry" license, general is "mid-grade," and extra is "top." I don't see anything wrong with that ... What do you think would be a good division knowledge wise between the classes? The tech and general are not too bad now, knowledge to privileges. I lean a bit toward having the Extra require a bit more knowledge, or perhaps experience. I know a few no-experience Extra's and it just seems (to me) that some "time in grade" might make the license more meaningful. - Mike KB3EIA - I wouldn't oppose a bit more "meat" on the Extra written ... but I would oppose any "time in grade" requirements. Folks either qualify (pass the test) or not ... "time in grade" unnecessarily discriminates against people who are qualified by making them wait unnecessarily. 73, Carl - wk3c |
|
|
In article , Dick Carroll
writes: So you believe a few supplied-answer questions on a couple written tests, with little technical content, a few memorized band edges and a few rules, no operational testing of any sort, with no experience record whatever, makes an expert rahwdyo amatooer. FCC seems to think that way.....:-( 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"Dick Carroll" wrote in message ... Carl R. Stevenson wrote: I wouldn't oppose a bit more "meat" on the Extra written ... but I would oppose any "time in grade" requirements. Folks either qualify (pass the test) or not ... "time in grade" unnecessarily discriminates against people who are qualified by making them wait unnecessarily. So you believe a few supplied-answer questions on a couple written tests, with little technical content, a few memorized band edges and a few rules, no operational testing of any sort, with no experience record whatever, makes an expert rahwdyo amatooer. So much for that sensible NCI position! First, I didn't say it was an NCI position ... I was expressing my personal view. If I state an NCI position, it will be clearly identified as such, otherwise, it's my personal comment. Second, what part of "more 'meat' on the Extra written don't you understand??? You say "with little technical content" ... where'd you pull that out of? I never said that. Your zeal to attack anything I say, even if you might actually agree with the substance if you actually UNDERSTOOD what I said, and then try to spin your distortion as "NCI position" is telling. Carl - wk3c |
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , "Dee D. Flint" writes: Even a paper upgrade would be unnecessary since the category of Tech Plus does not exist anymore. These days Techs who pass the code must keep a copy of their code CSCE to prove it in case they are ever questioned. Currently when Tech Plus licensees renew, their license simply says Tech and they should keep a copy of their expired Tech Plus to show they passed the code. All that the FCC would need to do is issue a ruling that all Techs have the same privileges as the old Tech Plus or Tech with code. The result is that they would no longer need to keep a copy of their code CSCE or old Tech Plus license. Yep, they could do that easily. But it would be almost exactly what ARRL asked for 5 years ago, when they proposed that Techs get HF CW privs. But the FCC couldn't grant that because of the (now gone) ITU requirement that one pass a Morse test BEFORE getting on HF ... Maybe. But look at what the UK did. Does the "Morse appreciation" thing used with the Foundation license really constitute a "test"? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , "Carl R. Stevenson" writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... [snip] One of the big problems is the "nobody loses/nobody gets a windfall" paradigm. The NCI and NCVEC Petitions are "nobody loses/nobody gets a windfall" propositions ... since a tech now gets HF privs if he/she passes a 5 wpm code test, the elimination of the test would not be a "windfall" if all techs got the same privs as the old "TechPlus" ... Everything else stays the same. Yup. And so we wind up with a continuation of the VHF/UHF heavy, HF/MF light entry level setup that is an artifact of the old S25.5. I doubt that ... I expect that a very large percentage of techs will rapidly upgrade to at least general, if not extra, once the code test is gone. Maybe - but look at what has happened with the Tech Plus: It's been 3-1/2 years since restructuring. No new Tech Pluses in all that time. All existing Tech Pluses changed to Techs when renewing or vanity call granted. Many Tech Pluses needed no additional testing at all to get a General. Yet we still have about 50% of pre-restructuring Tech Pluses on the books.Which means many of the existing Tech Pluses simply haven't yet bothered to upgrade to General. The idea of "eliminate the code test and give techs "techplus" privs is logical, takes nothing away from anyone, and gives nobody a "freebie." From the standpoint of written testing, anyway. Didja know that some time back QCWA (you're a member, I'm not, even though I'm "qualified") asked FCC to grant all pre-Nov.22-1968 Generals and Advanceds a free upgrade to Extra? Talk about freebies! Note there is NOTHING in the NCI (or NCVEC) petition about any form of restriction of Morse use, any expansion of the phone bands at the expense of Morse (or other digital mode) use, etc. In the case of NCI, that's "outside the charter". And NCI has promised to cease to exist when code testing goes. Which means that if/when Element 1 disappears, NCI's USA chapter will simply go away as an organization trying to change FCC rules. NCI will exist until Morse testing is gone worldwide, but you're right, we'll have nothing to do in the US once the FCC eliminates Morse testing for all classes of license. My point exactly. In the case of NCVEC, there may be more petitions and proposals. They have already hinted at same. I'm not part of that group, so I can't speak for them ... if they file a petition seeking to water down the writtens or expand the phone bands, I'll oppose it vigorously (personally). Same here. But does Fred often take no for an answer? He sure is used to getting his way. I think these proposals fully meet the "nobody loses/nobody gets a windfall" paradigm. Some would say that getting full privileges with no code test was a windfall, but I'm not gonna go there.... The governments of the world don't seem to hold that view, so you'd be up against the "heavy hitters." The governments of the world don't make FCC rules. How would you feel if it was proposed that all Advanceds get an instant upgrade to Extra with no additional testing? Main point is that between those two constrainsts, very little change in the writtens or basic structure is possible. And I think the three classes of license are reasonable and appropriate. Tech becomes the "entry" license, general is "mid-grade," and extra is "top." I don't see anything wrong with that ... That's essentially what we have now. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message t... Carl R. Stevenson wrote: And I think the three classes of license are reasonable and appropriate. Tech becomes the "entry" license, general is "mid-grade," and extra is "top." I don't see anything wrong with that ... What do you think would be a good division knowledge wise between the classes? The tech and general are not too bad now, knowledge to privileges. I lean a bit toward having the Extra require a bit more knowledge, or perhaps experience. I know a few no-experience Extra's and it just seems (to me) that some "time in grade" might make the license more meaningful. - Mike KB3EIA - Man you got that right Mike. It was that way, decades ago. The extra used to mean something. Now it means squat. Don't believe me? Look at the before and after code gutting. I was going to get a fancy 1X2 years ago. Glad I didn't now. Dan/W4NTI |
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ... "Mike Coslo" wrote in message t... Carl R. Stevenson wrote: And I think the three classes of license are reasonable and appropriate. Tech becomes the "entry" license, general is "mid-grade," and extra is "top." I don't see anything wrong with that ... What do you think would be a good division knowledge wise between the classes? The tech and general are not too bad now, knowledge to privileges. I lean a bit toward having the Extra require a bit more knowledge, or perhaps experience. I know a few no-experience Extra's and it just seems (to me) that some "time in grade" might make the license more meaningful. - Mike KB3EIA - I wouldn't oppose a bit more "meat" on the Extra written ... but I would oppose any "time in grade" requirements. Folks either qualify (pass the test) or not ... "time in grade" unnecessarily discriminates against people who are qualified by making them wait unnecessarily. 73, Carl - wk3c Why? Maybe a little time in grade would mean we don't hear a new extra ask " how long is a half wave dipole on forty?" Dan/W4NTI |
"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message link.net... "Mike Coslo" wrote in message t... Carl R. Stevenson wrote: And I think the three classes of license are reasonable and appropriate. Tech becomes the "entry" license, general is "mid-grade," and extra is "top." I don't see anything wrong with that ... What do you think would be a good division knowledge wise between the classes? The tech and general are not too bad now, knowledge to privileges. I lean a bit toward having the Extra require a bit more knowledge, or perhaps experience. I know a few no-experience Extra's and it just seems (to me) that some "time in grade" might make the license more meaningful. - Mike KB3EIA - Man you got that right Mike. It was that way, decades ago. The extra used to mean something. Now it means squat. Don't believe me? Look at the before and after code gutting. I was going to get a fancy 1X2 years ago. Glad I didn't now. Dan/W4NTI All the 1x2 sequentially assigned calls were gone long before the 20wpm code was dropped. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"N2EY" wrote in message
... In article , Dick Carroll writes: So you believe a few supplied-answer questions on a couple written tests, with little technical content, a few memorized band edges and a few rules, no operational testing of any sort, with no experience record whatever, makes an expert rahwdyo amatooer. FCC seems to think that way.....:-( 73 de Jim, N2EY Election time is not all that far away. I'll wager that the representatives that pull the FCC's budget strings have PCTA ARO's as constituents. WRITE...PLEASE! Remember how the vanity call system came about. -- 73 de Bert WA2SI P.S. It might just make the difference between dropping Element 1 completely or retaining it for the Extra. (Beats a blank.) |
Why? Maybe a little time in grade would mean we don't hear a new extra ask
" how long is a half wave dipole on forty?" Dan/W4NTI That would be an improvment Dan, what I hear is, what is a Dipole, and who sells them, ands of course how much GAIN. |
Election time is not all that far away. I'll wager that the representatives that pull the FCC's budget strings have PCTA ARO's as constituents. WRITE...PLEASE! Remember how the vanity call system came about. they also have lots of NCTA ARO's as very active and vocal consituents. And we've been writing, emailing, and in a couple of cases, "just to make sure", faxing. Clint |
Second, what part of "more 'meat' on the Extra written don't you understand??? You say "with little technical content" ... where'd you pull that out of? I never said that. Your zeal to attack anything I say, even if you might actually agree with the substance if you actually UNDERSTOOD what I said, and then try to spin your distortion as "NCI position" is telling. Carl - wk3c It's more of a move on his (and by that I mean the PCTA's) part to spin the issue to something that it is not... and attempt to paint a very unfavorable picture of the NCTA's interests and agenda. I even recommended the same thing; not an overall simplifying of the tests, but simply a shift of emphasis on something that is more readily applicable to ham radio as it is today than it was 30 years ago. I recommended a thickening up of the written part of the test. "they" will simply not accept what you say, or allow you to get the message through to them that this is what we find to be in the greatest interest in ham radio. It reminds you of the masses of people a few months ago holding up the "no war for oil" signs, and you say to yourself, "you just don't GET it, do you?" Clint |
Why? Maybe a little time in grade would mean we don't hear a new extra ask " how long is a half wave dipole on forty?" Dan/W4NTI to me that just doesn't make any sense... I think you're implying that a long time ago, you would NEVER hear an extra ask such an entry-level question, and I believe you are right. I do not believe the answer lies in haveing a "time in grade" requirement... and while it's impossible to have a comprehensive test that covers EVERYTHING (for obvious reasons), I believe it's possible to have a test that makes sure a person doesn't reach the top level license without knowing basics that the novice level licensees should be asking about. i'm also a nuts-and-bolts person... just start at the basic everyday ham radio station, at each part that makes it up, and have a question pool that pertains to each one.... questions about grounding, questions about feedline, questions about antennas, pretty much the way they do now but as he said, add "meat" to it... increase the amount of knowledge you have to have in each area to meet the requirements to be an extra class ham radio operator. It would be a beautiful thing, and made possible by the fact that the perspective extra will have more time to alot studying what really matters to know what a ham radio station is than simply test eye-hand- hearing coordination in some old communication mode that's being dropped by non-ham radio services world wide in leaps and bounds... Let it be repeated that one of the fundamental concepts of ham radio is the "progression of the radio art", NOT "the progression of the HAM radio art as a snapshot in time during the 1950's"... after all, isn't that an oxymoron? trying to progress, spread knoweldge about and increase the use of something that is obsolete? Clint -- Reasons why it sucks to be a liberal.... file overrun error -- |
Don't believe me? Look at the before and after code gutting. ah, and there we have it. the agenda. -- Reasons why it sucks to be a liberal.... file overrun error -- |
Man you got that right Mike. It was that way, decades ago. The extra used to mean something. Now it means squat. Don't believe me? Look at the before and after code gutting. I was going to get a fancy 1X2 years ago. Glad I didn't now. Dan/W4NTI All the 1x2 sequentially assigned calls were gone long before the 20wpm code was dropped. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE The real observation here is to note a complaint about extra class hams not knowing what the length of a 1/2 wave dipole was on a given frequency; has nothing to do with sending and recieving morse code skill. Kinda showed your colors there. Clint |
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message t... Carl R. Stevenson wrote: And I think the three classes of license are reasonable and appropriate. Tech becomes the "entry" license, general is "mid-grade," and extra is "top." I don't see anything wrong with that ... What do you think would be a good division knowledge wise between the classes? The tech and general are not too bad now, knowledge to privileges. I lean a bit toward having the Extra require a bit more knowledge, or perhaps experience. I know a few no-experience Extra's and it just seems (to me) that some "time in grade" might make the license more meaningful. - Mike KB3EIA - I wouldn't oppose a bit more "meat" on the Extra written ... but I would oppose any "time in grade" requirements. Folks either qualify (pass the test) or not ... "time in grade" unnecessarily discriminates against people who are qualified by making them wait unnecessarily. I don't look at it as discrimination. Right now, there isn't that much difference between the General and Extra licenses. The largest being some frequency segments which are often ignored. So the only "discrimination" is that. No one is stopping anyone from getting on HF. My thinking is that if we are to have three classes, they should mean something. When I was a Technician, I had much more HF operating experience -by way of the kind control op's from my club, thanks guys! - than some Extras that I have tutored since. I could have, but wouldn't dare, Elmer these Extra's at the time of having my Tech license. A person has to start somewhere. Many if not most who get a Technician license have their first experience on Radio the first time they push the PTT button on thier HT. Many General class licensees get their first tast of HF only after getting their ticket. All very good, and makes good sense. However, it doesn't seem reasonable to me that a person can have the highest class license available, and yet have no clue about operating or putting together a station. That really means that on a purely functional level, there is no real difference between the General and Extra class. All that being said, if there is no waiting period or significant bennefit to become an Extra, then I would support two licensing classes. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Dan/W4NTI wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message t... Carl R. Stevenson wrote: And I think the three classes of license are reasonable and appropriate. Tech becomes the "entry" license, general is "mid-grade," and extra is "top." I don't see anything wrong with that ... What do you think would be a good division knowledge wise between the classes? The tech and general are not too bad now, knowledge to privileges. I lean a bit toward having the Extra require a bit more knowledge, or perhaps experience. I know a few no-experience Extra's and it just seems (to me) that some "time in grade" might make the license more meaningful. - Mike KB3EIA - Man you got that right Mike. It was that way, decades ago. The extra used to mean something. Now it means squat. To my logic, the top level should be exactly that - the top level. The expert in the field. This should entail more than the test requirements. The Extra should be able to be depended on to give intelligent and accurate answers to normal situations that crop up: "Whoa there fella, you're in the CW portion of the band operating voice. Here let me show you where the band edge is." "Ahh, the reason you can't work Europe is you have your dipole oriented the wrong way." "Here, let me help." The general class op can of course be inexperienced Sometimes they can do things in an incorrect or inefficient manner. But that's okay as long as they eventually get it right. But if the highest class doesn't really mean anything, perhaps there should only two classes Don't believe me? Look at the before and after code gutting. I was going to get a fancy 1X2 years ago. Glad I didn't now. I'm still trying to decide what to do. I do a fair bit of contesting, and KB3EIA is quite a mouthfull at those times. It's not too bad CW wise (tho I haven't done CW contesting - maybe if I ever get good enough) - Mike KB3EIA - |
Dan/W4NTI wrote:
Why? Maybe a little time in grade would mean we don't hear a new extra ask " how long is a half wave dipole on forty?" It's a quarter wave dipole Dan! You'd think we'd have that figured out by now! Ducking now 8^) - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Clint" rattlehead at computron dot net wrote in
: Man you got that right Mike. It was that way, decades ago. The extra used to mean something. Now it means squat. Don't believe me? Look at the before and after code gutting. I was going to get a fancy 1X2 years ago. Glad I didn't now. Dan/W4NTI All the 1x2 sequentially assigned calls were gone long before the 20wpm code was dropped. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE The real observation here is to note a complaint about extra class hams not knowing what the length of a 1/2 wave dipole was on a given frequency; has nothing to do with sending and recieving morse code skill. Kinda showed your colors there. Clint It was a dead giveaway. Anyone who thinks that 20wpm code operating skill means you know all about dipoles has a serious problem that no amount of discussion will ever change. 73 de Alun, N3KIP |
Alun Palmer wrote:
"Clint" rattlehead at computron dot net wrote in : Man you got that right Mike. It was that way, decades ago. The extra used to mean something. Now it means squat. Don't believe me? Look at the before and after code gutting. I was going to get a fancy 1X2 years ago. Glad I didn't now. Dan/W4NTI All the 1x2 sequentially assigned calls were gone long before the 20wpm code was dropped. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE The real observation here is to note a complaint about extra class hams not knowing what the length of a 1/2 wave dipole was on a given frequency; has nothing to do with sending and recieving morse code skill. Kinda showed your colors there. Clint It was a dead giveaway. Anyone who thinks that 20wpm code operating skill means you know all about dipoles has a serious problem that no amount of discussion will ever change. The new requirements *probably* will have no Morse code requirements, ergo Morse is not really relevant to this thread. That an extra might have no idea about the length of a half wave dipole at 40 meters - or more importantly, precisely no idea on how to calculate it - indicates a more serious problem to me. - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message et... Dan/W4NTI wrote: Don't believe me? Look at the before and after code gutting. I was going to get a fancy 1X2 years ago. Glad I didn't now. I'm still trying to decide what to do. I do a fair bit of contesting, and KB3EIA is quite a mouthfull at those times. It's not too bad CW wise (tho I haven't done CW contesting - maybe if I ever get good enough) - Mike KB3EIA - The way to get good at it is to jump in and do it anyway. The way to start is to listen to one station over and over until you finally pick out the information and then to through your call sign in. Also never hesitate to send "PS QRS" when necessary. You can even specify the speed with "PS QRS 10" or whatever you are comfortable with. Most will slow down. I'm not particularly good at it myself but am running about 50% CW contacts on the ongoing California QSO party. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message .com... "Mike Coslo" wrote in message et... Dan/W4NTI wrote: Don't believe me? Look at the before and after code gutting. I was going to get a fancy 1X2 years ago. Glad I didn't now. I'm still trying to decide what to do. I do a fair bit of contesting, and KB3EIA is quite a mouthfull at those times. It's not too bad CW wise (tho I haven't done CW contesting - maybe if I ever get good enough) - Mike KB3EIA - The way to get good at it is to jump in and do it anyway. The way to start is to listen to one station over and over until you finally pick out the information and then to through your call sign in. Also never hesitate to send "PS QRS" when necessary. You can even specify the speed with "PS QRS 10" or whatever you are comfortable with. Most will slow down. I'm not particularly good at it myself but am running about 50% CW contacts on the ongoing California QSO party. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE "...then to throw your call sign..." Hate it when I mistype something. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
The new requirements *probably* will have no Morse code requirements, ergo Morse is not really relevant to this thread. They may or may not; if the FCC decides that no "no further change in the license structure is required at this time" then of course that will be the final word on *that* matter, and we'll accept it and go on since they are the ones that have the final say. I just couldn't help but notice how certain ones in here I think have such an overpowering agenda regarding the CW part of the testing that it tends to take them over and govern, or at least seriously influence, everything they have to remark about in ham radio. I'm a general class operator; I realize by definition that means I had to show knowledge in certain areas to prove I deserved recieving the next higher license class than tech-plus; however, I did not demonstrate enough skill and knowledge to warrant recieving the advanced class license. Therefore, advanced class operators *should* know more than I do, or at least as much. That brings us to the sad truth that if an *extra* class license operator doesn't know how to calculate the length of a walf wave dipole on 40m (or whatever frequency), that is a serious issue. I say that because calculating the length of an antenna, especially a halfwave dipole of ALL things, is and always WILL be so basic to ham radio that it should be on page one of chapter one of every study guide ever printed. Such matters is why I put such a strong emphasis on putting more priority on written testing than that of the skills of translating a CW transmission. Sad thing is, most the time I get on 75 meters and begin discussing ham radio tech stuff, there is usually one heckler that harangues you about it and makes light of the fact that you were talking about ham radio stuff and not what the weather was like on a day 58 years ago while an old man sat on a porch and peeled potatoes in the hot summer sun... true story. I actually was on the airwaves a few weeks ago discussing the pros and cons how how to set up a new 75 meter inverted V I was going to make at home... and as soon as I finished the conversation with the other ham and he went off the air, a couple of hams got in there and began talking to one another BASHING me for doing so... can you imagine??? Clint |
I'm a general class operator; I realize by definition that means I had to
show knowledge in certain areas to prove I deserved recieving the next You didnt prove knowledge, all you proved was that you did a GOOD JOB of Memorizing some Q@As. |
(I would find it
hard to believe that "old Techs" who had credit for both 5 wpm and the full General written wouldn't have upgraded to AT LEAST General .. I know a bunch that have no desire or interest in passing there Silly little Test. |
"N2EY" wrote in message
... In article , "Carl R. Stevenson" writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , "Carl R. Stevenson" writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... [snip] One of the big problems is the "nobody loses/nobody gets a windfall" paradigm. The NCI and NCVEC Petitions are "nobody loses/nobody gets a windfall" propositions ... since a tech now gets HF privs if he/she passes a 5 wpm code test, the elimination of the test would not be a "windfall" if all techs got the same privs as the old "TechPlus" ... Everything else stays the same. Yup. And so we wind up with a continuation of the VHF/UHF heavy, HF/MF light entry level setup that is an artifact of the old S25.5. I doubt that ... I expect that a very large percentage of techs will rapidly upgrade to at least general, if not extra, once the code test is gone. Maybe - but look at what has happened with the Tech Plus: It's been 3-1/2 years since restructuring. No new Tech Pluses in all that time. All existing Tech Pluses changed to Techs when renewing or vanity call granted. Many Tech Pluses needed no additional testing at all to get a General. Yet we still have about 50% of pre-restructuring Tech Pluses on the books.Which means many of the existing Tech Pluses simply haven't yet bothered to upgrade to General. But by your own figuring, (about) 50% of them HAVE ... The idea of "eliminate the code test and give techs "techplus" privs is logical, takes nothing away from anyone, and gives nobody a "freebie." From the standpoint of written testing, anyway. It's not a "freebie" in any way ... current Tech+ and "Tech with code credit" have access to (some) HF ... if the code test is no longer a requirement for HF access, it's only fair that Techs have access ... they've passed the same written as (most) Tech+ ... (I would find it hard to believe that "old Techs" who had credit for both 5 wpm and the full General written wouldn't have upgraded to AT LEAST General ... (however if someone didn't care and didn't that's no skin off my nose ...) Didja know that some time back QCWA (you're a member, I'm not, even though I'm "qualified") asked FCC to grant all pre-Nov.22-1968 Generals and Advanceds a free upgrade to Extra? Talk about freebies! Yes ... I believe that was in their comments in 98-143 and NCI opposed it, along with the NCVECs ... we both said, "If they want to upgrade, they should have to take the written element(s) that they need to get there. No freebies!" In the case of NCVEC, there may be more petitions and proposals. They have already hinted at same. I'm not part of that group, so I can't speak for them ... if they file a petition seeking to water down the writtens or expand the phone bands, I'll oppose it vigorously (personally). Same here. But does Fred often take no for an answer? He sure is used to getting his way. There is more to the NCVECs than Fred ... I would expect the ARRL rep to oppose such an action ... I think these proposals fully meet the "nobody loses/nobody gets a windfall" paradigm. Some would say that getting full privileges with no code test was a windfall, but I'm not gonna go there.... The governments of the world don't seem to hold that view, so you'd be up against the "heavy hitters." The governments of the world don't make FCC rules. The FCC was part of one of those governments of the world that supported the elimination of the requirement at WRC-03 ... How would you feel if it was proposed that all Advanceds get an instant upgrade to Extra with no additional testing? I'd oppose it ... there's a point to the additional written test for Extra, and without having passed it, you're not qualified. (Before you take another tack here, there IS no point to Morse testing ... so it doesn't really count as a qualification, Element 1 is a vestigial thing that the FCC had to keep in order to not be in derrogation of the ITU Radio Regs, not because it was a truly rational, justifiable "qualification" ...) Main point is that between those two constrainsts, very little change in the writtens or basic structure is possible. And I think the three classes of license are reasonable and appropriate. Tech becomes the "entry" license, general is "mid-grade," and extra is "top." I don't see anything wrong with that ... That's essentially what we have now. If it a'int broke, don't fix it ... the only thing that's "broke" is that they haven't yet eliminated the Morse test now that they're free to do so. 73, Carl - wk3c |
"N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , "Carl R. Stevenson" But the FCC couldn't grant that because of the (now gone) ITU requirement that one pass a Morse test BEFORE getting on HF ... Maybe. But look at what the UK did. Does the "Morse appreciation" thing used with the Foundation license really constitute a "test"? 73 de Jim, N2EY It's actually called a "Morse Assessment" ... no speed and a "crib sheet" is allowed IIRC ... the UK RA took a more liberal interpretation ... there never was any speed spec'd in the Radio Regs. The FCC took the CYA approach and used 5 wpm because that was the CEPT limit and we'd been granting Novices/Techs (some) HF access with 5 wpm for years with no complaints from the ITU or the international community. Carl - wk3c |
Must be the folks you hang out with Bruce ... you know the old
saying "Birds of a feather flock together." :-) Carl - wk3c Not hardly Karl, these people are the Knuckle Dragging NCI Members I hear. |
"WA8ULX" wrote in message ... Why? Maybe a little time in grade would mean we don't hear a new extra ask " how long is a half wave dipole on forty?" Dan/W4NTI That would be an improvment Dan, what I hear is, what is a Dipole, and who sells them, ands of course how much GAIN. Must be the folks you hang out with Bruce ... you know the old saying "Birds of a feather flock together." :-) Carl - wk3c |
Mike Coslo wrote in
et: Alun Palmer wrote: "Clint" rattlehead at computron dot net wrote in : Man you got that right Mike. It was that way, decades ago. The extra used to mean something. Now it means squat. Don't believe me? Look at the before and after code gutting. I was going to get a fancy 1X2 years ago. Glad I didn't now. Dan/W4NTI All the 1x2 sequentially assigned calls were gone long before the 20wpm code was dropped. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE The real observation here is to note a complaint about extra class hams not knowing what the length of a 1/2 wave dipole was on a given frequency; has nothing to do with sending and recieving morse code skill. Kinda showed your colors there. Clint It was a dead giveaway. Anyone who thinks that 20wpm code operating skill means you know all about dipoles has a serious problem that no amount of discussion will ever change. The new requirements *probably* will have no Morse code requirements, ergo Morse is not really relevant to this thread. That an extra might have no idea about the length of a half wave dipole at 40 meters - or more importantly, precisely no idea on how to calculate it - indicates a more serious problem to me. - Mike KB3EIA - But one that has nothing to do with 20wpm, which I didn't introduce into the discussion |
"WA8ULX" wrote in message ... Must be the folks you hang out with Bruce ... you know the old saying "Birds of a feather flock together." :-) Carl - wk3c Not hardly Karl, these people are the Knuckle Dragging NCI Members I hear. Ah, the agenda *again*. doesn't take long from the time you guys set up the trap to springing it on the cw test issue. "14,000 died in France? wow. See what happens when you start reducing morse code requirements?" Clint |
"WA8ULX" wrote in message ... I'm a general class operator; I realize by definition that means I had to show knowledge in certain areas to prove I deserved recieving the next You didnt prove knowledge, all you proved was that you did a GOOD JOB of Memorizing some Q@As. Do you guys dream about morse code tests? |
Exactly.
That was my point; make a post about back up batteries for black-out ham radio operations, and you'll get them making CW test remarks about it. Make a post about feedline pro's and con's, and they'll devolve it back to morse code testing. Talk about what is the best background noise reducing handheld radio for use on the toilet when you have diahrrea.. and yep, it's all about morse code testing again. No matter what, follow a thread long enough and they'll find a way to use the most twisted path of logic to blame NCI and the reduction & removal of morse code testing. Was it, in fact, to blame for the shuttle disaster? I digress. Clint "Alun Palmer" wrote in message ... Mike Coslo wrote in et: Alun Palmer wrote: "Clint" rattlehead at computron dot net wrote in : Man you got that right Mike. It was that way, decades ago. The extra used to mean something. Now it means squat. Don't believe me? Look at the before and after code gutting. I was going to get a fancy 1X2 years ago. Glad I didn't now. Dan/W4NTI All the 1x2 sequentially assigned calls were gone long before the 20wpm code was dropped. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE The real observation here is to note a complaint about extra class hams not knowing what the length of a 1/2 wave dipole was on a given frequency; has nothing to do with sending and recieving morse code skill. Kinda showed your colors there. Clint It was a dead giveaway. Anyone who thinks that 20wpm code operating skill means you know all about dipoles has a serious problem that no amount of discussion will ever change. The new requirements *probably* will have no Morse code requirements, ergo Morse is not really relevant to this thread. That an extra might have no idea about the length of a half wave dipole at 40 meters - or more importantly, precisely no idea on how to calculate it - indicates a more serious problem to me. - Mike KB3EIA - But one that has nothing to do with 20wpm, which I didn't introduce into the discussion |
If it a'int broke, don't fix it ... the only thing that's "broke" is that they haven't yet eliminated the Morse test now that they're free to do so. 73, Carl - wk3c exactly. Clint KB5ZHT |
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: N2EY wrote: In article , (Larry Roll K3LT) writes: I think that the most likely scenario is that they will do as you suggest, and distill it down to two license classes, General and Extra. All current Techs would be "grandfathered" to the General class, and the Extra will remain the same, sans Element 1(a). This would be the easiest change to accomplish from an administrative standpoint, and they wouldn't have to even bother renaming the remaining license classes, which would only risk causing resentment among current Extras. There could be, at most, a requirement for current Techs to pass another written element, but the grandfathering would be an easier fix. ARRL asked for something very similar back in 1998 and FCC said no. (ARRL's proposal would have given Novices and Tech Pluses instant upgrades to General). Such an instant upgrade has these problems: 1) A lot of screaming about "no giveaways" Let's test your premise here, Jim. Would you support a one class system in which all amateurs that have passed Novice, Tech, General or (of course) Extra get an "instant upgrade" to Extra? No. In fact, not just "no" but "HELL, NO!!" That of course would be a simple and elegant solution. No more arguing about anything as far as classes go. "All amateurs are equal. Some are more equal than others" (with a tip of the hat to George Orwell and "Animal Farm". That would certainly cure the falloff in people getting Tech licenses at the moment. A person would have to be foolish to not take the Tech class license in order to get General class access after restructuring as in your example, or full Extra access as in my one class idea. Some folks would agree with that system, or one like it. After all, once upon a time, anyone who could pass the Tech/General written (they were the same test for 36 years) and the required code test got all privileges. If the code test is removed, that leaves the General written. Can anyone *prove* to me that the Extra written contains things a ham *must* know to operate on the Extra-only subbands? Be careful what you ask for. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:49 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com