Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article .net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes: "N2EY" wrote: Then SSB, AM, FM, RTTY, PSK-31, etc. are all non-necessities. (snip) Absolutely. Which is exactly why there is no test of the actual ability to use those modes - only a written test covering the fundamentals of those modes and the rules associated with them. Why is such a written test necessary? The use of any of those modes is entirely optional. Morse code should join those modes in that regard. We'll have to agree to disagree on that. In fact, except for the most basic of rules and regulations, your argument leads to the inescapable conclusion that it is not necessary for the goals and purposes of the Amateur Radio Service at this point to mandate *any* learning through a testing requirement. Can you prove otherwise? What is there to prove? Prove the necessity for a written test beyond the most basic rules and regulations. For example, Technicians are allowed to use all authorized modes on the six meter band at up to 1500 W output. This includes all modes allowed on the HF/MF bands. Therefore, the Technician test must, by definition, be adequate to insure that those who pass it are qualified on all authorized HF/MF modes and the use of transmitters up to 1500 W output on six meters MHz. Since the hazards of RF exposure on HF/MF are less than those on 50 MHz, and the modes authorized on HF/MF are a subset of those authorized on six, it logically follows that those who pass the Tech test are *mostly* qualified to operate HF/MF. The exceptions are those few things which are specific to HF/MF, such as propagation. But the General and Extra writtens go far beyond HF/MF propagation in their technical material. Why is that stuff necessary? Isn't that exactly the intent of the license exams - the fundamentals of radio and electronics, safety, rules and regulations, and so on. Sure. The basics. So prove why the tests must go beyond those basics. When it comes to Amateur Radio, the FCC is not a school and nobody graduates with a degree in radio or electronics when they're handed a ham license. That's right. And nobody with a degree is handed a ham license either. That license exams (and licenses) are simply entrances into the various levels of Amateur Radio - the real learning comes with what is done afterwards (operating, building, experimenting, reading, practice, and the resulting experence from any or all of that). Sure. So what's the point of all that written testing? Why is a General qualified to use 1500 W on 14,026 kHz but not on 14,024? The FCC has never has never purported, or even suggested, that the Amateur Radio exams, and resulting licenses, are anything beyond that (only a few self-important hams have done so). Yet in the past there have been repeated instances where qualifed radio-electronics people were needed on short notice and they were recruited from the ranks of amateur radio. If what matters is the learning that happens *after* the license is in hand, why all the fuss about written tests? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"N2EY" wrote:
Why is such a written test necessary? The use of any of those modes is entirely optional. Considering the power levels, the number of frequencies and bands, the overall safety considerations, the desirability of proper operation when using the various operating modes, and the importance of the rules associated with all that, the necessity of the written exams is clearly obvious. Can you establish a similar necessity for the Morse code test? Prove the necessity for a written test beyond the most basic rules and regulations. I've already explained the necessity of the written test in the previous message and in the paragraph above. Sure. The basics. So prove why the tests must go beyond those basics. Since you keep asking this, do you have a point to make, Jim? This is a discussion about the code test. I have no desire to expand that into a discussion about the written exams, including a review of those exams. Further, I think the value of the written exams is bloody obvious to all. Therefore, there is nothing to prove. If what matters is the learning that happens *after* the license is in hand, why all the fuss about written tests? Read my first paragraph above. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article k.net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes: "N2EY" wrote: Why is such a written test necessary? The use of any of those modes is entirely optional. Considering the power levels, the number of frequencies and bands, the overall safety considerations, the desirability of proper operation when using the various operating modes, and the importance of the rules associated with all that, the necessity of the written exams is clearly obvious. No, it isn't. You're avoiding my question, Dwight. Why must hams be forced to learn about *any* modes and technologies whose use is strictly optional? Indeed, someone who cannot speak and is totally deaf cannot use voice modes - yet the written exams are full of questions on AM, SSB, FM, etc. Why are such tests *necessary*? Why is *any* written test beyond the basics of rules, regulations and safety *necessary*? Or consider this: Techs are permitted to use all authorized (amateur) modes and frequencies above 30 MHz - at full authorized power. This authorization is based on the successful passing of a single 35 question written test. FCC says so - in fact, almost four years ago they drastically reduced the written testing needed to get a Tech license. Yet to have full privileges, a ham must pass additional written tests. Sure, the addtional tests include rules and regs a Tech doesn't need to know, as well as some things like HF/MF propagation. Buty those tests go far beyond the additional regs and propagation. Why is that sort of thing *necessary*, since a Tech has already shown that he/she is qualified on all authorized modes at full authorized power? Can you establish a similar necessity for the Morse code test? Sure. Here goes: Considering the many advantages of Morse code, the number of frequencies and bands on which it is used, the number of amateurs who use it on the air and their exemplary conformance to the rules, regulations and operating procedures of the ARS, the necessity of the Morse code exam is clearly obvious. There you go. Prove the necessity for a written test beyond the most basic rules and regulations. I've already explained the necessity of the written test in the previous message and in the paragraph above. No, you haven't. You've explained why *a* written test on the most basic rules and regulations is desirable, and maybe even necessary, not why we must have the written tests we have today.. Sure. The basics. So prove why the tests must go beyond those basics. Since you keep asking this, do you have a point to make, Jim? Yes. The point is that some folks apply a double standard when deciding which tests to keep and which to get rid of. This is a discussion about the code test. Sure. And I've shown that if the same criteria you are using to justify dumping the code test can also be used to justify dumping almost all of the content of the written tests. And so far I haven't seen anything to disprove my argument. Just "it's obvious". I have no desire to expand that into a discussion about the written exams, including a review of those exams. I can understand why. Further, I think the value of the written exams is bloody obvious to all. So you really don't have a counter argument when someone doesn't find it obvious. Therefore, there is nothing to prove. Just the opposite. If what matters is the learning that happens *after* the license is in hand, why all the fuss about written tests? Read my first paragraph above. I have. Doesn't answer my question. I don't want the written tests to go away or be watered down further. But I cannot come up with solid counterarguments *rpoving* that all of their content is necessary. And I suspect that others can't, either - or they would present those arguments. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"N2EY" wrote:
"Dwight Stewart" writes: Considering the power levels, the number of frequencies and bands, the overall safety considerations, (snip) You're avoiding my question, Dwight. No, you just don't like the answer given. If anything, I'm ignoring a fanciful, long-winded, exchange that cannot add anything of real substance to the discussion about Morse code testing (see below). Since you keep asking this, do you have a point to make, Jim? Yes. The point is that some folks apply a double standard when deciding which tests to keep and which to get rid of. The only double standard that exists is not having the same testing for all operating modes. Unless there is a justification to do otherwise, either have skill testing for all modes or no skill testing for any mode. There is no longer any justification today for a unique test solely for Morse code. That opinion is consistent with recent FCC published statements. As such, the unique Morse code test should be eliminated. Not willing to accept that, you ignore the obvious double standard and instead try conjure up an imaginary double standard relating to the written tests. No such double standard exists. Those written tests, and their contents, serve a valid purpose today. None here, including you, have said otherwise. The same cannot be said about the Morse code test. With all that in mind, I have no desire to engage in a fanciful discussion about the contents of the written tests, especially when that discussion cannot possibly lead to a valid point - no conflict or double standard exists concerning the written tests. As such, I've ignored the rest of your message and have instead addressed the specific point you've acknowledged trying to make. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message thlink.net...
"N2EY" wrote: "Dwight Stewart" writes: Considering the power levels, the number of frequencies and bands, the overall safety considerations, (snip) You're avoiding my question, Dwight. No, you just don't like the answer given. Would you accept "it's obvious" as an answer to "why a code test"? Didn't think so. If anything, I'm ignoring a fanciful, long-winded, exchange that cannot add anything of real substance to the discussion about Morse code testing (see below). Since you keep asking this, do you have a point to make, Jim? Yes. The point is that some folks apply a double standard when deciding which tests to keep and which to get rid of. The only double standard that exists is not having the same testing for all operating modes. Unless there is a justification to do otherwise, either have skill testing for all modes or no skill testing for any mode. I disagree. Would you have skill testing for modes that few hams use, like EME or TV, on an equal par with those that are widely used, like voice and Morse? There is no longer any justification today for a unique test solely for Morse code. I disagree. YMMV. In the end, it's simply an opinion question. That opinion is consistent with recent FCC published statements. Does that mean FCC is always right? Was FCC right when they required 20 wpm for full privs and no waivers? As such, the unique Morse code test should be eliminated. And perhaps it will be - someday. Not willing to accept that, you ignore the obvious double standard and instead try conjure up an imaginary double standard relating to the written tests. Nope. I simply point out that the same arguments used against the code test can be used against most of the written tests. But most people support the written tests as they are for opinion reasons, nothing more. No such double standard exists. Those written tests, and their contents, serve a valid purpose today. What valid purpose do the General and Extra written tests serve? Why is *all* of their content necessary to operate HF beyond the small sample of privileges granted to Novices and Tech Pluses? None here, including you, have said otherwise. I've simply used the same arguments against them as are used against the code test. The same cannot be said about the Morse code test. Sure it can. I've done it. With all that in mind, I have no desire to engage in a fanciful discussion about the contents of the written tests, especially when that discussion cannot possibly lead to a valid point - no conflict or double standard exists concerning the written tests. As such, I've ignored the rest of your message and have instead addressed the specific point you've acknowledged trying to make. You choose to ignore it because you don't have a definitive counterargument. You cannot prove that most of the content of the writtens, particularly the General and Extra writtens, are *necessary*. IOW, you know that if the same criteria of "is it necessary?" were applied to most of the written questions, the answer would be the same as you get for the code test. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "N2EY" wrote: Would you accept "it's obvious" as an answer to "why a code test"? I didn't offer "it's obvious" as an answer. Instead, I wrote... "Considering the power levels, the number of frequencies and bands, the overall safety considerations, the desirability of proper operation when using the various operating modes, and the importance of the rules associated with all that, the necessity of the written exams is clearly obvious." I disagree. Would you have skill testing for modes that few hams use, like EME or TV, on an equal par with those that are widely used, like voice and Morse? Those modes are already on equal par with voice (written with no skills test). What you haven't explained is why that shouldn't be the case with Morse. IOW, you know that if the same criteria of "is it necessary?" were applied to most of the written questions, the answer would be the same as you get for the code test. Nonsense. But you're darn fool, or think I'm one, if you expect me to get into a point-by-point discussion with you about the several hundred questions in the question pool to prove otherwise. Enough said. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article k.net, "Dwight Stewart" writes: "N2EY" wrote: Why is such a written test necessary? The use of any of those modes is entirely optional. Considering the power levels, the number of frequencies and bands, the overall safety considerations, the desirability of proper operation when using the various operating modes, and the importance of the rules associated with all that, the necessity of the written exams is clearly obvious. No, it isn't. You're avoiding my question, Dwight. Why must hams be forced to learn about *any* modes and technologies whose use is strictly optional? Indeed, someone who cannot speak and is totally deaf cannot use voice modes - yet the written exams are full of questions on AM, SSB, FM, etc. Why are such tests *necessary*? Why is *any* written test beyond the basics of rules, regulations and safety *necessary*? BUT none of these other modes has its own separate pass/fail test. Not any specific subject area either. Miss all the questions on RTTY and you can still pass the test. Or consider this: Techs are permitted to use all authorized (amateur) modes and frequencies above 30 MHz - at full authorized power. This authorization is based on the successful passing of a single 35 question written test. FCC says so - in fact, almost four years ago they drastically reduced the written testing needed to get a Tech license. Additiionally, those same techs can use Morse even if they never passed a morse test. Yet to have full privileges, a ham must pass additional written tests. Sure, the addtional tests include rules and regs a Tech doesn't need to know, as well as some things like HF/MF propagation. Buty those tests go far beyond the additional regs and propagation. Why is that sort of thing *necessary*, since a Tech has already shown that he/she is qualified on all authorized modes at full authorized power? I have previously agreed that the alignment of privileges vs license class makes little sense these days. Can you establish a similar necessity for the Morse code test? Sure. Here goes: Considering the many advantages of Morse code, the number of frequencies and bands on which it is used, the number of amateurs who use it on the air and their exemplary conformance to the rules, regulations and operating procedures of the ARS, the necessity of the Morse code exam is clearly obvious. There you go. So how come the FCC didn't buy it in 98-143. How come no-code techs are NOT forbidden from using morse even though hey never passed a morse test. By the way..."their exemplary conformance to the rulkes" is a real stretch since most rule breakers seem to be coded hams anyway. Cheers, Bill |
#10
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article .net, "Dwight Stewart" writes: "N2EY" wrote: Then SSB, AM, FM, RTTY, PSK-31, etc. are all non-necessities. (snip) Absolutely. Which is exactly why there is no test of the actual ability to use those modes - only a written test covering the fundamentals of those modes and the rules associated with them. Why is such a written test necessary? The use of any of those modes is entirely optional. Which is also the reason why failing to correctly answer any one or two questions about any individual mode does not result in failing the test. Morse code should join those modes in that regard. We'll have to agree to disagree on that. Certainly seems incnsitent to me....on a mode for mode comparison basis. In fact, except for the most basic of rules and regulations, your argument leads to the inescapable conclusion that it is not necessary for the goals and purposes of the Amateur Radio Service at this point to mandate *any* learning through a testing requirement. Can you prove otherwise? What is there to prove? Prove the necessity for a written test beyond the most basic rules and regulations. Noneed to. The FCC rules require it and I'm content with that. If you (Jim N2EY) feel otherwise, then petition the FCC for the change. Unless you or someone else does othat, this is just academic futility. The code TEST however, has already been acknowledged by the FCC as not being needed anymore...so the burden of proof to retain a code test falls on those that wish to keep 5 wpm. SNIP of additional comparisons of license requirements vs license privileges I have also noted that perhaps it is time for some "revamping" of licensing such that the privileges bear some relationship to the level of license granted. It will, if that path is taken, be a protracted process (IMHO). Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
The 14 Petitions | Policy | |||
Responses to 14 Petitions on Code Testing | Policy | |||
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1362– September 19 2003 | Policy | |||
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1362– September 19 2003 | General | |||
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1362– September 19 2003 | Dx |