"KØHB" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"N2EY" wrote


Suppose FCC enacted your proposal as you submitted it. Why would a
person with the entry-level license be qualified for that license for
ten years but then be unqualified for it after ten years? Particularly
if they were willing to retest for the same license?


It's a learners permit, NOT a license. If they couldn't/didn't learn
enough
in 10 years to pass the examination for a license, then they are obviously
not qualified for a license.

73, de Hans, K0HB

PS: Since it's my proposal, I get to define the terminology. Class "B" is
a
learners permit. Class "A" is a license.

If you truly mean "learner's permit" and that it is not a license, then they
really should be supervised each and every time they are on the air. If
they are allowed on the air without supervision, then in reality it is a
license not a learner's permit regardless of the limitations and whether or
not it is renewable.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dee D. Flint" wrote


If you truly mean "learner's permit" and that it is not a license, then
they
really should be supervised each and every time they are on the air. If
they are allowed on the air without supervision, then in reality it is a
license not a learner's permit regardless of the limitations and whether
or
not it is renewable.


It is if I say it is and if I can convince the FCC that it is.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message ink.net...
"Bert Craig" wrote in message
om...
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"Bert Craig" wrote in message
et...

IMHO, No-Code Int'l. has:

1. Encouraged the idea that it is preferable to lower the requirements
through mass petition rather than encourage individuals to strive
toward
higher achievement. Some refer to it as "lowering the bar."

Call it whatever you want. I guess the states "lowered" the bar
when they stopped testing new drivers on manual gearbox autos.

Funny you should mention that, Bill. You see, I took my first driver's
license exam in Jamaica, W.I. where, if you tested in a car equipped
with an automatic transmission, your driving privileges were limited
to vehicles equipped likewise. It was not really about the
"privileges," but about safety and all understood this. (Though we ALL
bemoaned the dreaded ramp test.) So yes, I suppose you did "guess"
correctly although the analogy is not quite appropriate to the ARS.

Don't take my word for it. Ask the poor slob who got rear-ended by
that person who borrowed his/her friend's car and, in a panic stop,
mistook the clutch pedal for the brake pedal when the driver ahead of
him/her stopped short. Actually Bill, I was that poor slob about ten
years ago...so maybe you should take my word for it. I let him slide
though as the damage was minimal with no injuries. Besides, why make
us all pay via increased insurance premiums. Hmm, 1500 Watts on
VHF/UHF...perhaps it wasn't a bad analogy after all?

The reality is the Morse test is past its prime...and the entire body
of international countries have seen fit to eliminate Morse as
an international treaty element.

The reality is that CW is the second most popular mode in the ARS
today and is a part of the big picture. Let's also not forget that
we're talking about the 5-wpm exam for upgrade within, not for entry
into, the ARS.

So how many rear-enders have no-coders had while using CW?

Oh, I don't know, Bill…let's see. Let's ask that fellow who just
passed Element 2 and just couldn't wait to get OTA. So he bought a
nifty little dual-bander, a "killer" Mirage amp, and pumped a few
hundred Watts or VHF or UHF RF into his nice long Yagi (You know, the
one marketed as a "Boomer.") pointed toward a distant repeater…right
through the second floor of his neighbor's house. Heck, he mounted it
on the mast that formerly hosted a TV antenna…that ought to be good
enough, right?

After all, I'm sure that someone who is so bothered at the notion of
having to learn and be tested on a skill he deems irrelevant to how he
plans on operating, that he joins an "international" movement to
remove said offensive task…would certainly be concerned and cognizant
of any harmful RF his equipment might be radiating. Heck, he did pass
that 35 multiple-guess…er, I meant choice test that proclaimed him
"ready." I am fairly certain though that his mode of choice was not
CW. ;-)

The analogy is a joke.

Actually, I am pretty much joking around with you, Bill. (Lighten up.)
HOWEVER, the potential for physical harm is there and somewhere the
above scenario may be playing out as you read these words…and that's
no joke.

There is ZERO element of safety involved with CW knowledge/testing.

Agreed. It's the mindset I find kinda alarming. Folks that have no
problem with putting forth the effort to advance in their endeavors
are more likely to exercise that same "work ethic" wrt conscientiously
ensuring the safe operation of their station. Conversely, folks that
would rather complain about having to put forth some effort (Let's be
honest, the effort is rather minimal re. Element 1.) to advance
themselves are perceived to be "corner-cutters." (Some might even call
them…"slackers.")

BIG BIG DISCLAIMER: I am quite aware that this is not true for all
no-code Technicians and/or NCI members, HOWEVER, all it takes is one
poor soul getting a cranial soaking from some dunderhead who wants to
bombard that repeater to validate the concern. Lest the repeater folks
feel offended, there is a club here on LI devoted to simplex operation
who support VHF/UHF operation with a tad more than the few hundred
Watts mentioned above.

Had there been any relevant safety
aspect to justify CW testing the FCC would have acknowledged it.

You slay me, Bill. Is this the same FCC that's ready to administer the
BPL suppository to AR? "Who's yer daddy now?!"

2. Made the notion of more privileges via higher achievement appear as
if
it's fundamentally wrong. If one wishes to upgrade, then meet the
requirements necessary to achieve that upgrade. (Not just the
requirements
we *want* to meet.)

I see it as fundamentally wrong when the added privileges
have no rational link to the added/higher achievement attained.

Second most popular mode in use today...particularly on HF?!

So how come a no-code tech isn't banned from using CW
on the only two all-CW only bands.

That nice slow-code practice you speak of below. Learn to drive in a
safe environment before venturing onto the highway.

Use does not justify
the requirement since there's nothing detrimental about learning
on the air at even a one word per minute, look it up on a table
rate.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

73 de Bert
WA2SI

(Bert Craig) wrote:
That nice slow-code practice you speak of below. Learn to drive in a
safe environment before venturing onto the highway.

Look out for the hangin'judge too, if'n yore runnin'whiskey
in a big block Plymouth, or Ferd, or Cheby.

In article om, "Dee D.
Flint" writes:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
t...
Bill Sohl wrote:
My XYL refuses to parallel park, as do a number of others. She also
doesn't do three point turns. Your logic would eliminate those from the
test also. A person CAN drive for years and years, and if they do things
a certain way, they don't have to PP or TPT. She can drive 100 percent
of the time without it. Of course the odd emergency situation may come up.

Bill, if you don't want a Morse code test, that is fine, but you
shouldn't use a flawed argument to support it. 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -


In Michigan, you will fail your driving exam if you can't parallel park and
do a 3 point turn. They are mandatory test elements. You can fail one but
not both.

Okay, make up a petition to put before the FCC that all HF-privileged
radio amateurs demonstrate proficiency with a manual gearbox.

LHA

In article , (N2EY)
writes:

Yes, there are almost 260,000 Techs today - but a large number of them are
actually Tech Pluses whom the FCC renewed as Techs since April 2000.

Still on that standard excuse, ey?

Tsk, tsk, tsk...back BEFORE restructuring there were about 200
thousand NO-CODE Technician licenses granted. That was separate
from the "Technician-Plus" class then.

You haven't admitted that so many NO-CODE licensees got their
license grants in the first 9 years of that class.

You keep waltzing around that, misdirecting into other rationalizations
such as "they won't renew" or other statements of invalidity.

The Novice class was dropping in numbers before restructuring and
it continues dropping. The League of Misinformed Gentlemen finally
acquiesced and stated that the Tech license is the "entry level"
class for US ham radio.

Now you keep making the pitiful case of "Tech-plus renewals get
made Technicians and thus 'distort' the no-code numbers" and
conveniently forget the numbers prior to restructuring.

I guess mighty macho morsemen are into Convenience Amnesia.

LHA

In article ,
(Bert Craig) writes:

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
thlink.net...
"Bert Craig" wrote in message
et...

IMHO, No-Code Int'l. has:

1. Encouraged the idea that it is preferable to lower the requirements
through mass petition rather than encourage individuals to strive toward
higher achievement. Some refer to it as "lowering the bar."

Call it whatever you want. I guess the states "lowered" the bar
when they stoped testing new drivers on manual gearbox autos.

Funny you should mention that, Bill. You see, I took my first driver's
license exam in Jamaica, W.I. where, if you tested in a car equipped
with an automatic transmission, your driving privilidges were limited
to vehicles equipped likewise. It was not really about the
"priviliges," but about safety and all understood this. (Though we ALL
bemoaned the dreaded ramp test.) So yes, I suppose you did "guess"
correctly although the analogy is not quite appropriate to the ARS.

Don't take my word for it. Ask the poor slob who got rear-ended by
that person who borrowed his/her friend's car and, in a panic stop,
mistook the clutch pedal for the brake pedal when the dirver ahead of
him/her stopped short. Actually Bill, I was that poor slob about ten
years ago...so maybe you should take my word for it. I let him slide
though as the damage was minimal with no injuries. Besides, why make
us all pay via increased insurance premiums. Hmm, 1500 Watts on
VHF/UHF...perhaps it wasn't a bad analogy after all?

The reality is the morse test is past its prime...and the entire body
of international countries have seen fit to eliminate morse as
an international treaty element.

The reality is that CW is the second most popular mode in the ARS
today and is a part of the big picture. Let's also not forget that
we're talking about the 5-wpm exam for upgrade within, not for entry
into, the ARS.

Well, if one is only second-best, then you have to try harder!

[hardly anyone talks about those who finish in second place...]

LHA

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

This is an excellent point, Bill! And the answer is YES, they did! I
have a wife and kid that cannot drive a standard transmission auto or
truck. I can drive standard as well as automatic transmissioned
vehicles. Who knows more?

I can drive you to distraction if you like... :-)

LHA

In article , N8KDV
writes:

I misplaced my can of 'Thread Be Gone', does someone know where I can get a
replacement?

You can't get any unless you pass a federal morse test.

It's the law.

Of this jungle...

LHA

In article ,
(JEP) writes:

And just what "facts" do you preent to back-up your claim
that: "No Code is killing ham radio?"

Odds are you haven't a single rational example.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

May I, Bill?

While I do not think No-Code Int'l. is "killing" ham radio, I do believe it
is fostering a bad mindset.

If there were truly no no-code AR license available, I'd agree that the
Morse code exam is a barrier to those who neither possess the "Morse
aptitude" (For lack of a better term.) nor wish to utilize it OTA. However,
there's been a no-code ticket available for over a decade now...with some
pretty generous RF real estate and power limitations I might add.

IMHO, No-Code Int'l. has:

1. Encouraged the idea that it is preferable to lower the requirements
through mass petition rather than encourage individuals to strive toward
higher achievement. Some refer to it as "lowering the bar."

2. Made the notion of more privileges via higher achievement appear as if
it's fundamentally wrong. If one wishes to upgrade, then meet the
requirements necessary to achieve that upgrade. (Not just the requirements
we *want* to meet.)

I've read enough posts here and on the countless code vs. no-code articles
on the various ham radio web forums (As well as the actual RM petitions and
their respective comments.) to confidently say that neither side can claim
an overwhelming numerical advantage over the other. So I think it's safe to
say that not all ascribe to the "barrier" notion.

What will happen? Well, the squeaky wheel gets the oil so I think we can be
reasonably assured of the elimination of Element 1...at least for
Technician
"+" privies. Personally, I'm prouder to have achieved rather than squeaked.

73 es HNY de Bert
WA2SI

Yep, the dumbing down of America. The masses can't pass the test so we
will make the test easier. Notice how they skirt the issue of having
passed any test in front of a FCC examiner.

No problem, olde tymer. I passed my First Phone test the first time
in March, 1956, in the FCC's Chicago field office. Much later I went
to the Long Beach, CA, field office to complete paperwork on a
(now) PLMRS license. Real, live FCC employees, leased FCC
office space!

The VEC program is another
farce. Why not put the little piece of paper in a corn flakes box. At
least you would have breakfast.

Make it MREs, mighty macho morseman. Update. Ham radio is
a SERVICE!

Hup, too, tree, foah...march, march, march...

LHA