|
"Steve Silverwood" wrote in message ... In article , says... ...is simply this: Know code = Know ham No code = No ham The eternal truth, proven every day. I have a feeling that this issue about the code will never be resolved, at least not while the "old guard" of CW loyalists are still around. The issue has been resolved internationally in July of this year. There is NO code requirement necessary anymore to stay compliant with international treaty agreements. Since July '03, a number of countries, including Great Britain, Netherlands, Belgium and others have already ended or announced an end date for morse testing in their contry's requirments. At some point the FCC will drop all code testing also. The direction is clear, the path has been taken, there's no turning back. The FCC provided every opportunity to pro-code advocates to argue their case and the pro-coders failed to convince the FCC as to there being any need (other than the ITU treaty at the time) for code testing at all. The only thing at issue will be how soon? Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
|
"Steve Silverwood" wrote in message ... I don't know if they keep the exams. From what I understand, the exams are administered and retained by the VE team rather than the FCC. But I definitely DO feel that the number of questions should be increased for each license, with additional weight given to the questions regarding Part 97 and operating practices, especially for the Tech exam. Actually I'd like to see a new, separate element that is devoted entirely to rules and regulations that would have to be passed before taking the technical elements for the license classes. One should not be able to get on the air if they miss a significant percentage of the rules. As some have commented, right now it is quite possible to miss the majority of the regulatory questions on an exam yet still pass the exam. The exams for the various classes could then focus on operating procedures and technical elements. For example, let's call the rules test Element R and then for the various licenses we could have a system as follows: Technician - Element R, Element 2 Technician with HF - Element R, Element 1, Element 2 General - Element R, Element 1, Element 2, Element 3 Extra - Element R, Element 1, Element 2, Element 3 Although if it is a truly comprehensive rules test, I'd would find it acceptable to eliminate element 1 for Tech with HF thus combining the current Tech & Tech with HF and perhaps even for General. Too many people just gloss over the rules and are not willing to look them up. They then rely on other people who have also glossed over the rules when they have a question and get some really bad information. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message gy.com... "Steve Silverwood" wrote in message ... I don't know if they keep the exams. From what I understand, the exams are administered and retained by the VE team rather than the FCC. But I definitely DO feel that the number of questions should be increased for each license, with additional weight given to the questions regarding Part 97 and operating practices, especially for the Tech exam. Actually I'd like to see a new, separate element that is devoted entirely to rules and regulations that would have to be passed before taking the technical elements for the license classes. I believe Jim N2EY and I have a similar viewpoint as to making the written into two or more specific and separate elements for each class. Where I would differ from your suggestion is that it makes no difference which element(s) are passed first as long as each stands on its own. One should not be able to get on the air if they miss a significant percentage of the rules. As some have commented, right now it is quite possible to miss the majority of the regulatory questions on an exam yet still pass the exam. The exams for the various classes could then focus on operating procedures and technical elements. For example, let's call the rules test Element R and then for the various licenses we could have a system as follows: Technician - Element R, Element 2 Technician with HF - Element R, Element 1, Element 2 General - Element R, Element 1, Element 2, Element 3 Extra - Element R, Element 1, Element 2, Element 3 Although if it is a truly comprehensive rules test, I'd would find it acceptable to eliminate element 1 for Tech with HF thus combining the current Tech & Tech with HF and perhaps even for General. Too many people just gloss over the rules and are not willing to look them up. They then rely on other people who have also glossed over the rules when they have a question and get some really bad information. Seems reasonable to me. Cheers Bill K2UNK |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote: (snip) As some have commented, right now it is quite possible to miss the majority of the regulatory questions on an exam yet still pass the exam. (snip Theoretically possible, but not really very likely. A person that poorly prepared would likely miss several other questions on the exam, meaning he or she would almost have to get the majority correct on each part of the exam to pass the overall exam. That is one of the strengths of this type of exam. The exams for the various classes could then focus on operating procedures and technical elements. (snip) What about the rules specific to each license class (VE rules, for example)? Also, some important rules are reenforced by repeating them at least one more time in another exam. How would you handle that? For example, let's call the rules test Element R and then for the various licenses we could have a system as follows: (snip) The rules are already in the current Technician exam and reenforced in the General (and a few even reenforced in the Extra). A single exam for the rules would eliminate that system of reenforcement. Also, there are about 100 questions in the current written exams, from a pool of about 600 questions. Beyond the rules, how would you break those questions down for each element? Finally, I have to wonder if there is any reason to change the exams at all. The current exams have evolved over many years, and I just don't see how the suggested changes I've seen (yours and others) offer a real improvement. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:38:08 GMT, Dee D. Flint wrote:
Actually I'd like to see a new, separate element that is devoted entirely to rules and regulations that would have to be passed before taking the technical elements for the license classes. One should not be able to get on the air if they miss a significant percentage of the rules. I agree with you 150 %. Let's have the present Element 1 replaced by this "rules" element - it is more relevant to all amateurs on any band, any class, any mode. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote Actually I'd like to see a new, separate element that is devoted entirely to rules and regulations that would have to be passed before taking the technical elements for the license classes. If there were a broad problem with rules compliance I might agree with you. But there isn't, and most of the scofflaws we hear on the bands know the rules just fine --- they've just decided to ignore them or apply tortured interpretations to support their egotistical agenda. K1MAN comes to mind. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message link.net... "Dee D. Flint" wrote: (snip) As some have commented, right now it is quite possible to miss the majority of the regulatory questions on an exam yet still pass the exam. (snip Theoretically possible, but not really very likely. A person that poorly prepared would likely miss several other questions on the exam, meaning he or she would almost have to get the majority correct on each part of the exam to pass the overall exam. That is one of the strengths of this type of exam. I have known several people who already had the technical background (or most of it) and passed the exam and knew very little about the rules. Take the Technician exam. There are only 5 questions on the test pertaining to rules out of a total of 35 questions. You can miss all five and pass since you can miss as many as 9 and still have a passing score. Plus the questions don't begin to cover all the rules that directly apply to the operations of a Technician class licensee. The exams for the various classes could then focus on operating procedures and technical elements. (snip) What about the rules specific to each license class (VE rules, for example)? Also, some important rules are reenforced by repeating them at least one more time in another exam. How would you handle that? None of the tests currently comes close to covering the full scope of rules applying to the license class on that particular license exam and that is what needs to be changed. Since Generals and higher can be VEs, they need to test for the VE rules anyway. And yes Generals can be VEs as they are eligible to administer Tech class license tests. Right now the General test is sorely lacking in VE rule questions. The VE rules (in comparison to most of the other material) are fairly simple so it wouldn't hurt the Techs to learn them anyway. Most of the rules apply across the board. Yes there are band limits for the different license classes so perhaps that could be put on the individual license exams or repeated on the individual exams for reinforcment but all classes need to know the baud rate limit for RTTY on HF. Even the Techs need to know this if they chose to earn HF privileges or if the code is done away with in the future. If the applicant has studied sufficiently to get 75% right on a rules only test of say 100 or so questions, he/she shouldn't have too much problem remembering the rules. The rules that get reinforced on today's testing happen to be those that are the easiest to remember. They are items such as: no playing of music, no profanity, no interference etc. They are the common sense items that nearly everyone can remember with just a single test simply because they are common sense. That some people choose to flout those basic common sense rules doesn't mean they don't know them. For example, let's call the rules test Element R and then for the various licenses we could have a system as follows: (snip) The rules are already in the current Technician exam and reenforced in the General (and a few even reenforced in the Extra). A single exam for the rules would eliminate that system of reenforcement. Also, there are about 100 questions in the current written exams, from a pool of about 600 questions. Beyond the rules, how would you break those questions down for each element? The rules covered in the exam barely scratch the surface. And one can miss most or all the rules questions and still pass the current exam element. The rules that get reinforced are only those that are major (i.e. no interference or false distress calls for example) and generally are easily remembered anyway. I regularly have people tell me they'd like to practice their code on the air but "can't because they are only a Tech." They are totally unaware that they can work code in the VHF and higher spectrum so if they want to practice with a friend (or elmer) or work the DX 6m band openings on CW, it's perfectly legal to do so. Another example; many people at all levels of license classes are very confused about the difference between regulated band requirements and band plans. This question comes up over and over. As far as then filling in on the existing tests to make up for moving rules to a separate element, there is plenty of operational and technical material, etc. that could be inserted. Again, take the Tech test. There is very little on digital operations or satellite operations yet these are open to Technicians. Here is another example. The tests do not have questions addressing the issue of how far from the band edge one should stay to insure that none of their signal is outside the allowable band. I've heard Generals, for example, operating LSB at 7.226, just 1kc above their band limit, which puts part of their signal out-of-band. And it's not limited to Generals. I've heard Extras operating LSB at 7.151, which is the same problem. They, of all people, should know better but often do not. It's not adequately covered in the study material or the exams. Or another area that could be included in the test, although I'd admit it's not a necessity, is something on the history of amateur radio. How many people realize amateurs made major contributions to the development of radio and what those contributions were? Cell phone technology is basically a commercialized version of the linked repeater systems with phone patch that amateurs developed. They've automated functions that the amateurs left as manual functions. Or how about including a little bit on space weather and it's effects not only on propagation but how major flares can potentially effect electronics in general. Or how about a bit more detail on how to address RFI issues. The coverage in the licensing and testing is extremely limited. There's no shortage of valuable material that could be used. Finally, I have to wonder if there is any reason to change the exams at all. The current exams have evolved over many years, and I just don't see how the suggested changes I've seen (yours and others) offer a real improvement. Dwight that argument can be turned against the proposal to eliminate code testing as follows so don't go there. "Finally, I have to wonder if there is any reason to change the exams at all. The current exams have evolved over many years, and I just don't see how the suggested changes I've seen (yours and others to eliminate code testing) offer a real improvement." Although nothing will stop the deliberate violators, knowing the rules helps prevent the good and decent people from making mistakes. It will help prevent, but not completely stop, well intentioned but uninformed people from spreading misinformation about what the rules are. Do you know how many times I've had to show them the actual FCC rules to convince people (including Extras) that 50.0 to 50.1 and 144.0 to 144.1 are CW only with not even digital modes allowed? It happens several times a year. They have fallen into the trap of thinking, incorrectly, that VHF and higher has only band plans when in fact it does have a few regulatory limits and this is one of them. The top three things that any ham should know, in my opinion, are rules/regulations, safety, and good operating practices. These need a great deal more coverage than they currently get. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message link.net... "Dee D. Flint" wrote: (snip) As some have commented, right now it is quite possible to miss the majority of the regulatory questions on an exam yet still pass the exam. (snip Theoretically possible, but not really very likely. A person that poorly prepared would likely miss several other questions on the exam, meaning he or she would almost have to get the majority correct on each part of the exam to pass the overall exam. That is one of the strengths of this type of exam. The exams for the various classes could then focus on operating procedures and technical elements. (snip) What about the rules specific to each license class (VE rules, for example)? Also, some important rules are reenforced by repeating them at least one more time in another exam. How would you handle that? Frankly, I believe VE rules don't belong on the license exam at all. Far better to focus on operating rather than regulatory minutia of how to operate VE sessions, etc. I'd have no problem with a "VE" endorsement if the FCC deemed it necessary or just handle things as they do today via ARRL, W5YI or other VE accreditation (sp?). For example, let's call the rules test Element R and then for the various licenses we could have a system as follows: (snip) The rules are already in the current Technician exam and reenforced in the General (and a few even reenforced in the Extra). A single exam for the rules would eliminate that system of reenforcement. Also, there are about 100 questions in the current written exams, from a pool of about 600 questions. Beyond the rules, how would you break those questions down for each element? Finally, I have to wonder if there is any reason to change the exams at all. The current exams have evolved over many years, and I just don't see how the suggested changes I've seen (yours and others) offer a real improvement. I think Dee's suggestions would make a small, but valid, improvement. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:22 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com