"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

(WA8ULX) wrote in message ...
I can keep up with your lies, no problem.

Its not a LIE, you know it isnt, your just MAD because you cant perform the
same Task.
Everyone knows your waiting for another FREE HANDOUT by the FCC.

You're ranting. Go take a cold shower and an aspirin.

In article ,
says...
Do they keep the completed exams beyond a few months?
The VEs? Or the FCC? Anyway, it would be possible to
get most of the rules and regs questions wrong and
still pass the exam. My father got his advanced back
in 72 down at the FCC field office in NYC. The
examiner told him he passed, but to reread the rules
and regs before he goes on the air. He got most of
those questions wrong. Point is, that you could have
a rule or reg misunderstood, and still pass to get
the license. Most rules that do get violated often
and the FCC goes after are ones people should know
better. Who would think that jamming a repeater is
legal and proper?

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.

--

-- //Steve//

Steve Silverwood, KB6OJS
Fountain Valley, CA
Email:

"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