|
"Phil Kane" wrote in message . net...
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. Phil, I said it before the restructuring and I''ll say it again. "What I fear most about the restructuring is a lack of enforcement, and what I fear most about maintaining the status quo is a lack of enforcement." Having people memorizing the rules is completely meaningless unless the FCC enforces them. |
Having people memorizing the rules is completely meaningless unless
the FCC enforces them. Now your getting the Picture |
On 30 Dec 2003 16:07:59 -0800, Brian wrote:
Phil, I said it before the restructuring and I''ll say it again. "What I fear most about the restructuring is a lack of enforcement, and what I fear most about maintaining the status quo is a lack of enforcement." Having people memorizing the rules is completely meaningless unless the FCC enforces them. I said that long before you were a ham and I'll continue to say it. I and others did our parts to make it happen, and I'm sad that it degenerated as it did. I can point fingers 40 years back as to why but it wouldn't do any good. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote: 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 (snip) While that might be an exception, would a person with a technical background be the type to ignore rules? Instead, I suspect a person who would make the effort to gain a technical background would also likely make the effort to learn the rules of any activity he or she might be involved in. (snip) Plus the questions don't begin to cover all the rules that directly apply to the operations of a Technician class licensee. Well, if you're looking for a test to cover all the rules, it seems to me you're looking for a test with several hundred questions. College students don't even have to take a test with several hundred questions to pass a class to prepare for a career. Likewise, an extensive exam like this doesn't fit into the current exam concept (basic exams for entry into each license class). With that in mind, how are you going to sell the FCC on that idea? 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. (snip) Why? Do you have some evidence (personal, rhetorical, or otherwise) that would suggest the current tests are linked to a specific problem with rule violations? From what I've seen, most violations are the result of intentional rule infractions, not ignorance of the rules themselves. 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. My wife only had 50 questions on the exams to pass her international law class recently (two 20 question exams and one 10 question exam). You're asking for much more from people preparing for what is fundamentally a recreational activity. That, in my opinion, is a little ridiculous, Dee. 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. (snip) You keep saying that, but do you have anything to suggest it has ever happened (much less commonly so)? Again, it is theoretically possible, but not really very likely. As I said before, 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. 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 (snip) Did they tell you that (they were unaware they can work code on VHF), or is that your interpretation of their comment. I've made a similar comment once or twice over the years - not because I was unaware I could work code on VHF, but because there are so few others doing so on those frequencies. Again, take the Tech test. There is very little on digital operations or satellite operations yet these are open to Technicians. (snip) There was such material in the pool I studied (7/97 - 6/01 pool). For satellite, questions T1C01 through T1C11, T1E05 through T1E08, T3C01 through T3C05, T3C10 through T3C12, and a few others here and there throughout the pool. There are a similar number of questions for digital operations. 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. (snip) 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. (snip) Come on, Dee. If you throw in a little more math and language skills, you could almost offer a college degree to those who pass the exams you want. 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 (snip) Not in so many words, but the concepts are there (bandwidths of various modes and frequency limits). The old Novice used to have a couple of questions about this, but I'm not sure that made it's way over to the new tests. 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." Not really. My objection isn't based on the fact that the current exams have evolved over the years, but on the fact that I don't see how the suggested changes offer an improvement. The part about the current exams evolving over the years was intended to point out how well they fit the current needs, leaving little room for improvement by the suggestions offered. The same cannot be said about the code test because it hasn't really evolved to fit the current needs (from a regulatory perspective, there is no current need for the code test). Now, before this turns into a code test debate, lets drop this at that. 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. Obviously every Ham should know those things. But, as noted in section 97.3 of the rules (below), this is an activity oriented towards self-study or self-training, not massive tests with extensive knowledge before entrance. Section 97.3 "A radio communications service for the purpose of self-training, intercommunication and technical investigations carried out by amateurs, that is, duly authorized persons interested in radio technique solely with a personal aim and without pecuniary interest." The rules are there for any Ham to study on their own - with plenty of warnings in the exams about what might happen if they don't follow those rules. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message k.net... "Dee D. Flint" wrote: 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 (snip) While that might be an exception, would a person with a technical background be the type to ignore rules? Instead, I suspect a person who would make the effort to gain a technical background would also likely make the effort to learn the rules of any activity he or she might be involved in. Yes they can be. I've known several. They too often fall in the "know it all" category. (snip) Plus the questions don't begin to cover all the rules that directly apply to the operations of a Technician class licensee. Well, if you're looking for a test to cover all the rules, it seems to me you're looking for a test with several hundred questions. College students don't even have to take a test with several hundred questions to pass a class to prepare for a career. Likewise, an extensive exam like this doesn't fit into the current exam concept (basic exams for entry into each license class). With that in mind, how are you going to sell the FCC on that idea? I think 50 to 100 questions ought to do it. Only the pool would need to be several hundred questions, just as today's pools are far larger than the number of questions actually occurring on any one exam. 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. (snip) Why? Do you have some evidence (personal, rhetorical, or otherwise) that would suggest the current tests are linked to a specific problem with rule violations? From what I've seen, most violations are the result of intentional rule infractions, not ignorance of the rules themselves. I find band edge violations almost every time I dial up and down the HF bands. 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. My wife only had 50 questions on the exams to pass her international law class recently (two 20 question exams and one 10 question exam). You're asking for much more from people preparing for what is fundamentally a recreational activity. That, in my opinion, is a little ridiculous, Dee. How many questions has she had to pass to get her law degree and to pass her bar exam? Fifty to 100 multiple choice questions on the FCC rules is simple as the rules are very simple. 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. (snip) You keep saying that, but do you have anything to suggest it has ever happened (much less commonly so)? Again, it is theoretically possible, but not really very likely. As I said before, 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. On the Tech exam there are only 5 rules questions. That means missing all 5 gives you a score of 30, which is passing. This gives you room to miss several other questions on the exam. However several of those 5 are so common sense (i.e. no interference) that even someone who has not studied will not miss them all. Afterall the passing grade for the exam is only 74%. That means you can miss a total of 9 and still get it. Neither the examiners nor the applicants know which specific questions were used on any one exam. The answer sheets and question sheets are separated. So determining whether someone had difficulty with the technical, operating, or rules sections is not allowed at the test session. The data could be computerized and correlated at the VEC but isn't. However in teaching classes and using practice exams, it is common for a student to struggle with a particular section while acing the others. The section will vary from student to student however. 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 (snip) Did they tell you that (they were unaware they can work code on VHF), or is that your interpretation of their comment. I've made a similar comment once or twice over the years - not because I was unaware I could work code on VHF, but because there are so few others doing so on those frequencies. They actually told me so and were astonished that it was legal for them to work CW on VHF even though they had not passed a code test. The sad thing is the only people I ever find on VHF CW are Generals, Advanced and Extras. Again, take the Tech test. There is very little on digital operations or satellite operations yet these are open to Technicians. (snip) There was such material in the pool I studied (7/97 - 6/01 pool). For satellite, questions T1C01 through T1C11, T1E05 through T1E08, T3C01 through T3C05, T3C10 through T3C12, and a few others here and there throughout the pool. There are a similar number of questions for digital operations. The current question pool however no longer includes the data rates for digital. This is quite important for legal operation that does not exceed the bandwidths for these modes. These groups in the pool are repetitious repeating the same question in several forms and thus a lot of important material is omitted. 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. (snip) 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. (snip) Come on, Dee. If you throw in a little more math and language skills, you could almost offer a college degree to those who pass the exams you want. Note that I said these areas aren't really necessary but simply interesting. One or two questions in the pool might spark a person's interest to pursue self study in these areas. 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 (snip) Not in so many words, but the concepts are there (bandwidths of various modes and frequency limits). The old Novice used to have a couple of questions about this, but I'm not sure that made it's way over to the new tests. No it hasn't made its way into the new tests. And I hear this violation happening regularly when I am on HF and it seems to be increasing. 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." Not really. My objection isn't based on the fact that the current exams have evolved over the years, but on the fact that I don't see how the suggested changes offer an improvement. The part about the current exams evolving over the years was intended to point out how well they fit the current needs, leaving little room for improvement by the suggestions offered. The same cannot be said about the code test because it hasn't really evolved to fit the current needs (from a regulatory perspective, there is no current need for the code test). Now, before this turns into a code test debate, lets drop this at that. Difference of opinion is fine but don't assume that the FCC knows what they are doing. Just because they've said it doesn't make it true. They have a long history of mistakes. 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. Obviously every Ham should know those things. But, as noted in section 97.3 of the rules (below), this is an activity oriented towards self-study or self-training, not massive tests with extensive knowledge before entrance. [snip] The rules are there for any Ham to study on their own - with plenty of warnings in the exams about what might happen if they don't follow those rules. Adding one 50 question test on rules hardly constitutes massive tests with extensive knowledge. Changing the handful of rules questions in the current tests to other material if a separate rules test were instituted hardly constitutes asking for extensive knowledge. My comments on what could be used for this were to point out that there was a wealth of material to pick from not to say that ALL technical and operating issues should be covered. Or one could simply reduce the number of questions in the Tech, General, & Extra since the rules would already be covered in the rules exam.. There are NOT plenty of warnings in the exams about what can happen to violators if they do not follow the rules. Reread the question pool. There NO questions in the Technician pool about the possible penalties for violating the rules. Questions about the rules, yes. Questions about the penalties, no. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in
gy.com: "Dwight Stewart" wrote in message k.net... "Dee D. Flint" wrote: 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 (snip) While that might be an exception, would a person with a technical background be the type to ignore rules? Instead, I suspect a person who would make the effort to gain a technical background would also likely make the effort to learn the rules of any activity he or she might be involved in. Yes they can be. I've known several. They too often fall in the "know it all" category. (snip) Plus the questions don't begin to cover all the rules that directly apply to the operations of a Technician class licensee. Well, if you're looking for a test to cover all the rules, it seems to me you're looking for a test with several hundred questions. College students don't even have to take a test with several hundred questions to pass a class to prepare for a career. Likewise, an extensive exam like this doesn't fit into the current exam concept (basic exams for entry into each license class). With that in mind, how are you going to sell the FCC on that idea? I think 50 to 100 questions ought to do it. Only the pool would need to be several hundred questions, just as today's pools are far larger than the number of questions actually occurring on any one exam. 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. (snip) Why? Do you have some evidence (personal, rhetorical, or otherwise) that would suggest the current tests are linked to a specific problem with rule violations? From what I've seen, most violations are the result of intentional rule infractions, not ignorance of the rules themselves. I find band edge violations almost every time I dial up and down the HF bands. 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. My wife only had 50 questions on the exams to pass her international law class recently (two 20 question exams and one 10 question exam). You're asking for much more from people preparing for what is fundamentally a recreational activity. That, in my opinion, is a little ridiculous, Dee. How many questions has she had to pass to get her law degree and to pass her bar exam? Fifty to 100 multiple choice questions on the FCC rules is simple as the rules are very simple. 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. (snip) You keep saying that, but do you have anything to suggest it has ever happened (much less commonly so)? Again, it is theoretically possible, but not really very likely. As I said before, 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. On the Tech exam there are only 5 rules questions. That means missing all 5 gives you a score of 30, which is passing. This gives you room to miss several other questions on the exam. However several of those 5 are so common sense (i.e. no interference) that even someone who has not studied will not miss them all. Afterall the passing grade for the exam is only 74%. That means you can miss a total of 9 and still get it. Neither the examiners nor the applicants know which specific questions were used on any one exam. The answer sheets and question sheets are separated. So determining whether someone had difficulty with the technical, operating, or rules sections is not allowed at the test session. The data could be computerized and correlated at the VEC but isn't. However in teaching classes and using practice exams, it is common for a student to struggle with a particular section while acing the others. The section will vary from student to student however. 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 (snip) Did they tell you that (they were unaware they can work code on VHF), or is that your interpretation of their comment. I've made a similar comment once or twice over the years - not because I was unaware I could work code on VHF, but because there are so few others doing so on those frequencies. They actually told me so and were astonished that it was legal for them to work CW on VHF even though they had not passed a code test. The sad thing is the only people I ever find on VHF CW are Generals, Advanced and Extras. Again, take the Tech test. There is very little on digital operations or satellite operations yet these are open to Technicians. (snip) There was such material in the pool I studied (7/97 - 6/01 pool). For satellite, questions T1C01 through T1C11, T1E05 through T1E08, T3C01 through T3C05, T3C10 through T3C12, and a few others here and there throughout the pool. There are a similar number of questions for digital operations. The current question pool however no longer includes the data rates for digital. This is quite important for legal operation that does not exceed the bandwidths for these modes. These groups in the pool are repetitious repeating the same question in several forms and thus a lot of important material is omitted. 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. (snip) 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. (snip) Come on, Dee. If you throw in a little more math and language skills, you could almost offer a college degree to those who pass the exams you want. Note that I said these areas aren't really necessary but simply interesting. One or two questions in the pool might spark a person's interest to pursue self study in these areas. 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 (snip) Not in so many words, but the concepts are there (bandwidths of various modes and frequency limits). The old Novice used to have a couple of questions about this, but I'm not sure that made it's way over to the new tests. No it hasn't made its way into the new tests. And I hear this violation happening regularly when I am on HF and it seems to be increasing. 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." Not really. My objection isn't based on the fact that the current exams have evolved over the years, but on the fact that I don't see how the suggested changes offer an improvement. The part about the current exams evolving over the years was intended to point out how well they fit the current needs, leaving little room for improvement by the suggestions offered. The same cannot be said about the code test because it hasn't really evolved to fit the current needs (from a regulatory perspective, there is no current need for the code test). Now, before this turns into a code test debate, lets drop this at that. Difference of opinion is fine but don't assume that the FCC knows what they are doing. Just because they've said it doesn't make it true. They have a long history of mistakes. 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. Obviously every Ham should know those things. But, as noted in section 97.3 of the rules (below), this is an activity oriented towards self-study or self-training, not massive tests with extensive knowledge before entrance. [snip] The rules are there for any Ham to study on their own - with plenty of warnings in the exams about what might happen if they don't follow those rules. Adding one 50 question test on rules hardly constitutes massive tests with extensive knowledge. Changing the handful of rules questions in the current tests to other material if a separate rules test were instituted hardly constitutes asking for extensive knowledge. My comments on what could be used for this were to point out that there was a wealth of material to pick from not to say that ALL technical and operating issues should be covered. Or one could simply reduce the number of questions in the Tech, General, & Extra since the rules would already be covered in the rules exam.. There are NOT plenty of warnings in the exams about what can happen to violators if they do not follow the rules. Reread the question pool. There NO questions in the Technician pool about the possible penalties for violating the rules. Questions about the rules, yes. Questions about the penalties, no. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Dee D. Flint, N8UZE I don't think it is practical to test everyone on everything. Tests are written in such a way that the candidate doesn't know what will come up, so has to learn everything in the pool. There should be more questions in the pool, though, covering topics that are presently left out. Interestingly, WRC 2003 laid down a syllabus for the first time. However, I confess I have no idea whether current FCC tests comply with it or not. Unlike in the US, the UK tests have extensive questions on operating practice. One thing at least that comes out of that is that UK hams all know the international phonetics by heart. US hams don't, because it's not in the FCC question pools. It should be. There are also extensive questions on interference in the UK, including questions on band edges. If that were the case in the US, I doubt if you would come across so many US hams operating USB on 14.350 or the like (I hear them too, and much too often). The UK question pools are not published, but I know these questions occur. This is not meant to say that the UK tests are superior, it is just an observation on a couple of things that ought to be in the FCC question pools that aren't, and the corresponding broader areas in which the FCC tests are weak. Yes, I suppose I should write some questions on these subjects and submit them. It is one of the good points of the US system that I could do that. It is perhaps also one of it's bad points, in that questions submitted by volunteers may have a few holes in the first place (gaps in coverage, not necessarily flaws in the questions). 73 de Alun, N3KIP (Ex-G8VUK, G0VUK) PS: I am a 'know-it-all' EE, but I don't think anyone in my position would take the tests without at least reading Part 97. |
"Alun" wrote in message ... I don't think it is practical to test everyone on everything. Tests are written in such a way that the candidate doesn't know what will come up, so has to learn everything in the pool. There should be more questions in the pool, though, covering topics that are presently left out. Interestingly, WRC 2003 laid down a syllabus for the first time. However, I confess I have no idea whether current FCC tests comply with it or not. Unlike in the US, the UK tests have extensive questions on operating practice. One thing at least that comes out of that is that UK hams all know the international phonetics by heart. US hams don't, because it's not in the FCC question pools. It should be. There are also extensive questions on interference in the UK, including questions on band edges. If that were the case in the US, I doubt if you would come across so many US hams operating USB on 14.350 or the like (I hear them too, and much too often). The UK question pools are not published, but I know these questions occur. This is not meant to say that the UK tests are superior, it is just an observation on a couple of things that ought to be in the FCC question pools that aren't, and the corresponding broader areas in which the FCC tests are weak. Yes, I suppose I should write some questions on these subjects and submit them. It is one of the good points of the US system that I could do that. It is perhaps also one of it's bad points, in that questions submitted by volunteers may have a few holes in the first place (gaps in coverage, not necessarily flaws in the questions). 73 de Alun, N3KIP (Ex-G8VUK, G0VUK) PS: I am a 'know-it-all' EE, but I don't think anyone in my position would take the tests without at least reading Part 97. Alun, not everyone is as conscientious as you are about having checked out the rules. Of those hams that I personally know, only a small percentage have a copy of the Part 97 rules and an even smaller percentage bother to keep up with making sure it is current. Also you didn't have to quote the ENTIRE discussion to make a reply. I was beginning to wonder if you had written anything as I scrolled down. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"Phil Kane" wrote in message et... On 30 Dec 2003 16:07:59 -0800, Brian wrote: Phil, I said it before the restructuring and I''ll say it again. "What I fear most about the restructuring is a lack of enforcement, and what I fear most about maintaining the status quo is a lack of enforcement." Having people memorizing the rules is completely meaningless unless the FCC enforces them. I said that long before you were a ham and I'll continue to say it. I and others did our parts to make it happen, and I'm sad that it degenerated as it did. I can point fingers 40 years back as to why but it wouldn't do any good. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane I believe the downward spin began with Dick Bash. Dan/W4NTI |
I said that long before you were a ham and I'll continue to say it. I and others did our parts to make it happen, and I'm sad that it degenerated as it did. I can point fingers 40 years back as to why but it wouldn't do any good. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane I believe the downward spin began with Dick Bash. Dan/W4NTI Which in turn Dan was IMHO due to the incentive debaucle. I think we all need to kick our collective asses for allowing a lot of things to happen over the years. Film at 11 as this is New Years Eve .... 73 God Bless KI3R Tom Popovic Belle Vernon Pa |
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 15:21:06 GMT, Dee D. Flint wrote:
My wife only had 50 questions on the exams to pass her international law class recently (two 20 question exams and one 10 question exam). You're asking for much more from people preparing for what is fundamentally a recreational activity. That, in my opinion, is a little ridiculous, Dee. How many questions has she had to pass to get her law degree and to pass her bar exam? Pending Dwight's reply, I can add from my own experience. Minimum accredited law school requirements for a JD were 80 units of classwork, in which 60 units required written tests of six essay questions (3 midterm, 3 final) per unit, one hour per essay. Rarely did we have a multiple choice or fill-in-the-blank exam. The other 20 units were performance subjects where every day was, in effect, an exam. The Bar Exam is something different. Each state has slightly different requirements, one or two days' worth of written "essay" exams and the one-day Multistate Bar Exam (MBE). The MBE is a national requirement, a 200-question multiple-choice exam, 100 in the morning, 100 in the afternoon, with three hours per session. The time for each question comes out to 1.8 minutes each. Half of the questions come from a published 500 question-and-answer pool. Of course there's a hitch - two or more choices are close to the expected answer and it's the applicant's job to pick the right one. In the year that I took the Bar Exam, most states required a minimum of 130 correct answers (65%) to even be considered for admission, and the average nationwide was 132 including the superstars from places like Harvard and Yale Law Schools. California - the toughest of the states - granted admission to anyone who scored 152 (76%) or more, regardless of his/her performance on the written portion. Not quite the same as the FCC license tests..... Fifty to 100 multiple choice questions on the FCC rules is simple as the rules are very simple. 50 seems to be a reasonable number for the average applicant. This isn't, and shouldn't be, a Bar Exam because folks who pass the rules exam are not expected to be qualified to do interpretation and analysis to the level and precision that an attorney does. Another radical idea: The (commercial) radiotelephone operator's exam has two elements that all classes must pass: Element 1 dealing with Rules and Regulations, and Element 2 dealing with operating practices and procedures. As this is a requirement even for a charter boat skipper operating in tidal waters who isn't even allowed to do anything with the transmitter except to operate the external channel and volume knobs, I can see having a counterpart of perhaps another 50 questions in the Amateur exam dealing with operating practices in all modes. Like the Rules exam, pass it once, never have to pass it again unless the license lapses beyond the grace period for renewal or the licensee's conduct is found to be so egregious that a re-exam under FCC supervision is necessary - "all or nothing". -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:22 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com