"garigue" wrote in message
news:T_HIb.17085$I07.49105@attbi_s53...

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



Totally agree.

Dan/W4NTI

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 18:23:19 GMT, Dan/W4NTI wrote:

I believe the downward spin began with Dick Bash.

He may have been the "external" cause but there were folks inside
the agency who did not understand or appreciate ham radio and could
not understand why any resources had to be expended in enforcement.
Then along came the bad years of CB running wild and things went
downhill fast.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

Yes they can be. I've known several.
They too often fall in the "know it all"
category.


That hasn't been my experience. First, I haven't seen that many rule
violations across the board. Most operators tend to stick to the rules, or
at least make a darn good effort to do so. But, second, I certainly haven't
seen that among those who tend to be technically oriented. If anything, they
tend to go overboard on the rules.


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.


I assume you want an equal number of questions for each exam. If so, you
still haven't answered the key point of my last message. The current exam
concept is basic exams for entry into each license class. Since you're
advocating much more extensive exams, are you saying the current concept
should be thrown away? If not, how do such large exams fit into the current
concept? None of the other FCC licenses, except those professionally
oriented, have such an extensive exam system. Are you advocating that we
turn the exams for the Amateur Radio service into something similar to the
exams for the professionally oriented licenses? If so, are you also
advocating that we change the concept behind our licenses, and, by
extension, the radio service, at the same time - in other words, the
elimination of "amateur" from the Amateur Radio service?


How many questions has she had to
pass to get her law degree and to
pass her bar exam?


It is patently absurd to compare the Amateur Radio license exams to the
final exams for a law degree or any other college degree. I was more than
generous when I compared them to the tests for a single college class. And,
as I said, my wife only had 50 questions on the tests to pass her
international law class.


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. (snip)


Again, do you have anything to suggest this (a person missing every
question on the rules, yet still passing the overall exam) has ever
happened, much less commonly so? If not, you're doing as some others have
done - offering a solution without evidence of a problem (in other words, an
answer seeking a question).


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. (snip)


Again, is there a widespread problem with this? I certainly haven't heard
any complaints in this regard.


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.


Speaking in general (not specifically to you, Dee - your comment just
offered an opportunity to spread this to a wider issue to more directly
address the subject line of this thread), the anti-FCC sentiment now
spreading in the Amateur Radio community bothers me greatly. This same
mentality started spreading in the CB community many years ago, with
disastrous long term results. The FCC isn't our enemy. Any ruling we
disagree with isn't necessarily a mistake and any mistakes they've made are
far outweighed by the good things they've done for us (like the continued
support for this radio service). In many ways, some in this service act like
a bunch of spoiled brats. We have more frequencies, and more privileges on
those frequencies, than just about any other non-government radio service.
But these spoiled brats will never be satisfied - endlessly demanding more
attention from the FCC over often trivial issues and then whining about how
horrible the FCC is when things don't go their way. This behavior is
extremely destructive, both for our relationship with the FCC and for the
spirit of this radio service. And that, in my opinion, is the main problem
with Ham radio today.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Phil Kane" wrote:
Dee D. Flint wrote:

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. (snip)


Since a person still in college obviously hasn't yet got a law degree or
passed the later bar exam, I thought Dee's question was rhetorical.
Therefore, I didn't answer in that vein. However, before anyone takes it
seriously in regards to my wife, let me add that my wife isn't seeking a
degree in law. The international law class was just one class leading to a
degree in another subject.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

snip

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



My newsreader (XNews) has a 'skip quoted text' button. As a result I tend
not to snip much!

Alun

"Phil Kane" wrote in
et:

snip

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



I don't think the FCC will ever again go for anything that increases the
total number of elements. However, if the licence structure were ever
rationalised to a two-tier system, then your idea might fit in. One rules
and regs test, and two theory tests, with the higher theory test giving
access to, say, 20m and the WARC bands, plus more power (1500W versus
200W).

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.



As I stated here before, I would like to see the exams get expanded to
something similar as to what has been required in the fire service, at least
all of the ones I have taken. The least amount of questions was 150, and
the most questions was 250. AND THE QUESTION POOLS WERE NOT PUBLISHED.

Now, what is interesting, in the 2+ foot tall stack of books I had to use
for my Firefighter 1 and Firefighter 2 certifications had all of the
questions within the chapter tests, quizes, pre-tests etc. So, basically if
one did the homework like they were supposed to, then they have actually
seen the questions. I distinctly remember when I took my test, seeing the
same identical question on a piece of homework that was on the final exam,
many times. I actually like the way IFSTA organizes and sets up their
instruction books. Not only do you have a main book for the
instruction/reading, but workbooks to put the chapter's contents to
practical use.

I would definitely like to see all three tests (tech, general, extra) go up
to at least 100 questions each. And if the question pool is released, at
least only release the questions, and not the answers. At least then the
potential testee would have to look the material up. Hell, I would even
re-test if I had too under this type of test. In fact, if ham radio is
"sooo important" and "actually saves lives" I would think that retesting
every ten years would actually be a good thing. Not only would it show that
the licensee retained knowledge but might even show if he/she progressed at
all.


--
Ryan KC8PMX

"Some people are like Slinkies . . . not really good for anything, but you
still can't help but smile when you see one tumble down the stairs."

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

Yes they can be. I've known several.
They too often fall in the "know it all"
category.


That hasn't been my experience. First, I haven't seen that many rule
violations across the board. Most operators tend to stick to the rules, or
at least make a darn good effort to do so. But, second, I certainly
haven't
seen that among those who tend to be technically oriented. If anything,
they
tend to go overboard on the rules.


I've seen them have to learn the rules "the hard way" because they weren't
required to learn them for the test. Generally this has just been informal
warnings from other hams or warning notices from Official Observers. Good
intentions don't get anyone anywhere.


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.


I assume you want an equal number of questions for each exam. If so, you
still haven't answered the key point of my last message. The current exam
concept is basic exams for entry into each license class. Since you're
advocating much more extensive exams, are you saying the current concept
should be thrown away?

Nope you assume wrong. I suggested simply adding a separate rules test,
perhaps taking the place of the code test by the way although I prefer a
code test stay. The remaining tests would stay the same except that the
rules questions in the current tests be replaced with other material. i.e.
The Tech test stays 35 questions but those 5 rules questions would be
replace by 5 other questions. I stated that in other posts and suggested
areas from which such material could be chosen. I was illustrating that
there is a wealth of material available.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:

I've seen them have to learn the rules
"the hard way" because they weren't
required to learn them for the test.
Generally... (snip)


Different experiences, I guess.


Nope you assume wrong. (snip)


Sorry for the wrong assumption. I'm still not convinced of a need to
change the license exams, but I'll let it go with what has already been
said.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

Should that not have been something that should have been done at least 10,
20 or even 30 years ago???


--
Ryan KC8PMX

"Why is it one careless match can start a forest fire, but
it takes a whole box to start a barbecue?"

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
et...
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