| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
The main problem with Ham radio...
....is simply this:
Know code = Know ham No code = No ham The eternal truth, proven every day. |
...is simply this:
Know code = Know ham No code = No ham The eternal truth, proven every day. So TRUE |
|
If "So TRUE," why did you wait to take the code-free upgrade to Extra?
You know why I took it, and it still bugs you to think you cant do the same. By the way Bryan, I still havent used the EXTRA Privilages. |
|
Yup. Because you couldn't pass 20wpm, so you waited on your chalky
butt till the FCC gave you a "gimme!" You know thats a LIE, I never wanted the Extra. But I guess I need to explain to you again. A Bunch of No-Code Knuckle Draggers bet me $250.00 I couldnt pass the TEST. Well I not only passed with a score of 100%, with no study at all, I got to collect $250.00 From the Knuckle Draggers. As I remember you still are not able to pass it. |
Steve Silverwood wrote:
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. I've been a ham since I got my Novice ticket in 1986 -- before the Novice Enhancement started -- so I did my 5wpm test back then. Unfortunately, I've not had the need to use it much. At one point, I felt as you do, that Morse skills were necessary in order to be qualified to operate HF. However, technology has pretty much removed Morse skills from the list of skills needed to operate properly in the Amateur Service. I do intend to refresh my Morse skills and operate more using that mode, especially since I am doing more operating while camping and traveling, plus operating at QRP power levels from home and on the road. That's a matter of personal choice, though. I also plan to get onto PSK31, RTTY and even SSTV and ATV as opportunities present themselves. But as things stand now, the ability to operate CW is no longer a necessity. It's still a valid mode, CW sub-bands should still be set aside for operating in that mode, and it's still a skill that should be cultivated among the Amateur ranks, but it has outlived its usefulness as a requirement and should be eliminated as such. Morse skills were once considered to be a "filter" by which those operators who were going to screw around on the air would be eliminated -- the theory was that if someone was a goof-off, (s)he would be deterred from getting a ham license by having to study for the Morse exam. As I've stated elsewhere, that theory has been disproven by the antics of licensed Amateur operators in places like 14.313 MHz, the "Animal House" repeater in Los Angeles, and the jammers that disrupt communications during the Rose Parade, among others. A lot of these bozos hold amateur licenses, Tech Plus and up, so they have taken the Morse exam and still are irritants. So much for the "filter" theory.... And no, I don't consider a no-code Tech to be any less of a ham than a Novice or a Tech Plus or anyone else. Everyone with an interest in amateur radio should be able to participate without having to demonstrate knowledge of a mode that they will probably never use. It was suggested in a reply to a related thread on another newsgroup that the whole exam structure should be tossed as well, if Morse is eliminated. Not true, nor do I even consider suggesting it. If we as amateurs are going to be responsible for the emissions coming from our stations, we must be able to prove that we know what we are doing, we understand our responsibilities under Part 97, and that we have the necessary skills to recognize and correct problems as they arise, or to prevent them from happening at all. So yes, passing the written exams are a valid entry requirement. In fact, they should probably be even more of a test of our knowledge and skills than they are at present. I'd go along with an increase in the number of questions in the exams, especially in the areas of what is permitted and prohibited in the operation of our stations. For one thing, it gives the FCC additional ammunition in prosecution of operators who violate the regulations -- Mr. Hollingsworth can point to the exam taken by "Joe Ham, KA6XYZ" and say, "See, this person answered the questions correctly, demonstrating that he knew that such-and-such was illegal, then went ahead and did it anyway." 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? |
|
Steveo wrote:
(WA8ULX) wrote: Yup. Because you couldn't pass 20wpm, so you waited on your chalky butt till the FCC gave you a "gimme!" You know thats a LIE, I never wanted the Extra. But I guess I need to explain to you again. A Bunch of No-Code Knuckle Draggers bet me $250.00 I couldnt pass the TEST. Well I not only passed with a score of 100%, with no study at all, I got to collect $250.00 From the Knuckle Draggers. As I remember you still are not able to pass it. You swallow. Nuff said. Well whenever someone say's nuff said, it usually not e-nuff. Check out my sig file, you rotten *******. hehe -- Frank Gilliland is a dip****! |
|
"WA8ULX" wrote in message
... Yup. Because you couldn't pass 20wpm, so you waited on your chalky butt till the FCC gave you a "gimme!" You know thats a LIE, I never wanted the Extra. But I guess I need to explain to you again. A Bunch of No-Code Knuckle Draggers bet me $250.00 I couldnt pass the TEST. Well I not only passed with a score of 100%, with no study at all, I got to collect $250.00 From the Knuckle Draggers. As I remember you still are not able to pass it. Waddles *is* still around. It's a wonder there's anyone left getting his posts, eh? He keeps ragging on folks for not wanting to upgrade to Extra. Well, as I recall, Waddles never planned on the Extra until his (legendary for sure) bet was presented. He had a price, you don't. You've decided (so far) not to go for Extra and you've stood by your decision--unlike Waddles who can't keep to a decision. And, ain't it a hoot that he's out from the lower ranks and sittin' right up there with the ranks of other Extras whom you and I know are rather questionable in nature, motivation, and even personality? LOL Kim W5TIT |
You appear to have forgotten something.
You did it in "less than 8 minutes. No I didnt forget the 8 Minutes, I was just wanting to see if you could keep up. And you lie. NEVER |
TIT your just Mad that you cant upgrade. By the way is that Fork Lift still
working |
In article , "Kim"
writes: Waddles *is* still around. Of course, Kim. It's a wonder there's anyone left getting his posts, eh? Background noise, nothing more. He keeps ragging on folks for not wanting to upgrade to Extra. And if they do, he still rags on them. Well, as I recall, Waddles never planned on the Extra until his (legendary for sure) bet was presented. *And* the code requirement was reduced. You don't really think anyone takes Bruce seriously, do ya? He and LHA are philosophically the same person, with the same goals here. Just different methods. Heck, they might even be the same person, period. Nobody with any sense takes Len seriously, same as ULX. He had a price, you don't. Everyone has a price, Kim. Often it's not money, though. You've decided (so far) not to go for Extra and you've stood by your decision--unlike Waddles who can't keep to a decision. You mean like someone who says they're going for Extra "right out of the box" but hasn't done so in 4 years? And, ain't it a hoot that he's out from the lower ranks and sittin' right up there with the ranks of other Extras whom you and I know are rather questionable in nature, motivation, and even personality? LOL Who would they be? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
|
"N2EY" wrote in message
... In article , "Kim" writes: Waddles *is* still around. Of course, Kim. Well, I've got my new computer all reset to keep the riff raff off my machine...at least the riff raff from this newsgroup...heh heh. It's a wonder there's anyone left getting his posts, eh? Background noise, nothing more. Yep...and I like doing with background noise here the same I do on the air with it: ignore it. He keeps ragging on folks for not wanting to upgrade to Extra. And if they do, he still rags on them. That's true. Well, as I recall, Waddles never planned on the Extra until his (legendary for sure) bet was presented. *And* the code requirement was reduced. ROFLMAO!!!! Oh r-r-r-r-r-e-a-l-l-y???!!! I had not realized that--man that's hilarious!! You don't really think anyone takes Bruce seriously, do ya? He and LHA are philosophically the same person, with the same goals here. Just different methods. Heck, they might even be the same person, period. Nobody with any sense takes Len seriously, same as ULX. I hadn't seen anyone take Waddles seriously before I started ignoring posts with his information in them...and doubt they would. There's no one here *that* dumbed down. He had a price, you don't. Everyone has a price, Kim. Often it's not money, though. I'd like to believe I don't have one. But you're probably right. I don't have one, though, where ham radio is concerned--it's not that much of a passion for me. The way I feel about it's the way I feel about it. You've decided (so far) not to go for Extra and you've stood by your decision--unlike Waddles who can't keep to a decision. You mean like someone who says they're going for Extra "right out of the box" but hasn't done so in 4 years? Is that what Waddles did? Actually, I fault no one for saying something, then changing their mind. I do it all the time. I used to say I'd never be able to marry a Texan...and I did--and he's proved wrong everything I ever thought about it. :) And, ain't it a hoot that he's out from the lower ranks and sittin' right up there with the ranks of other Extras whom you and I know are rather questionable in nature, motivation, and even personality? LOL Who would they be? 73 de Jim, N2EY Oh, I think you're well aware! Kim W5TIT |
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. |
|
"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 |
|
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 |
"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 08:01 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com