Steve Robeson, K4CAP wrote:

wrote in message ...



Of course there are those that seem to think an amateur extra license is
of greater importance than an airline transport pilot certificate and an
instrument rating.



I am a Pilot, Jim, and don't think so...But we're discussing
AMATEUR RADIO in this forum, not FAA ratings and testing policies.



And if it were up to me, the FAA pools WOULD be closed. I can
tolerate the idea of a 71% correct Amateur Extra, but I'd rather not
think about a 71% correct ATP droning around with a load full of pax
and wx at minimums that made that 71% from a verbatim Q&A manual!



A pilot who screws up can do a lot more damage than a ham ever could.
I've been told
that small private planes )general aviation) are not permitted to fly
over Manhattan in NYC.
Because if your engine quits, there's no place to land it there. Not so
much over fear of
a 9/11 event. Some kid stole a Cesna and flew it into a skyscraper in
Atlanta IIRC.
Not much damage at all except taking out one office.

Steve Robeson, K4CAP wrote:
wrote in message ...

Of course there are those that seem to think an amateur extra license is
of greater importance than an airline transport pilot certificate and an
instrument rating.

I am a Pilot, Jim, and don't think so...But we're discussing
AMATEUR RADIO in this forum, not FAA ratings and testing policies.

The discussion was the the testing practices of an agency of the
US government.

Comparing the practices of another agency gives a reality check on
the possibility of closed question pools.

My position is that we are not going to completely (or even
remotely) get the degree of "training" the FCC sets before us with
open pools. We have far too many "Extra's" who can't calculate the
length of a dipole or know the difference between peak-envelope-power
and PeeWee Herman. That's a shame.

I have mixed feelings on that.

I think the perception of the ignorance level is skewed for those that
spend a lot of time on USENET for the simple reason that those that do
know how to calculate the length of a dipole are not going to post
a message stating that.

Only the ignorant are going to post things like that and the posts
will stand out in your memory but you will never know how many read
that post and just thought to their self "how did that guy get a
license".

If such questions were answered simply and correctly, and perhaps some
references given as to where such things may be found (such as ARRL
publications) without the usual derisive comments, maybe a goodly
part of the training you hope for would take place.

I believe the term for such actions is "elmering" and at one time it
was a major part of the amateur training process.

The ignorance problem is hardly a new problem. I can remember being
at a ham gathering circa 1965 where a guy didn't know the difference
between a short and an open. To have had the license he had at that
time he would have had to take the old essay style tests complete
with diagrams.

A closed test pool is no panacea.

And if it were up to me, the FAA pools WOULD be closed. I can
tolerate the idea of a 71% correct Amateur Extra, but I'd rather not
think about a 71% correct ATP droning around with a load full of pax
and wx at minimums that made that 71% from a verbatim Q&A manual!

Those that memorize the tests tend to get scores closer to 100% than
to 70%.

For some insight on the testing process and question pool challenges
for the FAA, see http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/186574-1.html.

The discussion there is a mirror of this one.

73

Steve, K4YZ

--
Jim Pennino

Remove -spam-sux to reply.

In article ,
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes:

(N2EY) wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes:

For implementation sometime AFTER the "code issue" is resolved:

For some folks, it will only be resolved when there is no code testing at
all.

Agreed, but then there are folks who are still insisting on a
second shooter on the Grassy Knoll. You can't please everyone!

Point is, don't hold yer breath until the code test issue is over.

(1) Amateur Basic.

Forty question test with access to 144mHz, 50Mhz, 28mHz, 21mHz,
18mHz, 7mHz and 1.8mHz.

Why no 80, 30, 20, or 12 meters? Why not allow 222 in hopes of increasing
use of the band?

80: Perhaps 80.

30: Let's leave this for folks who WANT to beep and for those
elusive data modes.

Better yet, include it as an incentive to try out those modes.

20: This is where everyone wants to go and play

Sez who? I prefer 40

...Let them get their feet
wet on 17 and 15 meters...then they can come play with the
Big Boys.

12: If you're going to draw limitations on bands you have to
draw the line somewhere.

Why draw limitations on which HF bands newbies get? Give 'em a taste of
many, and let 'em figure out which ones they like.

Remember that one of the prime limitations of many hams are when they can get
on the air, and what antennas they can put up. (Some can't even figure out how
to end feed a simple wire, but that's *their* problem). A wide selection of
bands
insures that there will be some options for almost everyone.

1.25: I think this band is fodder, Jim. I realize that the metro
areas (ie: NYC, LA, ATL, etc...) make better use of it, but we've
done everything except beg the Pope to support the band.

Punch line to old joke about the pope:

"He's-a no play-a da game, he's-a no make-a da rules!"

We can give it
a shot, but the history of this band is that it won't
"sell".

Maybe, but Novices already have it anyway.

Same phone allocations as other licensees on HF bands.

You mean same as Extras have now?

Morse Code endorsement required for opera-
tion in lower 100kHz of any band.

Bad idea. Acts as a disincentive to use CW and digital modes, and as an
incentive to use voice only!

OK...Bottom 50kHz...?!?!

No.

Either the code test is part of the license exam, or it isn't. If it is, no
endorsement
needed. If it isn't, the solution is that the lower 20% or so of each band
should
be made CW-only.

Limit 100 watts output on any band.

Requires RF exposure eval on higher bands. Why not 100/25?

It rrequires an eval IF you're using that much power.

As I asked "Billy Beeper", why is everyone running away from
trying to make sure we are as safe as we can be? Isn't this a part of
the "learning curve"...?!?!

The point of an entry-level license is to offer an easy way to get started, and
an incentive to learn by doing. That's what the old Novice was all about, and
what a new "Basic" or whatever should be about. Making the test simple is part
of that.

(2) Amateur Advanced.

Additional written examination.

OK

All presently HF-licensed
Amateurs except Extras grandfathered to new license.

Even Novices and Techs? That's a worse giveaway than ARRL proposes!

It's one-time and it's over.

Has all the problems of other freebies and more.

Did you see the story about the 7 year old who just earned her Extra?
Tech at 5, General at 6, Extra at 7.

Now tell me why it's expecting too much for existing hams to pass the
current tests in order to upgrade.

If current expiration of Novices and Techs are any indicator,
most of those folks won't be taking advantage of it anyway.

Then why do it at all?

Privileges
same as for former Advanced Class. Morse Code endorsement
required
for operation in lower 100kHz of any band EXCEPT for those
previously
code tested or already holding an Element 1 CSCE. New licensees
(not
grandfathered operators) limit to 500 watts on any band.

See above about code test.

Ditto my last. There's no "data" being used in the bottom 50 of
most bands...

Just wait...

(3) Amateur Radio-God Expert for Life

(OK...that was for Lennie's benefit...I'D call it Amateur
Extra)

I have no idea why you bother with him, Steve.

It's like swinging at a pinata...One guy makes a fool out of
himself while everyone else gets to laugh at the process!

The only reason for swinging at a pinatta is because you know
there's something inside.

There's no point in swinging at an empty pinata.

Comprehensive closed-pool written test.

How? "Son Of Bash" would make it open pool quickly. Plus, how can you make
a
case that only the top ticket gets a closed pool but open is OK for the
others?

Because this would be the "final exam". If someone is truly
worthy of having "the whole enchilada", then they should be able to
prove it.

And as for the "Bash" syndrome, I suggest a new line in Part 97:
"Test Confidentiality: Except for those test items released by the
VEC as approved by the Commission, it shall be a violation of this
Part to reveal content of any examination prepared for any Amateur
Radio operator examination."

Already discussed. No way to enforce it. And convincing FCC
of the need is even less likely than convincing them of the need
for newcomers to pass a 30 wpm code test.

REQUIRED 5wpm Morse Code

test. Full Amateur allocations and privileges. Additional
phone
allocations (or "wideband", if you prefer non-mode specific
classifi-
cations) from previous Novice class bands. Full power.

Why?

Three levels - good.
Incremental power and privs - good

Why not...?!?!

See above.

Ya still snowed in, Jim?

Heck no, we dug out in a few hours.

Blue skies here, and I washed the car in
a scrub shirt this morning!

Washing the car is an invitation for more snow! It was 35 and sunny earlier
today. Went to BJ's and spent over $300, unloaded the car without a coat.
Spring is coming - tomorrow's Ground Hog Day.

Punxsutawney is in WPA.

73 de Jim, N2EY

(N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes:

For implementation sometime AFTER the "code issue" is resolved:

For some folks, it will only be resolved when there is no code testing at all.

(1) Amateur Basic.

Forty question test with access to 144mHz, 50Mhz, 28mHz, 21mHz,
18mHz, 7mHz and 1.8mHz.

Why no 80, 30, 20, or 12 meters? Why not allow 222 in hopes of increasing
use of the band?

Same phone allocations as other licensees on HF bands.

You mean same as Extras have now?

I believe he does. Is that a problem?

Morse Code endorsement required for opera-
tion in lower 100kHz of any band.

Bad idea. Acts as a disincentive to use CW and digital modes, and as an
incentive to use voice only!

Ahem, The Amateur Formerly Known as Rev. Jim, we've had that very same
or greater disincentive since 1912.

Why is it NOW a problem?

Limit 100 watts output on any band.

Requires RF exposure eval on higher bands. Why not 100/25?

(2) Amateur Advanced.

Additional written examination.

OK

All presently HF-licensed
Amateurs except Extras grandfathered to new license.

Even Novices and Techs? That's a worse giveaway than ARRL proposes!

Privileges
same as for former Advanced Class. Morse Code endorsement required
for operation in lower 100kHz of any band EXCEPT for those
previously
code tested or already holding an Element 1 CSCE. New licensees
(not
grandfathered operators) limit to 500 watts on any band.

See above about code test.

(3) Amateur Radio-God Expert for Life

(OK...that was for Lennie's benefit...I'D call it Amateur
Extra)

I have no idea why you bother with him, Steve.

It gets Steve out of bed in the morning.

Comprehensive closed-pool written test.

How? "Son Of Bash" would make it open pool quickly. Plus, how can you make a
case that only the top ticket gets a closed pool but open is OK for the others?

REQUIRED 5wpm Morse Code

test. Full Amateur allocations and privileges. Additional phone
allocations (or "wideband", if you prefer non-mode specific
classifi-
cations) from previous Novice class bands. Full power.

Why?

Three levels - good.
Incremental power and privs - good

You once told me when we had 7 license class distinctions that we
needed more classes.

Why the change now?

bb

(William) wrote in message . com...
(N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes:

Morse Code endorsement required for opera-
tion in lower 100kHz of any band.

Bad idea. Acts as a disincentive to use CW and digital modes, and as an
incentive to use voice only!

Ahem, The Amateur Formerly Known As Rev. Jim, we've had that very same
or greater disincentive since 1912.

Why is it NOW a problem?

Why?

(William) wrote in message . com...
(William) wrote in message . com...
(N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes:

Morse Code endorsement required for opera-
tion in lower 100kHz of any band.

Bad idea. Acts as a disincentive to use CW and digital modes, and as an
incentive to use voice only!

Ahem, The Amateur Formerly Known As Rev. Jim, we've had that very same
or greater disincentive since 1912.

Why is it NOW a problem?

Why?

Why, Jim?

(William) wrote in message . com...
(William) wrote in message . com...
(William) wrote in message . com...
(N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes:

Morse Code endorsement required for opera-
tion in lower 100kHz of any band.

Bad idea. Acts as a disincentive to use CW and digital modes, and as an
incentive to use voice only!

Ahem, The Amateur Formerly Known As Rev. Jim, we've had that very same
or greater disincentive since 1912.

Why is it NOW a problem?

Why?

Why, Jim?

Why, Jim?

(William) wrote in message . com...
(N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes:

For implementation sometime AFTER the "code issue" is resolved:

For some folks, it will only be resolved when there is no code testing at all.

(1) Amateur Basic.

Forty question test with access to 144mHz, 50Mhz, 28mHz, 21mHz,
18mHz, 7mHz and 1.8mHz.

Why no 80, 30, 20, or 12 meters? Why not allow 222 in hopes of increasing
use of the band?

Same phone allocations as other licensees on HF bands.

You mean same as Extras have now?

I believe he does. Is that a problem?

Morse Code endorsement required for opera-
tion in lower 100kHz of any band.

Bad idea. Acts as a disincentive to use CW and digital modes, and as an
incentive to use voice only!

Ahem, The Amateur Formerly Known as Rev. Jim, we've had that very same
or greater disincentive since 1912.

Why is it NOW a problem?

Limit 100 watts output on any band.

Requires RF exposure eval on higher bands. Why not 100/25?

(2) Amateur Advanced.

Additional written examination.

OK

All presently HF-licensed
Amateurs except Extras grandfathered to new license.

Even Novices and Techs? That's a worse giveaway than ARRL proposes!

Privileges
same as for former Advanced Class. Morse Code endorsement required
for operation in lower 100kHz of any band EXCEPT for those
previously
code tested or already holding an Element 1 CSCE. New licensees
(not
grandfathered operators) limit to 500 watts on any band.

See above about code test.

(3) Amateur Radio-God Expert for Life

(OK...that was for Lennie's benefit...I'D call it Amateur
Extra)

I have no idea why you bother with him, Steve.

It gets Steve out of bed in the morning.

Comprehensive closed-pool written test.

How? "Son Of Bash" would make it open pool quickly. Plus, how can you make a
case that only the top ticket gets a closed pool but open is OK for the others?

REQUIRED 5wpm Morse Code

test. Full Amateur allocations and privileges. Additional phone
allocations (or "wideband", if you prefer non-mode specific
classifi-
cations) from previous Novice class bands. Full power.

Why?

Three levels - good.
Incremental power and privs - good

You once told me when we had 7 license class distinctions that we
needed more classes.

Why the change now?

bb

TAFKA Rev. Jim, has the cat got your tongue?

In article ,
(William) writes:

(William) wrote in message
.com...
(N2EY) wrote in message
...
In article ,

(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes:

For implementation sometime AFTER the "code issue" is resolved:

For some folks, it will only be resolved when there is no code testing at
all.

(1) Amateur Basic.

Forty question test with access to 144mHz, 50Mhz, 28mHz,
21mHz,
18mHz, 7mHz and 1.8mHz.

Why no 80, 30, 20, or 12 meters? Why not allow 222 in hopes of increasing
use of the band?

Same phone allocations as other licensees on HF bands.

You mean same as Extras have now?

I believe he does. Is that a problem?

Morse Code endorsement required for opera-
tion in lower 100kHz of any band.

Bad idea. Acts as a disincentive to use CW and digital modes, and as an
incentive to use voice only!

Ahem, The Amateur Formerly Known as Rev. Jim, we've had that very same
or greater disincentive since 1912.

Why is it NOW a problem?

Limit 100 watts output on any band.

Requires RF exposure eval on higher bands. Why not 100/25?

(2) Amateur Advanced.

Additional written examination.

OK

All presently HF-licensed
Amateurs except Extras grandfathered to new license.

Even Novices and Techs? That's a worse giveaway than ARRL proposes!

Privileges
same as for former Advanced Class. Morse Code endorsement
required
for operation in lower 100kHz of any band EXCEPT for those
previously
code tested or already holding an Element 1 CSCE. New
licensees
(not
grandfathered operators) limit to 500 watts on any band.

See above about code test.

(3) Amateur Radio-God Expert for Life

(OK...that was for Lennie's benefit...I'D call it Amateur
Extra)

I have no idea why you bother with him, Steve.

It gets Steve out of bed in the morning.

Comprehensive closed-pool written test.

How? "Son Of Bash" would make it open pool quickly. Plus, how can you
make a
case that only the top ticket gets a closed pool but open is OK for the
others?

REQUIRED 5wpm Morse Code

test. Full Amateur allocations and privileges. Additional
phone
allocations (or "wideband", if you prefer non-mode specific
classifi-
cations) from previous Novice class bands. Full power.

Why?

Three levels - good.
Incremental power and privs - good

You once told me when we had 7 license class distinctions that we
needed more classes.

Why the change now?

bb

TAFKA Rev. Jim, has the cat got your tongue?

It's sleeping on his bug.

Don't wake the dead.

LHA / WMD

(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
In article ,
(William) writes:

TAFKA Rev. Jim, has the cat got your tongue?

It's sleeping on his bug.

Don't wake the dead.

"I am only here to civilly debate the Morse Code test issue"
Leonard H. Anderson.

It's so heartwarming to see Lennie the Liar and his Brain cuddled
up in newsgroup agitation....father and son.

Steve, K4YZ