"Bill Sohl" wrote in message hlink.net...
"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article k.net, "Bill
Sohl" writes:

I think the proposal is on AG4RQ's website.

73 de Jim, N2EY

I believe it also proposes NO public question pools and
a 10 day waiting period before retesting a failed element.

You are correct, sir! Thanks for the reminder.

Neither of these are likly at all.

The 10 day wait is possible but not likely. How could it be enforced?

Agree 100%

One way would be for FCC to compare dates of all incoming VE test
reports. That's just not going to happen!

With the internet today, questions
will become public regardless of any effort to not publish them

Agreed. All it would take is one VE who wanted to make them public.

Test takers themselves could, as was done by Bash in the 60's
just remember a couple of questions and share them on RRAQ
(rec.radio.amateur.questions :-)

That too.

Also, someone would have to rewrite the entire
existing Q&A pools. Who is going
to bell that cat?

Agree again.

Not just rewritten but recertified by FCC. Don't hold yer breath!


I'm all for secret tests and a 30 day wait. But such things are simply
not in the cards for the foreseeable future. The stuff FISTS wants has
a better chance!

Heck, the reason we have 10 year licenses is to save FCC admin work.

and
as for a waiting period on retesting, I can see no "same day"
retesting, but anything beyond that becomes an administrative
pain in the butt for VECs and FCC.

FCC won't do it.

The only way I could see it happening would be for there to be
some sort of "clearinghouse" where all the VEs would send their
records for comparison. The clearinghouse would keep the last
10-11 days' worth of records and look for the same person taking
the same test less than 10 days apart, and pass it on to FCC.

Sun will rise in the west on the day that happens!

What *could* be implemented is "no retest at the same VE session" but
that's about it.

Wow, Jim, we are in 100% agreement here on those two
points.

Why are you surprised? Those issues were debated here years ago and
the
same conclusions reached.

It would be neat to see if the FAR folks would volunteer to run a VE
session cross-check clearinghouse at their own expense to enforce the
10 day rule. Or to take on rewriting all of the question pools.

Cheers and see my post on "section 21". I'm interested
in your opinion of what the petitioners are suggesting.

I think I answered that one. Remind me if I didn't.

It sure looks to me like the FARRAF thing was written in response to
the ARRL proposal.


73 de Jim, N2EY