On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 04:13:16 GMT, Doug McLaren wrote:

But to retort --

1) The FCC doesn't administer ham radio tests any more

Nothing in the Rules says that someone can't be called into an FCC
office and administered an individual test if the FCC deems it
necessary.

2) The tests are generally receiving, not sending, and

Generally but not always. It's up to the examiner.

3) You don't need 100% accuracy to pass

You've never taken a test that I administered... ggg

The ultimate is to record what the applicant sent and then have the
applicant copy it back....

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

Nothing in the Rules says that someone can't be called into an FCC
office and administered an individual test if the FCC deems it
necessary.


An FCC field guy (that you know of) decided that a wife
of a friend of mine needed to be retested on 5WPM code.
At the time (early 70's) the FCC test office rarely if
ever did 5WPM, and the examner had to dig up a 5WPM
paper tape (with punched holes). Seems the tape was
bad and the machine sent trash instead of code, but the
examiner himself didn't know code and decided that she
couldn't copy code and failed her. "Broken tape machine,
yeah sureeee....."

If the tape were played backwards (a code machine my
father used used two spools, a supply reel and take
up reel) it would produce some copyable characters
(A for N) and others would be trash. Someone forgets
to rewind a tape, and later someone else plays it for
a test. Sounds like code to someone who doesn't know
code.

On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 22:52:42 GMT, robert casey wrote:

An FCC field guy (that you know of) decided that a wife
of a friend of mine needed to be retested on 5WPM code.
At the time (early 70's) the FCC test office rarely if
ever did 5WPM, and the examner had to dig up a 5WPM
paper tape (with punched holes). Seems the tape was
bad and the machine sent trash instead of code, but the
examiner himself didn't know code and decided that she
couldn't copy code and failed her. "Broken tape machine,
yeah sureeee....."

If it's who I think it is - someone who had a history of deciding
what other hams "needed" - he was a traffic handler and contester
who knew code very well. In that era the only FCC field folks who
were not required to be Morse-qualified were the clerical staff.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

In article ws.com,
"Phil Kane" wrote:

....

If it's who I think it is - someone who had a history of deciding
what other hams "needed" - he was a traffic handler and contester
who knew code very well. In that era the only FCC field folks who
were not required to be Morse-qualified were the clerical staff.


If I recall correctly the lady that did my test was a member of the
clerical staff.

From the above, has there been a change in the CW requirement for
field staff? I know when I was offered a Field Engineer job they were
happy I would not have to study CW (I turned it down, the idea of paying
my moving and transfer expenses rankled me)

--
--------------------------------------------------------
Personal e-mail is the n7bsn but at amsat.org
This posting address is a spam-trap and seldom read
RV and Camping FAQ can be found at
http://www.ralphandellen.us/rv

On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 08:13:22 -0800, Ralph E Lindberg wrote:

From the above, has there been a change in the CW requirement for
field staff? I know when I was offered a Field Engineer job they were
happy I would not have to study CW (I turned it down, the idea of paying
my moving and transfer expenses rankled me)

AFAIK the "technical agents" (used to be called engineers or
technicians) still have to qualify at a minimum of 20 wpm text and
16 wpm code groups. The non-technical agents (used to be called
Public Contact Specialists) and the clerical staff do not have to
be code-qualified although I know several who are code-qualified
from being licensed ham operators or once were monitoring station
technicians.

As far as relocation - when I hired on in 1967 they paid my
transportation and moving expenses cross-country. It may have
changed by the time that you were contacted.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

In article ws.com,
"Phil Kane" wrote:

....

As far as relocation - when I hired on in 1967 they paid my
transportation and moving expenses cross-country. It may have
changed by the time that you were contacted.

Actually I would have had to waive the relocation required by
regulations, since I would have been a transfer from the Navy. I
declined to, they declined to finalize the offer.
I did have to laugh, the manager in question was elated over a budget
increase that amounted to the "pin" money my minor project had. But then
I was DoD under Regan and he wasn't

--
--------------------------------------------------------
Personal e-mail is the n7bsn but at amsat.org
This posting address is a spam-trap and seldom read
RV and Camping FAQ can be found at
http://www.ralphandellen.us/rv

On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 06:36:03 -0800, Ralph E Lindberg wrote:

I did have to laugh, the manager in question was elated over a budget
increase that amounted to the "pin" money my minor project had. But then
I was DoD under Regan and he wasn't

It's never been a secret that the agency did its work for many years
and up to today on a budget that was less than the paper towel and
toilet paper expenses of DoD. We bitched about that all the time.

Yet, both the FBI and the Secret Service came to us to teach them
how to use simple DF equipment because they were embarrased calling
us out all the time to find radio signals for them, and in that same
time frame, in competition with the military using feeds from the
same Wullenweber antennas as they were using, and string-and-weight
vectors over paper maps, our monitoring folks got fixes which were
several times tighter than the military folks using the whiz-bang
computer systems did.....

Sorry you missed all the fun.... ggg

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

In article ws.com, "Phil
Kane" writes:

On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 04:13:16 GMT, Doug McLaren wrote:

But to retort --

1) The FCC doesn't administer ham radio tests any more

Nothing in the Rules says that someone can't be called into an FCC
office and administered an individual test if the FCC deems it
necessary.

Bring 'em on! ;-)

2) The tests are generally receiving, not sending, and

Generally but not always. It's up to the examiner.

Yep. It is possible to pass Element 1 by *sending only*.

3) You don't need 100% accuracy to pass

You've never taken a test that I administered... ggg

The ultimate is to record what the applicant sent and then have the
applicant copy it back....

--

Too easy....

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:

In article ws.com, "Phil
Kane" writes:


On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 04:13:16 GMT, Doug McLaren wrote:


But to retort --

1) The FCC doesn't administer ham radio tests any more

Nothing in the Rules says that someone can't be called into an FCC
office and administered an individual test if the FCC deems it
necessary.


Bring 'em on! ;-)

2) The tests are generally receiving, not sending, and

Generally but not always. It's up to the examiner.


Yep. It is possible to pass Element 1 by *sending only*.


Can a person request to be tested by sending? My sending has always
outpaced my receiving!

- Mike KB3EIA -

Can a person request to be tested by sending? My sending has always
outpaced my receiving!


99% of people are that way. The FCC found that nobody
ever failed a sending test if they passed a receiving
test. So they decided why bother with sending.