Dee Flint wrote:
"bb" wrote in message
oups.com...


Dee Flint wrote:
"bb" wrote in message
oups.com...


Dee Flint wrote:
"bb" wrote in message
oups.com...


Dee Flint wrote:

I and the OM also worked some of the VHF contest and noticed a very
strange
thing. Only 10% of the contacts that we made were Technician
operators.
On
the other hand, 80% of them were Extra class operators. So where
are
all
the Techs who are "trapped" in VHF and above because they "can't"
pass
the
code (as some would have us believe)?

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee, I'm going to guess (i.e., don't ask me for facts, figures,
substantive studies, reports from the FCC/ARRL, etc) that of the
Techs
that have stayed in amateur radio, most have done so for the
emergency
communications aspect of the service. As such, they would typically
stay on FM.

The ones who could learn Morse Code and have had to time to do so
have
moved up. Those who didn't have the time or couldn't learn it have
moved on.


There are none who cannot learn the code.

Really? Why do you say that?

Because they have already learned many things far tougher than the code.

What kind of things?


Not all items apply to all people but here are a few: Walking, talking,
reading, writing, riding a bicycle, skating, mathematics, any sport at even
the the most rudimentary level, playing any musical instrument at even the
most rudimentary level, computer literacy, typing, college courses. The
list could go on, but just about everything mental or physical a person has
learned is harder than code.

Can you play the string bass?

There's an FCC sticker on teh back of my stereo. What if the FCC were
to make it a requirement that you have to pass a string bass exam in
order to play music on your stereo?

However there are those for whom
other activities can and should have priority on their time. However
that
is no excuse for eliminating it as a test element since the same
argument
can be applied to the theory.

You hold a very interesting point of view. You say that since everyone
can learn the code, that it must be retained as a test element?

No it should be retained because it is one of the basics of amateur radio
along with things like Ohm's law, propagation, etc.

No other operating mode/skill has a practical pass/fail exam. That
makes it arbitrary.


All the tests are arbitrary as well as is the material chosen for coverage.

They are?

I say that it should be removed as a test element because it no longer
serves a regulatory purpose.

That's a matter of opinion.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Please state the regulatory purpose that a Morse Code exam and CW use
provides.


The regulator purpose of the exam is that it shows the candidate knows that
particular basic of ham radio.

But why no other practical operating exam for other modes?

No one has ever claimed that CW use or the use of any other mode (SSB,
non-code digital) provides a regulatory purpose.

No mode is mandated, yet we have a practical operating pass/fail exam
for one mode. That is arbitrary.

However throwing that
comment into the discussion illustrates that you wish to get rid of not only
the test but the use of CW.

Dee, not at all. I wish only the arbitrary Morse/Farnsworth Exams to
be retired.

But recognize that the FCC mandates the use no particular mode. You
can use CW all you want or not us it at all. So why is there a
practical operating exam for this one mode but not all other modes?

And why is CW use allowed by No-Code Technicians on VHF, but not HF?

Why did Jim Miccolis N2EY say about Hans restructuring proposal, that a
CW exam would be a barrier to CW use?

So I will not continue to participate in this thread.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

I understand how uneasy it must make you to have to face the truth of
arbitrary licensing requirements and still advocate a Morse/Farnsworth
Exam.

If you wish to discontinue healthy, legitimate discourse with respect
to amateur policy, I understand. It is not for the faint of heart.

Best of Luck, Brian