| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
RAC Bulletin 013-05 Industry Canada Introduces Alternatives to Morse Requirements for HF
Per Canada Gazette notice DGRB-003-05 22 July 2005, Industry Canada has adopted elements of the RAC "Proposal on Morse Code and Related Matters" and has removed the mandatory requirement for the Morse Qualification for access to the HF bands below 30 MHz. Effective immediately, amateurs certified with BASIC Qualification prior to 2 April 2002, and amateurs certified with both BASIC and ADVANCED Qualifications, may operate on HF. Amateurs with BASIC only Qualification certified after 1 April 2002, and who achieved a pass mark of 80% or greater, will also be allowed to operate on HF. Amateurs certified BASIC only Qualification after 1 April 2002 having achieved less than 80% pass mark, will either have to qualify in Morse, write the Advanced or re-write the Basic examination to obtain HF privileges. This latter requirement is related to a decision to increase the BASIC examination pass mark to ensure that candidates have been tested in all areas of the syllabus. For details, see the Canada Gazette notice at http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/inter.../sf08435e.html and the "Latest News" page on the RAC web site at http://www.rac.ca . -- 73, de Hans, K0HB -- Member: ARRL http://www.arrl.org SOC http://www.qsl.net/soc VWOA http://www.vwoa.org A-1 Operator Club http://www.arrl.org/awards/a1-op/ TCDXA http://www.tcdxa.org MWA http://www.w0aa.org TCFMC http://www.tcfmc.org FISTS http://www.fists.org LVDXA http://www.upstel.net/borken/lvdxa.htm NCI http://www.nocode.org |
While they removed the requirement for a Morse exam, note that they increased
the written examination passing score for the Basic License. FCC could learn something from these guys. -- 73, de Hans, K0HB -- Member: ARRL http://www.arrl.org SOC http://www.qsl.net/soc VWOA http://www.vwoa.org A-1 Operator Club http://www.arrl.org/awards/a1-op/ TCDXA http://www.tcdxa.org MWA http://www.w0aa.org TCFMC http://www.tcfmc.org FISTS http://www.fists.org LVDXA http://www.upstel.net/borken/lvdxa.htm NCI http://www.nocode.org |
"KØHB" ) writes: Per Canada Gazette notice DGRB-003-05 22 July 2005, Industry Canada has adopted elements of the RAC "Proposal on Morse Code and Related Matters" and has removed the mandatory requirement for the Morse Qualification for access to the HF bands below 30 MHz. The RAC site dates it July 30th and if that's not a typo, then one has to wait till Saturday to make use of these changes. So prompt it is now. When I was a kid and they dropped the requirement that you be over 15 to get a ham license, the announcement came in December, but it didn't go into effect till the end of April. I'd actually consider another part of the bulletin maybe more significant: Holders of only the BASIC Qualification may now construct, install and operate transmitters from kits that have been commercially designed and packaged. BASIC-only holders still are not authorized to modify or install and operate modified commercially manufactured equipment. It's not a return to complete building, but it's far better than the previous restriction. (When things were restructured back in 1990, BASIC holders could not build any transmitters, you had to have the advanced license.) Now there's even less difference between the two licenses. If you want a full kilowatt you need the advanced license, and if you want to control a repeater you need the advanced license, and if you want to build a transmitter from scratch you need the advanced license. Michael VE2BVW |
Michael:
I can guarantee you, those "regulations" have been broken since they were enacted... .... and logic suggests, how would they ever prove that the transmitter was built by a novice, and not an advanced who then gifted him the transmitter? That is the real problem, regulatory fools never get a clue, take themselves far too seriously and end up being a form of comedy more hilarious than the three stooges... John "Michael Black" wrote in message ... "KXHB" ) writes: Per Canada Gazette notice DGRB-003-05 22 July 2005, Industry Canada has adopted elements of the RAC "Proposal on Morse Code and Related Matters" and has removed the mandatory requirement for the Morse Qualification for access to the HF bands below 30 MHz. The RAC site dates it July 30th and if that's not a typo, then one has to wait till Saturday to make use of these changes. So prompt it is now. When I was a kid and they dropped the requirement that you be over 15 to get a ham license, the announcement came in December, but it didn't go into effect till the end of April. I'd actually consider another part of the bulletin maybe more significant: Holders of only the BASIC Qualification may now construct, install and operate transmitters from kits that have been commercially designed and packaged. BASIC-only holders still are not authorized to modify or install and operate modified commercially manufactured equipment. It's not a return to complete building, but it's far better than the previous restriction. (When things were restructured back in 1990, BASIC holders could not build any transmitters, you had to have the advanced license.) Now there's even less difference between the two licenses. If you want a full kilowatt you need the advanced license, and if you want to control a repeater you need the advanced license, and if you want to build a transmitter from scratch you need the advanced license. Michael VE2BVW |
K=D8HB wrote: While they removed the requirement for a Morse exam, note that they incre= ased the written examination passing score for the Basic License. FCC could l= earn something from these guys. but not if you have held your license for some time quote (2) Amateurs certified prior to April 2, 2002 will be allowed to operate in the HF bands below 30 MHz based on the experience and knowledge they have acquired over this period of time. unquote maing that if Ilived a bit futher north than I do and held a canadian call I would have hf access now (or tomarrow rather) without having had to make any higher score Logicaly therefore I would expect in time This to evolve into 80 for access now or pass the test and wait 2 years for access by experence, or possibly for the Ca to decicide keeping track of the 2 score levels is too much work -- 73, de Hans, K0HB -- Member: ARRL http://www.arrl.org SOC http://www.qsl.net/soc VWOA http://www.vwoa.org A-1 Operator Club http://www.arrl.org/awards/a1-op/ TCDXA http://www.tcdxa.org MWA http://www.w0aa.org TCFMC http://www.tcfmc.org FISTS http://www.fists.org LVDXA http://www.upstel.net/borken/lvdxa.htm NCI http://www.nocode.org |
"an old friend" wrote maing that if Ilived a bit futher north than I do and held a canadian call I would have hf access now (or tomarrow rather) without having had to make any higher score They'd probably make an exception in your case. 73, de Hans, K0HB -- Member: ARRL http://www.arrl.org SOC http://www.qsl.net/soc VWOA http://www.vwoa.org A-1 Operator Club http://www.arrl.org/awards/a1-op/ TCDXA http://www.tcdxa.org MWA http://www.w0aa.org TCFMC http://www.tcfmc.org FISTS http://www.fists.org LVDXA http://www.upstel.net/borken/lvdxa.htm NCI http://www.nocode.org |
"an old friend" wrote Logicaly therefore I would expect in time This to evolve into 80 for access now or pass the test and wait 2 years for access by experence, Nope, if you pass the Basic written (but don't make an 80% score) you must then take the Morse exam to get on HF. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
K=D8HB wrote: "an old friend" wrote Logicaly therefore I would expect in time This to evolve into 80 for access now or pass the test and wait 2 years for access by experence, Nope, if you pass the Basic written (but don't make an 80% score) you mus= t then take the Morse exam to get on HF. wrong you did not read the whole thing quoting you other message maing that if Ilived a bit futher north than I do and held a canadian call I would have hf access now (or tomarrow rather) without having had to make any higher score They'd probably make an exception in your case. unquote lets see one minute you agree with my read then the next you don't but you still don't bother to adress the the content of the RAC rule =20 73 73, de Hans, K0HB |
K=D8HB wrote: "an old friend" wrote Logicaly therefore I would expect in time This to evolve into 80 for access now or pass the test and wait 2 years for access by experence, Nope, if you pass the Basic written (but don't make an 80% score) you mus= t then take the Morse exam to get on HF. sorry you confused me with you 2 posts I am not saying what the now current (or tomarrow current) rule I was speculating on the future as you would seen if you had bothered not to emove the staement from its context quote (2) Amateurs certified prior to April 2, 2002 will be allowed to operate in the HF bands below 30 MHz based on the experience and knowledge they have acquired over this period of time. maing that if Ilived a bit futher north than I do and held a canadian call I would have hf access now (or tomarrow rather) without having had to make any higher score Logicaly therefore I would expect in time This to evolve into 80 for access now or pass the test and wait 2 years for access by experence, or possibly for the Ca to decicide keeping track of the 2 score levels is too much work unquote your tendency to do is rising to point of apealing like deliberate lying Hans =20 73, de Hans, K0HB |
K=D8HB wrote:
While they removed the requirement for a Morse exam, note that they incre= ased the written examination passing score for the Basic License. FCC could l= earn something from these guys. Yep What's interesting too is that new Basics can access HF two ways: 1) Pass the written with 80% or more right 2) Pass the written with less than 80% right *and* pass the Morse Code test. IIRC, the basic pass level is 60% (!) Sounds a little like my old "Chinese Menu" idea. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 19:37:30 GMT, "KØHB"
wrote: An interesting announcement! Here in Canada, Morse Code is now an alternative method of qualifying for HF privileges. In other words - Morse survived! A couple of the other requests from the Amateur community (via the RAC proposal) were granted as well - increasing the pass marks on the exams to 70% from 60%, and the addition of commercial kit-building privileges for Basic license holders. Not bad - now there's a regulatory agency that listens. Well done, Industry Canada! 73, Leo Per Canada Gazette notice DGRB-003-05 22 July 2005, Industry Canada has adopted elements of the RAC "Proposal on Morse Code and Related Matters" and has removed the mandatory requirement for the Morse Qualification for access to the HF bands below 30 MHz. Effective immediately, amateurs certified with BASIC Qualification prior to 2 April 2002, and amateurs certified with both BASIC and ADVANCED Qualifications, may operate on HF. Amateurs with BASIC only Qualification certified after 1 April 2002, and who achieved a pass mark of 80% or greater, will also be allowed to operate on HF. Amateurs certified BASIC only Qualification after 1 April 2002 having achieved less than 80% pass mark, will either have to qualify in Morse, write the Advanced or re-write the Basic examination to obtain HF privileges. This latter requirement is related to a decision to increase the BASIC examination pass mark to ensure that candidates have been tested in all areas of the syllabus. For details, see the Canada Gazette notice at http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/inter.../sf08435e.html and the "Latest News" page on the RAC web site at http://www.rac.ca . -- 73, de Hans, K0HB |
"KØHB" ) writes: "an old friend" wrote Logicaly therefore I would expect in time This to evolve into 80 for access now or pass the test and wait 2 years for access by experence, Nope, if you pass the Basic written (but don't make an 80% score) you must then take the Morse exam to get on HF. 73, de Hans, K0HB Part of me is thinking that there was a reduction in the passing mark at some point, and this just addresses it. I've not paid attention, and the documents issued in 1990 after the restructuring says nothing about the passing mark. But though I've not paid full attention, it is something I have a vague feeling might have happened. If there was such a reduction, then obviously that date is when it happened, and this new bit just acknowledges that a higher pass mark is deemed necessary for HF. Or perhaps it's just simply in grandfathering people, they decided that it wouldn't be as automatic as some might have wanted. Micahel VE2BVW |
) writes: K=D8HB wrote: While they removed the requirement for a Morse exam, note that they incre= ased the written examination passing score for the Basic License. FCC could l= earn something from these guys. Yep What's interesting too is that new Basics can access HF two ways: 1) Pass the written with 80% or more right 2) Pass the written with less than 80% right *and* pass the Morse Code test. IIRC, the basic pass level is 60% (!) Sounds a little like my old "Chinese Menu" idea. 73 de Jim, N2EY Well, according to the bulletin, the passing mark is no 70%. But your're right about the menu. When they restructured back in 1990, some people interpreted it as a coherent number of steps, with the Basic license at one and and the advanced with code at the other. But it was (and still is) more of a mix and match setup. People could pass the Basic and Advanced tests without needing to pass a code test. Of course, that meant no HF privileges. Pass a code test, and you got some HF; pass the faster code test and you got full HF privileges. Code determined whether or not you could operate at HF. A few years back, I think it was 2000, they dropped the faster code test. Michael VE2BVW |
wrote What's interesting too is that new Basics can access HF two ways: Another way of looking at it is. 1) They've raised the passing score on the written exam to 70%. 2) With that passing score, and a 5WPM Morse exam you gain access to HF. 3) If you pass with a score of 80% or greater, the Morse exam is waived for HF. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
|
Leo wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 19:37:30 GMT, "K=D8HB" wrote: An interesting announcement! Here in Canada, Morse Code is now an alte= rnative method of qualifying for HF privileges. In other words - Morse survived! Morse Code *testing* survived - it's just not mandatory anymore in Canada. IIRC, this was exactly what the commentary on the proposal supported. A couple of the other requests from the Amateur community via the RAC proposal) were granted as well - increasing the pass marks on the exams to 70% from 60%, and the addition of commercial kit-building privileges for Basic license holders. Not bad - now there's a regulatory agency that listens. Well done, Industry Canada! I agree 100%! They found a way to give everyone some of what they wanted. They listened to what the majority of those expressing an opinion supported, and acted on it. They produced a set of regulations designed to reconcile or at least minimize polarization, rather than increase it. What concepts, eh? ;-) Perhaps we in the USA should suggest such a system to FCC.... 73 de Jim, N2EY |
On 29 Jul 2005 19:25:49 -0700, "b.b." wrote:
wrote: KØHB wrote: While they removed the requirement for a Morse exam, note that they increased the written examination passing score for the Basic License. FCC could learn something from these guys. Yep What's interesting too is that new Basics can access HF two ways: 1) Pass the written with 80% or more right 2) Pass the written with less than 80% right *and* pass the Morse Code test. IIRC, the basic pass level is 60% (!) Sounds a little like my old "Chinese Menu" idea. 73 de Jim, N2EY Jim, are you advocating that 60% be the necessary score? I don't think he is, Brian - Jim was surprised when I mentioned that the pass mark was only 60% a while back. This has been fixed now - it has been raised to 70%, effective today! 73, Leo |
On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 08:30:40 -0400, Leo wrote:
On 29 Jul 2005 19:25:49 -0700, "b.b." wrote: wrote: KØHB wrote: While they removed the requirement for a Morse exam, note that they increased the written examination passing score for the Basic License. FCC could learn something from these guys. Yep What's interesting too is that new Basics can access HF two ways: 1) Pass the written with 80% or more right 2) Pass the written with less than 80% right *and* pass the Morse Code test. IIRC, the basic pass level is 60% (!) Sounds a little like my old "Chinese Menu" idea. 73 de Jim, N2EY Jim, are you advocating that 60% be the necessary score? I don't think he is, Brian - Jim was surprised when I mentioned that the pass mark was only 60% a while back. This has been fixed now - it has been raised to 70%, effective today! 73, Leo Does this mean the guys that have the basic qualification now would have to go back and rewrite to get HF privilege ? |
"amateur" wrote in message ... On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 08:30:40 -0400, Leo wrote: On 29 Jul 2005 19:25:49 -0700, "b.b." wrote: wrote: KØHB wrote: While they removed the requirement for a Morse exam, note that they increased the written examination passing score for the Basic License. FCC could learn something from these guys. Yep What's interesting too is that new Basics can access HF two ways: 1) Pass the written with 80% or more right 2) Pass the written with less than 80% right *and* pass the Morse Code test. IIRC, the basic pass level is 60% (!) Sounds a little like my old "Chinese Menu" idea. 73 de Jim, N2EY Jim, are you advocating that 60% be the necessary score? I don't think he is, Brian - Jim was surprised when I mentioned that the pass mark was only 60% a while back. This has been fixed now - it has been raised to 70%, effective today! 73, Leo Does this mean the guys that have the basic qualification now would have to go back and rewrite to get HF privilege ? I believe so. I saw something on that very thing somewhere on the internet but can't remember where. Or alternatively, they can still take the Morse test. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"amateur" wrote Does this mean the guys that have the basic qualification now would have to go back and rewrite to get HF privilege ? Not in most cases. As I read it, you are authorized HF access as of today, without further testing, if... 1) ...you got your Basic certificate before April 2, 2002. 2) ...if you got your Basic certificate after April 2, 2002 AND at a score of 80% or higher. 3) ...if you got your Basic certificate after April 2, 2002 at a score lower than 80% AND pass a 5WPM Morse exam Perhaps Leo can confirm (or correct) my understanding. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
"KØHB" ) writes: "amateur" wrote Does this mean the guys that have the basic qualification now would have to go back and rewrite to get HF privilege ? Not in most cases. As I read it, you are authorized HF access as of today, without further testing, if... 1) ...you got your Basic certificate before April 2, 2002. 2) ...if you got your Basic certificate after April 2, 2002 AND at a score of 80% or higher. 3) ...if you got your Basic certificate after April 2, 2002 at a score lower than 80% AND pass a 5WPM Morse exam If you have the advanced license, that also gives you HF privileges with this new change. The retaking the test is only if someone didn't receive the 80% pass mark but want HF and fits none of the above four possibilities. The RAC bulletin reads like only if you were licensed before April 2, 2002 that you automatically get HF privileges. But on reading the Canadian Gazette entry on this, http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/inter.../sf08435e.html it seems less clearcut. They start off with the bit about before April 2, 2002: (2) Amateurs certified prior to April 2, 2002 will be allowed to operate in the HF bands below 30 MHz based on the experience and knowledge they have acquired over this period of time. But then further down: Amateurs holding a Basic Certificate who have been certified for at least three years will automatically receive authority to operate in the HF bands. This is based on the rationale that three years of experience will have allowed the amateur to acquire sufficient experience to operate proficiently in the HF bands. Amateurs who received their Basic Certificate within the three year interval prior to the date of the new standards will be required to prove that they had attained a mark of at least 80%. Those two paragraphs don't fully mesh. The first is a hardcoding of a date, but the second suggests that all one needs is a 3 year waiting period. I'm not sure which takes control. Michael VE2BVW |
N2EY:
Perhaps introduce testing for "African Message Drum" also, bet some of those guys could pound out a little ditty and have it carry a message to! Maybe chant a little rap with it too! Some testing in the care maintenance of carrier pigeons might be in order to, for the guys who wanted real DX! John wrote in message ups.com... Leo wrote: On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 19:37:30 GMT, "KØHB" wrote: An interesting announcement! Here in Canada, Morse Code is now an alternative method of qualifying for HF privileges. In other words - Morse survived! Morse Code *testing* survived - it's just not mandatory anymore in Canada. IIRC, this was exactly what the commentary on the proposal supported. A couple of the other requests from the Amateur community via the RAC proposal) were granted as well - increasing the pass marks on the exams to 70% from 60%, and the addition of commercial kit-building privileges for Basic license holders. Not bad - now there's a regulatory agency that listens. Well done, Industry Canada! I agree 100%! They found a way to give everyone some of what they wanted. They listened to what the majority of those expressing an opinion supported, and acted on it. They produced a set of regulations designed to reconcile or at least minimize polarization, rather than increase it. What concepts, eh? ;-) Perhaps we in the USA should suggest such a system to FCC.... 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Michael Black wrote: "K=D8HB" ) writes: "amateur" wrote Does this mean the guys that have the basic qualification now would have to go back and rewrite to get HF privilege ? Not in most cases. As I read it, you are authorized HF access as of today, without further= testing, if... 1) ...you got your Basic certificate before April 2, 2002. 2) ...if you got your Basic certificate after April 2, 2002 AND at = a score of 80% or higher. 3) ...if you got your Basic certificate after April 2, 2002 at a sc= ore lower than 80% AND pass a 5WPM Morse exam If you have the advanced license, that also gives you HF privileges with = this new change. The retaking the test is only if someone didn't receive the 80% pass mark= but want HF and fits none of the above four possibilities. The RAC bulletin reads like only if you were licensed before April 2, 2002 that you automatically get HF privileges. But on reading the Canadian Gazette entry on this, http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/inter.../sf08435e.html it seems less clearcut. break They start off with the bit about before April 2, 2002: (2) Amateurs certified prior to April 2, 2002 will be allowed to operate in the HF bands below 30 MHz based on the experience and knowledge they have acquired over this period of time. But then further down: Amateurs holding a Basic Certificate who have been certified for at least three years will automatically receive authority to operate in the HF bands. This is based on the rationale that three years of experience will have allowed the amateur to acquire sufficient experience to operate proficiently in the HF bands. Amateurs who received their Basic Certificate within the three year interval prior to the date of the new standards will be required to prove that they had attained a mark of at least 80%. Those two paragraphs don't fully mesh. The first is a hardcoding of a date, but the second suggests that all one needs is a 3 year waiting period. I'm not sure which takes control. they mesh okesp if you igamine that when it was written it may have been intended to be posted earier A date certain and then a period of time covers the new folks over time =20 Michael VE2BVW |
From: "John Smith" on Sat 30 Jul 2005 08:39
N2EY: Perhaps introduce testing for "African Message Drum" also, bet some of those guys could pound out a little ditty and have it carry a message to! Maybe chant a little rap with it too! Sounds good! Message Drums were in use long before morse and telegraphy...very TRADITIONAL. The first use of "comm nets" with "message relays" too! Problem is, USA ham radio is basically done by WHITE MALES so it wouldn't go over big. Dunno about Canadian demographics but British Columbia is largely white... Some testing in the care maintenance of carrier pigeons might be in order to, for the guys who wanted real DX! Har! The United States Army Signal Corps actually had a Carrier Pigeon Service...trainers, handlers, mobile coops, the whole magilla. Came into being before WW 1 but was disbanded afterwards. Sounded like a good idea at the time, faster than a land courier, minimal handling, no electricity needed (bird poop is safer than RF burns). That time might have been the start of the phrase "eat the bird," though. Anyone on WW 1 field rations might look at pigeons with a hungry eye. "DX" wasn't so hot and "propagation" effects weren't good using "pigeon code." I like the Message Drum idea, though! Sounds like a plan... bat tat |
|
|
Tony:
Tune in the chicken band, channel 6--27.025 when the DX band conditions are up on 11 meters (skip), just think how it will be when those multi-kilowatt-ebonic-speaking-brothers get their tickets!!! My gawd, diversity--don't ya just love it? John "Tony VE6MVP" wrote in message ... On 30 Jul 2005 14:17:19 -0700, wrote: Problem is, USA ham radio is basically done by WHITE MALES so it wouldn't go over big. Dunno about Canadian demographics but British Columbia is largely white... I know in Edmonton, Alberta there is at least one Chinese male and a fairly active group of Philipino's. Also some women. But yes predominantly in Edmonton I'd say at least 80% are white male. I do not recall seeing any folks at the meetings who were black or East Indian. In the Edmonton demographics there aren't many blacks but there are a fair number of East Indians. BTW there are a considerably number of hams in their 20s and 30s. I'd say a third or so of the executive of the larger organizations is in that age bracket. Tony |
Tony VE6MVP ) writes: Nothing there about getting automatic access to HF after three years of getting your Basic license. Tony It's more a puzzler than anything else. In effect they are saying anyone who's been licensed for three years at this point has experience, while in the future 3 years experience is not sufficient. It seems odd that if they feel a need to grandfather some, it's not a blanket grandfathering at the time the new rules go into effect. But given that they do specify a date, that would seem to be the case. Of course, if this was the old days, they'd have to bring their log in to show that they had a good three years of experience, rather than just sitting on the license. Who can forget the old endorsement for the amateur license that gave some limited HF phone, but you had to prove that you had been active on HF CW in that time period. I'm just really curious why they picked three years and not one. The experience angle seems more to justify a partial grandfathering than that experience can be generally traded in for HF priviliges. Michael VE2BVW |
|
(Michael Black) wrote in
: "KØHB" ) writes: "amateur" wrote Does this mean the guys that have the basic qualification now would have to go back and rewrite to get HF privilege ? Not in most cases. As I read it, you are authorized HF access as of today, without further testing, if... 1) ...you got your Basic certificate before April 2, 2002. 2) ...if you got your Basic certificate after April 2, 2002 AND at a score of 80% or higher. 3) ...if you got your Basic certificate after April 2, 2002 at a score lower than 80% AND pass a 5WPM Morse exam If you have the advanced license, that also gives you HF privileges with this new change. The retaking the test is only if someone didn't receive the 80% pass mark but want HF and fits none of the above four possibilities. The RAC bulletin reads like only if you were licensed before April 2, 2002 that you automatically get HF privileges. But on reading the Canadian Gazette entry on this, http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/inter...n/sf08435e.htm l it seems less clearcut. They start off with the bit about before April 2, 2002: (2) Amateurs certified prior to April 2, 2002 will be allowed to operate in the HF bands below 30 MHz based on the experience and knowledge they have acquired over this period of time. But then further down: Amateurs holding a Basic Certificate who have been certified for at least three years will automatically receive authority to operate in the HF bands. This is based on the rationale that three years of experience will have allowed the amateur to acquire sufficient experience to operate proficiently in the HF bands. Amateurs who received their Basic Certificate within the three year interval prior to the date of the new standards will be required to prove that they had attained a mark of at least 80%. Those two paragraphs don't fully mesh. The first is a hardcoding of a date, but the second suggests that all one needs is a 3 year waiting period. I'm not sure which takes control. Michael VE2BVW As I understand it, the original proposal required an Advanced or 80% in the Basic, but records of pass marks don't go back all that far, hence the cut off date to avoid unfairness to anyone who can't find out their pass mark. Then it sounds like they tacked on the three year clause which makes that date irrelevant! Vive la Canada! 73 de Alun, G8VUK, N3KIP |
"John Smith" wrote in
: N2EY: Perhaps introduce testing for "African Message Drum" also, bet some of those guys could pound out a little ditty and have it carry a message to! Maybe chant a little rap with it too! Some testing in the care maintenance of carrier pigeons might be in order to, for the guys who wanted real DX! John wrote in message ups.com... Leo wrote: On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 19:37:30 GMT, "KØHB" wrote: An interesting announcement! Here in Canada, Morse Code is now an alternative method of qualifying for HF privileges. In other words - Morse survived! Morse Code *testing* survived - it's just not mandatory anymore in Canada. IIRC, this was exactly what the commentary on the proposal supported. A couple of the other requests from the Amateur community via the RAC proposal) were granted as well - increasing the pass marks on the exams to 70% from 60%, and the addition of commercial kit-building privileges for Basic license holders. Not bad - now there's a regulatory agency that listens. Well done, Industry Canada! I agree 100%! They found a way to give everyone some of what they wanted. They listened to what the majority of those expressing an opinion supported, and acted on it. They produced a set of regulations designed to reconcile or at least minimize polarization, rather than increase it. What concepts, eh? ;-) Perhaps we in the USA should suggest such a system to FCC.... 73 de Jim, N2EY It's a little late, isn't it Jim? I find it interesting that South Africa was the first one to propose such a system, but I don't think the ZAs adopted it in the end. I have no trouble in principle with an alternative theory/code system, but how would you do it? Maybe Elements 2 and 3 + 20 wpm or elements 2, 3 and 4 to get full privileges? It's all moot now anyway. We all know the NPRM will become the R&O. There is one loose end, though. I read the NPRM to say that Tech+ would become closed, so that all new Techs would have to get element 3 to get on HF, but others have read it that all Techs would get Tech+ privileges. Does anyone know which is right? My XYL (N3MKR) is a no-code Tech, but she will be taking element 3 anyway. Her object is to get a UK licence. As she is not a US citizen (neither am I), the only way for her to do that short of taking the UK tests is to get her General, which would entitle her to a UK Full licence. She isn't prepared to learn code to do it, but then neither is she in the least interested in getting on HF, or anything besides 2m FM as a matter of fact. I reckon she could take her element 3 now (or could if she had studied, LOL!), as it shouldn't have expired by the time the R&O comes out. Hopefully, by the time she got her General the free lifetime licences should have been introduced in the UK, which would work out very nicely. I have reverted to my original no-code call for the UK, as it is now a Full licence. For a while I held an 'A' call, G0VUK, obtained on the basis of my US Advanced as then was. Over there calls can only be re-issued to an immediate family member or to a club, and only with the licencee's permission (or next of kin). So, just for a laugh, I could let her have my A call while I now have a B (no-code) call, although I have passed 20wpm CW and she can't read code atall! That should wind up a few people. 73 de Alun, G8VUK, N3KIP |
"Alun L. Palmer" wrote in message .. . "John Smith" wrote in : N2EY: Perhaps introduce testing for "African Message Drum" also, bet some of those guys could pound out a little ditty and have it carry a message to! Maybe chant a little rap with it too! Some testing in the care maintenance of carrier pigeons might be in order to, for the guys who wanted real DX! John wrote in message ups.com... Leo wrote: On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 19:37:30 GMT, "KØHB" wrote: An interesting announcement! Here in Canada, Morse Code is now an alternative method of qualifying for HF privileges. In other words - Morse survived! Morse Code *testing* survived - it's just not mandatory anymore in Canada. IIRC, this was exactly what the commentary on the proposal supported. A couple of the other requests from the Amateur community via the RAC proposal) were granted as well - increasing the pass marks on the exams to 70% from 60%, and the addition of commercial kit-building privileges for Basic license holders. Not bad - now there's a regulatory agency that listens. Well done, Industry Canada! I agree 100%! They found a way to give everyone some of what they wanted. They listened to what the majority of those expressing an opinion supported, and acted on it. They produced a set of regulations designed to reconcile or at least minimize polarization, rather than increase it. What concepts, eh? ;-) Perhaps we in the USA should suggest such a system to FCC.... 73 de Jim, N2EY It's a little late, isn't it Jim? I find it interesting that South Africa was the first one to propose such a system, but I don't think the ZAs adopted it in the end. I have no trouble in principle with an alternative theory/code system, but how would you do it? Maybe Elements 2 and 3 + 20 wpm or elements 2, 3 and 4 to get full privileges? It's all moot now anyway. We all know the NPRM will become the R&O. There is one loose end, though. I read the NPRM to say that Tech+ would become closed, so that all new Techs would have to get element 3 to get on HF, but others have read it that all Techs would get Tech+ privileges. Does anyone know which is right? At first reading the text is confusing. However after going over it several times, the FCC does explicitly state that Techs will have to take the simple General exam to get HF privileges. They state that since the test is simple, it is unwarrented to give Techs HF privileges. Also on eHam, one of the posters states that he has called the FCC and gotten clarification that it is indeed their intent to require Techs to upgrade to get additional privileges. However I haven't confirmed if the poster has or has not called. The best thing to do would be to read it yourself several times through (it is a bit confusing at first). My XYL (N3MKR) is a no-code Tech, but she will be taking element 3 anyway. Her object is to get a UK licence. As she is not a US citizen (neither am I), the only way for her to do that short of taking the UK tests is to get her General, which would entitle her to a UK Full licence. She isn't prepared to learn code to do it, but then neither is she in the least interested in getting on HF, or anything besides 2m FM as a matter of fact. Ok, this is confusing. If she isn't interested in anything besides 2m FM, why is she upgrading and why is she interested in a full UK license since you are now residents of the US. Not that there's anything wrong with this but it doesn't make sense. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Leo wrote: On 29 Jul 2005 19:25:49 -0700, "b.b." wrote: wrote: K=D8HB wrote: While they removed the requirement for a Morse exam, note that they = increased the written examination passing score for the Basic License. FCC co= uld learn something from these guys. Yep What's interesting too is that new Basics can access HF two ways: 1) Pass the written with 80% or more right 2) Pass the written with less than 80% right *and* pass the Morse Code test. IIRC, the basic pass level is 60% (!) Sounds a little like my old "Chinese Menu" idea. 73 de Jim, N2EY Jim, are you advocating that 60% be the necessary score? I don't think he is, Brian - Jim was surprised when I mentioned that the pass mark was only 60% a while back. This has been fixed now - it has been raised to 70%, effective today! 73, Leo Thanks for being such a good sport, Leo. It's good that Jim has a surrogate to speak for him since he can't speak for himself. |
Alun L. Palmer wrote: "John Smith" wrote in break There is one loose end, though. I read the NPRM to say that Tech+ would become closed, so that all new Techs would have to get element 3 to get on HF, but others have read it that all Techs would get Tech+ privileges. Does anyone know which is right? I read it as techs all tech end up with what amounts to what was once called tech plus, but anyone that claims to know what the result is likely to prove themselves a lair |
"an old friend" wrote but anyone that claims to know what the result is likely to prove themselves a lair "Lair". Maybe you meant "a liar"? In any case, more likely just "mistaken in their understanding of the proposed rule". 73, de Hans, K0HB ~~~ We pass the word around; we ponder how the case is put by different people, we read the poetry; we meditate over the literature; we play the music; we change our minds; we reach an understanding. Society evolves this way, not by shouting each other down, but by the unique capacity of unique, individual human beings to comprehend each other. --Lewis Thomas, The Medusa and the Snail (1979) ~~~ |
KXHB:
Interesting, not even a great speelcheeker would have caught lair and liar error... John "KXHB" wrote in message .net... "an old friend" wrote but anyone that claims to know what the result is likely to prove themselves a lair "Lair". Maybe you meant "a liar"? In any case, more likely just "mistaken in their understanding of the proposed rule". 73, de Hans, K0HB ~~~ We pass the word around; we ponder how the case is put by different people, we read the poetry; we meditate over the literature; we play the music; we change our minds; we reach an understanding. Society evolves this way, not by shouting each other down, but by the unique capacity of unique, individual human beings to comprehend each other. --Lewis Thomas, The Medusa and the Snail (1979) ~~~ |
"an old friend" wrote in message oups.com... Alun L. Palmer wrote: "John Smith" wrote in break There is one loose end, though. I read the NPRM to say that Tech+ would become closed, so that all new Techs would have to get element 3 to get on HF, but others have read it that all Techs would get Tech+ privileges. Does anyone know which is right? I read it as techs all tech end up with what amounts to what was once called tech plus, but anyone that claims to know what the result is likely to prove themselves a lair If you are talking about the US proposal, read the NPRM through a couple of times. They discuss this at great length. Techs will not get Tech+ privileges. Anyone who wants to increase their privileges will have to take a test. They specifically state that no one will get any changes in privileges. That is also consistent with the way the paragraphs will be reworded as shown in the appendix. Finally, one of the posters on eHam called the FCC on this and asked for and got clarification. He was told that Techs will not get Tech+ privileges. It is indeed the FCC's position that anyone desiring more than their current privileges must take the appropriate written test. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Dee Flint wrote: "an old friend" wrote in message oups.com... Alun L. Palmer wrote: "John Smith" wrote in break There is one loose end, though. I read the NPRM to say that Tech+ would become closed, so that all new Techs would have to get element 3 to get on HF, but others have read it that all Techs would get Tech+ privileges. Does anyone know which is right? I read it as techs all tech end up with what amounts to what was once called tech plus, but anyone that claims to know what the result is likely to prove themselves a lair If you are talking about the US proposal, read the NPRM through a couple of times. They discuss this at great length. Techs will not get Tech+ privileges. Anyone who wants to increase their privileges will have to take a test. They specifically state that no one will get any changes in privileges. That is also consistent with the way the paragraphs will be reworded as shown in the appendix. I have read it and read it and I come to the same conclusion Finally, one of the posters on eHam called the FCC on this and asked for and got clarification. He was told that Techs will not get Tech+ privileges. It is indeed the FCC's position that anyone desiring more than their current privileges must take the appropriate written test. so what? It is unlikely that you are going to get anyone on the phone able to speak for the what the R&O will say before even the end of the coment period indeed that issue is the only mystery left, after all we are assued that No one loses previdges as well, and if all the langauge that is said to be delected is delected then the old tech plus folks lose HF access The lang is badly worded, and frankly I suspect ones reading depends on wether you look at rules in the light all not forbidden is allowed or all not expressly allowed is forbidden I hope (nearly said I trsut but though better of it) the FCC will make that one point clear in the R&O Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
"an old friend" wrote in message oups.com... Dee Flint wrote: "an old friend" wrote in message oups.com... Alun L. Palmer wrote: "John Smith" wrote in break There is one loose end, though. I read the NPRM to say that Tech+ would become closed, so that all new Techs would have to get element 3 to get on HF, but others have read it that all Techs would get Tech+ privileges. Does anyone know which is right? I read it as techs all tech end up with what amounts to what was once called tech plus, but anyone that claims to know what the result is likely to prove themselves a lair If you are talking about the US proposal, read the NPRM through a couple of times. They discuss this at great length. Techs will not get Tech+ privileges. Anyone who wants to increase their privileges will have to take a test. They specifically state that no one will get any changes in privileges. That is also consistent with the way the paragraphs will be reworded as shown in the appendix. I have read it and read it and I come to the same conclusion Finally, one of the posters on eHam called the FCC on this and asked for and got clarification. He was told that Techs will not get Tech+ privileges. It is indeed the FCC's position that anyone desiring more than their current privileges must take the appropriate written test. so what? It is unlikely that you are going to get anyone on the phone able to speak for the what the R&O will say before even the end of the coment period indeed that issue is the only mystery left, after all we are assued that No one loses previdges as well, and if all the langauge that is said to be delected is delected then the old tech plus folks lose HF access Nope. The paragraph that gives Tech+ their HF access is unchanged. Look at the appendix. It shows what paragraphs they are planning to change and what the projected wording is. The Tech+ paragraph is untouched and left to stand as is. The lang is badly worded, and frankly I suspect ones reading depends on wether you look at rules in the light all not forbidden is allowed or all not expressly allowed is forbidden Nope. It is very clear on which paragraphs they propose to change and what the proposed wording is. The paragraph that grants Tech+ the Novice HF privileges has no changes proposed. I hope (nearly said I trsut but though better of it) the FCC will make that one point clear in the R&O The problem with the NPRM is simply its extensive discussion, which does get rather wordy but is explicit if one reads it. The revised paragraphs for Part 97 listed at the end of the NPRM are quite clear. I originally was confused too but comparing the new text to the old text clarified the situation. That comparison put the lengthy discussion into perspective and clarified it a great deal. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:24 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com