Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
wrote in message ... On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 22:16:54 -0400, Al Klein wrote: I'm not sure where you're coming from with "these" statements............. today theere is NO requirement for CW testing. It is not needed that I know CW in order to operate at all. Indeed even if we don't stick to band plans I don't need to be able read a CW signal to know it is there, and reconize the frequency is in use UNTIL the Code requirement is abolished for good - which to my recollection - it has not for U.S. hams (yet), then to get on H.F. you most certainly are required to pass the 5 WPM code exam. no harm will result if I don't know Morse code many hams ven now on HF don't know it well enough to use indeed there was never a test to determine if we could use it on the air at all Also, I think if you read Part 97 - you may be surprised. VEs can give either a receiving test OR "sending" test. USUALLY (most of the time) - it is a "receiving" test. Whatever it takes for them to have "the examinee" prove his/her knowledge of the code at 5 WPM. For example, you could claim tone deafness to me - ok - so instead of "receiving" the code, I could have you "send" the code. Before the code dropped to 5 WPM - you could get a doctor to sign a waiver and you got code credit. BUT once the code was dropped, so too were the waivers. I know it may sound hokey to have you "send" code if you claim tone deafness, but the other options are a buzzer sending YOU the code - you decipher - or a flashing light or whatever. AND the FCC stated to the VEs that THOSE claiming handicaps are the ones responsible for supplying the equipment to enable them to have every reasonable chance of passing. Also, that code test "could" be broken down into segments. Instead of playing a tape with a full message as you would to most applicants, the VEs could break it down in segments of letters, words, sentences at a time for someone with severe handicaps. WHATEVER was able to give that applicant every reasonable chance of passing without much stress. Argue that with THEM - "I" didn't make the rules. So, just when was it that CODE was "abolished" as an "Exam" requirement? Maybe I missed some mail from the VECs and FCC to tell me to quit testing for 5 WPM code to get on H.F. ........... You give me a date that it went into effect, and I'll retract my post............. L. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
wrote in message ... On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 23:08:35 -0400, "L." wrote: wrote in message . .. On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 22:16:54 -0400, Al Klein wrote: I'm not sure where you're coming from with "these" statements............. today theere is NO requirement for CW testing. It is not needed that I know CW in order to operate at all. Indeed even if we don't stick to band plans I don't need to be able read a CW signal to know it is there, and reconize the frequency is in use UNTIL the Code requirement is abolished for good - the is no need or proper reason if you prefer that wording http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/ -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com OK, I'll buy that - but again, until the code {exam} is "ABOLISHED" - we are "required" to have it for H.F. I WILL agree, once many pass their code exams, they never see a key or listen to a code tape - again........... For what it is worth and THIS I've not kept up with - I have heard that there is a move afoot - by the FCC themselves - to abolish the code requirement. For some strange reason, September or October of this year comes to mind. I guess we'll have to wait and see. L. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
L. wrote: wrote in message ... On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 23:08:35 -0400, "L." wrote: wrote in message . .. On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 22:16:54 -0400, Al Klein wrote: I'm not sure where you're coming from with "these" statements............. today theere is NO requirement for CW testing. It is not needed that I know CW in order to operate at all. Indeed even if we don't stick to band plans I don't need to be able read a CW signal to know it is there, and reconize the frequency is in use UNTIL the Code requirement is abolished for good - the is no need or proper reason if you prefer that wording http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/ -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com OK, I'll buy that - but again, until the code {exam} is "ABOLISHED" - we are "required" to have it for H.F. I WILL agree, once many pass their code exams, they never see a key or listen to a code tape - again........... For what it is worth and THIS I've not kept up with - I have heard that there is a move afoot - by the FCC themselves - to abolish the code requirement. For some strange reason, September or October of this year comes to mind. I guess we'll have to wait and see. indeed that is why many of are here trashing it out one last time NoCode got real montenum and organzation here t grow in to movement in part in this very forum there newpaper articles mention the same timefram and the noocders are swatting the whinners that would like to try and derail that L. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
On 15 Aug 2006 07:23:50 -0700, "an old friend"
wrote: there newpaper articles mention the same timefram and the noocders are swatting the whinners that would like to try and derail that Derail what, Markie? Oh, right, the change in the rules. And you accuse us of being the ones who want to change things. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
Al Klein wrote: On 15 Aug 2006 07:23:50 -0700, "an old friend" wrote: there newpaper articles mention the same timefram and the noocders are swatting the whinners that would like to try and derail that Derail what, Markie? Oh, right, the change in the rules. And you accuse us of being the ones who want to change things. never said anything was wrong with change per se changing histrical facts to suit your case is wrong Al but is it what you want to change that is the problem BTW why are you such an ill manner lout that you can't address me by name |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
Al Klein wrote: On 15 Aug 2006 07:23:50 -0700, "an old friend" wrote: there newpaper articles mention the same timefram and the noocders are swatting the whinners that would like to try and derail that Derail what, Markie? Oh, right, the change in the rules. And you accuse us of being the ones who want to change things. never said anything was wrong with change per se changing histrical facts to suit your case is wrong Al but is it what you want to change that is the problem BTW why are you such an ill mannered lout that you can't address me by name |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
"an old friend" wrote in
ups.com: BTW why are you such an ill mannered lout that you can't address me by name Maybe Al doesn't like to type dirty words. Sc |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die?
slow code wrote: "an old friend" wrote in ups.com: BTW why are you such an ill mannered lout that you can't address me by name Maybe Al doesn't like to type dirty words. well mark certainly isn't one Sc |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Persuing a Career in Electronics, HELP! | Homebrew | |||
Bonafied Proof of LIFE AFTER DEATH -- Coal Mine Rescue | Shortwave |