Peter Maus wrote:
beerbarrel wrote:

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 13:33:52 -0500, "Count Floyd"
wrote:


On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 12:41:48 UTC, beerbarrel
wrote:


On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 07:31:02 -0400, dxAce
wrote:



Joel Rubin wrote:


On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 19:33:36 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote:


http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...C-05-143A1.doc

John


Code ability should be one alternative among other technical tests. It
seems very odd to freeze a technical test in a museum of bygone
technology.

If one cannot learn at least a minimal 5 WPM code then they have absolutely no
business obtaining an amateur license.

dxAce
Michigan
USA



Agreed!

Then you should also learn how to ride a horse in order to deliver the
mail on time.



That's apples to oranges....Cw is the most efficient form of
communication in ham radio...




That's a truth not limited to ham radio...pilots have known that
VOR stations identify in Morse coded since the beginning of VOR. As
did/do ADF stations before them. Charts are marked with frequency,
station indentifier, and the Morse equivalent. Knowing the code
saves a lot of time and helps reduce confusion when navigating by
radio.

But what possible connection is there between licensing a ham for
communications on 40 meters and the ability of a pilot to interpret
station designators. Unless the FCC and FAA are merging and they will
be offering one combined license for the amateur Hamilot