About Us

January 30th 05, 12:13 AM

wrote:
I think the proper analogy would be to test applicants on how to

drive a

buggy or ride a horse to get a drivers license. There are plenty of
people who enjoy these equine hobbies, but they have little to do

with

driving a car. Of course, in an emergency, when no gasoline is

available

or the roads are washed out, those on horseback will have an

advantage

and save the day, but it would be foolish to restrict millions of
potential drivers because they realize it would be STUPID to make

them

learn to ride a horse!

Not a valid analogy at all. Try this one:

It's more like requiring all applicants to learn to drive stick shift
(manual transmission) cars, even if they only intend to drive automatic
transmission cars."

Of course the test in the USA basically equates to being able to get
the car moving, into second gear and back to a stop without stalling
out too many times, but it's still there.

Not in California. But to go with your analogy, people that want to
drive a stick are free to do so. They don't need to drive a stick shift
to get get their licenses. Your analogy has made my point.

I learned the code to get my general and haven't used it since. I did

it, but for me, it was an enormous waste of time.

How many technical subjects did you learn for that test which you have
never used since? Should they also be eliminated?

I was writing about the code, not techinical subjects.

Another apt analogy is that code is a form of hazing to join the
fraternity of hams. Maybe we should carve our callsigns into paddles

and

whack all prospective hams until they copy 20 wpm.

Not at all.

After WWII, there was a huge pool of of veteran radio operators who

knew

and loved the code for what it was, the best and most reliable mode

OF

ITS TIME. Sadly these pioneers are dying out, but their legacy

persists.

Is something bad just because it is old?

Not at all. I am old, but not obsolete.

Most hams I have met did not learn the code in the military - they
learned it in ham radio. And Morse Code use is alive and well in ham
radio.

Prospective hams are allowed to use newfangled calculators on their

exams. Shouldn't we demand that they use sliderules?

There's no math on the current exams that even requires a calculator.

If you are worried about our CB good buddies taking over the bands,

tune

into the 80 Meter band any evening. They are already there yammering
about their "legal limit" amps. That battle has already been lost.

Not on 80 meters. On 75 meters, maybe, but not 80. Believe it or not,
Part 97 lists them separately!

Note that what you describe isn't happening on CW.

You have made an excellent point. My point was that the code requirement
has not maintained the "purity" of the HAM bands in general.
As far as being able to fix my radio....I can't even fix my CAR

anymore!

So why should there even be a written test?

There is plenty to know aside from the code. I would be in favor in
making the rest of test more comprehensive.

I could buy and drive and repair an old VW like I did for so many
years, but I've grown up and actually enjoy my 21st century ride! My
wife owns, rides, and maintains a beautiful horse, but when we need a

half gallon of milk, she doesn't saddle up and ride into town. She

gets

into our 21st Century car and DRIVES to the store.

Sounds like you're saying that there should be no requirements at all.

Not at all. She still had to get a driver's license.

The arrow of time points in one direction. The clock ticks. So what

is

it going to be? Buggywhips or PSK? While we argue over buggywhips the

FCC will take back the hambands or destroy them with BPL.

How will dropping the code test defend against BPL?

Perhaps dropping the code will encourage new operators to enter the
hobby. When the number of operating amateurs drops below a critical mass
and the ARRL loses its clout in Washington, there will be nothing left
to balance the public relations machine promoting BPL. In spite of the
recent successes of the ARRL, the power industry is in this for the long
haul. As our numbers dwindle, their stock goes up.

I'd be willing to bet that if the code requirement were dropped, that in
the long run, the percentage of CW operators would eventually go up.
There is no doubt that CW is a great mode for those who enjoy it. The
more hams who are licensed will increase the pool of operators who will
eventually discover the inherent qualities of CW.

I appreciate your response, Jim. I know we each are concerned about the
future of our hobby. I hope when the dust settles, our licenses will
still be good for something. 73's

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Morse Code: One Wonders... and Begins to Think ! [ -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . ]	RHF	Shortwave	0	January 5th 04 02:49 PM
Response to "21st Century" Part One (Code Test)	N2EY	Policy	6	December 2nd 03 03:45 AM
Canada says... "Drop the Code!"	Hamguy	Swap	1	November 1st 03 10:05 PM
My response to Jim Wiley, KL7CC	Brian	Policy	3	October 24th 03 12:02 AM
NCVEC NPRM for elimination of horse and buggy morse code requirement.	Keith	Policy	1	July 31st 03 03:46 AM

Menu

About Us