Why isn't this happening: CW?

[kc2orw]

Borrowed from another topic
Quote[/b] (W4HAY @ July 28 2007,04:56)]BTW, rumor has it that at least one of the VE groups is considering re-instating the code tests and awarding certificates, perhaps with an on-line posting of the certificate holders.
Now that is something I have been wondering about and I don't understand why it is not already happening.

Why not and lets take it a bit further why not petition to make it officially part of your record?

Most of the VE's I have met are CW fanatics well at least prior to February, are there any nocode VE's yet?

Thoughts please...

[KA4DPO]

I don't want to have to learn code, it's too hard. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

[kc2orw]

Quote[/b] (KA4DPO @ July 28 2007,07:57)]I don't want to have to learn code, it's too hard. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif
Optional, just optional if someone doesn't want to so be it. They can live with the choice(s) they make.

Why is that so hard to do I halfway thought someone besides a dumb noob like me would propose that one?

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (KA4DPO @ July 28 2007,07:57)]I don't want to have to learn code, it's too hard. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif
Yeah. It has kept out all the smart people from Amateur Radio and young people we need to save us. They need to get on HF to let loose all the pent up creativity they could not let out when they were Technicians!

P.S. Now, seriously I agree with you. I think an avenue like this should be open to new amateurs to allow them to distance themselves from the original NCTs.

[WA9SVD]

The FCC is trying to REDUCE their paperwork and administrative costs. that's why they dropped the distinction between Tech and Tech Plus way back when; THAT at least was useful information from a regulatory standpoint. Anything "optional" on the FCC database will not be implemented. Code proficiency or even capability serves NO purpose now, from the standpoint of the FCC.

[W3MIV]

Morse testing, evaluation, certification or any other means of revivifying a CW-based determinant of any sort for amateur radio in the US is gone. Dead. Finished. Done.

Many entities, the ARRL included, petitioned to retain the test for at least the Amateur Extra class license. The FCC refused to consider such a thing.

Get over it. The continuing whining and bitching about Morse does no service to anyone or anything. Make the adjustment to help new entrants become good operators and a credit to the service under the Rules that now govern us. That will do more good than any of these continuing tantrums about Morse testing or other Morse certifications. Those hams who discover Morse will often want to learn it and use it; recent experience seems to indicate that the interest in Morse has grown stronger since the removal of the test.

But pushing it on newbies or demeaning them for lack of interest in it will prove counter-productive and do far more harm than good.

Get over it.

[wc5cw]

KC2ORW, et al...

While I was saddened to see the Morse requirement, at first dumbed down, then eliminated from the amateur radio licensing requirements for General and higher license classes, it is what it is, and I have no strong feelings one way or the other about...I don't feel the need for any endorsement as you have cited (and proposed)...What's the purpose?

If certain people have a need for public verification of their Morse skills then they can earn an ARRL Certificate of Code Proficiency* and post it on the Internet...Better yet, ask the ARRL to catalog the recipients of such certificates and publish them in QST as they do the DXCC Member lists.

The best validation remains to get on the air and participate with your fellow ops in the CW bands...That is, after all, the real validation of your knowledge and skill as a radiotelegraphic operator, IMHO.

* http://www.arrl.org/awards/

FWIW

Bruce
WC5CW

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ July 28 2007,08:36)]Morse testing, evaluation, certification or any other means of revivifying a CW-based determinant of any sort for amateur radio in the US is gone. Dead. Finished. Done.

Many entities, the ARRL included, petitioned to retain the test for at least the Amateur Extra class license. The FCC refused to consider such a thing.

Get over it. The continuing whining and bitching about Morse does no service to anyone or anything. Make the adjustment to help new entrants become good operators and a credit to the service under the Rules that now govern us. That will do more good than any of these continuing tantrums about Morse testing or other Morse certifications. Those hams who discover Morse will often want to learn it and use it; recent experience seems to indicate that the interest in Morse has grown stronger since the removal of the test.

But pushing it on newbies or demeaning them for lack of interest in it will prove counter-productive and do far more harm than good.

Get over it.
For you:

[kj3n]

Why would you need an endorsement?

Is there something wrong with a certificate from the ARRL Qualifying Runs? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

I don't see the point in duplication of effort.

[kc2orw]

Quote[/b] (wa9svd @ July 28 2007,08:18)]The FCC is trying to REDUCE their paperwork and administrative costs. that's why they dropped the distinction between Tech and Tech Plus way back when; THAT at least was useful information from a regulatory standpoint. Anything "optional" on the FCC database will not be implemented. Code proficiency or even capability serves NO purpose now, from the standpoint of the FCC.
Alright paperwork reduction is okay why spend extra tax dollars to satiate some folks ego's. I suppose if folks had offered that as compromise rather then investing as much effort in fighting the change that could have been the situation. So pointless to try and go back and petition for it now.
I guess privately then places like the zed or arrl could be the repository for such data, err maybe...
Oh well needless to say I wasn't in favor of the change and I didn't run out and upgrade, hoping something like this would happen. Also being antenna challenged I didn't see and practical applicability for doing the upgrade. Figured I should state that there are two reasons for me not bothering to upgrade. I will wait a bit longer and see if someone picks up on the optional route and provides a repository for the data.

[N8UZE]

Quote[/b] (kc2orw @ July 28 2007,10:42)]Most of the VE's I have met are CW fanatics well at least prior to February, are there any nocode VE's yet?
Yes, one of my students is now a VE.

[kc2orw]

Quote[/b] (kj3n @ July 28 2007,08:44)]Why would you need an endorsement?

Is there something wrong with a certificate from the ARRL Qualifying Runs? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

I don't see the point in duplication of effort.
Well I was seeking a more official and public endorsement but the paperwork reduction aspect was pointed out to me and I concede why bother to go back there.

I suppose the arrl certificate is okay... but not as public. Will I need to be faxing it around to prove that I have it http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

[kc2orw]

Sheesh everybody keeps replying while I am makes it hard to keep my previous replies seem relevant http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

Quote[/b] (wc5cw @ July 28 2007,08:37)]The best validation remains to get on the air and participate with your fellow ops in the CW bands...That is, after all, the real validation of your knowledge and skill as a radiotelegraphic operator, IMHO.

* http://www.arrl.org/awards/

FWIW

Bruce
WC5CW
Honest totally antenna challenged not to likely to be on anything beyond 10M or possibly 15M anytime soon.
I would jump on moving but I don't feel like increasing my commute. I am not getting younger pretty dense around here. Staying local and not being antenna challenged is an expensive proposition. But if I can work it out I would go way further north for more then just the improved antenna situation. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

Link provided I suppose is an option I spose...

PS: I don't care if someone doesn't want to bother with an optional code endorsement. I just don't like it being automatically assumed since I didn't get it done in time that I was somehow in favor of removing the code requirement.

[kj3n]

Quote[/b] (kc2orw @ July 28 2007,11:50)]Quote[/b] (kj3n @ July 28 2007,08:44)]Why would you need an endorsement?

Is there something wrong with a certificate from the ARRL Qualifying Runs? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

I don't see the point in duplication of effort.
Well I was seeking a more official and public endorsement but the paperwork reduction aspect was pointed out to me and I concede why bother to go back there.

I suppose the arrl certificate is okay... but not as public. Will I need to be faxing it around to prove that I have it http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
Why? Is acceptance by others that important? Is your self-esteem so low? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

[kc2orw]

Quote[/b] (kj3n @ July 28 2007,09:05)]Quote[/b] (kc2orw @ July 28 2007,11:50)]Quote[/b] (kj3n @ July 28 2007,08:44)]Why would you need an endorsement?

Is there something wrong with a certificate from the ARRL Qualifying Runs? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

I don't see the point in duplication of effort.
Well I was seeking a more official and public endorsement but the paperwork reduction aspect was pointed out to me and I concede why bother to go back there.

I suppose the arrl certificate is okay... but not as public. Will I need to be faxing it around to prove that I have it http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
Why? Is acceptance by others that important? Is your self-esteem so low? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
See the post above yours with the postscript explanation.
The answer is really pretty simple and intuitively obviously.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (kc2orw @ July 28 2007,12:02)]I just don't like it being automatically assumed since I didn't get it done in time that I was somehow in favor of removing the code requirement.
That would seem to be a personal problem that should be easy enough to get over. Stay on CW and you will never have to worry about this ever again since demonstrated proficiency would surely obviate any questions from your similarly indued confreres.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[WW3QB]

If you want a FCC endorsement for CW, why not get a T3? They are still being issued, but who knows for how long. I'm actually thinking about it.

[k0dxc]

Quote[/b] (KA4DPO @ July 28 2007,07:57)]I don't want to have to learn code, it's too hard. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif
aaaawww comon I did it didn't I and i'm 12

[kc2orw]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ July 28 2007,09:15)]Quote[/b] (kc2orw @ July 28 2007,12:02)]I just don't like it being automatically assumed since I didn't get it done in time that I was somehow in favor of removing the code requirement.
That would seem to be a personal problem that should be easy enough to get over. Stay on CW and you will never have to worry about this ever again since demonstrated proficiency would surely obviate any questions from your similarly indued confreres.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Ah but your still not getting it then, not going to get on any time soon. Oh well we all make our own choices for our own personal reason and then we have to live with the consequences don't we. Mine is I am not in the mood to commute 75-100 miles one way. 50-65 with a bit more then 50% public transportation is okay but just that okay *Tongue Draggin*

I believe I did mention ego somewhere in one of my replies what more can I say.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[kc2orw]

Quote[/b] (ww3qb @ July 28 2007,09:16)]If you want a FCC endorsement for CW, why not get a T3? They are still being issued, but who knows for how long. I'm actually thinking about it.
All right will look into it but after all it is just a hobby and things used to be simpler just a little VE test away.

[kj3n]

Quote[/b] (kc2orw @ July 28 2007,12:08)]Quote[/b] (kj3n @ July 28 2007,09:05)]Quote[/b] (kc2orw @ July 28 2007,11:50)]Quote[/b] (kj3n @ July 28 2007,08:44)]Why would you need an endorsement?

Is there something wrong with a certificate from the ARRL Qualifying Runs? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

I don't see the point in duplication of effort.
Well I was seeking a more official and public endorsement but the paperwork reduction aspect was pointed out to me and I concede why bother to go back there.

I suppose the arrl certificate is okay... but not as public. Will I need to be faxing it around to prove that I have it http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
Why? Is acceptance by others that important? Is your self-esteem so low? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
See the post above yours with the postscript explanation.
The answer is really pretty simple and intuitively obviously.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
Only serves to prove my point. Thanks for the confirmation. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[kc2orw]

Quote[/b] (kj3n @ July 28 2007,09:37)]Only serves to prove my point. Thanks for the confirmation. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Perhaps then again... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

[W5HTW]

Actually it isn't a bad idea. This may look facetious, but that isn't how it is intended. (Well, OK, yeah, but there is a LOT of truth in this.)

I am thinking we are headed for (and I believe it is the correct thing to do, now with the changes in ham radio over the past decade) a single class of Communicator License. That license was first proposed back in the early 1960s, as a no-code license. But it never became reality until 1991. And instead of being called Communicator, the FCC simply revamped the 'once-technical' Technician license into the Communicator license.

Now the General and Extra are also being made into a Communicator Ticket, and I think the FCC's goal is a single class of license. They have been phasing that in for a while, and when they realize, and they will, that today's new Extra is about equivalent to the 1960s Novice, minus code, they will discard classes of license entirely.

No, I'm not being sarcastic.

With the new "Standard Amateur Radio License," that I suspect is coming down the pike, endorsements for special techniques may come with it. Examples:

1. Technician. A REAL technician, with actual electronics knowledge. This person would be allowed to install and operate a repeater, instead of just chat through one.

2. Technician II. For the boat anchor enthusiast. Requires an endorsement after taking a rather extensive electronics and safety test, about basic electronics, so that the person is really qualified to do "electronics!"

3. Communicator I. Like Bond, a "license to chat." And that's all. No tinkering with the radidios. Have to get a special license to even own a screwdriver. (OK, I'm getting a wee dab sarcastic here.)

4. Communicator 9. EMCOMM. Can only use an HT, must keep it fully charged in the bureau drawer in case he hears of a flood, or better still, a shooting. Car parked in garage. Press a button and mag mount light bar automatically lowers to car roof and clamps in place. Like a fireman, his uniform, boots, and badge, are lying on the back seat of the family sedan. Siren hidden under the hood, and MUST have headlight winkers installed.

(Note: There is no Communicator 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8. These are reserved, just in case, but not used, as they are intended to give the EMCOMMer the impression he really is on Cloud 9, not Cloud 7 or 8, which would be inferior. By the way, he also gets an FBI badge. OR DHS badge. Or both. )

5. Morse Specialist I. Can send and receive Morse Code on the air, only with a computer, but only at speeds to 10 wpm.

6. Morse Specialist II. Can do the above, but minus computer.

7. Morse Specialist III. Top dog. Any speed Morse (no computer permitted) by hand or keyer.

8. EMCOMM MASTER Has responded to at least four traffic accidents per month for the last year, has at least TWO HTs, and can actually talk in both of them at once. Even has another one modified to work on police, fire, medic, air, forest service, and taxi cab frequencies.

So, yeah, I think endorsements are coming. Not sure we will need them with our channelized HF radios that are totally tamper proof, but at least we can hang them on our walls.

Ed

[N0NB]

Twisting back toward the original post ( http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif ) as the local contact VE, I don't care if the VEC would start offering Morse endorsements, I have no interest in offering them. #The most thankless task as a VE was giving code exams. #The room was always full of echo, the acustics wrong, people talking, outside noise, the playback was skewed, etc., ad naseum. #Then there was the time and interpretation aspect.

I'd much rather administer the written exams. #Now we can schedule an exam session an hour before a club meeting. and be done on time.

On the other hand, if the VEC charges $100 per sitting and splits it with the VE team 50/50, I might be interested! #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[kc2orw]

Quote[/b] (N0NB @ July 28 2007,10:56)]Twisting back toward the original post ( http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif ) as the local contact VE, I don't care if the VEC would start offering Morse endorsements, I have no interest in offering them. The most thankless task as a VE was giving code exams. The room was always full of echo, the acustics wrong, people talking, outside noise, the playback was skewed, etc., ad naseum. Then there was the time and interpretation aspect.

I'd much rather administer the written exams. Now we can schedule an exam session an hour before a club meeting. and be done on time.

On the other hand, if the VEC charges $100 per sitting and splits it with the VE team 50/50, I might be interested! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Hmm $100 per seat not bad http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

I can imagine the acoustics were pretty bad where I went. The lighting was awful, the yellow paper with light gray printing didn't help any, and I brought the wrong reading glasses to top that off.

Wow I was the only person there talk about thankless tasks. But they said/claimed they liked getting together on Sunday mornings anyway and going out for breakfast afterwards.

Heres to you and the time you have put in http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[W4HAY]

The problem with the ARRL Code Proficiency certificates is that they can be faked. Think tape recorder and several playbacks at reduced speed -- or just lied about.

Quite simply, some people thrive on competition and personal improvement.

Again it's that dressage (Google it, if you didn't the first time #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif ) discipline. We go to great trouble to prepare for and ride the tests, not for competition per se but to prove to ourselves how well we and our horses have performed before an impartial judge. It's not "How well did you place in the class?", but "What was your score and how much did it improve since the last test?"

The FCC would not be involved in any way. It would be strictly the function of the VE examiners. If enough interest is expressed, most probably one or more of the VE groups will fulfill the need.

Let your desires be known!

[KC2PBJ]

If the CW endorsement is ever offered, I'd be willing to plunk down the exam fee. How about different, progressive, speeds? I agree that the ARRL CW can be faked by recording or using the MFJ code reader.

[N8UZE]

Quote[/b] (KC2PBJ @ July 28 2007,19:09)]If the CW endorsement is ever offered, I'd be willing to plunk down the exam fee. #How about different, progressive, speeds? #I agree that the ARRL CW can be faked by recording or using the MFJ code reader.
The ARRL did take steps to try to start such a program. I don't know how far along they are or what kind of interest has been expressed in doing this.

[KI4SQT]

Quote[/b] (kc2orw @ July 27 2007,09:42)]Borrowed from another topic
Quote[/b] (W4HAY @ July 28 2007,04:56)]BTW, rumor has it that at least one of the VE groups is considering re-instating the code tests and awarding certificates, perhaps with an on-line posting of the certificate holders.
Now that is something I have been wondering about and I don't understand why it is not already happening.

Why not and lets take it a bit further why not petition to make it officially part of your record?

Most of the VE's I have met are CW fanatics well at least prior to February, are there any nocode VE's yet?

Thoughts please...
Just another way...and "whine"...to allow you coder's to identify those that you would rather not talk to...if you could just know for sure who does and doesn't use CW...
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[KC2PBJ]

Quote[/b] (KI4SQT @ July 28 2007,18:53)]Quote[/b] (kc2orw @ July 27 2007,09:42)]Borrowed from another topic
Quote[/b] (W4HAY @ July 28 2007,04:56)]BTW, rumor has it that at least one of the VE groups is considering re-instating the code tests and awarding certificates, perhaps with an on-line posting of the certificate holders.
Now that is something I have been wondering about and I don't understand why it is not already happening.

Why not and lets take it a bit further why not petition to make it officially part of your record?

Most of the VE's I have met are CW fanatics well at least prior to February, are there any nocode VE's yet?

Thoughts please...
Just another way...and "whine"...to allow you coder's to identify those that you would rather not talk to...if you could just know for sure who does and doesn't use CW...
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
i personally don't give a rodent's rectum whether or not code was learned. I'll talk or key-up at length with anyone on the air who's interested. All kinds of interests and all can become frequent QSOs and long-term friends.

[W4HAY]

OK! Here's the contact info for the W5YI group: W5YI VEC (http://www.w5yi.org/page.php?id=56) and this is the website for the ARRL VEC (http://www.arrl.org/arrlvec/facts.html) .

Those that would like to see a code proficiency program, drop these folks a line, and spread the word around. Maybe we can get something started

[n0iu]

Like others have mentioned, I still don't understand why it is necessary to have some sort of "public recognition" of one's Morse code ability? It must be an ego thing or more likely a self-esteem issue.

I already have all of the proof I need. Its called my logbook and it is filled with thousands of CW QSOs.

If it will make you feel good to get a Qualifying Run Certificate or some other form of public recognition, go ahead. Personally, I think it is a huge waste of time, effort and money. I got into amateur radio to talk to other people, not to wallpaper my house. For me, I wouldn't trade a thousand of those certificates for any one of my QSOs with another person.

Scott NØIU

[N8CPA]

Quote[/b] (N8UZE @ July 28 2007,19:34)]Quote[/b] (KC2PBJ @ July 28 2007,19:09)]If the CW endorsement is ever offered, I'd be willing to plunk down the exam fee. #How about different, progressive, speeds? #I agree that the ARRL CW can be faked by recording or using the MFJ code reader.
The ARRL did take steps to try to start such a program. #I don't know how far along they are or what kind of interest has been expressed in doing this.
I think, in Ohio there are three ARRL VE teams that are doing such a program--according to the last email I received about it from the GLD. BUT---------that was before my MOBO committed filicide. That hard drive IS toast!

[N8UZE]

Quote[/b] (n0iu @ July 29 2007,07:50)]Like others have mentioned, I still don't understand why it is necessary to have some sort of "public recognition" of one's Morse code ability? It must be an ego thing or more likely a self-esteem issue.

I already have all of the proof I need. Its called my logbook and it is filled with thousands of CW QSOs.

If it will make you feel good to get a Qualifying Run Certificate or some other form of public recognition, go ahead. Personally, I think it is a huge waste of time, effort and money. I got into amateur radio to talk to other people, not to wallpaper my house. For me, I wouldn't trade a thousand of those certificates for any one of my QSOs with another person.

Scott NØIU
I agree with you 100%. #There's no need for public recognition.

Now I did do the Certificates of Proficiency for a couple of levels but I did it for myself not to display to other people. #When I had taken the Morse code exams, I was unhappy about how poorly I did even though I passed. #To make myself feel better, I worked for and earned these certificates. #But I did it just for myself. #They are in my binder along with the certificates from Special Event stations, VE certificates, etc.

[N8UZE]

Quote[/b] (N8CPA @ July 29 2007,08:01)]Quote[/b] (N8UZE @ July 28 2007,19:34)]Quote[/b] (KC2PBJ @ July 28 2007,19:09)]If the CW endorsement is ever offered, I'd be willing to plunk down the exam fee. #How about different, progressive, speeds? #I agree that the ARRL CW can be faked by recording or using the MFJ code reader.
The ARRL did take steps to try to start such a program. #I don't know how far along they are or what kind of interest has been expressed in doing this.
I think, in Ohio there are three ARRL VE teams that are doing such a program--according to the last email I received about it from the GLD. #BUT---------that was before my #MOBO committed filicide. #That hard drive IS toast!
This may be the ARRL sponsored program that I mentioned earlier in this thread.

I had received notification when they were in the early stages of it but since I feel that the Certificates of Proficiency from the Qualifying runs are sufficient, I did not sign up to do this and so have not kept track of the program.

[KL1ZB]

http://homepage.mac.com/lostngone/.Pictures/award.jpg

Had to do it. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif