Alternative Extra Testing Proposal

[KA4DPO]

I was just reading through World Radio and came across a piece by W3BE on the FCC NPRM to eliminate Morse testing as a requirement for General and Extra class exams. #His logic for keeping CW as a requirement for Extra is quite good. #W3BE makes the point that the Extra class are our most expert operators and that it took some 54 years build this respect. #He goes on to say that it is not unreasonable for radio experts to know Morse code and that CW testing should remain for this class of license. #

W3BE also raises the issue that the current methodology for Morse testing is outmoded, and that a good many VE's share this opinion.

So far I completely agree with him but this is where I no longer follow his logic.

I can't agree with the proposal he puts forth to modernize the Morse element testing by having VE's #review the logs or QSL cards presented by an applicant showing that they have successfully sent by hand, and received by ear Morse code thus completing a CW contact.

It seems to me that it would be far too easy to cheat on this one. #Should such cheating become widespread it would undermine federal confidence in the VE program and in amateur radio. #We need to set high standards and maintain credibility in testing.

Should the FCC eliminate the code element it would still be in the best interests of amateur radio to re-vamp testing to require high technical competence to achieve Extra class. #Lets insure that our so-called expert operators really are experts.

There, what say you?

[KC9ECI]

I agree.

[w1gfh]

Quote[/b] (KA4DPO @ Oct. 23 2005,09:33)]W3BE makes the point that the Extra class are our most expert operators and that it took some 54 years build this respect. #He goes on to say that it is not unreasonable for radio experts to know Morse code and that CW testing should remain for this class of license. #

[snip]

it would still be in the best interests of amateur radio to re-vamp testing to require high technical competence to achieve Extra class. #Lets insure that our so-called expert operators really are experts.
IMO, we should not be encouraging the spread of what is now a ridiculous phenomenon, i.e., the "instant extra" - the awarding of the title of "expert" to a person with no actual operating/troubleshooting experience (and often brand-new to ham radio).

Whether the test includes CW or not, there should be some provision to ensure that our Extra Class ham is more than just a skilled test-taker with the ability to ace a multiple-choice exam.

[KM5FL]

Our military uses a tried and proven method for promotions that would work very well for this. You gotta hold the rank for a specific period of time before you can even consider upgrading.. Gain some experience at a certain level before moving to the next rung of the ladder.This principle would be an excellent condition for any license upgrades in our hobby.

KM5FL

[KF0RT]

Quote[/b] (KM5FL @ Oct. 23 2005,13:03)]Our military uses a tried and proven method for promotions that would work very well for this. You gotta hold the rank for a specific period of time before you can even consider upgrading.. Gain some experience at a certain level before moving to the next rung of the ladder.This principle would be an excellent condition for any license upgrades in our hobby.

KM5FL
This used to be a requirement for Extra, I think it was 2 years. The shift away from incentive licensing and fewer license classes did away with that requirement.

73, Rob

[w8znx]

yes
use to be, had to hold a gen or advanced
tic for at least 2 years before you could take
the extra test

Mac

[kd7msc]

Make the written tests harder. I like the code and dont think it should be dropped, but knowing the code does'nt make an expert. There are too many Hams that do not know the basics and have no business on the radio.

[n0ov]

I think folks need to put that cap back on the bottle of Jack and quit winning about CW. Who gives a rats butt if it's a testing requirement or not, as long as folks use it to make contacts.

Crap folks, give it a rest. In the days of interernet and text messaging we are damn lucky to have young folks interested in learning more about how to make contacts using a radio.

[KA4DPO]

Quote[/b] (w0pee @ Oct. 23 2005,13:33)]I think folks need to put that cap back on the bottle of Jack and quit winning about CW. #Who gives a rats butt if it's a testing requirement or not, as long as folks use it to make contacts.

Crap folks, give it a rest. #In the days of interernet and text messaging we are damn lucky to have young folks interested in learning more about how to make contacts using a radio.
How about takin a big swig of the Jack and read the threads. The thrust is about tougher technical standards and not CW.

Dah di dah.......

[w1gfh]

Quote[/b] (kd7msc @ Oct. 23 2005,12:15)]Make the written tests harder.
The problem is, anyone with good study habits can pass any multiple-choice test without really understanding the concepts (and having no idea how they are applied) as long as the question pool is published.

High schools and colleges teach "test taking strategy" designed to raise test scores, rather than gain thorough understanding of the material.

[W3MIV]

I find the topic fascinating. CW aside (which is little more than an emotive red herring at this stage), what benefit do we derive from making the tests "more difficult?"

I ask a serious question here, and would prefer to read serious responses.

Mac, as a example, is clearly expert at his level of development as an amateur, and this expertise is quite evident in his homebrewing talents and his fascination for "legacy" gear (no insult is implied, and none should be inferred).

Given that most of today's hams (HAMS, if you insist) will operate synthesized, solid-state rigs employing lots and lots of monolithic circuitry controlled through nearly idiot-proof controls and menus, what benefit do we, as a community, derive from tougher tests?

You need not phrase your responses as questions.

[w1gfh]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Oct. 23 2005,14:40)]I find the topic fascinating. CW aside (which is little more than an emotive red herring at this stage), what benefit do we derive from making the tests "more difficult?"

I ask a serious question here, and would prefer to read serious responses.

Mac, as a example, is clearly expert at his level of development as an amateur, and this expertise is quite evident in his homebrewing talents and his fascination for "legacy" gear (no insult is implied, and none should be inferred).

Given that most of today's hams (HAMS, if you insist) will operate synthesized, solid-state rigs employing lots and lots of monolithic circuitry controlled through nearly idiot-proof controls and menus, what benefit do we, as a community, derive from tougher tests?

You need not phrase your responses as questions.
When you say "making the tests tougher" I assume you mean something other than adding another 100 multiple-choice questions someone can memorize the answers to.

A 2-year minimum experience as General or Advanced would be a good starting point. This would help cut down the number of new Extra Class hams who don't know how to make a dipole.

I think the issue is what we'd gain by ensuring that an "Extra Class" ham posesses a combination of practical knowledge backed up by real-world experience and expertise.

The "Macs" of the world, for example, may enjoy fooling with legacy gear, but my guess is that, if pressed, they could also troubleshoot a modern transceiver and at least isolate the problem stage, if not the component itself. Whether or not they chose to do the SMT repair work or leave it to someone else, the difference is, their knowledge and experience is both theoretical AND practical. They are much more than simply a guy who aced a multiple-choice test. They are both a resource and an inspiration. We need more hams like that, not only as "elmers" but to give those new to the hobby something to shoot for. To me, that's the meaning of "expert" - and that's what Extra Class should be.

[W5HTW]

Quote[/b] (w1gfh @ Oct. 23 2005,10:36)]Quote[/b] (KA4DPO @ Oct. 23 2005,09:33)]W3BE makes the point that the Extra class are our most expert operators and that it took some 54 years build this respect. He goes on to say that it is not unreasonable for radio experts to know Morse code and that CW testing should remain for this class of license.

[snip]

it would still be in the best interests of amateur radio to re-vamp testing to require high technical competence to achieve Extra class. Lets insure that our so-called expert operators really are experts.
IMO, we should not be encouraging the spread of what is now a ridiculous phenomenon, i.e., the "instant extra" - the awarding of the title of "expert" to a person with no actual operating/troubleshooting experience (and often brand-new to ham radio).

Whether the test includes CW or not, there should be some provision to ensure that our Extra Class ham is more than just a skilled test-taker with the ability to ace a multiple-choice exam.
The Extra class license was meant to be the expert. Anyone reading these forums is very aware that is not the case any longer. As the newer Extras become the non-experts, who is going to be the teacher? We are already well on our way to being a hobby of "everyone is an expert and no-one knows anything."

As MIV suggests, though, is it really necessary? Do we have to have teachers and *real* experts? Why? Almost every new ham buys a new radio, with guarantee, and if something goes wrong, he sends it back in. He has no idea what is taking place inside that box. Or what has failed to take place.

His desire is to talk. His focus on getting into ham radio is work work DX. He doesn't want to know how; he just wants to do it. This attitude is becoming very prevalent in ham radio.

Maybe that is where we should go. Maybe we should have listened long ago when the idea of the Communicator License was proposed. Then, with a basic amateur license, we could get endorsements for things like "repair" or "CW" or "maintaining a repeater." But the basic license, Amateur Standard, would put the new ham directly onto 20 meters chasing DX, with a box on his desk, a box he neither knows what is in it, nor cares.

Yes, to even apply for the Extra Class license, one was required to have two years experience as a General or Advanced. That way it was believed the person who was to become the "Teacher" would actually have some knowledge and experience under his belt. Today that isn't even close to true, and it will never be again.

To me, what made an Extra Class ham was not 20 wpm CW. That was just one of the things. It was experience, it was learning what radio is technically all about. It was the ability to convey those tidbits of knowledge to someone further down the ladder, who needed an expert to help him.

That's all gone. It isn't coming back. The FCC is NOT going to entertain a code test for the Extra. And as much as I hate seeing the "old ham radio" disappearing so quickly, I realize a 5 wpm code test really has pretty much no bearing. Anyone can copy five words a minute, in their sleep, or while eating dinner. It is not a show or proficieny or skill. It was meant to be the entry level back in the Novice days, not the expert level.

Today there IS no expert level in ham radio. Yes, I'm aware there are scattered highly qualified people who can build receivers, set up repeaters, repair even SMT radios. But they are exceedingly much the exemption rather than the rule.

We aren't going back. Ham radio as a technical hobby is over.

Enjoy

Ed

[ky5u]

The interesting news is that the NCVEC has decided to get out of the "politics" of Amateur Radio. NCI board member Fred Maia decides that since the FCC did not do EXACTLY as the NCVEC wanted with their plan for the future, they should get out of politics. I would hope it is beacuse every self respecting volunteer examinier told him and the NCVEC to stop giving them a bad name. Hopefully it was because they don't belong in politics. Hopefully it was because someone saw a problem with Mr. Maia being involved with the NCVEC and profiting from study guides. Hopefully it was because Mr. Maia's involvement with NCI and the NCVEC was an embarrasment to examiners, many of whom did not share the political views expressed.

But no, it was because the NCVEC did not get their way with the entrance class "communicator" license so they decided to leave politics alone. LOL!

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (W5HTW @ Oct. 23 2005,16:21)]Quote[/b] (w1gfh @ Oct. 23 2005,10:36)]Quote[/b] (KA4DPO @ Oct. 23 2005,09:33)]W3BE makes the point that the Extra class are our most expert operators and that it took some 54 years build this respect. He goes on to say that it is not unreasonable for radio experts to know Morse code and that CW testing should remain for this class of license.

[snip]

it would still be in the best interests of amateur radio to re-vamp testing to require high technical competence to achieve Extra class. Lets insure that our so-called expert operators really are experts.
IMO, we should not be encouraging the spread of what is now a ridiculous phenomenon, i.e., the "instant extra" - the awarding of the title of "expert" to a person with no actual operating/troubleshooting experience (and often brand-new to ham radio).

Whether the test includes CW or not, there should be some provision to ensure that our Extra Class ham is more than just a skilled test-taker with the ability to ace a multiple-choice exam.
The Extra class license was meant to be the expert. Anyone reading these forums is very aware that is not the case any longer. As the newer Extras become the non-experts, who is going to be the teacher? We are already well on our way to being a hobby of "everyone is an expert and no-one knows anything."

As MIV suggests, though, is it really necessary? Do we have to have teachers and *real* experts? Why? Almost every new ham buys a new radio, with guarantee, and if something goes wrong, he sends it back in. He has no idea what is taking place inside that box. Or what has failed to take place.

His desire is to talk. His focus on getting into ham radio is work work DX. He doesn't want to know how; he just wants to do it. This attitude is becoming very prevalent in ham radio.

Maybe that is where we should go. Maybe we should have listened long ago when the idea of the Communicator License was proposed. Then, with a basic amateur license, we could get endorsements for things like "repair" or "CW" or "maintaining a repeater." But the basic license, Amateur Standard, would put the new ham directly onto 20 meters chasing DX, with a box on his desk, a box he neither knows what is in it, nor cares.

Yes, to even apply for the Extra Class license, one was required to have two years experience as a General or Advanced. That way it was believed the person who was to become the "Teacher" would actually have some knowledge and experience under his belt. Today that isn't even close to true, and it will never be again.

To me, what made an Extra Class ham was not 20 wpm CW. That was just one of the things. It was experience, it was learning what radio is technically all about. It was the ability to convey those tidbits of knowledge to someone further down the ladder, who needed an expert to help him.

That's all gone. It isn't coming back. The FCC is NOT going to entertain a code test for the Extra. And as much as I hate seeing the "old ham radio" disappearing so quickly, I realize a 5 wpm code test really has pretty much no bearing. Anyone can copy five words a minute, in their sleep, or while eating dinner. It is not a show or proficieny or skill. It was meant to be the entry level back in the Novice days, not the expert level.

Today there IS no expert level in ham radio. Yes, I'm aware there are scattered highly qualified people who can build receivers, set up repeaters, repair even SMT radios. But they are exceedingly much the exemption rather than the rule.

We aren't going back. Ham radio as a technical hobby is over.

Enjoy

Ed
How about for Extra:

1. Re-take a refresher written test at renewal or show evidence of hands on work done on equipment like building a kit or refurbishing equipment.

2. Re-take the CW test at renewal.

3. Show evidence of regular Elmering given or work on a thesis relative to Amateur Radio (either one).

If you don't pass, you revert back to General class and if you have an "A" call like mine, you must append with "/G".

[WA9SVD]

Once upon a time, in a galaxy far, far away...

When you applied for license renewal (every five years, and paid a renewal fee to the FCC, NOT some "VEC profit making organization") the form also required you sign an application form that verified you were still able to ccpy and send Morse Code at the speed required by your license class.

(And I wonder how many operators renewed, but were not able to keep up...)

[kf6rdn]

I like the idea of having had to be licensed at the previous (general) level for a few years. Be nice if you can have proof of activity, but that might be easy to fake. Or hard to prove if you're not doing something traceable.

Tech tests are good, but sometimes simple, practical common radio sense is good too, that only come with "doing it".

[w1gfh]

I was told by an amateur who first received his license in France during the 1950's...

-No published question/answer pool.

-The examiner visited him in his home.

-He was required to show the visiting examiner a xmtr, rcvr and antenna system he had built, and answer questions about its design, theory, and operation.

-Tradition required his family to provide the visiting examiner with a meal, including wine. The examiners enjoyment of the meal had a direct bearing on whether or not he received a passing grade.

[w1gfh]

Quote[/b] (W5HTW @ Oct. 23 2005,16:21)]Today there IS no expert level in ham radio. #Yes, I'm aware there are scattered highly qualified people who can build receivers, set up repeaters, repair even SMT radios. #But they are exceedingly much the exemption rather than the rule. #

We aren't going back. #Ham radio as a technical hobby is over. #
OK then let's call it them "Ham Radio Quiz High Scorers" or something. Anything but "Extra Class Amateurs".

[kb3mng]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Oct. 23 2005,14:40)]I find the topic fascinating. CW aside (which is little more than an emotive red herring at this stage), what benefit do we derive from making the tests "more difficult?"

I ask a serious question here, and would prefer to read serious responses.
To answer your question, first we must answer the question "more difficult in what way?" Here is an idea I've had. It is pure conjecture, but I've had this idea a few times over the past months while I have been trying to learn to build radios:

Suppose that, AT THE EXAM, you had to design AND BUILD a working radio from a pile of parts supplied by the examiner. I would presume that the examiner would also provide tools, data sheets, and suitable reference materials. (e.g. lists of formulas and such. Good engineers don't try to remember every formula they ever learned; they look them up when they need them.)

What useful effect might this have? Somebody would publish study materials to help you pass this test.

I don't think I have found a good book to learn radio design. You have to sort of figure it out from the best collection of insufficient resouces that you can gather. If the license test required you to know, then presumably somebody would gather all the information in one place and publish it.

Now this is a bit of an odd idea, because the principle intended effect is not on test-takers, but on the publishers of study material. Still, I think a good single reference on radio design for people who are not professional electrical engineers would be a good thing, and market forces do not seem to have produced such a reference yet.

I would certainly buy one, whether I expected to take the Extra test or not.

The other side of this, though, is that if you make the Extra test so disproportionally difficult, fewer people will bother because the incremental benefit of an Extra license is so small. Still, if we had only 2 Extra operators in the whole US, but sold 100,000 copies of the study guide to people who happen to learn a lot from it, that might still be a net benefit, even if 99,998 of them don't eventually take the exam.

One possibility that I have not really considered is whether it is practical: Is it possible for someone to learn to design radios well enough, but without putting in an effort equivalent to getting an electrical engineering degree?

Most of us can't afford to spend 4 years full time learning a hobby, so if that is really what it takes, then this idea is a waste of time. (As is any complaining about "appliance operators", unless we want "amateur radio operator" to be equivalent to "professional engineer".)

On the other hand, if you could learn it in a few hours a week over a year or two, this sort of test might be worthwhile, since it would give publishers incentive to make suitable study material available.

[n0iu]

The notion of a waiting period also has flaws. My wife took her Technician test in December, 2000 just to prove to me she could do it. Theoretically, now that she has been licensed for almost 5 years, should be qualified for the next class of license. Problem is, she has never been on the air... not even once!

[kf6rdn]

Quote[/b] (kb3mng @ Oct. 24 2005,01:01)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Oct. 23 2005,14:40)]I find the topic fascinating. CW aside (which is little more than an emotive red herring at this stage), what benefit do we derive from making the tests "more difficult?"

I ask a serious question here, and would prefer to read serious responses.
To answer your question, first we must answer the question "more difficult in what way?" #Here is an idea I've had. #It is pure conjecture, but I've had this idea a few times over the past months while I have been trying to learn to build radios:

Suppose that, AT THE EXAM, you had to design AND BUILD a working radio from a pile of parts supplied by the examiner. #I would presume that the examiner would also provide tools, data sheets, and suitable reference materials. #(e.g. lists of formulas and such. #Good engineers don't try to remember every formula they ever learned; they look them up when they need them.)

What useful effect might this have? #Somebody would publish study materials to help you pass this test.

I don't think I have found a good book to learn radio design. #You have to sort of figure it out from the best collection of insufficient resouces that you can gather. #If the license test required you to know, then presumably somebody would gather all the information in one place and publish it.

Now this is a bit of an odd idea, because the principle intended effect is not on test-takers, but on the publishers of study material. #Still, I think a good single reference on radio design for people who are not professional electrical engineers would be a good thing, and market forces do not seem to have produced such a reference yet.

I would certainly buy one, whether I expected to take the Extra test or not. #

The other side of this, though, is that if you make the Extra test so disproportionally difficult, fewer people will bother because the incremental benefit of an Extra license is so small. #Still, if we had only 2 Extra operators in the whole US, but sold 100,000 copies of the study guide to people who happen to learn a lot from it, that might still be a net benefit, even if 99,998 of them don't eventually take the exam.

One possibility that I have not really considered is whether it is practical: #Is it possible for someone to learn to design radios well enough, but without putting in an effort equivalent to getting an electrical engineering degree? #

Most of us can't afford to spend 4 years full time learning a hobby, so if that is really what it takes, then this idea is a waste of time. #(As is any complaining about "appliance operators", unless we want "amateur radio operator" to be equivalent to "professional engineer".)

On the other hand, if you could learn it in a few hours a week over a year or two, this sort of test might be worthwhile, since it would give publishers incentive to make suitable study material available.
You could easily simplify this, not have to make a radio, but a component of one. An oscillator, audio amp, etc.

Wouldn't even have to be a radio, just something that shows you understand what basic components do at a practical level.

When heathkit was around, I had this learning thing, it had a bunch of components with springs on the leads, so you could wire up stuff and take it apart, with a book that told how each component worked and by number diagram, as well as schematic on each circuit. It was rather fun, and a good way to learn how this stuff works.

You could have something like that, the instructor could say make a.. <somthing>. It would be standardized, but random enough to not be memorized..

A'well, aint going to happen..

It's going to be:

True or false, your radio runs on dilithium crystals?

[W3MIV]

So far, I see no compelling reasons to make the tests "more difficult" from a technical (technological) point.

My view is closer to HTW's than any others I have seen, though I am not so pessimistic as he. I disagree with him that amateur radio as a "technical" hobby is "dead," but I would readily concede that it has changed radically, not least over the past thirty to forty years. In large measure, amateur radio stopped being a "technical" hobby with the advent of widespread, over-the-counter gear, most particularly the now ubiquitous transceiver.

What value, other than that of a "restrictive gateway," is to be gained from any of the ideas expressed here so far?

I am convinced that some things have not, and never will change, about amateur radio. While it is true that there are a growing number of hams who cannot figure how to calculate and construct a simple dipole, it is also true that there are plenty of opportunities for those hams to participate in significant parts of amateur radio using "over-the-counter" dipoles, and to do so in worthwhile ways. Those who want to learn how to make an efficient antenna will do so on their own.

It is the same with other aspects of today's amateur radio. Anyone with an interest in hollow-state gear from a previous age of radio, golden or otherwise, will make the effort and learn what he/she needs to know to become, if not expert, at least competent to manage the gear.

As to demanding some "time-in-grade" before being permitted to move to the next level, where is the potential value in that? During those earlier years when CW was the dominant, if not the only, mode of operation, such a resquisite made sense. It no longer does. I can't imagine much of value to be gained listening to some of the stuff now extant on 75m, for example.

I would agree that the tests could be detached from openly accessible question pools, and I would not object to making a substantial part of the tests over into "essay" questions -- all of which tests would concentrate heavily on operational procedures, propagation. RF safety and FCC regulations, however, and not with the calculation of phase angles or other electronic esoterica. This probably would not, however, be greeted well by the current VEC system, which would be mandated to manage and grade such tests.

Still looking for some compelling rationale, 73

[KA4DPO]

MIV, Points well taken but I still think that an extra class operator should at least know how to design and construct a simple station. Perhaps this could consist of an oscillator, regenerative receiver, matching network, and antenna. These are very simple devices to construct given todays tecnology.

I would like to see the hobby retain some technical aspect because we need future scientists and engineers. Amateur radio is a great training ground for this. It was for me and tens of thousands of others.

I don't see Hip Hop and Rap as high value export items. I guess we should just resign ourselves to third world status now and get it over with.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (KA4DPO @ Oct. 24 2005,09:27)]I would like to see the hobby retain some technical aspect because we need future scientists and engineers. #Amateur radio is a great training ground for this. #It was for me and tens of thousands of others. #
I agree with the basis of your comment, but not with the conclusions you draw from it.

Those of us with the technical "bent" will continue to develop along the very same lines as those who came before us. Those with the inclination to become the future engineers and scientists will continue to be attracted to various aspects of technology, whether amateur radio or computer sciences or biomedical engineering or some other track, by virtue of those inclinations; this attraction will not be much challenged, in my view, by testing, but by opportunity.

Whether we like it or not, the overall realm of communications has been mutating very swiftly, and we are being carried along on many conflicting and confusing currents that leave many (most?) of us feeling abandoned and uncherished in an eddy. A time-warp, if you will. We want to cling to the familiar, rather than face the challenges of a future that is wholly alien and seems altogether outside of our ken.

The melding of radio and internet is a case in point, one that excites more caustic reactions than even code/no-code. Much of the hullaballoo about testing seems rooted more in a kind of security blankie than in any informed desire to improve amateur radio.

[k6pme]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Oct. 24 2005,05:03)]and I would not object to making a substantial part of the tests over into "essay" questions -- all of which tests would concentrate heavily on operational procedures, propagation. RF safety and FCC regulations, however, and not with the calculation of phase angles or other electronic esoterica. This probably would not, however, be greeted well by the current VEC system, which would be mandated to manage and grade such tests.
I would have to agree with that since it would require that the VE's really did know the material. From what I saw when taking the test's is that VE's are just test adminstrators. (not to put down the VE's, it the system thats the problem) Heck, I could give and grade a multiple choice test on quantum physics. That sure doesn't mean that I know anything about it.

But I do think that some manipulative skills should be added to the program. (which would also require competent VE's) I have never had a college level electronic class but I have read a few college catalogs in my day. It seems that most entry level classes require a lab class in conjunction with the classroom portion. Lab generally mean using manipulative skills and actually doing something.

Other than the cost factor, why not add some things to the testing process? Using inexpensive props of course. For tech, the basics of hooking up a station. For general, the basics of actually operating. For extra, a breadboard with some components to assemble. Simple quick projects yet it would demonstrate a higher level of competency and not really add that much more to the testing day activities.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (KG6QQL @ Oct. 24 2005,10:01)]But I do think that some manipulative skills should be added to the program.
But, to what end? What benefit do we derive from this addition?

Reverting to the "dipole syndrome" for an example, I cannot see that the Amateur Extra who passed the test but knows not how to construct a simple dipole is causing a problem. It is not a lack of electronic skill or learning that makes a lid a lid: that results from a lack of operational skill and common courtesy.

A technical doofus still can be a skilled and responsible amateur radio operator without knowing the difference between an ohm and a mho.

[k6pme]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Oct. 24 2005,07:20)]Quote[/b] (KG6QQL @ Oct. 24 2005,10:01)]But I do think that some manipulative skills should be added to the program.
But, to what end? What benefit do we derive from this addition?

Reverting to the "dipole syndrome" for an example, I cannot see that the Amateur Extra who passed the test but knows not how to construct a simple dipole is causing a problem. It is not a lack of electronic skill or learning that makes a lid a lid: that results from a lack of operational skill and common courtesy.

A technical doofus still can be a skilled and responsible amateur radio operator without knowing the difference between an ohm and a mho.
A good point there. As for lids that would be a societal problem and a lack of respect in general. That would not included those that try to do well but just makes mistakes due to inexperience. (myself as an example, I would hate to think that makes me a lid). I have to tend to agree with the basic principle of a "filter" if you will. I don't have the answer nor am I sure that anyone does.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (KG6QQL @ Oct. 24 2005,10:35)]As for lids that would be a societal problem and a lack of respect in general.
Here I think you have hit on a problem that lies at the root of a great number of modern amateur radio's "problems," and it is one that will not be resolved by testing of any sort.

[n0ov]

Thank you w3miv. Only thing to do with that type of behavior is to enforce the rules and throw out a few fines. When it hits folks in the wallet, they will move on to a hobby where that type of behavior is more accepted (like the internet)

[w8cbc]

A notion that just popped into my tiny little mind is this:

Make the Extra test tough and have a waiting period of at least a month between application and test - apply to a VE session, return for the test at some specified later date.

Someone applies for an upgrade. VE asks what equipment the applicant is running at present. "Say, how about we chat on (frequency) at (time) about it, let me know if you can't and we'll set something else up". If the applicant shows up on freq, or makes an honest effort to reschedule, a point. General op skills and habits (if formed) will come out during the QSO. Points given for good procedure, good attitude, et cetera. Record the QSO for review by others in the VE team.

The idea here is that the points earned in operation count quite a lot toward the test result. If the applicant is a lid or a complete no-show, no points earned and he has to get it by being a certifiable expert.

Yeah, I know. There'd be screaming about "unfair" and "arbitrary". So I guess not. But I think it's an idea.

[KA4DPO]

What if the applicant asks the VE how to build a dipole during the sked?

[k6pme]

Quote[/b] (kd8bsr @ Oct. 24 2005,08:04)]Yeah, I know. #There'd be screaming about "unfair" and "arbitrary". #So I guess not. #But I think it's an idea.
I had thought of that also but unfortunately it screams LAWSUIT. I still think it's a good idea though.

Quote[/b] ]Only thing to do with that type of behavior is to enforce the rules and throw out a few fines. When it hits folks in the wallet, they will move on to a hobby where that type of behavior is more accepted (like the internet)

Probably the best idea. But getting them to do it? I'm thinking that Riley and Company, while maybe trying, basically have their hands tied by Law and Government priorities. Therefore only the extreme cases are dealt with and only after much complaining.

[k6pme]

Quote[/b] (KA4DPO @ Oct. 24 2005,08:50)]What if the applicant asks the VE how to build a dipole during the sked?
For the Extra test? Automatic failure due to lack of knowledge of the prerequisites.

[wa4brl]

I agree wholeheartedly with keeping the code test for Extra. Standard testing is fine with me -- 60 seconds solid copy OR multiple choice test on received copy.

As for the FCC proposal to drop Element-1 for HF access, here's an idea that has received nodding approval locally: Grant Technician licensees HF access immediately -- on the current Novice sub-bands, using the existing Novice privileges of CW only, 200 watt maximum, etc.

The only real change will be no code test to pass to gain these privileges. Each Technician may jump into HF whenever he wants. The Novice-type learning environment will be preserved, and if the Tech. decides he likes HF and wants to move on to phone operation, he can upgrade to General -- taking the standard exam INCLUDING Element-1.

What do you guys think about this idea?

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (wa4brl @ Oct. 24 2005,12:24)]What do you guys think about this idea?
That knocking you hear is reality at your door. Better answer it.

The only opinion that counts is the FCC's, and your idea is not even on their radar, let alone on their agenda. In other words, what we think matters not at all.

The topic of this thread, BTW, was on testing for Amateur Extra, and in light of the probability of the utter removal of any and all Morse testing, the general thrust of the comments has been to consider the "written" test and to offer "meritorious" ideas for improving it to eventually produce an Amateur Extra worthy of the title.

That quest continues.

[K7FE]

We need an entry level license class. #BRL. Steve your idea may work for entry level.

The Extra test should be the most challenging and provide other amateurs something to aspire to. #Those who do not wish for the additional CW and voice band portions need not take the 20 WPM Extra Class code sending and receiving test or technically challenging written exam. #The most senior of amateur class licenses (the Extra) should not be attempted until one has been licensed for a period of two years to allow one to gain sufficient experience and knowledge to be of assistance to newer, less knowledgeable operators. #When hams talk to an "Extra", there should be substance behind the title and that can only be accomplished thru rigorous examination and experience.

73,
Terry, K7FE

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (K7FE @ Oct. 24 2005,12:53)]The Extra test should be the most challenging and provide other amateurs something to aspire to.
It already is that.

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

[AC0H]

Quote[/b] ]As to demanding some "time-in-grade" before being permitted to move to the next level, where is the potential value in that?
It allows the new amateur time to actually learn something about the hobby and to hone their skills and interests in the hobby before being "cut loose" so to speak.

I worry that new Generals hear the crap on 75m and think that's the way ALL the bands are and that it's acceptable behavior.The FCC did the service a great disfavor by not cracking skull when it started. When HF newby's were limited to CW they weren't exposed to that mess and started off on the right foot. There was a chance to do "on air elmering".

In my chosen profession the Cisco CCNA certfication is the equivalent of our current NCT, CCNP would be the General class equivalent, and CCIE, the top of the pile, would be associated with Extra Class amateurs.

Nobody would think of attempting, and Cisco wouldn't allow, going from zero to CCIE status. You must be CCNA to sit the CCNP tests and CCNP to sit the CCIE. You must also re-certify every three years. You might be able to pass the CCNA with just study guides and no practical experience but you won't pass the CCNP or CCIE. Because it's so tough there is true meaning behind the term Cisco CCIE certified. You can pretty much name your salary.

[AC0H]

Quote[/b] ]It already is that.

Not nearly.
It's been watered down and publishing of the question pools has allowed anybody with any kind of decent short term memory to pass the test.

[W0UZR]

We already have a Code/NoCode thread. It looks like the FCC is going to be dropping the code, but there is still time to get your comments in to where they count,,,

THE FCC

And I think things should be left the way they are now, except get rid of the multiple choice on the test and get the answers out of the study books

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (kb0uzr @ Oct. 24 2005,13:54)]And I think things should be left the way they are now, except get rid of the multiple choice on the test and get the answers out of the study books
Which is to say you DON'T think should be left the way they are now, right?

[K7FE]

A current Extra Class license can be obtained by elementary school children on their first attempt in front of the VE, so where is the experience or challenge?

Who will look up to a grade school student for support or Elmering in the amateur radio community?

73,
Terry, K7FE

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (K7FE @ Oct. 24 2005,16:04)]Who will look up to a grade school student for support or Elmering in the amateur radio community?
If the child knows the topic, why would one not "look up" to him or her for support or assistance?

Age, alone, does not arbitrate knowledge, or even experience, as Mozart (as but a single example) would seem to attest.

I could cite several Amateur Extra posters hereabouts who have attained years without wisdom.

[k6pme]

Quote[/b] (K7FE @ Oct. 24 2005,13:04)]A current Extra Class license can be obtained by elementary school children on their first attempt in front of the VE, so where is the experience or challenge?

Who will look up to a grade school student for support or Elmering in the amateur radio community?

73,
Terry, K7FE
Smarter youngin's then myself obviously. But then I never took trig.

I wonder if they could solve those equations given random unpublished values?

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (KG6QQL @ Oct. 24 2005,16:23)]I wonder if they could solve those equations given random unpublished values?
I don't see why not. The key is memorizing the formulae, not the answers. You are permitted a calculator (in addition to the one betwixt yer ears), so long as it is not pre-programmed.

When I went to school, a calculator was yellow, about seven inches long when new, and had a pink "delete" key at one end and a short, pointy "enter" key at the other. No batteries, but they did get short after a while.

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

[w8cbc]

I brought one of those 2B models to my Extra exam but didn't need to calculate with it. The choices for the figuring-out questions were such that if you understand what's going on, only one of them makes sense. Which, I suppose, shows something at least.

I wanted more propagation stuff.

Now there's an idea. "Extra" with a specialty. You have to excel in one area (or more). So I'd be a Propagation Extra, someone else would be an Antenna Systems Extra, another could be an Emergency-Ops Extra, and so on. Same ops class but each would have something to contribute and be easily identifiable as to what. Added endorsements would, I guess, be prestige. Or perhaps be permitted higher power levels.

So, maybe here's what could shake out:

Technician - as now, except no more than 250W PEP.

General - as now, except no more than 500W PEP.

Extra+1 - as Extra now, except no more than 1kW PEP.

Extra+2 - 2kW PEP.

Extra+3 - 3kW PEP and first crack at any new spectrum allocations before they're "officially" opened up to the rest.

The idea is, the more one has to contribute, the more likely one will be responsible with higher power levels. And it would be an ongoing incentive to learn and contribute what we've learned to others.

[k6pme]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Oct. 24 2005,14:20)]When I went to school, a calculator was yellow, about seven inches long when new, and had a pink "delete" key at one end and a short, pointy "enter" key at the other. No batteries, but they did get short after a while.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
LOL...Yea, I remember those. Version #2 I think they were. Do they still make them?

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

[KC9ECI]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Oct. 24 2005,16:20)]You are permitted a calculator (in addition to the one betwixt yer ears), so long as it is not pre-programmed.
Now you tell me!

[w1gfh]

Quote[/b] (kd8bsr @ Oct. 24 2005,15:06)]I brought one of those 2B models to my Extra exam but didn't need to calculate with it. #The choices for the figuring-out questions were such that if you understand what's going on, only one of them makes sense. #Which, I suppose, shows something at least.

I wanted more propagation stuff.

Now there's an idea. #"Extra" with a specialty. #You have to excel in one area (or more). #So I'd be a Propagation Extra, someone else would be an Antenna Systems Extra, another could be an Emergency-Ops Extra, and so on. #Same ops class but each would have something to contribute and be easily identifiable as to what. #Added endorsements would, I guess, be prestige. #Or perhaps be permitted higher power levels.

So, maybe here's what could shake out:

Technician - as now, except no more than 250W PEP.

General - as now, except no more than 500W PEP.

Extra+1 - as Extra now, except no more than 1kW PEP.

Extra+2 - 2kW PEP.

Extra+3 - 3kW PEP and first crack at any new spectrum allocations before they're "officially" opened up to the rest.

The idea is, the more one has to contribute, the more likely one will be responsible with higher power levels. #And it would be an ongoing incentive to learn and contribute what we've learned to others.
Cool, idea having "specialties". That would really encourage developing expertise that would be a resource to the ham community.

However, the "reward" of more RF power output strikes me as a bit CB-ish. It emphasizes the value of "RF watts" over operator skill and propagation.

[w8cbc]

Aye, your point is good. I was essentially looking for a "reward" for people who add "specialties". As the Extra nowadays has full spectrum privs - and I wouldn't want to take them away - we'd have to come up with something else. Allowed power output is the easy one. As I was thinking it up as I was typing, I'm sure there are other/better ways. Note though that I'd suggest backing down allowed power output on the lower grades - in part, to reduce slightly the congestion on some bands, and in part to try and reserve the higher power levels to those who are more likely to use them civilly. That comes of my exasperation at too often having a perfectly readable signal get murdered by a kilowatt op who didn't listen before transmitting or didn't care that someone was already there. The hope is that those who are allowed the higher power outputs will have learned how to use them - and that they don't need to use them all the time.

Something that came to mind just now at that is that those S9+20 reports I was getting at various times should have spurred me to crank down the output, see how low I could go and stay Q5 at the other end. Kilowatt nuthin' - there were times I didn't need the 100 watts I could manage. My lame attempt for an excuse is that I wasn't used to running a real aerial. Next time I get a "hot" report I'll QRP.

[k6pme]

I've been somewhat keeping up with this thread today and it has some interesting idea's. But I'm wondering, is it possible to "ramp up" the test's now that they have been downsized?

It wouldn't be fair to the current Extra's to make them retest and it's not fair to future testee's to have to take a much harder test for the same title and privileges. What would essentially happen is there would two types of extra's. It would be the same as the tested 20 WPM Extra's and the current 5 WPM Extra's. Two complete divisions.

Wouldn't be better to create a NEW class? I think I heard the term "expert" here before.

[n0iu]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Oct. 24 2005,13:17)]Age, alone, does not arbitrate knowledge, or even experience, as Mozart (as but a single example) would seem to attest.
And how many Mozarts do you think there are in amateur radio today???

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (n0iu @ Oct. 25 2005,02:05)]And how many Mozarts do you think there are in amateur radio today???
I wouldn't hazard a guess. I can say, though, that there seem to be damned few here on QRZ.

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

[AC0H]

Quote[/b] ]It wouldn't be fair to the current Extra's to make them retest and it's not fair to future testee's to have to take a much harder test for the same title and privileges.
It is regretable that the tests were allowed to get in this shape but requirements in other facets of life change on a daily basis. I took the old extra class test and I'm confident that I could pass any new tougher test. As for the Generals not wanting to take a tougher test than others took before them I say tough. Into everyones bowl of corn flakes a little pee must fall.

I'm not sure the test itself would have to change. If we eliminate publishing the question pools and people have to REALLY learn something before sitting for the test we'd be a lot better off.

Anybody else uncomfortable with the two major players in the NCVEC (W5YI and ARRL) also making money off the process selling study guides, question pools, and answers?

[wb7dmx]

I belive that all the test for all the differant class tickets are way too easy, but then I have been in this stuff most of my life and learn a lot from hands on experience in my life time.

[k6bbc]

This is the stupidest idea I have ever heard. I guess that says it. Right?

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Oct. 24 2005,07:45)]Quote[/b] (KG6QQL @ Oct. 24 2005,10:35)]As for lids that would be a societal problem and a lack of respect in general.
Here I think you have hit on a problem that lies at the root of a great number of modern amateur radio's "problems," and it is one that will not be resolved by testing of any sort.
In lieu of an FCC Citation, many would do well with just an old fashioned spanking.

[KA4DPO]

Is it just me, or have some of the responses to this thread been deleted?

I could have sworn there were seven pages this afternoon. Any ideas?

[k6pme]

Dunno, I've been driving a chainsaw all day.

[KA4DPO]

Quote[/b] (KG6QQL @ Oct. 25 2005,18:17)]Dunno, I've been driving a chainsaw all day.
Really? Where do you sit?

[k6pme]

Definately NOT on the business end...

[w8cbc]

k6qql - Your sig strikes a chord. The one at the beginning of "Earache, My Eye", to be specific. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif IOW, I agree.

[KA4DPO]

OK back on topic.

I've seen petitions to the FCC calling for reduced SSB signal bandwidth and changes to current band plans by mode of operation.

I don't see why we amateurs as a group shouldn't petition the FCC to change the test structure for the Extra exam to make it more flash card proof. #The one thing I remember about testing before VE's came along is that you really did have to study. #You also had to have some practical knowlege as well.

I don't see why that process can't be modernized using the current VE system. #At the very least, they wouldn't be turning out Extra class operators that can't spell antenna.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (KA4DPO @ Oct. 26 2005,09:44)]At the very least, they wouldn't be turning out Extra class operators that can't spell antenna.
On that premise, I would not make any wagers.

Your fundamental issue, as stated in your post, is not with the FCC, since they no longer test nor do they want to have anything much to do with testing, but with the VEC system which has been mandated to take the place of the FCC in that process. You might contact them and put forth your ideas, but I wouldn't expect to succeed.

And, on that "original topic," I have yet to see from all of the posts that have been made any benefit to be derived from making the tests more "technically" difficult.

[AK7V]

The benefit would be fewer hams complaining about how easy the tests are.

That's a noble goal in my book. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[KA4DPO]

MIV, The benefit is to restore credibility to the structure of amateur radio. #Please read W3BE's colum in World Radio. #While I don't agree with everything he say's I wholeheartedly agree that an the holder of an extra class license is supposed to be an expert in radio communications. #That doesn't mean they should know how to design a DSP tranceiver but they should at least understand the principle of operation. #They should also have a good understanding of loss, gain, impedance, propagation, and how to apply these to design a station from the power supply to the antenna. #Having extras running around that don't know how to build an antenna is an embarassment.

[AK7V]

I think understanding antennas is harder than Morse.

[W3MIV]

DPO: I sympathize with you on the basis of your complaint (like Bill Clinton, "I feel your pain"). Along the same lines, I believe that Morse testing should be retained for Amateur Extra.

That said, the reality is that an present-day Amateur Extra who couldn't tell a dipole from an, uh, airhole (shall we say to be polite?) can operate an IC-7800 and put solid contacts in her log just as well as some OF twiddling and tweaking his Johnson. (For the moderators' sakes, let's agree to bypass any tweaking "johnson" images, OK?).

That is where we stand at this point in time, and I cannot imagine (let alone foretell) any way to go back in time. As HTW reminds us, those days are dead and gone, never to be recovered.

It is clear that the FCC wants shet of us'n. Instead of throwing us out into the street bag and baggage, they seem to be doing it in cunning stages, like some diabolical poisoning plot in an Agatha Christie or Conan Doyle story, drip by drop into our claret.

Objectively, there is no harm in not knowing how to construct a dipole. The reality of everything today may be seen in the disheartening fact that the first dozen or more pages in any instruction manual, whether for a transceiver or a pencil sharpener, are given over to cautions and restraints about the danger of doing anything at all.

Relieving us of embarrassment is not something that the FCC is going to find worthy enough to overturn the rulings of the past twenty years.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (AK7V @ Oct. 26 2005,13:48)]I think understanding antennas is harder than Morse.
Personally, I have always found Lewis to be more confusing than Morse.

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

[KA4DPO]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Oct. 26 2005,11:13)]It is clear that the FCC wants shet of us'n. Instead of throwing us out into the street bag and baggage, they seem to be doing it in cunning stages, like some diabolical poisoning plot in an Agatha Christie or Conan Doyle story, drip by drop into our claret.

Objectively, there is no harm in not knowing how to construct a dipole. The reality of everything today may be seen in the disheartening fact that the first dozen or more pages in any instruction manual, whether for a transceiver or a pencil sharpener, are given over to cautions and restraints about the danger of doing anything at all.
I certainly can't disagree with you on these points. Your absolutely right that the handwriting is on the wall, that the FCC would love for amateur radio to disappear so the spectrum can be auctioned off. I don't have any delusions about going back in time, I just think that we should fight back by raising the bar and stave off the inevitable for a few more years.

[w8cbc]

We go back to spectrum auctions. They could yank our V/U allocations and give 'em all to Haliburton, but shortwave is worldwide by its nature and there'd have to be an ITU agreement about that.

At any rate. Perhaps there'll be a change in the FCC somewhen down the line. Our little corner(s) of the spectrum aren't the only bits that're starting to degrade (if they are - I haven't been in them long enough to honestly tell). IBOC and Docket 80-90 and conglomerate broadcast ownership, anyone? The (US) domestic broadcast bands are an unmitigated disaster.

I've discussed my "specialty" Extra notions with a colleague or three. The response is encourageing. I'll amend it as follows...

Extra+0 - as current Extra, save for a power limit of 500 watts (same as proposed for General).

E+4 - 5 kW limit. The idea is, the E4s will be proven out as responsible members of the community and have much to contribute. They'll be the leading edge and will use that 5 kW for new propagation modes, transmitter/antenna designs, and disaster communications. They'll also be called to account for habitual mis-use of it. As would anyone allowed more than a kW. The E4 will also get extra little spectrum slices away from the rest of us for experimentation.

E4s and E3s would get new "regular" allocations before the rest of us.

E2 and below have to stick with whatever Extra allocations are current.

To make things fair and recognise past achievement, I'd grandfather existing 20 WPM Extras to E+2, and 13 WPM Extras to E+1.

A "specialty" Extra would optionally sign with /E1, /E2, whatever's appropriate.

How to earn a "specialty" endorsement - proof of contribution, testing, nomination by others. I'd make it two of the above.

Proof of contribution - design and working model of something new, verified operation of an emergency net, demonstration of discoveries in propagation, what have you. You have to back up your claims.

Testing - tough and detailed.

Nomination - by two or more, perhaps through the ARRL and subjected to scrutiny.

The idea is, these endorsements have to be the genuine articles. Those who earn them are recognised as something special and should be accorded the respect they'll deserve. The endorsements will definitely be something to shoot for, will encourage us to continually develop our craft.

[KQ6XA]

<a href="http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=3;t=42778;hl=morse+and+hist ory" target="_blank">click here:
Morse is History.</a>


73---Bonnie KQ6XA

[w1gfh]

Quote[/b] (KQ6XA @ Oct. 26 2005,22:12)]<a href="http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=3;t=42778;hl=morse+and+hist ory" target="_blank">click here:
Morse is History.</a>


73---Bonnie KQ6XA
That is a damn fine article written by Bonnie, even though I will regret losing the CW test as a piece of ham radio history.

I just realized there are THOUSANDS of these code/no code threads and ZILLIONS of replies to them. One can not possibly read them all. Everything that could be said has already been said, every troll has already been trolled, every flame has already been flamed, every intelligent argument, heartfelt plea, emotional reminiscince and logical case has been put forth here in QRZ at least once, and maybe multiple times before.

Even complaints of "there are too many code/no-code threads" have been done to death. But it's clear the whole debate will never stop, at least in the USA. It's in our blood, like baseball, loud music, and singing in the shower.

So forseeing that this debate will continue ad infinitum, and knowing everything that could be said has already been said on the subject, I propose future posts should make use of some type of shorthand. (Similar to the use of "Pot/Kettle/Black" as shorthand for a rant on hypocrisy) For example, a space-saving shorthand response to this thread....

ExtraClass/Dumbdown/Dipole/Bad

....communicates the entire concept of the Extra test being dumbed down, the spectacle of Extras not knowing how to build a dipole, and your outrage about it.

A response to that post might be....

No hope/Ham Radio Doomed/FCC Spectrum Auction

...which expresses pessimism, and advances the "spectrum auction" myth. When things get heated, a long, drawn-out verbal attack can be expressed via the simple shorthand...

YouSuck

....and the response can be the equally eloquent...

No/YouSuck

Etc. Etc. Etc. You get the idea. Imagine how easy it'd be to scroll through these threads with so few characters to read. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (KQ6XA @ Oct. 26 2005,22:12)]<a href="http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=3;t=42778;hl=morse+and+hist ory" target="_blank">click here:
Morse is History.</a>


73---Bonnie KQ6XA
Ding! Whirrrrrr "coo coo", "coo coo", "coo coo" whirrrrr click!

Hmmmm. 3AM already?

[KA4DPO]

Quote[/b] (w1gfh @ Oct. 27 2005,07:26)]Quote[/b] (KQ6XA @ Oct. 26 2005,22:12)]<a href="http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=3;t=42778;hl=morse+and+hist ory" target="_blank">click here:
Morse is History.</a>


73---Bonnie KQ6XA
That is a damn fine article written by Bonnie, even though I will regret losing the CW test as a piece of ham radio history.

I just realized there are THOUSANDS of these code/no code threads and ZILLIONS of replies to them. One can not possibly read them all. Everything that could be said has already been said, every troll has already been trolled, every flame has already been flamed, every intelligent argument, heartfelt plea, emotional reminiscince and logical case has been put forth here in QRZ at least once, and maybe multiple times before.

Even complaints of "there are too many code/no-code threads" have been done to death. But it's clear the whole debate will never stop, at least in the USA. It's in our blood, like baseball, loud music, and singing in the shower.

So forseeing that this debate will continue ad infinitum, and knowing everything that could be said has already been said on the subject, I propose future posts should make use of some type of shorthand. (Similar to the use of "Pot/Kettle/Black" as shorthand for a rant on hypocrisy) For example, a space-saving shorthand response to this thread....

ExtraClass/Dumbdown/Dipole/Bad

....communicates the entire concept of the Extra test being dumbed down, the spectacle of Extras not knowing how to build a dipole, and your outrage about it.

A response to that post might be....

No hope/Ham Radio Doomed/FCC Spectrum Auction

...which expresses pessimism, and advances the "spectrum auction" myth. When things get heated, a long, drawn-out verbal attack can be expressed via the simple shorthand...

YouSuck

....and the response can be the equally eloquent...

No/YouSuck

Etc. Etc. Etc. You get the idea. Imagine how easy it'd be to scroll through these threads with so few characters to read. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
GFH, Thats a very eloquently writen statement. You obviously are endowed with insights far beyond the rest of us given your ability to distill the essence of the entire discussion down to some negatively focused rant ostensibly by a bunch of miscreants.

So if I am to follow your lofty thought process, we should simply give it up, don't discuss changes to the hobby any further, que surah surah. Right?

I certainly hope you're the minority opinnion. I, and lots of others feel that there is substantial room for change in the hobby both technical and and procedural. We are discussing the pros and cons of changing the testing protocols for the extra class examination. CW is not, and never was, central to the discussion. Also, no one has told anyone they suck, not yet anyway.

It is both healthy and productive for amateurs to discuss such changes and the impact they might have on the hobby. Believe it or not, we can effect change through various channels as this has happened many times over the years. Your post seems to be admonishing all of us for even discussing such change as whiners and crybabys.

Your comments come across as uninformed and arrogant drivel. In short, a troll in every sense of the word.

If you can't add substance to the discussion please drop your rays of sunshine elsewhere.

[ad4mg]

Quote[/b] ]"A tool for oppression".

Please elaborate on how elimination of Morse testing will bring amateur radio into the 21st century, and please list those who have been "oppressed" by Morse testing.

Maybe you can petition the extreme leftists to include elimination of this terrible oppression in the "anti-torture" bill before Congress.

Oh, I'm sorry. #The puppets of corporate America, paid with our tax dollars (also known as the F.C.C.) are working on this already. My "bad".

[W0LC]

Too bad some of the no-coders out there are still spewing the hatred of code again.

As to the topic as originally posted. Knowing how to transcribe CW into text doesn't make anyone an expert at anything, just as knowing technical knowledge and being good at design and repair doesn't make an expert operator. Each has its niche in this hobby. Unfortunately, there are extremes on both sides, those that proport that those that passed a code test are obsolete, etc. because these individuals choose not to learn anything challenging, to those that complain that not knowing how to operate CW makes them a lesser operator.

Incentive licensing back when was a good thing. it put motivation where it belonged. On to those that wanted to be serious about amateur radio. Sitting on one's duff typing at a keyboard or yakking from behind a microphone doesn't do much if anything to promote the advancement of the hobby.

Why understanding simple CW is considered hindering this hobby must be from a Cheech and Chong movie, Up in Smoke, as that is what it it, someone smoking dope and making an inane comment like that.

What will advance this hobby is the embracing of new technologies in with the "old", which, yes, includes SSB. Voice communication in this hobby has yet to progress whereas CW has into many digital modes (on/off keying).

Making a harder written test won't prove anything but the ability to memorize. Having a CW test will only prove you can use it if you desire.

What's the happy medium? Having tests that have questions on all aspects that are not readily available to the public so you either know or don't know the technical and regulatory data unless you have studied books and various materials. Having answer books or actual questions won't help anyone learn anything.

Let's face it. This hobby is becoming more and more appliance operation. Most of the gear requires plug and play and not much more. What technical skill is required? Not much.

The Feds don't want to deal with amateur radio. That is why they are passing off bits and pieces to some other organization to handle it. The FCC wants to make money through BPL and spectrum auctions. Nothing more.

If you want quality operators, why not get involved in a local club and sponsor demos of new modes, etc. rather then sitting around yakking and BS-ing for a hour before you all break for the local eatery?

Would be nice to see someone actually demo new technology or concepts rather then reading a 2-4 page article in QST or somet other rag. Get more involved. Period.

[KA4DPO]

I agree with you that harder multiple choice tests don't prove anything but an applicants ability to memorize information. #A more practical approach would be to structure tests that require a certain application of knowledge, like problem solving. #These don't need to be in the realm of quantum physics but just everyday problems likely to be encountered in amateur radio. #Perhaps the applicant could describe how a G5RV antenna works, or how to determine the correct input level for a soundcard PSK signal and what happens if the level is too high or too low, or draw a block diagram of a single conversion SSB tranceiver. #These don't seem too terribly difficult for the Extra class exam and would require study, not memorization.

What is it that upsets some people when someone else calls for change. #Am I blowing a hole in the theory that old farts don't wan't change? #We old farts are the ones who changed it in the first place and we welcome change as long as it's tempered with good judgement and provides a positive outcome.

I like many of the proposals put forth because it's obvious a good deal of thought went into them by amateurs who have a lot of experience. #I don't agree with everything #but at least they offer some well concieved solutions instead of telling the rest of us how stupid we are. #In short, they bring something to the table.

[W0LC]

I have to ask, do we need "harder" exams? At this point, there is a minority few that won't bother to learn something as easy as 5 WPM, so will they or others with no radio background attempt a "harder" written exam?

Also, along those lines, is there really a point when today's technology is less discrete components and Analog Devices DSP chips, PALs, FGPA's, etc? Who can actually work or afford to work on SMT populated boards (PCBs)?

In the tube era, there was a room for experimentation and modification, test and repair. In today's "applicances" few have the capability to do so.

Making a test harder will achieve not much except to perhaps "screen or filter" out some individuals and we will be back here arguing making tests shorter, easier, etc. just as a few have done with something as simple as 5 WPM CW.

What's the answer? I have no idea. I do know there has to be more assimulation of computers with amateur radio if we do desire to progress as I see both integral items in this hobby.

GL to all.

[AK7V]

I don't think one needs to be "talented" to pass a 5 wpm code test.

KQ6XA's article was nicely written but I don't buy all the premises.

[KA4DPO]

Quote[/b] (W0LC @ Oct. 27 2005,14:15)]I have to ask, do we need "harder" exams? At this point, there is a minority few that won't bother to learn something as easy as 5 WPM, so will they or others with no radio background attempt a "harder" written exam?


In the tube era, there was a room for experimentation and modification, test and repair. #In today's "applicances" few have the capability to do so.
I don't think a harder exam is whats being proposed for the Extra class. A more realistic exam that would give priveleges to the few who want to be at the forefront of amateur radio. For those who don't want to go the extra mile there's still the General class.

There is an absolute wealth of components both analog and digital available today along with inexpensive sophisticated test equipment. Given the ever increasing merge of computer and radio technology there are vistas of experimentation in DSP, and other signal recognition technologies not to mention full synthesis of an analog radio. granted the vast majority of amateurs may not be excited by this but there are many who are and should be the extra class operators of the future.

I guess what I'm proposing is a class structure that would elevate the Extra class operator appropriately.

You may not like class structures and think that this is backwards thinking in the 21st century. If you do think that go see if Donald Trump or Bill Gates want to hang out with you.

[KA3RFE]

Well, I dunno about extra testing. I'm not able to upgrade. I don't have any math ability at all, and of course electronic theory is heavily math-intensive. I bought the upgrade manual from ARRL, started reading it, and hit the brick wall math causes for me.

But I can understand the opinions that the test is too easy for some people but there are people like me who just cannot "get" it well enough to pass any sort of theory test without readily-at-hand math help.

I managed to pass the general exam and missed a number of the questions requiring math. It lowered my score way down and I barely passed with a 78% (I think that was it.) I aced all the other questions: rules and regs, amateur practice, radio theory, antennas, etc.

I don't think that that makes me a poor operator. It makes me just a math dummy. I am careful to observe all the rules and regs and my privilege limits.

Upgrading would only give me the CW sections of the bands. I can't do phone at all as my hearing won't let me understand speech. I would like to upgrade so I can use the bottom of the bands, but it would not happen. Way too much math involved.

73

[k9cn]

"Be careful what you ask for -- you might get it."

Well, those who stamped their feet and held their breath and complained that the old ham licenses were "too hard" and "obsolete" and otherwise an unfair impediment to their God-given right to disturb the aether finally won. They got what they wanted.

And, like countless others before them, promptly discovered there's little value in that that comes cheap.

Why the call now for "harder" exams and more "prestigious" licenses when that's what we already had before we ran them out of town? Why create new "artificial barriers" and "filters" when the old ones were considered "elitist"?

Sorry, I'm having a hard time buying these arguments and proposals when it appears obvious to me they are little more than a desperate attempt to achieve a false, fraudulent and ultimately meaningless measure of accomplishment.

Gold plated lead may look shiny and feel heavy and impress the gullible, but it's still lead underneath -- and equally valuable.

[W0LC]

Quote[/b] (AK7V @ Oct. 27 2005,14:15)]I don't think one needs to be "talented" to pass a 5 wpm code test. #

KQ6XA's article was nicely written but I don't buy all the premises.
It's from a no code perspective so it is biased outright.

[W0LC]

I dunno. Incentive licensing to me was a good approach when I originally got licensed and I am by no means an OF, at least not yet.

It motivated me to go forward, something a minority few don't want to do. They want the upgrade brought to them. I don't agree with that premise whatsoever.

However, looking at the Fed's waning involvement in licensing, etc. for amateurs, I can only imagine a generic "operators" license forthcoming in the not so distant future.

[KA4DPO]

Quote[/b] (k9cn @ Oct. 27 2005,17:31)]"Be careful what you ask for -- you might get it."

Well, those who stamped their feet and held their breath and complained that the old ham licenses were "too hard" and "obsolete" and otherwise an unfair impediment to their God-given right to disturb the aether finally won. #They got what they wanted.

And, like countless others before them, promptly discovered there's little value in that that comes cheap.

Why the call now for "harder" exams and more "prestigious" licenses when that's what we already had before we ran them out of town? #Why create new "artificial barriers" and "filters" when the old ones were considered "elitist"?

Sorry, I'm having a hard time buying these arguments and proposals when it appears obvious to me they are little more than a desperate attempt to achieve a false, fraudulent and ultimately meaningless measure of accomplishment.

Gold plated lead may look shiny and feel heavy and impress the gullible, but it's still lead underneath -- and equally valuable.
I understand how you feel and I agree that this could be viewed as closing the barn door after the cows got out.

All I'm saying is, we know that the current extra doesn't mean much and if this hobby is going to survive even in the short term, we need to have some measure of credibility. A large number of discoveries in radio and digital communications can be directly attributed to amateurs over the years.

That can still be the case since there is a lot of uncharted territory out there. Since CW will no longer be an issue, all those who have complained about how smart they are but can't pass a code test now need to put their money where their mouth is so to speak.

So lets fix the system. Leave the General just the way it is and make the Extra more technically challenging. Again I'm not talking about nuclear physics here, just make the test more realistic so that it requires real study and the ability to apply certain knowlege, not just memorize.

[w8cbc]

You could leave the current "Extra" as is and go with endorsements, as I suggested. Those would be hard to earn and valuable for the challenge, the respect they'll bring, and the added spectrum privileges when you get to plus-three or higher.

[KA4DPO]

Quote[/b] (kd8bsr @ Oct. 28 2005,15:19)]You could leave the current "Extra" as is and go with endorsements, as I suggested. #Those would be hard to earn and valuable for the challenge, the respect they'll bring, and the added spectrum privileges when you get to plus-three or higher.
That's a good plan and is the just the kind of thing that would put some challenge and satisfaction of accomplishment back into the hobby.

[w8cbc]

Anyone for helping stir the FCC's pot on this? IOW, I'd like to work up an official proposal and all that. I'm just not very good at dealing with officialdom. Explaining why I'm someplace I'm not supposed to be makes up most of my prior experience in that regard. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

BTW, I don't expect to get beyond +1 myself, if even that far. But then, I didn't expect to re-learn Morse either, so who knows...?

[kb3mng]

Quote[/b] (kd8bsr @ Oct. 28 2005,23:32)]Anyone for helping stir the FCC's pot on this? IOW, I'd like to work up an official proposal and all that. I'm just not very good at dealing with officialdom. Explaining why I'm someplace I'm not supposed to be makes up most of my prior experience in that regard. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
I'm not especially interested, but I'm happy to give you some ideas about how to proceed.

For the purposes of discussion, let us assume that the FCC is made up of people who honestly want to do good in their job. (Some people seem to believe they are evil villians, but if you assume that, there is no point in making a proposal, so let's not go there.)

Ok, so what do you need? Your proposal is a document that answers a number of questions:

What is the problem you are trying to solve? If you don't have a problem, then there is nothing to fix and your proposed changes are not necessary. Try to be concrete. Try to focus on rational, rather than emotional, points. Emotional arguments can persuade people, but you start off by losing everybody who does not share your emotions.

This is the most important part. You want to describe it so simply and so clearly that anybody reading it will immediately understand what you think the problem is. Some people will not agree that it is a problem, but if you describe it clearly, they should be able to follow your thinking. That is, they will identify where they disagree with your premises, not your logic.

If you can't describe the problem that clearly, you have lost already because people will just assume there is not really a problem. No problem means no need for a solution.

What kind of changes can solve the problem? For most problems, there are many possible solutions. You should be able to list a reasonable number of them. Not all possible solutions are consistent with what you are proposing, but you need to show that you considered them. For example, some possible solutions are:
- Keep the question pool secret.
- Create the "Extra class endorsement system discussed here.
- Require the Extra question pool to be 5,000 or 15,000 questions instead of only 500, so that people can't practically memorize it.
- what else can you think of?

To make a really effective proposal, you need to be able to intelligently and rationally discuss the merits of the different options. Do not leave out solutions that could work but that you find unappealing. Later, you will have opponents, and they WILL think of the things that you left out.

Do not put in stupid solutions as alternatives just to make your choice look better; it would be too obvious that you did.

Which specific solution do you choose, and WHY is it the best of the possible choices? Once you have a list of possible solutions, you choose the one you consider the best. If you are intellectually honest with yourself, you may even change your mind when you examine the problem statement and possible solutions. (That is another way of saying "You might think of something better once you get into writing the proposal".)

So you describe your solution. Keep in mind that WHY it is the best solution is a very important part of the proposal. Many proposals are weak in this area, and they leave the reader wondering why you didn't choose some other solution that seems better to them. Remember that "do nothing" is always an attractive alternative; explain why your proposal is better.

What are the bad effects of your proposed solution? Most changes will cause problems for somebody. You want to identify them in your proposal, and then explain why the benefits outweigh the costs.

For example, if you propose to limit Extra class licensees to 500 watts, you have to recognize that you are hurting people who paid a lot of money for 1500 watt amplifiers. Explain why your proposal is so important that you still think it is good in spite of this problem. Or explain how you would reduce the undesired effects.


There are other details you might include, like a transition plan or some sort of grandfathering scheme, but that is the basic outline.

I find that proposals like this are best written by a small group of people. One to three people can do the whole thing, though it is very helpful to discuss the ideas with others. So, for example, you might write a draft of the problem statement and post it here for comments, with the caveat that you will ignore any comments that do not contribute to improving the problem statement. It is very important that you not get distracted by side issues. Also, note that not every idea somebody gives you will be a good one.

If you are writing and you find yourself getting angry about something, take a break and calm down. It is ok to write passionately, but you don't want to sound like the crazy guy who wears a tin foil hat to keep out the orbital mind control lasers.

Remember to defend all your premises. Not everybody has the same experiences as you, and so things that may seem obvious to you are not obvious to them. Where you just have to assume a premise, state that you are assuming it and move on. (Expect that premise to be attacked later.)

Always write in a way that makes it obvious that you know other people have good reasons of their own for not agreeing with you. If you propose a change, eventually you will have opponents who do not like the change. It will not help your cause to imply that your opponents are stupid or evil. That kind of attitude risks turning the undecided against you. And at the end, there will be a decision one way or the other. It will be better if you and your opponents respect each other.

And above all: Remember that things got the way they are because somebody had an idea and took some initiative to make them this way. YOU could be next.

[VE7NOT]

if all this debate is on why can a 9y/o get her extra http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[w8cbc]

MNG - thanks for the advice - that's just the sort of thing I was looking for. I do tend to get lost in the details and gummed up with side issues. So - I'll work up a preliminary and post it in a new topic here to be argued over and so on.

I'll try to remember: clear, concise, and back up what I say without taking the attitude that it's the only possible way.

I guess that disqualifies me for elective politics. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[kb3mng]

Quote[/b] (kd8bsr @ Oct. 29 2005,23:30)]MNG - thanks for the advice - that's just the sort of thing I was looking for. I do tend to get lost in the details and gummed up with side issues. So - I'll work up a preliminary and post it in a new topic here to be argued over and so on.

I'll try to remember: clear, concise, and back up what I say without taking the attitude that it's the only possible way.

I guess that disqualifies me for elective politics. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
I'm glad to be of assistance, and I'll keep an eye out for your draft.

Lots of people find it easy to get lost in the details. The nice thing about writing multiple drafts of your document is you get a chance to fix it. Even if you do get lost down a rat hole, you might notice it and fix it before the document becomes final.

To deal with other people getting lost in details, I sometimes try to dribble things out a little at a time. For example, if I have to have cow-orkers review a document, I will sometimes send them just one section at a time. That way, they HAVE to read the Introduction because that is all I've sent them. It limits their ability to focus soley on what font I used in the Glossary. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

As for politics, it all depends on your particular style and agenda. Let's not go there! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[k4kro]

I am disturbed, but not surprised, to see that some of us are getting a head start on the next 25+ year debate that will replace the No-Code debate. This shows that Amateur Radio operators are resourceful and ready to meet the challenges of the future. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Isn't it time to stop all of this foolishness and the endless proposals of every variable degree about license classes and operational privileges? How long are we going to distract ourselves from the truly important aspects of Amateur Radio such as advancement of the art, friendship and enjoyment of our hobby? The time has come to institute a single-class licensing system that eliminates the petty bickering about who is more deserving of whatever bands or modes that are available. The only testing would be about the safety and legal aspects of Amateur Radio. After that, each licensee would be free to persue his own areas of interest. After all it shouldn't be the business of any other ham to worry about how fast you can read CW or what test you did or did not take. And under this plan it wouldn't matter. As long as we have a system that segregates us by class and mode there will never be an end to these useless debates. It is time for us to be radio operators, not politicians. What's next? "Quads, should Extras only be allowed to have them?"

[KA4DPO]

I'm surprised at the number of respondents who think this is an emotional issue. Maybe it is for them but for me it's one of credibility.

We all know that too many of the current crop of extras lack basic technical knowlege necessary to set up a simple HF station even using plug and play systems. Case in point are extras asking how to build simple antennas amd asking questions about feedlines that any novice in the 60s knew.

This isn't about Code vs No Code, Old farts vs Whippersnappers, or who's smart and who's not. This is a discussion about changes to the testing for the amateur extra class license that will ensure applicants possess a certain amount of knowlege about radio and electronic communication systems. That an Extra class operator is capable of setting up a station in any location under any conditions. That an Extra class operator is technically capable of instructing other amateurs.

So if you think throwing out the same tired old cliche's bout code no code etc. etc. are going to have an impact your right. I'll ignore you.

On the other hand, if you wish to contribute ideas as to how this goal can be accomplished please do.

[KD6NIG]

Questions:

Your plan proposes "grandfathering" people into levels of Extra. #What if the FCC decides to just eliminate, for example, Advanced? #

They did this a few years ago and turned "Tech Plus" into "Tech" only. #Methods of upgrade were put in, yes, but that will add another complexity.

Also, who is to say that the 20+ WPM Extra that is currently on the bands blathering filth should be allowed to have all of the power you seek? #I would think that, ok, grandfathering is understandable, but knowing 20 WPM doesn't mean they know radio theory well enough to be able to pass it on. #I know some Technicians that have strong electronics background, but have no desire to learn code or advance, and I know a few Extras that have asked me for help on some things that I would consider simple, and I'm still a Tech learning code. I've gotten good advice and bad advice from every licence class in the list, including those that currently exist but aren't issued anymore.....

Those are just a few of the things your plan will have to address. #Then you will have to get it through the FCC, and also have to deal with comments.

I hope you have a thick skin, really I do. #Its going to be a rough road for you. I wish you luck, but there will have to be a lot of planning to avoid the same debate we're getting with 5wpm removal. You will have to make a proposal, then look at it from every angle-The current extra, the older generation, the newer generation, etc etc.

(For example, if 5WPM had been retained for Extra now, maybe there wouldn't have been such an adverse reaction.)

I'm sure by posting it here, you will get assistance from those who truely care. You will also have to filter out people attacking you for your ideas.

Like I said, I wish you luck http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[KA4DPO]

Well Josh, I have very thick skin so that's not an issue. As for change, the FCC has made sweeping changes in the past without regard for the previous license holders who were held to a higher standard.

Quite simply, any change would have no effect on current licensee's whatsoever. It would simply raise the bar so to speak for one class on license with the others remaining the same. No harm no foul. If the fed has truly delegated testing and the responsibility for testing to the VE's, then we simply need to petition the VE's to make our concerns known.

I can petition anyone I like about anything even if someone else thinks it's hairbrained. I simply want to see if there is reasonable support for maintaining at least some credibility in the hobby or find out if the majority has been parylized by apathy.

This is a real concern that effects the amateur community. Erosion of technical expertise will eventually render us a useless group of hopped up CBers in the FCC's eyes. If the death of amateur radio is inevitable then lets put up a fight and go down swinging instead of blaming someone else.

[WA5VQM]

Quote[/b] ]"A tool for oppression".

Now I've heard it all.....'http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif'

Mark - WA5VQM

[n0ov]

After reading all these posts, perhaps we would be better off just leaving the current licensing system as is.

The current testing requirements, as easy as they may seem, do require folks to pick up a book and learn something they likely have never been exposed to.

After all, they are not testing to be engineers, they are testing to confirm they have a basic understanding of the rules and safety principles that will allow them to get on the air and communicate.

Instead of spending all the energy trying to build up the standards, why don't we spend the same amount of energy and help folks learn how to soder, build an antenna, or even a radio.

The fun, knowledge and experiences had during this process will create a new generation of Elmers and will produce a higher quality Amateur Radio operator.

This, combined with some increased enforcement to get the few 20 WPM (or 5WPM) LIDS off the air will go a long way to securing a future for the Amateur Radio service.