FCC license numbers 3/15/05

GOOD LUCK!

 

You have the attitude to pass the test, so I am sure you WILL pass the test. Good Luck.

 

I don't call myself a ham because I know the code.  I call myself a ham BECAUSE I DID WHAT I WAS REQUIRED TO DO BY THE FCC TO GET A LICENSE.  IT'S JUST THAT PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

 

One other little note for ya billy boy. I just received my study materials for the extra class. During the next 12 months, I will study and learn. Why, because I want to upgrade. I won't bellyache if I don't pass the test. I won't ask anyone to lower the standards. I will keep trying until I pass it.

Make dust or eat dust.

 

KD4MXE

Bill. The experience you mention is invaluable to the ARS.  Perhaps you have considered “elmering” others to pass on some of that experience to the willing or are already doing so.  If not, please think about it, okay?  To me this is what we need more of in the ARS.  

I’m sure you could upgrade with no problem if you were of the mind to do so.  If not, so what!  Keep on radioing my friend and enjoy.  You’re experiences parallel my own.  I personally do not feel that the code/no-code issue is the main thing anyway.  I think it’s radio knowledge and experience that will keep the ARS “boat afloat” in the long term.  “73” and Welcome To Amateur Radio.

KA5FAP

Mike.  The time frame your bio states you were first involved with Amateur Radio was not too long after my own.  I too set my Amateur License aside a little later on, along with my 1st Class Radio Telephone license, 1st Class Radiotelegraph license, and EE degree for the “bush” of Cambodia to be a tree top flyer.  

Welcome back, my friend.  And good luck with your Extra Class test.  I’m sure you’ll pass it as you have a good learning attitude and the willingness to succeed.   I guarantee you the thrill of having passed the Extra test will be something you won’t forget.  I just got back into ARS two years ago this month.  Held my Tech for 11 months, then went and took elements 1, 3, and 4 the same day.  Wow, it was work but the feeling of success was an exhilarating high even till now, when I think about it.  The power of attitude is everything!

Hope I don’t sound like I’m bragging to you gentlemen by the listings in the above paragraph.  Just thought I’d throw them in for anyone tempted to call me a “ light Extra”.
Hi! Hi! -  LOL – and “73” .

 

I don't call myself a ham because I know the code. I call myself a ham BECAUSE I DID WHAT I WAS REQUIRED TO DO BY THE FCC TO GET A LICENSE. IT'S JUST THAT PLAIN AND SIMPLE.
You don't call yourself a ham what do you call yourself then?The the only thing i can think of is your a spam.
k4wkm

 

You lost me on that one.

 

K9REH

Thank you for the kind words to both bill and myself.  As I get closer to retirement I believe I will be able to make the time to reach all of my amateur goals.

Oh and don't be shy. You have a right to be proud of your accomplishments.

 

You lost me on that one.
SPAM=ALMOST A HAM THAT IS WHAT YOU SO CALLED HAM'S CALL US NO CODE TECKS.

 

And I am spam why? Because I did what was required of me without bellyaching?

 

That waiver program began in 1990 and ended in 2000. It did *not* come about because Handi-Hams asked for it, though.

What really happened is that King Hussein of Jordan, JY1, now deceased, asked President Bush I to "do something" about the US code test requirements. The President wanted to do The King a favor, so word was passed down to FCC to "do something" about the code test requirements. The waiver program was the result.

It was really rather ingenious because FCC was able to please The King and The President, yet keep almost as much code testing as before.

Known by whom?

The VEs I know say that, on average, waivers accounted for about 10% of the upgrades they processed. I don't know of any clear cases of fraud or abuse, as defined by FCC's definition of what the requirements were for a waiver.

Do you know of any such abuse cases?

Shown by whom?

You're claiming widespread fraud in the waiver program - but by whom? And on what evidence?

Not "proficient" - 5 wpm isn't "proficient". It's just the basic skill level.

Those accomodations have existed for decades. They're provided for in the rules, for both code and written tests.

Is there a problem?

The sending test was waived by FCC in the early 1980s. Their claim was very, very few people passed code receiving but flunked sending, so there was no reason to have a sending test for every receiving test. In their words, they accepted a passed receiving test as adequate indication of sendiong skill.

Of course that's nonsense, and lots of us hams protested, but FCC makes the rules.

Oddly enough, one of the accomodations for the code test is that a sending test can be substituted for the receiving test.

In my view, those who pass the required tests and follow the rules are hams. Maybe some didn't pass the same tests I did, and maybe I didn't pass the same tests some others did - no big deal, we're all hams and all hams who follow the rules are welcome.

Do you have a point about the sending test?

They're the FCC. They *make* the rules, and interpret them. In FCC's interpretation of the rules, a passed receiving test is adequate indication of sending ability.

No King has yet asked The President for a favor, that's how.

FCC deals with the writtens another way. The written exams have been reduced in number and size over time, so that they don't get many complaints about them. Before the restructuring of 2000, an Extra required 5 written tests totalling 190 questions (IIRC). Today the same license requires only 3 written tests totalling 120 questions. And *all* possible questions and answers on *all* tests are available free for the download. Or you can buy them in a book.

The waiver program came about because of The King, not because of FCC, Handi-Hams, etc.

If FCC really felt the way you say back in 1990, when medical waivers appeared, they could have just dropped all code testing except 5 wpm back then. But they didn't.

Because they don't meet the requirements for the license.

Why should someone who can't pass the written tests but who knows all the rules and regulations be prevented from operating on HF with a modern, manufactured rig?

*Some* people with autism exhibit those abilities. They are not a characteristic of the disorder.

Autism is a spectrum, not a single disorder or disability. It manifests itself in many ways and in many forms, some of which have been given their own names, such as Asperger's Syndrome. Some people with autism lead "normal" lives, others require assistance in varying degrees, and some need to be institutionalized.

I suggest the books written by Temple Grandin as an example of what *some* autistic people can do.

Why do you say that? Why would a person with autism (assuming they could learn to talk, read and write) be any better or worse than others at Morse Code?

How does that relate to Morse Code testing?

If a person can learn to talk and understand spoken language, and learnm to read and write, why wouldn't they be able to learn Morse Code at a basic level?

Which petition was this?

Fallacy! You're presuming your conclusion.

More fallacies. You're presuming without evidence that any waiver system would be abused. You're also presuming that a waiver for a legitimate disability is a stigma.

Sorry, that doesn't work.

Is it a stigma to have handicapped license plates on one's car? Same situation.

Two wrongs don't make a right. And I don't see "the community" bending the rules. Do you?

Fallacy. You presume without proof that abuses existed, and also that they were tolerated.

Maybe. Or maybe the *other* arguments held sway with FCC.

FCC also lowered the written testing level. Does that mean it was the right thing to do? Does it mean the written tests should be further reduced?

Their statement is more than 5 years old now. They could have dropped the code test almost 2 years ago, but did not. If current projections turn out correct, it will easily be another year or even two before the rules change - if they change at all.

Maybe there's more going on than you realize.

73 de Jim, N2EY

btw, I really do recommend the books by Temple Grandin. "Thinking In Pictures" is one title.

 

And I am spam why? Because I did what was required of me without bellyaching?
Who's bellyaching sounds like you are the only one that is.I don't really care if i ever get on h.f. not my cup of tea.You see some people dont like the same food to eat.

 

I have no problem whether you choose to upgrade or not. I ONLY have a problem with those that want to change the testing system because they feel it's unfair, or they don't want to study.

 

Yes, there is most definitely more going on than I am aware.  I realize that my logic was not bulletproof and I did not cite sources to back all of my claims.  It was a hastily written argument that tried to make a point, one that Handi-ham and others have made.  Also, like I said at the end of my post, I'm not sure I agree with the reasoning either.

Consider a war veteran that lost his/her arms in a combat zone.  While they would be unable to go fight again they would likely want to help out the people they left still fighting.  One way would be to become a ham and pass messages between people in the service and their families at home.  I would imagine the VEs at a testing session would give the person oral exams to get licensed.  Given a radio that the veteran can operate, or the help of another ham that also is disabled in some manner, the veteran would be able to become a very proficient ham.  The international treaty requires one to be able to receive by ear and send by hand International Morse Code.  A person without hands would be able to become a ham without difficulty despite the inability to send IMC by hand.

Current testing does not truly reflect one's ability to operate IMC/CW.  Because of this we have hams that, while they have passed the requirements of the FCC, would be unable to operate as a CW operator which was the intention of the international treaty.

The FCC has in the past shown that they are willing to bend the rules on IMC testing to the breaking point.  Removing the testing altogether is just a small step further.  The removal of the IMC testing could improve the lives of those handicapped by their inability to learn or operate IMC by allowing them to join the hobby of Amateur radio.

I have made errors in my logic, and while I could point out some errors in your logic as well I don't feel the need.  Just because the logic is flawed does not mean the conclusion is as well.

Another thing...

For many it can be a stigma.  The logic is something like, "Handicap plates!  I don't need those, they're for old people.  I'm not old."  A person that would be more than qualified for handicapped plates may not wish to do so as they would be admitting to themselves that they are not as capable as their peers.

As I said before, this is not an original argument for eliminating IMC testing, it is something that came to me and thought it relevant to this thread.