Mode Happy...was license restructuring
N3ADL at aol.com
N3ADL at aol.com
Tue Feb 4 16:39:44 EST 1997
I know I'm gonna catch hell from my contesting buddys but I think some of you
guys are a little "Mode Happy". Whats the big deal with Code Speed? Other
parts of the world require only a "knowledge" of code. Code is a MODE. What
speed is required of phone operators? If you like CW, FB,.... and I support
your desire to keep CW as a part of the amateur licensing program....but I
think 5-10 wpm is sufficient knowledge of the code for ANY license....(flame
suit stress test in progress) {$->
I would prefer we go back to a "fill in the blanks" theory tests that
incorporates intensive Parts 97 questions as well as practical operating
questions that require the applicant to know the theory and "rules of the
road"....... for ALL license classes
Todays tests are memorized by the vast majority of applicants. Since building
is a dying art most of todays hams don't give a rats ass what the gain is of
a closed loop op-amp circuit. Todays new Ham is an appliance operator. He/she
wants to go to HRO or the local ham radio store, plop down the Visa card, and
cart home a new transciver. If it breaks they go buy another one. So, to me,
circuit design theory is a waste of time and paperwork to a lot of the new
blood. I'm not sure what the answer is but to me the whole thing needs an
overhaul if we intend to invite more people to our hobby..... We have to look
REALISTICALLY at the future and see what will attract the new op and at what
price. Be sure and let your league officials know your feelings. If they
don't hear a big uproar they'll assume you approve of the proposal the way it
is. The squeeky wheel syndrome.....
73 de Doug // N3ADL // V26DX
Team Antigua 1996 on the web: http://www.frc-contest.org/v26b/v26bqso.html
V26B QRV ARRL Phone 1997 / CQWW Phone 97 and qualifies for the FRC 70th
Anniversary Award Certificate.
>From trey at cisco.com (Trey Garlough) Tue Feb 4 21:53:43 1997
From: trey at cisco.com (Trey Garlough) (Trey Garlough)
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 13:53:43 -0800
Subject: Frequency vs. Power Privileges
Message-ID: <199702042153.NAA03902 at scv-cse-4.cisco.com>
> Lets all get together and come up with some CONSTRUCTIVE ideas that can =
> be "tuned and pruned" and turned into a good solid counter proposal.
Even though I enjoyed reading K6LL's initial message about the proposed
changes in the US licensing structure, this is a broader topic than is
appropriate for CQ-Contest. Please move this discussion to someplace
like info-hams at ucsd.edu, or take it up with your local ARRL representative.
Thanks.
--Trey, N5KO
>From w2up at voicenet.com (Barry Kutner) Tue Feb 4 21:59:34 1997
From: w2up at voicenet.com (Barry Kutner) (Barry Kutner)
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 21:59:34 +0000
Subject: Restructuring Comments
Message-ID: <199702042203.RAA01506 at mail3.voicenet.com>
On 4 Feb 97, Tom Hammond <n0ss at socketis.net> wrote:
> Lee Buller wrote:
>
> >2. We need to fix the medical waiver for the code. That is so stupid that
> >I am at a loss for words. We need to come up with another way of doing
> >that. I believe you have to almost deaf to get a waiver. Because, if you
> >have that severe of learning disability, then you have real problems. Now,
> >I know, because I have a son who ha learning disabilities. But, by working
> >hard he has overcome them. We need to fix the medica waiver (PERIOD).
>
> It used to be that we (the VEs) had the option of requiring a SENDING
> exam if we had any question about someones knowledge of CW. That COULD
> have been used WITH the waiver to verify actual knowledge. However, the
> present rules regarding the waiver, unless I read them poorly, take this
> option out of our hands and say that we MUST accept the waiver as complete
> satisfaction of the requirement. THIS is where I see a big problem.
>
> 73 - Tom Hammond N0SS
I believe Tom is correct. I wrote a letter to my ARRL director +
Editor, QST, and a few others about the abuses in the waiver program.
My feeling is that ALL waivers should be approved or disapproved by a
group of physicians certified to give CW waivers. This can be
attained in one of a few ways:
A) Waivers are to be done by physicians who are hams.
or
B) a certifying program for physicians to make sure they rules are
understood, such as a flight surgeon.
I'm not suggesting that A or B needs to physically examine the
licensee, merely review a medical report provided by the licensee's
own physician to see if it's valid.
This whole waiver thing got started cuz of some ham who wrote
a letter to JY1, who then asked Congress for a "favor." The
usual notice of propsed rulemaking, etc. never happened.
73 Barry
who then put
--
Barry Kutner, W2UP Internet: w2up at voicenet.com
Newtown, PA FRC alternate: barry at w2up.wells.com
>From k0wa at southwind.net (Lee Buller) Tue Feb 4 22:46:29 1997
From: k0wa at southwind.net (Lee Buller) (Lee Buller)
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 1997 16:46:29 -0600
Subject: Frequency vs. Power Privileges
Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19970204224629.006d6668 at southwind.net>
At 01:53 PM 2/4/97 -0800, you wrote:
>> Lets all get together and come up with some CONSTRUCTIVE ideas that can =
>> be "tuned and pruned" and turned into a good solid counter proposal.
>
>Even though I enjoyed reading K6LL's initial message about the proposed
>changes in the US licensing structure, this is a broader topic than is
>appropriate for CQ-Contest. Please move this discussion to someplace
>like info-hams at ucsd.edu, or take it up with your local ARRL representative.
>
>Thanks.
>
>--Trey, N5KO
>
I agree with Trey guys, but maybe we can turn this into contesting fodder.
Like a new contest. You get 10 points for working a no-code tech operating
CW on HF, and you get 1 point for working an Extra on phone. There is a
host of ways we could set this up to make hugh scores with impressive
multiplier counts. Intermediate class could be 5 points on CW, but only 3
points on SSB. Throw in some power classes...and working all license class
in a section times 2 as a multiplier and we have one hell of a contest.
Trey forgive me...I am getting punchy at work from all the strain. I need
to relax with a good CW contest.
Lee
k0wa at southwind.net
>From k6bz at c-zone.net (Jerry Boyd) Wed Feb 5 07:13:56 1997
From: k6bz at c-zone.net (Jerry Boyd) (Jerry Boyd)
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 1997 23:13:56 -0800
Subject: Questionaire
Message-ID: <32F83334.4BEB at c-zone.net>
Since posting the suggestion a couple of days ago that we might provide
the ARRL B of D with input (from the perspective of contesters) re: the
League's WRC-99 position on amateur radio license re-structuring in the
form of "joint" input (determined by a questionaire) I've had a lot of
comments. Well over 100 fellow contesters offered comments to me, most
directly to my e-mail address. While many supported the concept of
surveying contesters and presenting the League with a "contesters'
position paper" based upon the results of such a survey, the majority did
NOT support this approach.
Most, including four whom I recognize as current ARRL Division Directors,
or past Directors (all of whom are contesters by the way), indicated that
the League would be more impressed with individual input rather than one
position paper which purports to represent the position of XXXXX number
of amateurs.
Yielding to their more initmate knowledge of what will most impact the
Board as it formulates its WRC-99 position, I withdraw my suggestion of
the questionaire/position paper. Rather, I urge all fellow contesters to
carefully examine the tentative proposal, formulate their thoughts, and
express them directly to their Division Director. Echoing the advice of
a Director let me offer the following:
1. We should base our position(s) on facts, and present them
objectively, not emotionally.
2. We should address issues not directly a part of the tentative
proposal separately. For example, if we have "heartburn" (as many of us
do) with the issue of code waivers, we should communicate those concerns
"unlinked" to the WRC-99 agenda.
3. It's a good idea to present our input in writing to our Division
Director, but with copies to ALL Division Directors and to Dave Sumner as
well.
In closing, thanks to those who offered to help with a survey/position
paper had those ideas been pursued.
73
Jerry
K6BZ
>From jcarter at mailhost2.csusm.edu (Jerry A. Carter) Wed Feb 5 00:52:46 1997
From: jcarter at mailhost2.csusm.edu (Jerry A. Carter) (Jerry A. Carter)
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 1997 00:52:46 +0000
Subject: YL-OM Contest Dates
Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970205005055.00686378 at mailhost2.csusm.edu>
Hi Gang,
Our local YL contest team, AC6FL, is interested in the upcoming YL-OM
contest. The contest pages of QST and CQ show the starting date as 1600,
February 14 and ending 0200, February 16 for the SSB portion of the contest.
I'm not familiar with this contest but the time and dates given would have
the contest beginning early FRIDAY morning and ending SATURDAY evening. Is
that
correct?
Much obliged for any information.
73, Jerry and Harry
Hosts for the YL contest team
>From aa0cy at robertwanderer.gardnerville.nv.us (ROBERT WANDERER) Wed Feb 5 03:48:34 1997
From: aa0cy at robertwanderer.gardnerville.nv.us (ROBERT WANDERER) (ROBERT WANDERER)
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 19:48:34 -0800
Subject: Restructuring Comments
Message-ID: <01BC12D6.74BEE4A0 at robertwanderer.gardnerville.nv.us>
Bob, I don't know where you took your exam, but the FCC guy who gave me =
my General in 1964 didn't even have the key hooked up to an oscillator. =
He just watched me "pound brass" for maybe 15-20 seconds and judged me =
fit! I honestly don't remember whether I had a sending test in front of =
the FCC in1977 for my Extra.
Why all of a sudden is there emphasis on sending tests? Didn't the FCC =
in their immense knowledge of the world decide that if you could receive =
you could of course send? Or is one of their head honchos active on 40 =
metre CW?
Maybe require that at least one of the examiners be a REAL Extra and not =
a CODEWAIVED versoin. Better yet, only bona fide 40 and 80 metre CW =
buffs should judge code sending!
73, Bob AA0CY
----------
From: ROBERT REED[SMTP:HWDX09A at prodigy.com]
Sent: Monday, February 03, 1997 4:00 PM
To: cq-contest at tgv.com; tbic at juno.com
Subject: Restructuring Comments
> I know an examiner who got his Extra code credit using
> a medical waiver. Several other Extras who help him give
> exams also are medical waiver Extras. This would be a
> terrible hardship on these guys, don't u think? : )
Just about as much of a hardship as to the civil service women who=20
administered CW tests in the FCC offices.
An Extra Class license is only what is defined as the "qualified"=20
person to administer the exam for the FCC. For what it's worth you=20
could make it any type of individual trusted by the FCC.=20
Tapes of the CW and writen answer sheets are provided. NOTHING more=20
than being trusted by the FCC is needed or implied by a VE=20
certification.
Recently I saw reports of the ARRL questioning people who got their=20
Extra credit by waiver being properly allowed to administer CW exams.=20
I'd just love to sit and watch the civil rights suit on this one.=20
Anyone ever heard of the 1992 ADA ?
I'm sure there are not many wiaver credited VE's Certainly not enough=20
to administer the whole exam process. If you can't work with them,=20
then give up your VE certification and disband the system.
____
73, Bob Reed, W2CE=20
1991 Route 37 West - Lot 109
Toms River, New Jersey 08757
>From kn6dv at qnet.com (Will, KN6DV) Wed Feb 5 04:35:59 1997
From: kn6dv at qnet.com (Will, KN6DV) (Will, KN6DV)
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 04:35:59 -0000
Subject: SCCC CW SPRINTers needed(team 2)
Message-ID: <199702050436.UAA28916 at ns2.qnet.com>
I am looking for a few operators to complete team 2 for the SCCC.
Please drop me a note.
BTW you don't have to be a member of the SCCC.
Thanks 73 Will, KN6DV
kn6dv at contesting.com
http://www.av.qnet.com/~kn6dv
REFORM
Unless the reformer can invent something which substitutes attractive
virtues for attractive vices, he will fail.
(Walter Lippmann)
>From ve6nap at oanet.com (Gerald Caouette) Wed Feb 5 07:47:01 1997
From: ve6nap at oanet.com (Gerald Caouette) (Gerald Caouette)
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 1997 23:47:01 -0800
Subject: Amp reflector? (Alpha 374A)
References: <970204152658_443797461 at emout16.mail.aol.com>
Message-ID: <32F83AF5.20C3 at oanet.com>
RDTALBERT at aol.com wrote:
>
> In my personal opinion, creation of a QRO reflector is a great idea. Any
> other support for this?
> Roy
You got my vote / constuction tips etc....Alright
73
de
ve6nap at oanet.com
More information about the CQ-Contest
mailing list