RE: Sad day
Locked
12
12
 
|
I have been reading the comments about the possibility of dropping the requirement for CW in order to advance your license. I have great respect for those who have passed the code test and one day I would like to be able to use CW, but it will take a converter and keyboard to accomplish the task. Let me explain.
I built my K2/100 while trying to learn the code to achieve my General license [ it's been three months now] with absolutely no success, my K2 is now only a listening device. I have used Ham University and Your Introduction to Morse Code from ARRL with no success. If your familiar with the courses, I get to the letter L and when you add all the other letters to the sentence it sounds like garbage to me. I guess my question is, does it make you less of an operator not knowing CW? I have an EE degree, so there is no problem with the concepts and I am the Resources Coordinator for ARES/RACES for my county. When the FCC dropped the requirement for CW, that opened the door for me to be come a HAM and be able to do the Emergency work I do now. So why should it stop me from expanding and being of even more use to the community? 73's Dan N7DWA K2/100 # 4775 _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
|
|
I sympathize with you, and certainly welcome your contributions to the hobby and to your local emergency services organizations (as if my "welcome" were necessary or even important).
On the other hand, there are concepts on the written test that seemed like garbage to me no matter how much I studied. I have a computer science degree with lots of advanced math and engineering but some of the formulae and algorithms required for the Extra exam just leave me scratching my head. So my question is, should a bunch of us be able to get together and ask that all the technical requirements for ham licenses be dropped just because it's hard? That's what this "no code" thing sounds like to me. To me dropping the code and only having a written test is philosophically no different than dropping the written test and keeping the code. In the end, the hobby is changing. Other countries have dropped the code requirement. We should follow suit. It sounds like the tests have been steadily getting easier over the last 100 years. This is just the next step. As a CW-only, HF-only ham, I think this seems more ominous and wrong-headed to me than it does to others. I don't think other points of view are invalid, though. Just trying to make my opinions known. The guys who squeak by on a CW test just for the test's sake are probably never going to show up in the CW bands anyway so it may be a net zero loss for the practice of CW. I think I'll stop posting on this subject now. :-) Craig ----Original Message---- From: DAN ABBOTT <[hidden email]> Sent: 07/21/05 10:41 AM To: [hidden email] Subject: [Elecraft] RE: Sad day -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= I have been reading the comments about the possibility of dropping the requirement for CW in order to advance your license. I have great respect for those who have passed the code test and one day I would like to be able to use CW, but it will take a converter and keyboard to accomplish the task. Let me explain. I built my K2/100 while trying to learn the code to achieve my General license [ it's been three months now] with absolutely no success, my K2 is now only a listening device. I have used Ham University and Your Introduction to Morse Code from ARRL with no success. If your familiar with the courses, I get to the letter L and when you add all the other letters to the sentence it sounds like garbage to me. I guess my question is, does it make you less of an operator not knowing CW? I have an EE degree, so there is no problem with the concepts and I am the Resources Coordinator for ARES/RACES for my county. When the FCC dropped the requirement for CW, that opened the door for me to be come a HAM and be able to do the Emergency work I do now. So why should it stop me from expanding and being of even more use to the community? 73's Dan N7DWA K2/100 # 4775 _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
|
|
Thinking about it,
I don't think dropping the code will make one bit of difference to CW. I agree with Craig in that the guys that just squeak by the CW test most likely won't be found on the CW bands. The people who want to learn CW will. 99% of my HF operating is in CW. I'm not on HF that often, but when I do it's almost always CW. I imagine there will be (at least in the beginning) a flood of HF phone activity and then it will taper off back to 'normal' or a little higher than normal afterwards. James Kern Network Administrator Kurt S. Adler, Inc. 1107 Broadway New York, NY 10010 212-924-0900 x222 (work) 212-807-0575 (fax) 908-451-6801 (cell) 800-209-7438 (pager) [hidden email] -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Craig Rairdin Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 12:03 PM To: [hidden email] Subject: RE: [Elecraft] RE: Sad day I sympathize with you, and certainly welcome your contributions to the hobby and to your local emergency services organizations (as if my "welcome" were necessary or even important). On the other hand, there are concepts on the written test that seemed like garbage to me no matter how much I studied. I have a computer science degree with lots of advanced math and engineering but some of the formulae and algorithms required for the Extra exam just leave me scratching my head. So my question is, should a bunch of us be able to get together and ask that all the technical requirements for ham licenses be dropped just because it's hard? That's what this "no code" thing sounds like to me. To me dropping the code and only having a written test is philosophically no different than dropping the written test and keeping the code. In the end, the hobby is changing. Other countries have dropped the code requirement. We should follow suit. It sounds like the tests have been steadily getting easier over the last 100 years. This is just the next step. As a CW-only, HF-only ham, I think this seems more ominous and wrong-headed to me than it does to others. I don't think other points of view are invalid, though. Just trying to make my opinions known. The guys who squeak by on a CW test just for the test's sake are probably never going to show up in the CW bands anyway so it may be a net zero loss for the practice of CW. I think I'll stop posting on this subject now. :-) Craig ----Original Message---- From: DAN ABBOTT <[hidden email]> Sent: 07/21/05 10:41 AM To: [hidden email] Subject: [Elecraft] RE: Sad day -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= I have been reading the comments about the possibility of dropping the requirement for CW in order to advance your license. I have great respect for those who have passed the code test and one day I would like to be able to use CW, but it will take a converter and keyboard to accomplish the task. Let me explain. I built my K2/100 while trying to learn the code to achieve my General license [ it's been three months now] with absolutely no success, my K2 is now only a listening device. I have used Ham University and Your Introduction to Morse Code from ARRL with no success. If your familiar with the courses, I get to the letter L and when you add all the other letters to the sentence it sounds like garbage to me. I guess my question is, does it make you less of an operator not knowing CW? I have an EE degree, so there is no problem with the concepts and I am the Resources Coordinator for ARES/RACES for my county. When the FCC dropped the requirement for CW, that opened the door for me to be come a HAM and be able to do the Emergency work I do now. So why should it stop me from expanding and being of even more use to the community? 73's Dan N7DWA K2/100 # 4775 _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by Craig Rairdin
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Craig Rairdin wrote:
> So my question is, should a bunch of us be able to get together and ask that all the technical requirements for ham licenses be dropped just because it's hard? That's what this "no code" thing sounds like to me. To me dropping the code and only having a written test is philosophically no different than dropping the written test and keeping the code. Sure....after all, why impede the enjoyment of a hobby by making it difficult to join? I think you made a very interesting point...and I'm waiting for folks to have lots of words explaining wny dropping the technical requirements would be wrong, while they champion dropping the CW requirements. > > I think I'll stop posting on this subject now. :-) Before it's declared off topic, folks can visit the forum at http://www.zerobeat.net/qrp/phpBB2/ 73,Thom-k3hrn www.zerobeat.net Home of QRP Web Ring, Drakelist home page, Free Classified Ads for amateur radio, QRP IRC channel Elecraft Owners Database www.tlchost.net/hosting/ *** Web Hosting as low as 3.49/month _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by DAN ABBOTT-2
Hi Dan.
--- DAN ABBOTT <[hidden email]> wrote: > I have been reading the comments about the possibility of dropping the > requirement for CW in order to advance your license. I have great respect for > those who have passed the code test and one day I would like to be able to > use CW, but it will take a converter and keyboard to accomplish the task. Let > me explain. > I built my K2/100 while trying to learn the code to achieve my General > license [ it's been three months now] with absolutely no success, my K2 is > now only a listening device. I have used Ham University and Your Introduction > to Morse Code from ARRL with no success. If your familiar with the courses, I > get to the letter L and when you add all the other letters to the sentence it > sounds like garbage to me. I know where you're coming from. I had an *EXTREMELY* tough time learning CW. I tried learning it for years starting at an early age using training tapes that ran at 13 WPM, and had only limited success. The biggest blow to my confidence came when my grandmother came over to pay a visit one day, and was able to copy the code on the tape better than I was after only casually listening to about 10 minutes of the practice! I never got over that... I started up again years later, and once I began to re-memorize the tapes, I started making my own -- at around 3 WPM! I slowly worked my speed up to 5 WPM, and then started listening to W1AW's code practice. I continued to build my speed through DAILY practice. I even built a direct conversion receiver for W1AW reception around a color-burst crystal! I worked so hard at learning CW, and put myself under so much pressure to learn this skill, that sometimes I would wake up at night with my teeth clenched so tightly I thought for sure they would all be shattered by the morning. But things slowly started to improve over time... I eventually earned an ARRL Certificate of Code Proficiency for 10 WPM copy, and later earned endorsement stickers for 15 WPM and 25 WPM. (Incidentially, I only knew about this program because it took the place of W1AW's regular code practice one evening.) I took my 13 WPM exam after getting the 15 WPM sticker. Once I got my license (an Advanced ticket), circumstances left me little choice but to build my own transmitter to get on the air. The fastest thing to build was a CW transmitter, and I built several using tubes (which for me, was a "first"). Once on the air, I spent most of my time in the Novice portion of the 40-meter band because it was the only crystal I had. All in all, learning to copy CW by ear was probably the hardest skill I ever had to master. Constant practice, along with a dedicated committment to myself that *NOTHING* was going to stand in my way of learning CW, is the reason I eventually went on to become KD2BD. Maybe the same approach will work for you, too. I haven't been active on CW in probably 20 years, but the lessons I learned in acquiring that skill will never be forgotten. I simply apply them to other things in life with equal success. I never had an interest in a no-code license. In fact, the mere thought of such a thing only gave me MORE energy to break my mental block and finally master the skill that for years was a formidable barrier to my success. Practice, practice, practice! Identify the reasons you're having difficuly, and then knock them out of the ballpark! Don't allow anything to stand in your way. 73, de John, KD2BD Visit John on the Web at: http://kd2bd.ham.org/ . . . . __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by James Kern
I have a 17 year old granddaughter who just before Dayton indicated she
wanted to get her ham ticket. I told her about the no code license. She told me she had no desire to have that. She wanted to learn the code and take the Extra Exam. I understand you have to take the Technician exam before you can take the General, is that right? Her mother and I went to Dayton and got the granddaughter the things she needed to start learning the theory. I made her a CD of K7QO's CW CD. Paul Gates K1 #0231 KX1 #1186 XG1 [hidden email] ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Kern" <[hidden email]> To: "'Craig Rairdin'" <[hidden email]>; <[hidden email]> Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 12:20 PM Subject: RE: [Elecraft] RE: Sad day > Thinking about it, > I don't think dropping the code will make one bit of difference to CW. > I > agree with Craig in that the guys that just squeak by the CW test most > likely won't be found on the CW bands. The people who want to learn CW > will. > 99% of my HF operating is in CW. I'm not on HF that often, but when I do > it's almost always CW. I imagine there will be (at least in the beginning) > a > flood of HF phone activity and then it will taper off back to 'normal' or > a > little higher than normal afterwards. > > James Kern > Network Administrator > Kurt S. Adler, Inc. > 1107 Broadway > New York, NY 10010 > 212-924-0900 x222 (work) > 212-807-0575 (fax) > 908-451-6801 (cell) > 800-209-7438 (pager) > [hidden email] > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [hidden email] > [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Craig Rairdin > Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 12:03 PM > To: [hidden email] > Subject: RE: [Elecraft] RE: Sad day > > > I sympathize with you, and certainly welcome your contributions to the > hobby > and to your local emergency services organizations (as if my "welcome" > were > necessary or even important). > > On the other hand, there are concepts on the written test that seemed like > garbage to me no matter how much I studied. I have a computer science > degree > with lots of advanced math and engineering but some of the formulae and > algorithms required for the Extra exam just leave me scratching my head. > > So my question is, should a bunch of us be able to get together and ask > that > all the technical requirements for ham licenses be dropped just because > it's > hard? That's what this "no code" thing sounds like to me. To me dropping > the > code and only having a written test is philosophically no different than > dropping the written test and keeping the code. > > In the end, the hobby is changing. Other countries have dropped the code > requirement. We should follow suit. It sounds like the tests have been > steadily getting easier over the last 100 years. This is just the next > step. > > As a CW-only, HF-only ham, I think this seems more ominous and > wrong-headed > to me than it does to others. I don't think other points of view are > invalid, though. Just trying to make my opinions known. The guys who > squeak > by on a CW test just for the test's sake are probably never going to show > up > in the CW bands anyway so it may be a net zero loss for the practice of > CW. > > I think I'll stop posting on this subject now. :-) > > Craig > > > ----Original Message---- > From: DAN ABBOTT <[hidden email]> > Sent: 07/21/05 10:41 AM > To: [hidden email] > Subject: [Elecraft] RE: Sad day -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= I have > been > reading the comments about the possibility of dropping the requirement for > CW in order to advance your license. I have great respect for those who > have > passed the code test and one day I would like to be able to use CW, but it > will take a converter and keyboard to accomplish the task. Let me explain. > I > built my K2/100 while trying to learn the code to achieve my General > license > [ it's been three months now] with absolutely no success, my K2 is now > only > a listening device. I have used Ham University and Your Introduction to > Morse Code from ARRL with no success. If your familiar with the courses, I > get to the letter L and when you add all the other letters to the sentence > it sounds like garbage to me. > I guess my question is, does it make you less of an operator not knowing > CW? > I have an EE degree, so there is no problem with the concepts and I am the > Resources Coordinator for ARES/RACES for my county. When the FCC dropped > the > requirement for CW, that opened the door for me to be come a HAM and be > able > to do the Emergency work I do now. So why should it stop me from expanding > and being of even more use to the community? > > 73's > > Dan N7DWA K2/100 # 4775 > _______________________________________________ > Elecraft mailing list > Post to: [hidden email] > You must be a subscriber to post to the list. > Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): > http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm > Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com > > _______________________________________________ > Elecraft mailing list > Post to: [hidden email] > You must be a subscriber to post to the list. > Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): > http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm > Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com > > _______________________________________________ > Elecraft mailing list > Post to: [hidden email] > You must be a subscriber to post to the list. > Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): > http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm > Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com > Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by DAN ABBOTT-2
Yes, Aimee is off to a running start... Anything she does is that way. She
has a 4.0 gpa in school and will be a senior next year. Paul Gates K1 #0231 KX1 #1186 XG1 [hidden email] ----- Original Message ----- From: "W3FPR - Don Wilhelm" <[hidden email]> To: "Paul Gates" <[hidden email]> Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 4:14 PM Subject: RE: [Elecraft] RE: Sad day > Paul, > > That may have been the young lady I saw explaining to a woman about 20 > years > older than herself what a lot of the information covered in the book was > for - if she was indeed your granddaughter, I would say she is already off > to a running start technically. > > 73, > Don W3FPR > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [hidden email] > > [mailto:[hidden email]]On Behalf Of Paul Gates > > Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 2:32 PM > > To: [hidden email]; elecraft > > Subject: Re: [Elecraft] RE: Sad day > > > > > > I have a 17 year old granddaughter who just before Dayton indicated she > > wanted to get her ham ticket. I told her about the no code > > license. She told > > me she had no desire to have that. She wanted to learn the code > > and take the > > Extra Exam. I understand you have to take the Technician exam before > > you > > can take the General, is that right? Her mother and I went to > > Dayton and got > > the granddaughter the things she needed to start learning the > > theory. I made > > her a CD of K7QO's CW CD. > > Paul Gates > > K1 #0231 > > KX1 #1186 > > XG1 > > [hidden email] > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "James Kern" <[hidden email]> > > To: "'Craig Rairdin'" <[hidden email]>; <[hidden email]> > > Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 12:20 PM > > Subject: RE: [Elecraft] RE: Sad day > > > > > > > Thinking about it, > > > I don't think dropping the code will make one bit of > > difference to CW. > > > I > > > agree with Craig in that the guys that just squeak by the CW test most > > > likely won't be found on the CW bands. The people who want to learn CW > > > will. > > > 99% of my HF operating is in CW. I'm not on HF that often, but when I > > > do > > > it's almost always CW. I imagine there will be (at least in the > > beginning) > > > a > > > flood of HF phone activity and then it will taper off back to > > 'normal' or > > > a > > > little higher than normal afterwards. > > > > > > James Kern > > > Network Administrator > > > Kurt S. Adler, Inc. > > > 1107 Broadway > > > New York, NY 10010 > > > 212-924-0900 x222 (work) > > > 212-807-0575 (fax) > > > 908-451-6801 (cell) > > > 800-209-7438 (pager) > > > [hidden email] > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [hidden email] > > > [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Craig Rairdin > > > Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 12:03 PM > > > To: [hidden email] > > > Subject: RE: [Elecraft] RE: Sad day > > > > > > > > > I sympathize with you, and certainly welcome your contributions to the > > > hobby > > > and to your local emergency services organizations (as if my "welcome" > > > were > > > necessary or even important). > > > > > > On the other hand, there are concepts on the written test that > > seemed like > > > garbage to me no matter how much I studied. I have a computer science > > > degree > > > with lots of advanced math and engineering but some of the formulae > > > and > > > algorithms required for the Extra exam just leave me scratching my > > > head. > > > > > > So my question is, should a bunch of us be able to get together and > > > ask > > > that > > > all the technical requirements for ham licenses be dropped just > > > because > > > it's > > > hard? That's what this "no code" thing sounds like to me. To me > > dropping > > > the > > > code and only having a written test is philosophically no different > > > than > > > dropping the written test and keeping the code. > > > > > > In the end, the hobby is changing. Other countries have dropped the > > > code > > > requirement. We should follow suit. It sounds like the tests have been > > > steadily getting easier over the last 100 years. This is just the next > > > step. > > > > > > As a CW-only, HF-only ham, I think this seems more ominous and > > > wrong-headed > > > to me than it does to others. I don't think other points of view are > > > invalid, though. Just trying to make my opinions known. The guys who > > > squeak > > > by on a CW test just for the test's sake are probably never > > going to show > > > up > > > in the CW bands anyway so it may be a net zero loss for the practice > > > of > > > CW. > > > > > > I think I'll stop posting on this subject now. :-) > > > > > > Craig > > > > > > > > > ----Original Message---- > > > From: DAN ABBOTT <[hidden email]> > > > Sent: 07/21/05 10:41 AM > > > To: [hidden email] > > > Subject: [Elecraft] RE: Sad day -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= I > > > have > > > been > > > reading the comments about the possibility of dropping the > > requirement for > > > CW in order to advance your license. I have great respect for those > > > who > > > have > > > passed the code test and one day I would like to be able to use > > CW, but it > > > will take a converter and keyboard to accomplish the task. Let > > me explain. > > > I > > > built my K2/100 while trying to learn the code to achieve my General > > > license > > > [ it's been three months now] with absolutely no success, my K2 is now > > > only > > > a listening device. I have used Ham University and Your Introduction > > > to > > > Morse Code from ARRL with no success. If your familiar with the > > courses, I > > > get to the letter L and when you add all the other letters to > > the sentence > > > it sounds like garbage to me. > > > I guess my question is, does it make you less of an operator > > not knowing > > > CW? > > > I have an EE degree, so there is no problem with the concepts > > and I am the > > > Resources Coordinator for ARES/RACES for my county. When the > > FCC dropped > > > the > > > requirement for CW, that opened the door for me to be come a HAM and > > > be > > > able > > > to do the Emergency work I do now. So why should it stop me > > from expanding > > > and being of even more use to the community? > > > > > > 73's > > > > > > Dan N7DWA K2/100 # 4775 > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Elecraft mailing list > > > Post to: [hidden email] > > > You must be a subscriber to post to the list. > > > Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): > > > http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > > > > > > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm > > > Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Elecraft mailing list > > > Post to: [hidden email] > > > You must be a subscriber to post to the list. > > > Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): > > > http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > > > > > > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm > > > Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Elecraft mailing list > > > Post to: [hidden email] > > > You must be a subscriber to post to the list. > > > Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): > > > http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > > > > > > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm > > > Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Elecraft mailing list > > Post to: [hidden email] > > You must be a subscriber to post to the list. > > Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): > > http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > > > > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm > > Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com > > -- > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > > Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.9.2/54 - Release Date: 7/21/2005 > > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.9.2/54 - Release Date: 7/21/2005 > > Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by Thom LaCosta
I invite those seeking answers to why the code testing requirement was
dropped to read the FCC's definition of the ham radio service given in the NPRM, as well as the detailed FCC comments to each of the petitions they considered. They clearly made a case of why test by mode, as CW is a mode; when there are so many other modes. They also made it clear the VEC was free to establish the test topics based on input from the tested community and existing ham operators. So, when the time to revise question pools is announced; be sure to notify the VEC of what you would believe hams should be tested upon. Stuart K5KVH _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
|
|
Stuart raises an interesting point.
Who controls the scope and format of the licensing exams? Does the FCC require that it be a list of multiple choice questions? If you want a fair but thorough way of assuring that new licensees pay the dues, why not do it on the basis of an oral exam? Each candidate spends 30 minutes before a panel of three very experienced VEs (maybe 25 years each). The VEs ask questions reflecting the scope of the standard question pool. This need not be done in either a hostile or high pressure atmosphere. The objective is for candidates to demonstrate that they know what they're talking about. The decision to pass or fail is based on a majority vote of the three VEs. This is the time honored format that is traditionally used as the Final Exam for PhDs. Steve Kercel AA4AK At 05:00 PM 7/21/2005 -0500, you wrote: >I invite those seeking answers to why the code testing requirement was >dropped to read the FCC's definition of the ham radio service given in the >NPRM, as well as the detailed FCC comments to each of the petitions they >considered. > >They clearly made a case of why test by mode, as CW is a mode; when there >are so many other modes. > >They also made it clear the VEC was free to establish the test topics based >on input from the tested community and existing ham operators. > >So, when the time to revise question pools is announced; be sure to notify >the VEC of what you would believe hams should be tested upon. > >Stuart >K5KVH > > > >_______________________________________________ >Elecraft mailing list >Post to: [hidden email] >You must be a subscriber to post to the list. >Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): > http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > >Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm >Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
|
|
Stephen wrote: "This is the time honored format that is traditionally used
as the Final Exam for PhDs" That I think is my point. Amateur Radio is a hobby. And IMO I do not think we need to make the exam so stressful that it keeps some from entering the Ham community. Don't forget even with a written test some people freeze up and they think their mind is blank! <g> Paul Gates K1 #0231 KX1 #1186 XG1 [hidden email] ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen W. Kercel" <[hidden email]> To: <[hidden email]> Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 5:43 PM Subject: Re: [Elecraft] RE: Sad day > Stuart raises an interesting point. > > Who controls the scope and format of the licensing exams? > > Does the FCC require that it be a list of multiple choice questions? > > If you want a fair but thorough way of assuring that new licensees pay the > dues, why not do it on the basis of an oral exam? Each candidate spends 30 > minutes before a panel of three very experienced VEs (maybe 25 years > each). > The VEs ask questions reflecting the scope of the standard question pool. > This need not be done in either a hostile or high pressure atmosphere. The > objective is for candidates to demonstrate that they know what they're > talking about. The decision to pass or fail is based on a majority vote of > the three VEs. > > This is the time honored format that is traditionally used as the Final > Exam for PhDs. > > Steve Kercel > AA4AK > > > > > At 05:00 PM 7/21/2005 -0500, you wrote: > >I invite those seeking answers to why the code testing requirement was > >dropped to read the FCC's definition of the ham radio service given in > >the > >NPRM, as well as the detailed FCC comments to each of the petitions they > >considered. > > > >They clearly made a case of why test by mode, as CW is a mode; when there > >are so many other modes. > > > >They also made it clear the VEC was free to establish the test topics > >based > >on input from the tested community and existing ham operators. > > > >So, when the time to revise question pools is announced; be sure to > >notify > >the VEC of what you would believe hams should be tested upon. > > > >Stuart > >K5KVH > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >Elecraft mailing list > >Post to: [hidden email] > >You must be a subscriber to post to the list. > >Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): > > http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > > > >Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm > >Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com > > > _______________________________________________ > Elecraft mailing list > Post to: [hidden email] > You must be a subscriber to post to the list. > Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): > http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm > Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com > Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by James Kern
I don't think it REALLY will either. What I fear is the "SSB/digital" bunch will demand
use of the whole band! It's a bitch to work QRP thru the Spanish SSB on 40, so I can imagine what will happen when a jillion screaming USA SSB'ers take over the whole band! The other shoe hasn't dropped yet! (Expanding the 'phone bands). I hope the FCC hasn't an unpleasant surprise when it becomes a NPRM. 73, Sandy W5TVW ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Kern" <[hidden email]> To: "'Craig Rairdin'" <[hidden email]>; <[hidden email]> Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 11:20 AM Subject: RE: [Elecraft] RE: Sad day | Thinking about it, | I don't think dropping the code will make one bit of difference to CW. I | agree with Craig in that the guys that just squeak by the CW test most | likely won't be found on the CW bands. The people who want to learn CW will. | 99% of my HF operating is in CW. I'm not on HF that often, but when I do | it's almost always CW. I imagine there will be (at least in the beginning) a | flood of HF phone activity and then it will taper off back to 'normal' or a | little higher than normal afterwards. | | James Kern | Network Administrator | Kurt S. Adler, Inc. | 1107 Broadway | New York, NY 10010 | 212-924-0900 x222 (work) | 212-807-0575 (fax) | 908-451-6801 (cell) | 800-209-7438 (pager) | [hidden email] | | | -----Original Message----- | From: [hidden email] | [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Craig Rairdin | Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 12:03 PM | To: [hidden email] | Subject: RE: [Elecraft] RE: Sad day | | | I sympathize with you, and certainly welcome your contributions to the hobby | and to your local emergency services organizations (as if my "welcome" were | necessary or even important). | | On the other hand, there are concepts on the written test that seemed like | garbage to me no matter how much I studied. I have a computer science degree | with lots of advanced math and engineering but some of the formulae and | algorithms required for the Extra exam just leave me scratching my head. | | So my question is, should a bunch of us be able to get together and ask that | all the technical requirements for ham licenses be dropped just because it's | hard? That's what this "no code" thing sounds like to me. To me dropping the | code and only having a written test is philosophically no different than | dropping the written test and keeping the code. | | In the end, the hobby is changing. Other countries have dropped the code | requirement. We should follow suit. It sounds like the tests have been | steadily getting easier over the last 100 years. This is just the next step. | | As a CW-only, HF-only ham, I think this seems more ominous and wrong-headed | to me than it does to others. I don't think other points of view are | invalid, though. Just trying to make my opinions known. The guys who squeak | by on a CW test just for the test's sake are probably never going to show up | in the CW bands anyway so it may be a net zero loss for the practice of CW. | | I think I'll stop posting on this subject now. :-) | | Craig | | | ----Original Message---- | From: DAN ABBOTT <[hidden email]> | Sent: 07/21/05 10:41 AM | To: [hidden email] | Subject: [Elecraft] RE: Sad day -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= I have been | reading the comments about the possibility of dropping the requirement for | CW in order to advance your license. I have great respect for those who have | passed the code test and one day I would like to be able to use CW, but it | will take a converter and keyboard to accomplish the task. Let me explain. I | built my K2/100 while trying to learn the code to achieve my General license | [ it's been three months now] with absolutely no success, my K2 is now only | a listening device. I have used Ham University and Your Introduction to | Morse Code from ARRL with no success. If your familiar with the courses, I | get to the letter L and when you add all the other letters to the sentence | it sounds like garbage to me. | I guess my question is, does it make you less of an operator not knowing CW? | I have an EE degree, so there is no problem with the concepts and I am the | Resources Coordinator for ARES/RACES for my county. When the FCC dropped the | requirement for CW, that opened the door for me to be come a HAM and be able | to do the Emergency work I do now. So why should it stop me from expanding | and being of even more use to the community? | | 73's | | Dan N7DWA K2/100 # 4775 | _______________________________________________ | Elecraft mailing list | Post to: [hidden email] | You must be a subscriber to post to the list. | Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): | http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft | | Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm | Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com | | _______________________________________________ | Elecraft mailing list | Post to: [hidden email] | You must be a subscriber to post to the list. | Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): | http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft | | Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm | Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com | | _______________________________________________ | Elecraft mailing list | Post to: [hidden email] | You must be a subscriber to post to the list. | Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): | http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft | | Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm | Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com | | | | -- | No virus found in this incoming message. | Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. | Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.9.2/54 - Release Date: 7/21/2005 | | _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by Paul Gates
I think you are mistaken. When my friends went to a General class they were
told they had to pass the tech class exam first .... I imagine there was info on the exam that they needed to know before general. Paul Gates K1 #0231 KX1 #1186 XG1 [hidden email] ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan Romanchik" <[hidden email]> To: "Paul Gates" <[hidden email]> Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 2:55 PM Subject: Re: [Elecraft] License Exams > Paul-- > > This has never been the case. It used to be that before you > could get an Extra Class license you had to be licensed at > some grade for at least two years, but all the other classes > could be had without having held a license. > > 73! > > Dan KB6NU > =================================================== > President, ARROW Comm. Assn. (www.w8pgw.org) > ARRL MI Section Affiliated Club Coordinator > Candidate for GL Division Vice Director, Fall 2005 > Read my ham radio blog at www.kb6nu.com > > Paul Gates wrote: > > I have a 17 year old granddaughter who just before Dayton indicated she > > wanted to get her ham ticket. I told her about the no code license. She > > told > > me she had no desire to have that. She wanted to learn the code and take > > the > > Extra Exam. I understand you have to take the Technician exam before > > you > > can take the General, is that right? Her mother and I went to Dayton and > > got > > the granddaughter the things she needed to start learning the theory. I > > made > > her a CD of K7QO's CW CD. > > Paul Gates > > K1 #0231 > > KX1 #1186 > > XG1 > > [hidden email] > > -- > > Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
|
|
Paul--
If they told him that, then the VECs have it wrong. Many people have gone straight to the General class license, with out being a Technician first. You should know the material covered on the Tech test, but you don't have to be licensed as a Tech to take the General Class test. This is right from the FCC website (http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/amateur/licensing/examinations.html): "Most new amateur radio operators start with the "no-code" Technician Class operator license. Some newcomers, however, begin at the General Class. A few even begin at the Amateur Extra Class." 73, Dan KB6NU Paul Gates wrote: > I think you are mistaken. When my friends went to a General class they were > told they had to pass the tech class exam first .... I imagine there was > info on the exam that they needed to know before general. > Paul Gates > K1 #0231 > KX1 #1186 > XG1 > [hidden email] > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dan Romanchik" <[hidden email]> > To: "Paul Gates" <[hidden email]> > Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 2:55 PM > Subject: Re: [Elecraft] License Exams > > > >>Paul-- >> >>This has never been the case. It used to be that before you >>could get an Extra Class license you had to be licensed at >>some grade for at least two years, but all the other classes >>could be had without having held a license. >> >>73! >> >>Dan KB6NU >>=================================================== >>President, ARROW Comm. Assn. (www.w8pgw.org) >>ARRL MI Section Affiliated Club Coordinator >>Candidate for GL Division Vice Director, Fall 2005 >>Read my ham radio blog at www.kb6nu.com >> >>Paul Gates wrote: >> >>>I have a 17 year old granddaughter who just before Dayton indicated she >>>wanted to get her ham ticket. I told her about the no code license. She >>>told >>>me she had no desire to have that. She wanted to learn the code and take >>>the >>>Extra Exam. I understand you have to take the Technician exam before >>>you >>>can take the General, is that right? Her mother and I went to Dayton and >>>got >>>the granddaughter the things she needed to start learning the theory. I >>>made >>>her a CD of K7QO's CW CD. >>>Paul Gates >>>K1 #0231 >>>KX1 #1186 >>>XG1 >>>[hidden email] >> >>-- >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
|
|
> > "Most new amateur radio operators start with the "no-code" Technician > Class operator license. Some newcomers, however, begin at the General > Class. A few even begin at the Amateur Extra Class." > That they start with the Extra class license doesn't necessarily mean that they didn't have to do the other exams first. When I took my test in 1999, I had to sit, and pass, all 5 written tests in the correct order. <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> Nigel A. Gunn. 59 Beadlemead, Milton Keynes, MK6 4HF, England. Tel +44 (0)1908 604004 e-mail [hidden email] or [hidden email] www http://www.ngunn.net or http://www.ngunn.demon.co.uk Amateur radio stations G8IFF, KC8NHF Member of AMSAT-UK #182, ARRL, GQRP Club, QRPARCI, SOC #548 RAYNET Flying Pig #385, Dayton ARA #2128, AMSAT-NA LM-1691, <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
|
|
When I became licensed 4-1/2 years ago, it wasn't an option to take only the
Extra segment of the test. I had to take [and pass], in succession, all three elements. Mychael _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
|
|
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005, Mychael Morohovich wrote:
> When I became licensed 4-1/2 years ago, it wasn't an option to take only the > Extra segment of the test. I had to take [and pass], in succession, all > three elements. Perhaps there is some confusion between taking and passing all 3 elements and having to be licensed sequenctially. A previous post quoted something from the FCC to the point that some new hams were first licensed as Extra Class and some were licensed as General Class, rather than as Technician Class. Appears to me that if you sit for all 3 elements and pass them, you are licensed as an Extra, take and pass the first two and you are licensed as a General, take and pass only the first element and you are a technician. If the Extra exam contains only material peculiar to that class of license, it makes sense that you would have to pass the previous elements to have "The Whole Enchilada". 73,Thom-k3hrn www.zerobeat.net Home of QRP Web Ring, Drakelist home page, Free Classified Ads for amateur radio, QRP IRC channel Elecraft Owners Database www.tlchost.net/hosting/ *** Web Hosting as low as 3.49/month _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
|
|
Thom R LaCosta wrote:
> A previous post quoted something from the FCC to the point that some new > hams > were first licensed as Extra Class and some were licensed as General > Class, rather than as Technician Class. > > Appears to me that if you sit for all 3 elements and pass them, you are > licensed > as an Extra, take and pass the first two and you are licensed as a > General, take and pass only the first element and you are a technician. Nailed it on the head. If you know someone who skipped taking and passing the Tech theory test on the way to General then there's a serious problem with that VE team and it needs to be reported. The earlier referenced FCC website spells it out clearly. To qualify for General privy's you must have passed Telegraphy and Theory elements two and three. You do NOT have be LICENSED as a Tech to sit for the General exam but you must pass the all three elements sometime. In my first testing session I went from 0 to Advanced in one session. 13wpm code and four theory tests. Long day! -- R. Kevin Stover ACØH K2/100 #4684 Reclaim Your Inbox! http://www.mozilla.org/products/thunderbird _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by Dan Romanchik KB6NU
>From the website referenced in the next paragraph:
"In the amateur radio license examination system, there is one telegraphy examination element [Element 1] and three written examination elements [Elements 2, 3, and 4]. For each operator class, you must pass the elements indicated: Operator Class Required Elements Amateur Extra Telegraphy and Written Elements 2, 3, 4 General Telegraphy and Written Elements 2, 3 Technician Written Element 2 " It says you MUST PASS the elements indicated. What part of MUST is not understood? It may be their first license issued but they must pass ALL required elements! Larry KW4A -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]]On Behalf Of Dan KB6NU Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 9:20 AM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: [Elecraft] License Exams Paul-- If they told him that, then the VECs have it wrong. Many people have gone straight to the General class license, with out being a Technician first. You should know the material covered on the Tech test, but you don't have to be licensed as a Tech to take the General Class test. This is right from the FCC website (http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/amateur/licensing/examinations.html): "Most new amateur radio operators start with the "no-code" Technician Class operator license. Some newcomers, however, begin at the General Class. A few even begin at the Amateur Extra Class." 73, Dan KB6NU Paul Gates wrote: > I think you are mistaken. When my friends went to a General class they were > told they had to pass the tech class exam first .... I imagine there was > info on the exam that they needed to know before general. > Paul Gates > K1 #0231 > KX1 #1186 > XG1 > [hidden email] > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dan Romanchik" <[hidden email]> > To: "Paul Gates" <[hidden email]> > Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 2:55 PM > Subject: Re: [Elecraft] License Exams > > > >>Paul-- >> >>This has never been the case. It used to be that before you >>could get an Extra Class license you had to be licensed at >>some grade for at least two years, but all the other classes >>could be had without having held a license. >> >>73! >> >>Dan KB6NU >>=================================================== >>President, ARROW Comm. Assn. (www.w8pgw.org) >>ARRL MI Section Affiliated Club Coordinator >>Candidate for GL Division Vice Director, Fall 2005 >>Read my ham radio blog at www.kb6nu.com >> >>Paul Gates wrote: >> >>>I have a 17 year old granddaughter who just before Dayton indicated she >>>wanted to get her ham ticket. I told her about the no code license. She >>>told >>>me she had no desire to have that. She wanted to learn the code and take >>>the >>>Extra Exam. I understand you have to take the Technician exam before >>>you >>>can take the General, is that right? Her mother and I went to Dayton and >>>got >>>the granddaughter the things she needed to start learning the theory. I >>>made >>>her a CD of K7QO's CW CD. >>>Paul Gates >>>K1 #0231 >>>KX1 #1186 >>>XG1 >>>[hidden email] >> >>-- >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
|
|
In reply to this post by Dan Romanchik KB6NU
I don't think they were wrong if I tell you the way it was... Maybe I was
not clear at first. Here are two guys that know nothing about ham radio. They attend the beginning of a General Class. The instructor said you must take the Tech. exam first before you can take the general class license exam. I think that is correct. Paul Gates K1 #0231 KX1 #1186 XG1 [hidden email] ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan KB6NU" <[hidden email]> To: <[hidden email]> Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 9:20 AM Subject: Re: [Elecraft] License Exams > Paul-- > > If they told him that, then the VECs have it wrong. Many > people have gone straight to the General class license, with > out being a Technician first. You should know the material > covered on the Tech test, but you don't have to be licensed > as a Tech to take the General Class test. > > This is right from the FCC website > (http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/amateur/licensing/examinations.html): > > "Most new amateur radio operators start with the "no-code" > Technician Class operator license. Some newcomers, however, > begin at the General Class. A few even begin at the Amateur > Extra Class." > > 73, Dan KB6NU > > Paul Gates wrote: > > I think you are mistaken. When my friends went to a General class they > > were > > told they had to pass the tech class exam first .... I imagine there was > > info on the exam that they needed to know before general. > > Paul Gates > > K1 #0231 > > KX1 #1186 > > XG1 > > [hidden email] > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Dan Romanchik" <[hidden email]> > > To: "Paul Gates" <[hidden email]> > > Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 2:55 PM > > Subject: Re: [Elecraft] License Exams > > > > > > > >>Paul-- > >> > >>This has never been the case. It used to be that before you > >>could get an Extra Class license you had to be licensed at > >>some grade for at least two years, but all the other classes > >>could be had without having held a license. > >> > >>73! > >> > >>Dan KB6NU > >>=================================================== > >>President, ARROW Comm. Assn. (www.w8pgw.org) > >>ARRL MI Section Affiliated Club Coordinator > >>Candidate for GL Division Vice Director, Fall 2005 > >>Read my ham radio blog at www.kb6nu.com > >> > >>Paul Gates wrote: > >> > >>>I have a 17 year old granddaughter who just before Dayton indicated she > >>>wanted to get her ham ticket. I told her about the no code license. She > >>>told > >>>me she had no desire to have that. She wanted to learn the code and > >>>take > >>>the > >>>Extra Exam. I understand you have to take the Technician exam before > >>>you > >>>can take the General, is that right? Her mother and I went to Dayton > >>>and > >>>got > >>>the granddaughter the things she needed to start learning the theory. I > >>>made > >>>her a CD of K7QO's CW CD. > >>>Paul Gates > >>>K1 #0231 > >>>KX1 #1186 > >>>XG1 > >>>[hidden email] > >> > >>-- > >> > >> > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Elecraft mailing list > Post to: [hidden email] > You must be a subscriber to post to the list. > Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): > http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm > Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com > Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
|
|
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005, Paul Gates wrote:
> I don't think they were wrong if I tell you the way it was... Maybe I was > not clear at first. Here are two guys that know nothing about ham radio. > They attend the beginning of a General Class. The instructor said you must > take the Tech. exam first before you can take the general class license > exam. I think that is correct. That seems to hbe consistant with both logic and the FCC(Which may not always be an operative condition). 73,Thom-k3hrn www.zerobeat.net Home of QRP Web Ring, Drakelist home page, Free Classified Ads for amateur radio, QRP IRC channel Elecraft Owners Database www.tlchost.net/hosting/ *** Web Hosting as low as 3.49/month _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: [hidden email] You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com |
«
Return to Elecraft
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |