To CW or not to CW ...

[k6dgw]

Hmmm ... it's pretty easy get people riled up on one side or the other
these days, just mention the terms "evolution" or "same-sex marriage."
Apparently for hams, the equivalent term is "Drop the CW Requirement."

HF for me equals CW.  I left half of my hearing on a mountain top in NW
NVN and nearly all the rest outside the MARS station at Bien Hoa AB one
night a couple of years later thanks to a well aimed mortar round.  SSB
is extremely difficult and DX contests are impossible.  CW was very easy
for me, which, thanks to the 2nd Telegraph I also got when I took the
Extra, it got me a job as a relief operator in a coastal marine station
for my senior year in HS at 16.  Then, one of the reasons for the
Amateur Service was to build a pool of trained communicators (and CW was
a primary mode then) should the government or military need them.  I
think things have changed.

I know people who have diligently tried to learn the code for
conversational use, and have failed.  Unlike Wayne, I have been trying
to learn to play the piano and guitar for many years.  You will all be
very happy to know that I will NOT be one of those hams joining in with
the rest of the group strumming after the meeting.  Nor will I sing (you
can send your thanks for that via PayPal!)  CW is easy and natural for
me and hard and unnatural for some ... music is easy for many and
impossible for me.

Western Civilization was severely threatened in the mid-50's when the
then Technicians were granted voice privileges on 6m, but it seems to
have just squeaked through.  Much of the discussion has centered on how
the "hardness" of the exams have changed over time.  I really don't
think the hardness or easiness of the exams are relevant to the FCC's
NPRM.  What I would like to hear is a compelling and rational argument
for why someone should be denied an Extra Class license because he or
she cannot send and receive Morse code at 5 WPM.  Just one argument will
do, and since I kinda think W. Civ. will survive this one too, its
forecast demise isn't such an argument.

I am very certain that Wayne and Eric deserve the FISTS award for
increasing the number of potential CW contacts out there, however.  They
made QRP a household word (OK, it's not a word, but play along here).
The Elecraft "K-rigs" tickled many hams' interest in low power
operation, and QRP is almost universally a CW adventure.  Thanks guys, I
can find a CW rag chew QSO most any time I want one now.

OK, I screwed up my courage and came out of the closet ... CW is my
mode, but I have yet to hear good reasons why it should have to be every
Extra class amateur's mode.  And, I hope FISTS don't throw me out.

73,

Fred K6DGW (ex KN6DGW)
Auburn CA CM98lw
"If life was fair, the Morse code would be called the "Vail code."

_______________________________________________
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

[Tim McDonough N9PUZ]

Fred Jensen wrote:
> Hmmm ... it's pretty easy get people riled up on one side or the other
> these days, just mention the terms "evolution" or "same-sex marriage."
> Apparently for hams, the equivalent term is "Drop the CW Requirement."

My feelings are that CW as a requirement will go away, there's no
question in my mind.

What I would like to see happen is that the tests include some
questions about CW operation and an opportunity for the perspective
new ham or upgrading ham to get credit for copying accurately at some
speed be it 5, 15, or 20 WPM. If the candidate ham was really into CW
then those portions of the tests would give their score a boost. If
they weren't interested in CW but instead got really turned on by
satellite work using phone or digital then not having a good grasp of
CW would not prevent them from getting a license so long as they were
knowledgeable of the other material.

In short I feel it should be no more and no less of a requirement than
any other type of material on the exams.

My $0.02,

Tim, N9PUZ


_______________________________________________
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

[N2EY]

In a message dated 9/3/05 5:05:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[hidden email] writes:


> My feelings are that CW as a requirement will go away, there's no
> question in my mind.

We'll see soon enough.


>
> What I would like to see happen is that the tests include some
> questions about CW operation

That's easily done.

Make up some questions and answers that fit the standard multiple choice
format. Submit them to the Question Pool Committee (QPC) for inclusion in the next
revision of the various question pools.


 and an opportunity for the perspective
>
> new ham or upgrading ham to get credit for copying accurately at some
> speed be it 5, 15, or 20 WPM. If the candidate ham was really into CW
> then those portions of the tests would give their score a boost. If
> they weren't interested in CW but instead got really turned on by
> satellite work using phone or digital then not having a good grasp of
> CW would not prevent them from getting a license so long as they were
> knowledgeable of the other material.

Canada just inaugurated a similar system. Passing the code test is not
an absolute requirement there, but it is worth a certain number of points
on the written test.

Suggest that in your comments!

73 de Jim, N2EY
_______________________________________________
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