Except for the entry level CW testing @ 5WPM, why don't we do away with
CW testing altogether . . . . .
and replace it with another kind of testing?
Instead of 13 and 20 WPM testing, why not substitute actual CW use on the
air?
Require x confirmed CW contacts instead of 13 WPM, and y confirmed
contacts instead of instead of 20 WPM.
Aren't we supposed to be fostering real radio operating skill (read the
intro to Part 97) as a part of our "incentive" licensing?
I'd have to admit I passed my tests by drilling, drilling, drilling on a
computer. Does that make me a competent CW operator? (You guess)
Room for fraud, you say?
Which is harder - to fake one exam with three VE's, or to fake 20 or 30
CW contacts with different operators (which by the way you could confirm
or deny after the fact in their logs)?
Who knows, some might find out they actually like CW when they use it on
the air. And there would not be intense pressure for ONE exam.
Actually, we could consider the same for the initial 5 WPM. We don't
expect a new driver to prove they can drive a car before they drive a
car. A "learners permit" CW operator would be foolish to get on the air
to "pass" their initial (5 WPM equivalent) CW "test" if they did not
believe they had practiced enough off the air to communicate.
Hmmmm.
AA7UF
Jerry Marsh
[
QRP-L Archive |
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997 |
1998 |
1999 |
2000
]