In an earlier post, I suggested perhaps we should do away with CW testing
and replace it simple proof of CW contacts. Some of the argument and
reaction was:
>>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)?
>Except the FCC no longer requires logs, except for third party
>traffic. The logging requirement went out some time ago. I still
>keep a log, personally, though -- it seems to be the smart thing to
>do.
I don't know of any hams that QSL without having it in a log. I don't.
Perhaps that could be a requirement for sending a QSL - that you have it
in your log. It could be endanger your license if you QSL without
having made the contact.
Again, if I wanted to be fraudulent, would it be harder to convince 3
VEs,
all in one place, or 20 or 30 strangers spread all over the world to
fake it and keep a secret?
>The only drawback I see to your idea, and I hope it's one that can
>be solved, is the speed aspect -- or are you indicating speed isn't
>important anymore? Just good operating? I'm inclined to agree ...
What's more important here - testing for a certain speed or ACTUALLY
USING CW on the air in a productive way? The fact that you got a QSL
says you operated well enough to communicate and that's important.
>Yes I agree.... We should go back to the way it was 20 plus years ago.
>A new Ham should be a Novice and go back to CW only, one year! This
>way when the ham wants to upgrade he/she will be ready, will continue to
>work CW and may even pick up a mic? Also no renewed Novice, upgrade or
>lose the ticket. This crap when they changed it Tech-no code, these are
>the people that want
>something for nothing, it they want HF freq.(with no or little code)
>they can go to 27 Mhz. and use all the HF they want. The computer
>training.. another good one. I hear on our local 2 meter repeators,
>"Extras" that dont know what an "IF" is and the person he was talking to
>was an Advanced wondering why
>his signal was so bad into the repeator(he was runing over 100 watts).
>I think what we have are people that have just memorized answers to both
>the written and Cw test, they can take the test every week now. We had
>to wait one month.
I'm not particularly in favor of turning back the clock to 20 years ago,
or making todays hams do it "just like I had to".
I think the fundamental question is: Is there more to ham radio than
passing some theory tests (all too often rote memorized), and CW tests?
Part 97.1, in part says the purpose of Ham Radio is:
"(c) Encouragement and improvement of the amateur radio service through
rules which provide for advancing skills in both the communication and
technical phases of the art.
(d) Expansion of the existing reservoir within the amateur radio service
of trained operators, technicians, and electronics experts."
Certainly involvement in QRP - especially kit and antenna building and
all
of the other information exchanges that go on here help in these two
aspects
of the purpose of Ham Radio.
Is there a way to fold all of this into the licensing upgrade process and
test more that "theory" and "CW"?
Perhaps we could build a point system where a Ham needed a certain number
of points in a certain number of areas to advance in licensing. A
"Master"
level license would have acquired a large number of points in a large
number
of diverse areas.
In addition to points for passing theory tests and acquiring CW contacts,
points in a number of other areas - building a QRP radio kit, building a
homebrew antenna, being the net operator on a net, writing technical
articles for a club paper or making a technical presentation at a club
meeting, providing hours of ARES work, making QRP contacts, making
digital
contacts, and on and on and on.
The possible point list could be quite exhaustive and would certainly
involve locals clubs. So what if an operator fakes one or two. Require
enough points so it isn't a big deal. The key here is INVOLVEMENT in
Ham Radio, not just tests.
AA7UF
Jerry Marsh
[
QRP-L Archive |
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997 |
1998 |
1999 |
2000
]