[AMRadio] The PROPOSED ARRL Suggestions to FCC

[Jim Isbell]

I am an Extra and what I think might be a good way to differentiate them 
is something more useful than code.  We as a community have become a 
bunch of  "appliance operators"  When I joined the group in 1958 much of 
our stuff was home brew.  In those days I could not afford the Collins 
S-Line that I now operate.  I had a BC348 driven by a home brew 
converter and the transmitter was a hodge poge of military surplus that 
was rewired and one home brew transmitter.  In my car I had a commercial 
6 meter transmitter (Harristahl Labs NE-6) and a home brew converter 
running the 1955 Fords AM radio on 6 meters  The transmitter power was 
from a salvaged dynamotor.  Wish I could find an NE-6 today.

Since the number of applicants for Extra would be small in compairison 
to the number for the lower levels, we could have a test that might be a 
bit harder to grade.  Something that demonstrated the ability of the 
applicant to build his own gear.  Maybe an apprentice program.  The only 
way to Extra would be through an existing Extra and building something 
to show that skill.  This is just brainstorming, and maybe some easier 
way of accomplishing it could be thought of, but it seems that showing 
the ability to home brew is more useful AND HARDER than learning code. 
 You would never teach ANY chimp to build a linear.

Tommye & Jim Wilhite wrote:

>Jim:
>
>I am not completely persuaded that elimination of code is the proper way to
>go, but am also not persuaded keeping it is the best thing.  As I stated
>(please don't read this as combative), maybe replace the code with a 10
>question test over modes and how they operate (bandwidth, composition, etc..
>To me, that would keep the integrity of the Extra above the General and
>somewhat meet the standards that are in place today.  It seems this would
>placate all those of us who want that higher plane.
>
>I realize it won't be long that code requirement will be gone for good, but
>let's be sure the Extra test meets high standards.
>
>73  Jim
>de W5JO
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: "Jim Isbell" <millenniumfalcon at cableone.net>
>To: <amradio at mailman.qth.net>
>Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 3:27 PM
>Subject: Re: [AMRadio] The PROPOSED ARRL Suggestions to FCC
>
>
>  
>
>>Geoff Edmonson wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>>In fact I would be willing to bet that a chimpanzee could be taught
>>>>        
>>>>
>code at 5
>  
>
>>>>WPM!!!  And I would be just as willing to bet that you could NOT teach a
>>>>chimp to read a single schematic and build a circuit.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>at least not the SAME chimp...
>>>
>>>which, to me, speaks volumes for the NEED for a Morse Code
>>>requirement.
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>So what you are saying is that we need to keep intelligent operators out
>>but allow chimps in???????
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>AMRadio mailing list
>>AMRadio at mailman.qth.net
>>http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio
>>
>>    
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>AMRadio mailing list
>AMRadio at mailman.qth.net
>http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio
>
>  
>