[ARC5] Commercial radiotelegraph code requirement, AE, etc etc

[Mike Everette]

AE and FN were flying under commercial rules.  Neither was a ham.

The aircraft radiotelegraph endorsement required 25 wpm plain text, 20 wpm coded groups.  Same as the first class radiotelegraph if I remember right (plus the 1st required documented time in service).  The 2nd class was 20 wpm plain text, 16 coded groups.  Aircraft endorsement on 2nd class required the higher code speed.

73

Mike
W4DSE

--- On Sat, 12/22/12, Richard Knoppow <1oldlens1 at ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> From: Richard Knoppow <1oldlens1 at ix.netcom.com>
> Subject: Re: [ARC5] US Morse Exam History...Commercial versus mateur (OT)
> To: "Mike Everette" <radiocompass at yahoo.com>, "ARC-5 List" <arc5 at mailman.qth.net>, "David Stinson" <arc5 at ix.netcom.com>
> Date: Saturday, December 22, 2012, 12:45 PM
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Everette" <radiocompass at yahoo.com>
> To: "ARC-5 List" <arc5 at mailman.qth.net>;
> "David Stinson" <arc5 at ix.netcom.com>
> Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2012 6:40 AM
> Subject: Re: [ARC5] US Morse Exam History...Commercial
> versus mateur (OT)
> 
> 
> The FCC's data base (?) does not go beyond about 1983.
> 
> I ran into this when researching the disappearance of Amelia
> Earhart, for the TIGHAR group.  The question came up as
> to whether Fred Noonan, her navigator, had held a commercial
> radiotelegraph ticket, as was apparently required by his
> employer, Pan American Airways.  At the time of the
> 1937 Earhart flight, neither AE nor Noonan had any
> meaningful CW proficiency whatsoever (not much more than
> character recognition at extremely slow speeds); and I found
> that hard to believe if Noonan had ever passed the 2nd Class
> exam.  No information was available from the FCC.
> 
> I concluded that, while he may have had a license with his
> name on it, for Pan Am purposes, I wondered if he had
> actually taken the test himself...?  Would have been a
> lot easier to get away with this, back in the 20s/30s.
> 
> No way to prove or disprove, that I could find -- short of
> discovering the actual license document, and at that time I
> don't even think there was a requirement for a photo on the
> license.  The photo requirement came about in the
> 1980s, I believe....
> 
> 73
> 
> Mike
> W4DSE
> 
>     At some point an aeronautical endorsement
> required a very high code speed, 35 WPM plain text or
> something of the sort and nearly as fast code groups. 
> I don't know when this was in effect.  For a long time
> long distance flights, especially over the oceans, used HF
> for communication.  I don't know what the ratio of
> voice to CAW was but CW seems to have been considered very
> important.
>     Now, were AE and FN flying under commercial or
> amateur (aviation) rules?  If as private pilots perhaps
> their radio proficiency did not have to be of a high
> degree.
> 
> 
> --
> Richard Knoppow
> Los Angeles
> WB6KBL
> dickburk at ix.netcom.com
> 
>