[Boatanchors] Good Advice

[Mark Richards]

K5VSE wrote:
> I have remained silent on this subject for a long time, but felt it was
> finally time to sound off. I do not own any imported equipment, nor do I do
> any VHF work at all. Can't stand the stuff that goes on there. I've been
> licensed for over 50 years, and have always enjoyed the hobby until
> recently. Now there are those that do not know how to properly tune a
> transmitter with their memorized license. I don't think the CW requirement
> is necessary any longer, but still operate that mode on occasion. With the
> exception of my Advanced license, all my testing was done in front of an
> FCC
> examiner. When I get a signal report, it is always complimenting me on my
> audio quality. There are no audio enhancements at my station, just an old
> Shure 444D and a ceramic non amplified D-104. Those that use those audio
> racks are very uneducated as far as I'm concerned.
>
> Have a great day es 73
>
> Mike-K5VSE
>
> And no, 73 is NOT plural!

It is a different day and age.  We can suggest that the culture has been 
"dumbed down", and I think there's a lot of evidence that this is 
correct.  On the other hand, the skills and interests have changed - 
perhaps evolved - leaving the world of hands-on behind.  Although today 
we can do some pretty amazing things, we also have generations of those 
who can't turn a screwdriver.

Those of us (self included) who can carry on a conversation while 
copying 40wpm CW simultaneously are a nearly-gone breed.  I listen on 
this and other lists for the stories I can identify with.  There's less 
of a sense of being old and forgotten among those who have shared the 
experience of grabbing a plate cap of a 6146, and who returned to tell 
the tale.

I worry about what we are losing in our hobby - the "radio arts", the 
science, and the wonder of discovery.

I want to recall a story from commercial aviation.  It illustrates why 
the basics are so important.  In our hobby the basics might be 
considered "theory", and "morse", and "operating practice".  In aviation 
the basics are "aviate, navigate, communicate".  All are being lost.

Flight decks today are filled with all manner of automation.  In the 
Airbus design the stick (prominently positioned in other aircraft right 
between the legs) is off to the side as a hand controller.  Although 
moving it frees up legroom and space to look at the video displays, it 
also might imply that aviating takes a back seat to automating.  The old 
stick (and rudder) had mechanical links to associated flight surfaces 
and hydraulics.  The hand controller has wiring to digital interfaces 
and flight control computers.  There's a lot of redundancy, and a lot of 
complexity.  Things can, and do, get bolluxed up.

A former Swissair captain and his co-pilot had both grown up as "stick 
and rudder" types.  This was fortunate for all aboard a particular 
flight, for their incident was a near-fatal.  Maintenance had just been 
performed on the Captain's hand controller.  This was the first flight 
since someone took a screwdriver to it.

As the airplane began its rotation off the runway a crosswind caused a 
left bank.  My captain friend responded with the appropriate input: a 
little right bank input to compensate.  This exascerbated the left bank. 
  More input, further left the airplane went.  All of this in the course 
of around 3 seconds.  Just before the left wing impacted the runway the 
"pilot not flying" took immediate command and with his own hand 
controller corrected the airplane's attitude.  Fortunately the ability 
to grab command was designed into the system.  All it took was a button 
press.

Once safely on the ground the hand controller was disassembled.  It was 
discovered that the electrical connector which associated a left 
translation was plugged into the right translation output, and 
vice-versa.  This error was not seen by maintenance and - worse - the 
potential for this error was not seen in the design.  By simply 
insisting on keyed connectors that could not be swapped, the problem 
never would have occurred.

What happened to the pre-flight?  I never asked.  I think this would 
have, hopefully, pointed out the discrepancy as flight surfaces are 
always exercised prior to a take off.  Likely it was either overlooked 
or was required on one hand controller only, the wrong side chosen for 
that day.

While the new term "pilot not flying" is applied to the old role of 
"co-pilot", the second crewmember, not concentrating on go/no-go 
decisions and maintaining attitude had the time and awareness to do the 
right thing.

I shudder to fly today with crews who, over the PA, exhibit voices that 
have hardly broken into adulthood.

I shudder also to consider that our hobby, once dominated by 
experimenters of the "radio art", is being infused with box operators. 
Once can argue that the ARRL lobbied to save the hobby (and their 
continued cash flow) but the result may well be to kill it off.

/m