[CW] Our Position on Morse Requirement

[Ken Brown]

Greg,

Thanks for the input. It seems to me that a license that requires 
passing a test for CW would be that same as a license with a "rating" 
for CW? I don't see the difference. Either way it is a record in the 
FCC's database, and a piece of paper in each licensee's station or 
wallet. What is the difference whether we call it a different license 
class or a different rating? One thing that I think is necessary is that 
it does not get complicated. Apparently one of the big justifications 
for destructuring was that it was all just to complicated for somebody 
(I don't know who) to comprehend.

Thanks,

Ken N6KB

> Ken, I agree with your realistic appraisal of what is actually going 
> to be down the road. That being said, however, There is a viable 
> workaround proposal.  Why not have "ratings" similar to a Pilot's 
> Certificate (License), but that's what the FAA calls it.
> In order to fly a multi engine aircraft, one has to have a multi 
> engine rating, to fly instrument, one has to have an instrument 
> rating, to fly as a commercial pilot, one has to have a commercial 
> rating,  and so forth. Each one of these ratings involves time, 
> instruction, a written exam, and the flight test (check ride). As a 
> pilot, one also has to have a biennial flight review, and medical 
> exams, the time between them dependent on the licence class held. I 
> see no reason, if the FAA can do this, why the FCC can't.
> Since I have been thru the FAA hoops, without too much difficulty, I 
> see no reason why the FCC can't structure their licencing process 
> somewhat similarly.  If you want to work CW, OK, but you have to have 
> an exam. (This would neatly sidestep the no code BS, as it simply 
> would be another rating to work toward for those entering our 
> avocation). Those already holding licences granted prior to the 
> imposition of this would simply be grandfathered, and be granted the 
> CW rating automatically.
>    OK, flame away, but this seems to be the way to do it.
> Incidentally, since the FCC got rid of everything, that is why I will 
> never lose, or upgrade  my "Advanced" class licence. Since it's unique 
> now, I plan to stay exactly where I am.  I have no particular worries 
> about my CW skills, and use it whenever possible.
> 73 de Greg Moore WA3IVX / NNN0BVN
>
> Mike Manship wrote:
>
>> At 12:33 PM 7/27/03 -1000, Ken Brown wrote:
>>  
>>
>>> Therefore we propose:
>>>
>>> 1) At least one amateur license class (probably Extra Class) 
>>> maintains a morse test element.
>>>   
>>
>>
>> It will probably be eliminated for all classes.
>>
>>  
>>
>>> 2) Every HF and MF amateur band shall have a CW ONLY sub band, at 
>>> least as large as the present Extra Class digital subbands and 
>>> preferably larger. The bands which do not presently have an Extra 
>>> Class digital sub band shall have CW only subbands also. CW will 
>>> continue to be allowed anywhere in the amateur bands, not including 
>>> the 60 meter channels.
>>>
>>>   
>>
>>
>> This might happen.
>>
>>  
>>
>>> 3) The morse test should be performed at a speed at which morse is 
>>> actually useable, perhaps 10 wpm.
>>>   
>>
>>
>>
>> Since they already reduced it I doubt they will increase it.
>>
>>  
>>
>>> 4) The morse test element should include both receiving and sending.
>>>   
>>
>>
>> Since they already eliminated a sending test (and probably will 
>> eliminate
>> receiving)
>> I doubt they will reinstate it.  It's easy to grade a receiveing test 
>> with
>> multiple-choice
>> answers. It would take someone who can actually copy Morse to grade a
>> sending test.
>>
>>  
>>
>>> What do you all think of the above?
>>>
>>> Ken N6KB
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> CW mailing list
>>> CW@mailman.qth.net
>>> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/cw
>>>
>>>
>>>   
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CW mailing list
>> CW@mailman.qth.net
>> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/cw
>>
>>  
>>
>