[CW] Qualified?

[David J. Ring, Jr.]

Dear Jay,

I don't see how it is an "Old Boy's Club" at all.

I think you might be misunderstanding things because this is NOT the
impression I get, and if you are getting this impression, perhaps you should
consider another viewpoint that might help you see something quite
different.

A few years ago - General Amateur licensee applicants had to take a code
test in front of the FCC.  They were required to demonstrate skills in
radiotelegraphy.  They had to copy a minimum of one full minute of 13 wpm
code out of a five minute transmission.  They also had to send one correct
minute of 13 wpm code with a hand key - again they had five minutes to do
this with at least one minute correct.  They also had to correct their
errors.  Send the "error sign" (8 dots) and then send the LAST correctly
sent word and continue from there.  If this wasn't done, it would count as
another error.  The code had to be sent clearly and well spaced.

For 20 wpm, the same thing applied.  The same sending test but at 20 wpm and
the same sending test at 20 wpm.  This was the "Expert's" test.  It was hard
because it was for the expert!

What started happening around 1980 in the FCC was that they were starting to
TWIST things.  FCC "decided" that it didn't have to follow the ITU treaties
that the Congress had signed, because they "decided" that A.M./F.M. and T.V.
Broadcast stations were only national and never went over international
bounderies so they didn't have to follow the ITU treaty that requires a
General Radiotelephone (ITU) Certificate.

The FCC at the time started changing the Morse testing - so that a receiving
test was OK for the sending test.  Unfortunately, this is NOT true.  Then
the FCC (who was still testing for Commercial Licenses) said that an Amateur
Extra code test was OK for the Commercial license - which required 16 wpm
code groups and 20 wpm English copy and sending at the same speeds.

I've seen events which could have been disasterous because of this.

One day while on the SS KING - a coastwise tanker, the Captain came in and
told me to call a certain ship.  I looked up his callsign in the ITU
publications and gave him a call at 20 wpm on 500 kHz.  No answer.  I
continued to call him every fifteen minutes thinking he was busy or too far
away.

The Captain came in later and said:  "Sparks see if you can get him, he is
very near to us, we can see him with our binoculars but they don't respond
to our VHF calls."

So I called him at "high power" - 500 watts, and at an intentionally
irritating 10 wpm code speed.  I - frankly - got heckled by some of the
other R/Os nearby for doing this.

BUT - but up comes the ship - and sending at the same code speed.

I move him off 500 kHz and on to a working frequency - and pass traffic with
him.  I try sending 20 wpm, but he can't copy that, so I slow down to 15,
still no good, then we pass traffic at 10 wpm.

NOW THIS MAN HAS A LICENSE THAT HE HAS BEEN CERTIFIED FOR AN ITU TREATY
LICENSE THAT HE CAN SEND AND RECEIVE 20 WPM - BUT CAN'T.

This means that if he was the closest ship and I sent my SOS at 16 wpm (as
required by law) - he would NOT NOT NOT be able to copy it and answer me.

This is serious stuff.  This man is the ONLY radio operator on that ship -
what would happen if they had to abandon ship?  Disgusting!

A radio operator should be competant to operate a radio - this fellow
wasn't - and it was because of poor testing.  He should have never qualified
for that license.

Perhaps you can understand why we think that people should be well
qualified?

73

David Ring
N1EA



----- Original Message -----
From: "Jay Eimer" <kd5wlx@familynet.net>
To: <cw@mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2004 12:12 PM
Subject: Re: [CW] Dissing the ARRL


> Sorry, but you are misguided or misinformed.  It's an "old boy club" that
> says "I went through it, so you have to as well".  No dispute that
standards
> have been lowered in the past, but the fact is, the most recent question
> pool revisions have made the tests significantly harder.
>
> If you don't like the way the tests are constructed, why don't you get on
> the question pool committee and push for more/harder questions.
>
> Jay
> AD5PE