[CW] Re: Qualified?

Sat, 10 Jan 2004 22:22:57 -0600

I understand perfectly that THAT radio operator was obviously NOT qualified
for the cert that he supposedly held.  Just like I understand that the FCC
lowered the standards in the 80's.  Recently, I believe they've seen the
error of their ways and are (in part) raising some of those standards.  I
don't, however, believe they'll ever get them back up to where they were.
Part of that is because I don't believe that some of those old standards
were realistic.

For example, at one time, a ship's radio operator absolutely HAD to be able
to use CW, and preferably at speed, so as to not excessively delay essential
information in an emergency.  I think it is wrong that now, many ships do
not even have CW capability - and what will they do when propagation
conditions are such that nothing else will get through.

But Amateur Radio, while a service, is also a HOBBY, for those who do it for
love rather than money (def. of Amateur), and no ham is ever REQUIRED to do
anything in an emergency.  Sure, they should feel guilty if they hear a
distress call and don't answer it.  For that matter, they should feel guilty
if they hear a distress call and CAN'T answer it.  But they may work for
years chasing DXCC or whatever and NEVER HEAR a distress call.  That's not
really what ham radio's purpose is.

And now, the ITU has said that CW is not required for HF.  I agree.  CW is
USEFUL for HF, because it gets through tough conditions, using less
bandwidth, and is fun.  But it's not required to enjoy the hobby, and
therefore it doesn't need to be required to USE the hobby.  At least not
fully.

On the one hand, some people will miss out on parts of ham radio if they
never use CW.  But on the other, there are thousands of hams who passed
their General, and the 13wpm code test, just so they could earn HF
priviledges, and are perfectly happy with nothing but sideband.  I know a
DXCC/WAS/WAC QCWA member, who hasn't owned a key for 20+ years.  He's a VE
and and good operator, who was one of my Elmers and helped me out a lot -
just not with CW.  But he does love the digital modes.  Would you like him
(and me) to gang up on you and force you to learn computers (assuming you
don't - not likely, but this is hypothetical) and then get you really deep
into PSK, packet, etc - or worse yet make you write your own protocols?
Yes, that is one of the things I do for fun - I wrote my own logging
program, and now I'm working on a Java based Echolink that will support SSTV
as well as voice and text, and (since it's Java) will run on non-Wintel
platforms.

I can (and do) admire you guys that can send 40wpm by ear.  But I'm not
going to force you to use Echolink, let alone write it - so why should you
force others (I already passed mine) learn CW IF they have no intention of
using it.  Let the interest come to them first - then teach it to them, but
not the other way around.

Jay
AD5PE
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David J. Ring, Jr." <[email protected]>
To: "Jay Eimer" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Cc: ""Lawrence Makoski"" <[email protected]>; ""John Rippey""
<[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2004 12:20 PM
Subject: Qualified?

> 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" <[email protected]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> 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
>