[CW] FCC degrades Radio Officers

[David J. Ring, Jr.]

Yes, Gene, that's the point.

I frankly doubt that he was employed (that hired for a job as a telegrapher
and paid for such work) at any radio station during that period.

This man probably never sent a message - and he is handed the "experienced"
license?

Doesn't make sense to me.

But you now see what I was driving at.

I wonder if he got the time at the Queen Mary - which isn't a ship (anymore)
and doesn't have a license.  It would be very interesting if he got the
"time" by sitting at a ham station.

73

David Ring


----- Original Message -----
From: "Gene Buckle" <geneb@deltasoft.com>
To: "David J. Ring, Jr." <n1ea@arrl.net>
Cc: <cw@mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2004 12:27 PM
Subject: Re: [CW] FCC degrades Radio Officers


> >
> > A FCC First Class Radiotelegraph License has the requirement that the
> > applicant "be employed at a radio station that employes radiotelegraphy
for
> > at least ONE year."
> >
> If the regulation only specifies 1 year and not a number of hours
> equalling a years' worth of average operating, he would have technically
> qualified and met the FCC requirement even if he worked part time on the
> "ship".  Now if he was doing this for a shady reason, such as trying to
> obtain employment by short-circuiting the licensing process, he should get
> slammed for it.  However, it seems that he was doing this strictly for
> personal improvement and had no real pecuniary interest in it.
>
> If the FCC is considering dropping the license, that would indicate to me
> that the demand for that class of license was nearly (or at) zero.  If
> this is the case then one could reasonably expect that there was zero
> commercial demand for such a license holder.  If _this_ is the case, it
> would be impossible for him to fulfull the work requirement to your
> satisfaction simply due to the lack of ships needing that kind of
> qualified person.
>
> He must have provided some kind of proof to the FCC examiner that
> illustrated his one year of "work" towards license qualification.  If this
> was not the case or the examiner ignored the requirement, then someone
> needs to have their ass nailed to a wall.  At that point it's fraud, plain
> and simple and I'll agree with you until the cows come home.  (on this
> issue anyway hihi)
>
> > I don't know about you, but when they haven't changed the requirements,
and
> > someone gets something without meeting those requirements, it isn't
right.
> >
> I agree.  However, if he me the requirement to the satisfaction of the FCC
> examiner, his license is no less valid than any other of that class.
>
> > Having this license - on some ships - meant an increase of pay.
> >
> Is that still true today?  Can you even get a job aboard a ship that would
> require you to have this class of license?
>
> > Are the people who were as qualified as this man, now entitled to sue
the
> > FCC for back wages?  If so it might add up to hundreds of thousands of
> > dollars?
> >
>
> Any judge worth his or her weight in pig snot would throw it out as a
> frivilous (sp) lawsuit.
>
> g.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CW mailing list
> CW@mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/cw
>