[Lowfer] Alternate Morse code test

[WE0H]

You got that right. The 'coupe doesn't have the rudder peddles which makes
for lots of leg room under the panel. Isn't the FAA going to go through with
that recreational license without the medical? Commercial radio has kind of
been relaxed also hasn't it? I see more GMRS radios in the store than Family
Radio these days. Most of them don't even say the license requirement on the
package obviously.

Oh well, the times are a changing once again.

Mike Reid

-----Original Message-----
From: lowfer-admin@mailman.qth.net [mailto:lowfer-admin@mailman.qth.net]
On Behalf Of Jay Rusgrove
Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2003 9:14 AM
To: lowfer@mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [Lowfer] Alternate Morse code test

Mike

Nice shot of your Dad's airplanes.

I've got a small amount of time in Ercoupes. We used to have a couple on the
field here. That was supposed to be the plane for the masses - was supposed
to
replace the automobile. Imagine most of todays drivers flying an airplane.
Very
scary thought.

I guess if the Feds feel the need to lower standards to accomodate the
"dumbed
down" society I rather see amateur radio go down the tubes than aviation -
the
outcome will be a whole lot safer.

Jay

WE0H wrote:

> Dang, could you imagine less than up to par pilots in fast experimentals
> flying at whatever altitude or heading they desired. It's bad enough with
> newspapers and autopilots these days.
>
> Mike Reid
> http://www.we0h.us/airplanes
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lowfer-admin@mailman.qth.net [mailto:lowfer-admin@mailman.qth.net]
> On Behalf Of Jay Rusgrove
> Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2003 6:31 AM
> To: lowfer@mailman.qth.net
> Subject: Re: [Lowfer] Alternate Morse code test
>
> Bill
>
> What other reason could there be? Just for the record I'm not an ARRL
hater
> (worked there for 6 years) - I just disagree with their thought process.
>
> It's also interesting to note that there are fewer young people getting
into
> flying - another activity that requires a federal license. Thank God that
> the
> Feds have not relaxed the requirements there!
>
> As Homer Simpson said a number of years ago, "If it's difficult to do,
it's
> just
> not worth doing." Unfortuanely that has become the prevailing attitude.
>
> Jay
>
> Bill Ashlock wrote:
>
> > Jay, others:
> >
> > >Nice idea but it'll never happen. This is the membership boon the ARRL
> has
> > >been
> > >praying for. If you get a chance check out a 60's ARRL license manual.
> That
> > >will give you a
> > >good appreciation for how far we've gone downhill. The current theory
> part
> > >of
> > >the test is a complete joke by comparison. Now that the cw requirement
is
> > >gone
> > >we are fully "dumbed down" and the "Good Buddy" floodgates are wide
open.
> > >Breaker, breaker 14 200.
> >
> > I'm intrigued with all the comments about code speed and reduction of
> > technical understanding needed to pass the written portion of the exam
as
> > the years increase.  Is the real motivation for making these changes an
> > effort to counteract the decreasing interest in Ham radio or some other
> > reason?  I suppose any discussion on the successes and/or failures of
the
> > ARRL could REALLY swamp this reflector? I would hope the ARRL is having
> the
> > same internal discussion as we are having tonight, or is the current
> > leadership from a different persuasion? I find very minimal desire
amongst
> > the younger set in this town (30k pop) to get into Ham radio, even
though
> > the number of Hams here is at least 200. Not sure how many are active,
> > however.
> >
> > Bill A
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________