Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

   Home   Help Search  
Pages: Prev 1 2 [3]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Technical exams on renewal of tickets.  (Read 1658 times)
OLDFART13
Member

Posts: 242


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #30 on: October 30, 2009, 01:52:19 PM »

It would be discriminatory against older hams.  As our memory declines we can't memorize some answers as easy as the new young hams can.  Of course in our day it wasn't memorization, we actually had to know about electrical principles, circuits, operation, rules etc.  

Seriously, we would lose a lot of hams if we had to do this.
Logged
K2OOG
Member

Posts: 124




Ignore
« Reply #31 on: October 30, 2009, 02:17:36 PM »

thank you Steve for the comment.
yes, I am afraid you are right,
it was not a good idea.
73,
David
Logged
N2EY
Member

Posts: 3833




Ignore
« Reply #32 on: October 31, 2009, 08:35:33 AM »

"It would be discriminatory against older hams. As our memory declines we can't memorize some answers as easy as the new young hams can."

Please don't make this argument to FCC.

Because they could turn it around to use against older hams.

For longer than I've been a ham, FCC has allowed licensees with clean records to renew their licenses by simply sending in the appropriate form. For a few years in the 1960s there was a renewal fee of a few dollars, but that ended decades ago.

The renewal-without-retest thing was driven by two factors: First, FCC didn't want the work of retesting. Second, FCC trusted hams to keep up with rules and technology changes enough to stay out of trouble.

If the argument is made that older hams have failing memories, FCC could very easily demand that hams over a certain age be retested, same as some states do for driver's licenses.

Be careful what you ask for...

"Of course in our day it wasn't memorization, we actually had to know about electrical principles, circuits, operation, rules etc."

Well, I don't know when your day was, but back in the 1960s there was some memorization needed. Band edges and regs and such. That's the stuff most likely to change.

"Seriously, we would lose a lot of hams if we had to do this."

I don't know how many we'd lose, but it wouldn't do any good.

73 de Jim, N2EY
Logged
K9FON
Member

Posts: 1012




Ignore
« Reply #33 on: October 31, 2009, 06:22:21 PM »

Id send my lisence in and tell the FCC to stuff it.
Logged
N2EY
Member

Posts: 3833




Ignore
« Reply #34 on: October 31, 2009, 06:54:10 PM »

"Id send my lisence in and tell the FCC to stuff it."

Why?

I kinda like the idea of retesting, in a way.

Imagine some OT walking into a VE session, sitting down to the tests, banging through them in a few minutes and acing them. Better yet, do it "old-school" - no calculator, no scratch paper, all calculations done in the old noggin.

And just to make it more of a sporting course, the OT does the Morse Code tests, sending and receiving, even though they're not required anymore. Dig up some old tests from 50 years ago or whatever and toss those in too.

IOW, "I got your retests right here. BRING 'EM ON!"

Could be fun.

Of course, FCC won't ever do anything like that, because there's no reason in the world for them to expend the resources on it.

(sigh)

73 de Jim, N2EY
Logged
K2OOG
Member

Posts: 124




Ignore
« Reply #35 on: November 01, 2009, 08:31:37 AM »

thanks Jim, for sharing your thoughts with the community.
73,
K2OOG
Logged
K2OOG
Member

Posts: 124




Ignore
« Reply #36 on: November 09, 2009, 10:24:02 AM »

In checking the 1954 Handbook vs. the recent ones, there are some really interesting contrasts.
In 1954 there were only 100,000 Americans licensed, vs. 687K in 2003, and 664K in 2004. So there are considerably more hams today as a proportion of the population than in the golden age of tubes, before the internet and the PC.
The 1954 Handbook was entitled "The radio amateurs handbook." no mention of it being a RF engineering reference.
The 2008 Handbook was entitled "The ARRL Handbook for Radio Communications, The comprehensive RF Engineering Reference."
no mention of amateur radio or hams in the current title, but rather it is called an RF Engineering Reference. That is a major difference.
The Amateur's code in 1954 was The Amateur is Gentlemenly, Loyal, Progressive, Friendly, Balanced, Patriotic.
The code in 2008 was Considerate, Loyal, Progrossive, Friendly, Balanced, and Patriotic.
Considerate has replaced the word Gentlemenly.
They changed the definition of Progressive.
In 1954 it was "He keeps his station abreast of science. It is built well and efficiently. His operating practice is clean and regular."
In 2008 Progressive was redefined to:
"with knowledge abreast of science, a well-built and efficient station and operation above reproach."
The principle difference is that while the Code still requires knowledge abreat of science, it no longer requires that amateurs keep his station abreast of science
In both versions of the Code, direct personal insults, on a one on one basis, posted on the internet, would obviously be in violations of the Amateur's Code, as defined by the ARRL.
Logged
Pages: Prev 1 2 [3]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!