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 [4] 5 6 7 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Advance licence grandfather to Extra class  (Read 47734 times)
N2EY
Member

Posts: 3879




Ignore
« Reply #45 on: February 23, 2012, 06:35:58 PM »

no one should be a no code,or 5wpm Extra,thats why its EXTRA sorry your so small minded and stupid.to see they want it to sell radios nothing more
You do know, that data/digital signals are the new CW?

No, they are not.

Data/digital are something else entirely. That's not a bad thing - more tools in the toolbox is rarely a bad thing.

73 de Jim, N2EY
Logged
K9AIM
Member

Posts: 1030




Ignore
« Reply #46 on: February 24, 2012, 05:03:23 PM »


why should Advanced be combined with the Extra? There is no real cost to keeping them separate.


there is no real cost to combining them either

Combining classes like that simply means that the lower-class hams get a free, no-test upgrade to the higher class. Which will tick off the higher class hams who actually earned the license. Also sets a very bad precedent.

Did you feel the same way about the precedent set when no-code Extras were granted access to the bottom 25 kHz of 15, 20, 40, and 80 meters?  As an Advanced class licensee who passed the 13wpm code test at an FCC office, are you saying it is only natural that I would be ticked off about it if access to those extra code segments were *not* grandfathered to me?

There have been several formal proposals to FCC which included such things - and all were rejected by FCC. Their answer in essence was "just take the test".
73 de Jim, N2EY

That was partly because some Extras lobbied them not to grandfather Advanced class licensees into Extras.  Seems kind of cold-blooded to me.  Just take the test...  If only it still were about pentodes, or if i still had the adolescent mammal's innate ability to learn new tricks Wink
« Last Edit: February 24, 2012, 06:29:08 PM by K9AIM » Logged
W0DV
Member

Posts: 200




Ignore
« Reply #47 on: February 24, 2012, 07:28:06 PM »


why should Advanced be combined with the Extra? There is no real cost to keeping them separate.


there is no real cost to combining them either

Combining classes like that simply means that the lower-class hams get a free, no-test upgrade to the higher class. Which will tick off the higher class hams who actually earned the license. Also sets a very bad precedent.

Did you feel the same way about the precedent set when no-code Extras were granted access to the bottom 25 kHz of 15, 20, 40, and 80 meters?  As an Advanced class licensee who passed the 13wpm code test at an FCC office, are you saying it is only natural that I would be ticked off about it if access to those extra code segments were *not* grandfathered to me?

There have been several formal proposals to FCC which included such things - and all were rejected by FCC. Their answer in essence was "just take the test".
73 de Jim, N2EY

That was partly because some Extras lobbied them not to grandfather Advanced class licensees into Extras.  Seems kind of cold-blooded to me.  Just take the test...  If only it still were about pentodes, or if i still had the adolescent mammal's innate ability to learn new tricks Wink

I really have a hard time understanding why the "problem" is so difficult to solve. The FCC is requiring that an Advanced Ticket holder take an Extra exam to becomes an Extra Ticket holder. Why not just take the exam? At the very least, it is something to do, something to look forward to, an opportunity to meet other hams. Yet, a few Advanced licence holders refuse. It is about pride, and a poor attitude. Simple as that.

Some people have a hard time with change. In my field of work, I see it all of the time.  Some people would rather be fired and lose their lively hood before they will change, and move forward. The fore mentioned have a strong sense of entitlement, and are disgruntled at any change that will force them to change their way of thinking. It reflects on their character, their intelligence, and their moral philosophy, negatively
Logged
K9AIM
Member

Posts: 1030




Ignore
« Reply #48 on: February 25, 2012, 05:41:43 AM »


I really have a hard time understanding why the "problem" is so difficult to solve. The FCC is requiring that an Advanced Ticket holder take an Extra exam to becomes an Extra Ticket holder. Why not just take the exam? At the very least, it is something to do, something to look forward to, an opportunity to meet other hams. Yet, a few Advanced licence holders refuse. It is about pride, and a poor attitude. Simple as that.

Some people have a hard time with change. In my field of work, I see it all of the time.  Some people would rather be fired and lose their lively hood before they will change, and move forward. The fore mentioned have a strong sense of entitlement, and are disgruntled at any change that will force them to change their way of thinking. It reflects on their character, their intelligence, and their moral philosophy, negatively

You are far too quick to judge others and paint them into an imaginary corner where you get the moral high ground.  For example do you say that those who complain about gay marriage are unwilling to change their way of thinking and move forward and are deficient in character, intelligence, and moral philosophy?  It depends entirely on where one stands on any given issue -- does it not? 

I do not feel entitled as an Advanced class licensee to Extra class privileges, I just want to call out anyone who suggests that granting Extra class privileges to Advanced class licensees would be giving them an unearned free ride.  How is giving no-code Extras access to the bottom 25kHz CODE band segments of 15, 20, 40, and 80 meters not a "free ride"?  I am not against them getting those privileges, I just think if they do then FCC code-tested Advanced licensees should as well.  In fact I think a case could be made Advanced should have access to them and no-code Extras should not.  I am not proposing that -- in my book no-code Extras earned their license and privileges -- but as far as I am concerned Advanced class licensees earned Extra class CW privileges as well, given that they passed 13wpm code tests and Advanced theory exams in FCC offices.
« Last Edit: February 25, 2012, 05:45:16 AM by K9AIM » Logged
N3OX
Member

Posts: 8847


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #49 on: February 25, 2012, 11:03:35 AM »

as far as I am concerned Advanced class licensees earned Extra class CW privileges as well, given that they passed 13wpm code tests and Advanced theory exams in FCC offices.

Extra class CW privileges always required an Extra class theory test.

You didn't take one.  So you don't get Extra class CW privileges until you do.

The former code requirements are irrelevant to all of this.  What does my 20WPM get me compared to your 13WPM?  Nothing, and I don't think it should.   Why should your 13WPM be different?  They're both equally dead requirements.

The major issue is that the current licensing structure DOES still have a requirement for you to pass the Extra written test and you missed the opportunity to do that when it was a shorter exam with only the "Extra material" on it.  The rules changed and there's nothing in the new rules that suggest that you should have an Extra class license, because you haven't yet passed an Extra class written test.

The "no-code" argument doesn't hold water because it's not the only requirement for Extra.  I understand and appreciate that lot of people found the code requirements to be the hardest part of the test and therefore the "real hurdle" to become an Extra.  I know that 20WPM is one of the few exams I've failed repeatedly in my life. But from the FCC's perspective, the code tests ceased to become relevant at all at some point, while the written tests remained relevant.

Code was never REALLY the "main" requirement, and the former Advanced exam material is only PART of the Extra test.   I do not agree that 13WPM and the Advanced written test earned you an Extra any more than my 20WPM and Extra test earned me anything over an Extra who passed the current test.  I did what was required at the time for the license I wanted, and so did you. 
« Last Edit: February 25, 2012, 11:06:24 AM by N3OX » Logged

73,
Dan
http://www.n3ox.net

Monkey/silicon cyborg, beeping at rocks since 1995.
K9AIM
Member

Posts: 1030




Ignore
« Reply #50 on: February 25, 2012, 12:01:48 PM »


Code was never REALLY the "main" requirement, and the former Advanced exam material is only PART of the Extra test.   I do not agree that 13WPM and the Advanced written test earned you an Extra any more than my 20WPM and Extra test earned me anything over an Extra who passed the current test.  I did what was required at the time for the license I wanted, and so did you. 


I never considered the 20wpm code portion of the Extra exam as the "main" requirement, but it was necessary to pass it before the FCC would allow you to try the theory portion of the exam (In fact I failed the 20wpm code test after passing the Advanced theory exam in the Chicago FCC office in 1977). The great thing about the Extra CW segments was the op.s there could for the most part do code well and fast. Today I could easily pass the perfect copy 20wpm test.

If you read what I said in full context (below), you will see I am pointing out that if no-code licensees are given access to the formerly 20wpm segments, it makes sense to grandfather access to those same segments to Advanced class licensees.  (note I am not talking about the Extra class phone segments). Of course it's a little too late to lobby the FCC for that congruence since they already did away with code and did not grandfather Advanced class into Extra (although I do hear it was deemed worthy of official consideration).

again, here is what I said in context:

I do not feel entitled as an Advanced class licensee to Extra class privileges, I just want to call out anyone who suggests that granting Extra class privileges to Advanced class licensees would be giving them an unearned free ride.  How is giving no-code Extras access to the bottom 25kHz CODE band segments of 15, 20, 40, and 80 meters not a "free ride"?  I am not against them getting those privileges, I just think if they do then FCC code-tested Advanced licensees should as well.  In fact I think a case could be made Advanced should have access to them and no-code Extras should not.  I am not proposing that -- in my book no-code Extras earned their license and privileges -- but as far as I am concerned Advanced class licensees earned Extra class CW privileges as well, given that they passed 13wpm code tests and Advanced theory exams in FCC offices. 
Logged
N3OX
Member

Posts: 8847


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #51 on: February 25, 2012, 12:18:20 PM »

 How is giving no-code Extras access to the bottom 25kHz CODE band segments of 15, 20, 40, and 80 meters not a "free ride"?

Because the code requirement is not important but the written test is.

That's why giving "no-code Extras" is not a free ride but grandfathering in Advanced class is.

Code test passed vs. no code test passed?  Irrelevant.

Passed the written Extra test?  Very relevant.

I don't understand the logic where the code tests for past exams convey some kind of weight toward whether or not someone has fulfilled the current requirements to access the Extra class CW subbands.  New Extras have fulfilled the current requirements for an Extra class license.  Advanced class licensees have not.  

To be clear I could see how one could make a case that an old Advanced, who has demonstrated code proficiency for a license, might deserve access to the CODE segments... but IMO grandfathering would only be reasonable (and more to the point, within  reasonable interpretation of the laws) if there had been a testing scheme in place where you had to demonstrate code proficiency and only code proficiency in order to access the Morse code segments.

It wasn't like that.  You had to demonstrate code proficiency AND take a written test in order to access ALL of the remaining Extra frequencies.  So it's not reasonable to give an Advanced licensee access to the Extra code segments.  It's more important that they're EXTRA frequencies, not that code is used there.


« Last Edit: February 25, 2012, 12:31:25 PM by N3OX » Logged

73,
Dan
http://www.n3ox.net

Monkey/silicon cyborg, beeping at rocks since 1995.
K9AIM
Member

Posts: 1030




Ignore
« Reply #52 on: February 25, 2012, 12:56:58 PM »

To be clear I could see how one could make a case that an old Advanced, who has demonstrated code proficiency for a license, might deserve access to the CODE segments... but IMO grandfathering would only be reasonable (and more to the point, within  reasonable interpretation of the laws) if there had been a testing scheme in place where you had to demonstrate code proficiency and only code proficiency in order to access the Morse code segments.

It wasn't like that.  You had to demonstrate code proficiency AND take a written test in order to access ALL of the remaining Extra frequencies.  So it's not reasonable to give an Advanced licensee access to the Extra code segments.  It's more important that they're EXTRA frequencies, not that code is used there.


your way of looking at this is noted and I QSL it is the scheme that prevailed.  Note however that all modes are allowed in the Extra phone segments, and that when the code requirement was eliminated there was no attempt to re-align the extra privileges accordingly (perhaps opening the bottom 25 kHz of 15,20,40 & 80 to all Generals and higher and creating a few new Extra only phone (all mode)  segments.)  The code elimination wasn't about congruence anyway -- it was about making the regulation of ham radio less expensive -- and less of a bother.   
« Last Edit: February 25, 2012, 12:58:30 PM by K9AIM » Logged
AA4PB
Member

Posts: 12848




Ignore
« Reply #53 on: February 25, 2012, 04:04:51 PM »

"The code elimination wasn't about congruence anyway -- it was about making the regulation of ham radio less expensive -- and less of a bother"

That might be true if the FCC administered the code tests. Given that code tests in recent years have been administered by volunteer examiners I don't see how expense could be an issue.

I think it was more about changes in international regulations that permitted the requirement to be dropped and the FCC's perception that Morse was no longer an necessary or important skill for radio communications.

I don't think the FCC ever considered the Morse requirement to be a "filter" to measure a person's commitment.
Logged
K9AIM
Member

Posts: 1030




Ignore
« Reply #54 on: February 25, 2012, 05:03:41 PM »



That might be true if the FCC administered the code tests. Given that code tests in recent years have been administered by volunteer examiners I don't see how expense could be an issue.

I think it was more about changes in international regulations that permitted the requirement to be dropped and the FCC's perception that Morse was no longer an necessary or important skill for radio communications.

I don't think the FCC ever considered the Morse requirement to be a "filter" to measure a person's commitment.


whoops, by the time I returned to ham radio in 2008 after a long hiatus, I guess I kind of missed the incremental steps between FCC code testing to no code test at all. Thanks for pointing out my mistake in an informative way rather than hitting me over the head with it  Smiley

I'm not sure the FCC considered any requirement in itself a filter to measure a person's commitment(?)  I thought the code was dropped because someone with friends in high places complained about it and as part of a general trend to deregulation -- is that a false rumor?   Not sure why they just did not switch to having a few multiple choice questions requiring the ability to read code (or memorize answers now that they publish them all)...

If they deemed code no longer important, why did they not open up all the CW-only HF segments to phone? (not that i personally would like such a change)
Logged
N5RWJ
Member

Posts: 461




Ignore
« Reply #55 on: February 25, 2012, 07:32:21 PM »

I think, one should look at the differences in knowledge, that must be displayed for any Ham license? Each license type should
 Be geared to promote a better understanding of this Hobby. From a basic or foundation license, were new hams should learn
All the basics of this hobby,from FCC Reg's to how set up a ham station,and operate it ,on all bands granted to it including SSB FM, data modes, CW ,Its normal with each license upgrade to increase the band allocation ,of the license holders. We have then, the  (Basic, not yet approved ) Tech, General, and Extra license. All is needed, is to increase band space with each type of license, from Basic to Extra. This understanding would bring our Hobby (Armature Radio) into the 21 Century. Once all is decide, you must send you NCVEC Partition to the FCC. But most important is to send copies to your US Congress persons, to Win their sponsorship. They will send your document to the FCC. The FCC must put a cover on your document, that will read,( "Congressional investigation" ), and this worries lots of FCC Bureaucrats .
They will have to report back to Congress , and Bureaucrats just don't want say" NO to Congress."
They know if Congress comes ,back and ask why not. They then know their Jobs ,Could be on the line. Note: Some Hobbyist, will want to Restrict Transmitting power, On the Basic and Tech bands? Others Poster have said, Only !50 watts , And I agree with them.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2012, 10:49:46 AM by N5RWJ » Logged
N2EY
Member

Posts: 3879




Ignore
« Reply #56 on: February 26, 2012, 05:21:28 AM »

I'm not sure the FCC considered any requirement in itself a filter to measure a person's commitment(?)  I thought the code was dropped because someone with friends in high places complained about it and as part of a general trend to deregulation -- is that a false rumor?   Not sure why they just did not switch to having a few multiple choice questions requiring the ability to read code (or memorize answers now that they publish them all)...

If they deemed code no longer important, why did they not open up all the CW-only HF segments to phone? (not that i personally would like such a change)

Here's what happened, as I saw it over the years:

In the 1970s, there were folks at FCC who thought that a no-code-test license would be a good thing. From what I saw, they thought it would attract people away from the cb mess. International treaty allowed such licenses for VHF-UHF only, and a nocodetest VHF/UHF license was proposed in 1975 as part of a complex "two-ladder" seven-class restructuring. But US hams rejected the whole mess as too complex and the whole thing was reduced to a few minor rules changes.

One of the things that changed radically in the late 1970s-early 1980s was that many new hams came on board via the VHF/UHF route. They got ham licenses in order to use the repeaters, which were booming back then. The cost of VHF/UHF mobile rigs, handhelds and such dropped and the capabilities soared, and lots of new hams started with the Technician, or quickly upgraded to it from Novice. This trend accelerated in 1987 when the old General/Technician test was split into two elements, both required for General but only one for Tech.

FCC tried to push a nocodetest license again in the early 1980s - 1983 IIRC - but again there was fierce resistance from hams and the whole thing went away. For a time. But in the 1980s there began to be hams who said that code testing should be reduced or eliminated completely.

About 1989, a curious episode occurred. The King of a foreign country who was also a ham with an unusual callsign was in QSO on 10 meters with an American ham who held a Technician license. The band began to go out and The King suggested they QSY to 20 meters. The American ham said he couldn't, his license only allowed 'phone on 10 meters, and he couldn't upgrade because 13 wpm code was just too hard for him to learn. The QSO ended when the band died.

The King remembered this the next time he was talking to our President. He asked if something couldn't be done for that poor ham who couldn't learn 13 wpm code. Our President saw the benefits of doing The King a favor, so soon afterwards the FCC received "a request" from the White House to do something about the situation.

The FCC invented then invented "medical waivers" for the 13 and 20 wpm code tests. All it took to get one was a letter from any doctor stating that it would take you longer than average to learn code at 13 or 20 wpm. No specific reason was needed, nor did the problem have to be permanent, nor did it have to be impossible for you to learn. The medical waiver policy went into effect in 1990, and from then on anybody who had a doctor's letter didn't have to pass 13 or 20 wpm to upgrade. FCC explained that they couldn't waiver 5 wpm because of the ITU treaty.

About the same time, FCC tried again to create a nocodetest license. Only this time they made it clear some sort of license would result. Also about this time, FCC wanted to reallocate part or all of 220 MHz, something hams sure didn't want.

ARRL and others saw an opportunity. They suggested a new nocodetest license class with privileges on 220 and a few other bands - and no 2 meters. The idea was that newcomers would make 220 so busy that the FCC couldn't reallocate it. But FCC saw through the idea - and also noted that opposition to a nocodetest license was less in 1990 than it had been earlier. So rather than create a new license class, they just dropped the code test from the Technician license in 1991.

All through this period, other countries were creating nocodetest VHF/UHF licenses - the USA was far from the first. There began to appear organizations and proposals to change the ITU treaty and to reduce or eliminate code testing. And FCC showed signs of agreeing with them. Changing the treaty could only be done at a World Conference, and they only happen every so many years. Getting the issue on the agenda is a major thing, and although the issue made the preliminary agenda in the 1990s it was removed from the final agenda. So the earliest it would be considered was 2003.

Dropping the code test for Tech meant there were two kinds of Technician - code-tested and not-code-tested. After a few years of confusion, FCC created the Technician Plus, to tell the difference. Meanwhile there were lots of newcomers getting into ham radio via the Technician license - with no code test at all.

All through this time it also became clear that FCC wasn't happy with the complicated license system. Six license classes, five written and three code tests, plus medical waivers was a lot to administer. Even though they'd dropped the code sending test in the late 1970s and given the entire testing job to Volunteer Examiners in the early 1980s, the complicated license structure meant a lot of administrative interactions as hams upgraded one step at a time. It became clear that FCC wanted simplification, and in the 1990s various proposals were made in that direction.

FCC responded with an NPRM (Notice of Proposed Rule Making) proposing to reduce to four classes of license. Comments were many, and when the final Report and Order was issued, the restructuring of 2000 was even more radical than had been proposed.

The 2000 restructuring went beyond the NPRM closed off the Novice and Advanced to new issues, The idea was that those licenses were no longer needed, and would go away by attrition. The Technician and Technician Plus would be merged by renewing all Technician Pluses as Technician when they came up for renewal. The job of keeping straight who was a code tested Tech would be up to the licensees, not FCC.
 
The 2000 restructuring reduced all code testing to 5 wpm - and FCC said that the one and only reason they kept code testing at all was because of the ITU treaty, and 5 wpm was the minimum that could reasonably meet the treaty standard. This was the writing on the wall for code tests - FCC was clearly saying that if the treaty changed, code testing was toast.

In July 2003 the World Conference changed the treaty so that code testing for amateur licenses was no longer required at all. Countries could still test for it if they wanted to, but they didn't have to.

This change caused no less than 18 proposals to flood into FCC from various hams and groups. Some were far-ranging, others were simple just-dump-the-code-test ideas. One group, NCVEC, sent two proposals. You want to get upset, read their ideas for a "Communicator" license.

After all the proposals were commented on, FCC ruminated and finally dropped all code testing in Feb 2007 - almost four years after the treaty changed.

The result is the system we have now. 

You may ask why ARRL and others didn't fight the changes harder. The answer is that it's not that simple. ARRL is not a monolithic organization; there were plenty of members who thought the changes were A Good Thing, and elected Directors to push for them. The result was a middle path. Other organizations faced similar issues.

There's also the fact that FCC doesn't absolutely have to do what "the people" want. Comments on proposals aren't votes, they're just comments. FCC can ignore what the majority wants. In the comments to the 2000 restructuring and the 2007 code-test elimination, there was a clear majority of commenters opposing the changes, yet FCC did them anyway. (A few folks actually read all the comments and categorized them).

It's not that FCC didn't consider code "important", it's just that they didn't consider the code TEST important enough any more.

And note this: There are NO, repeat NO, "CW-only HF segments". Not a one. They're all shared with data. (Ham radio stopped being just phone/CW decades ago). The lowest 25 on 80/40/20/15 are data segments too.

So the system is what it is. You may not like it, but it's what we've got. The Important Question is not what we feel but what we do.

73 de Jim, N2EY
Logged
K9AIM
Member

Posts: 1030




Ignore
« Reply #57 on: February 26, 2012, 06:08:22 AM »


And note this: There are NO, repeat NO, "CW-only HF segments". Not a one. They're all shared with data. (Ham radio stopped being just phone/CW decades ago). The lowest 25 on 80/40/20/15 are data segments too.

So the system is what it is. You may not like it, but it's what we've got. The Important Question is not what we feel but what we do.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Thanks for sharing that thoughtful, well-written synopsis Jim. 

If doing away with the code requirement can be said to have started with a King lobbying a President who then pressured the FCC, and ended in order to reduce the cost and complexity of administration, I guess it is unreasonable to expect them to have tweaked the change to give Tech plus and code-tested General & Advanced class licensees access to the Extra CW-only segments and to have compensated Extras for that by creating a few new Extra-only segments elsewhere.

By 'CW-only' I meant no phone.  Regardless of what is technically do-able, the 25 kHz Extra class segments are generally used for code and not data, just as the 'phone' segments are generally used just for voice.  (Leaving those of us with Advanced class licenses pretty darn squeezed on 40 meter CW).

Logged
N2EY
Member

Posts: 3879




Ignore
« Reply #58 on: February 26, 2012, 11:20:06 AM »

why should Advanced be combined with the Extra? There is no real cost to keeping them separate.
there is no real cost to combining them either

Actually there is.

FCC would have to come up with a way to either manually or automatically change over 57,000 records from "Advanced" to "Extra". That's not free.

Combining classes like that simply means that the lower-class hams get a free, no-test upgrade to the higher class. Which will tick off the higher class hams who actually earned the license. Also sets a very bad precedent.
Did you feel the same way about the precedent set when no-code Extras were granted access to the bottom 25 kHz of 15, 20, 40, and 80 meters?  As an Advanced class licensee who passed the 13wpm code test at an FCC office, are you saying it is only natural that I would be ticked off about it if access to those extra code segments were *not* grandfathered to me?

I'm saying that if one class of license gets a free, no-test upgrade to the privileges of a higher class, why shouldn't other classes get one too? For example, why shouldn't Novices get a free upgrade to Technician or General? All Novices now licensed have been hams for close to 12 years or more. Why shouldn't Generals of, say, pre-1968 vintage get a free upgrade to Extra?

btw, simply having an Advanced does NOT prove the licensee passed 13 wpm, nor took the exam in an FCC office. For almost 30 years, all new Advanceds passed their exams at VE sessions, not FCC offices. And for a decade, between 1990 and 2000, all license classes could be earned with just 5 wpm and a medical waiver - including the Advanced.

There have been several formal proposals to FCC which included such things - and all were rejected by FCC. Their answer in essence was "just take the test".

That was partly because some Extras lobbied them not to grandfather Advanced class licensees into Extras.

Who, exactly, did that? And when?

Note that ALL proposals that involved free no-test upgrades have been summarily rejected by FCC.

Seems kind of cold-blooded to me.  Just take the test...  If only it still were about pentodes, or if i still had the adolescent mammal's innate ability to learn new tricks Wink

So you're essentially asking for an age-related waiver of the Extra written. I don't think FCC will go for it.

So I ask:

Have you ever actually TRIED the current Extra exam? You can, you know. Completely free of charge.

Just go to:

http://www.eham.net/exams/

and select "Extra". You can take a practice exam online for free. There are many other sites, all offering free practice tests.

Note that these practice tests use the real, actual Q&A used for the test. No difference. They don't count, of course, but otherwise they are the real thing.

Note too that you only need a 74 to pass. For the 50 question Extra exam, that's 37 right.

The test is completely objective. Each question has 4 possible answers, one of which is right, the others are wrong. No interpretation or bias is possible, just pick the right answer.

Try one and see.

73 de Jim, N2EY
Logged
K9AIM
Member

Posts: 1030




Ignore
« Reply #59 on: February 26, 2012, 02:02:48 PM »


btw, simply having an Advanced does NOT prove the licensee passed 13 wpm, nor took the exam in an FCC office. For almost 30 years, all new Advanceds passed their exams at VE sessions, not FCC offices. And for a decade, between 1990 and 2000, all license classes could be earned with just 5 wpm and a medical waiver - including the Advanced.


oh, I figured Advanced went away and the 13wpm requirement was dropped when the VE system was implemented.

So you're essentially asking for an age-related waiver of the Extra written. I don't think FCC will go for it.

Actually I'd like to see the 25 KHz non-phone Extra-only segments opened up to all licensees.  In other countries those segments are not limited to the highest class of licensee are they?

So I ask:

Have you ever actually TRIED the current Extra exam? You can, you know. Completely free of charge.

but of course, several times.  i usually get anywhere from 40 to 60%.  If the questions were more theory I would enjoy studying and learn.  But most of it seems like drudgery and spending $15 to take a test I might not pass is nothing to sneeze at given my hourly wages. If anyone has an Extra class study guide they want to send my way out of pity feel free to do so LOL.

I use the hamtest online to study occasionally but a lot of the material does not seem much fun.  I have a good memory but there are an awful lot of questions in the Extra pool.  Did I hear right -- I no longer only get the Extra portion but have to take the Advanced exam as part of the Extra since there is no Advanced anymore?  If that is the case it explains why there are so many potential questions to study. I could care less about the Extra class itself or about the Extra phone segments (I do operate SSB, just don't see those segments as worth spending $15 and a whole lot of my time studying a lot of stuff I would prefer not to cram in my brain.  The CW segments are desirable though...  Do hams outside the US have to be the equivalent of Extras to access 21.000 - 21.025, 14.000 - 14.025, 7.000 - 7.025 and 3.500 - 3.525 MHz?
« Last Edit: February 26, 2012, 02:07:09 PM by K9AIM » Logged
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 Next   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!