I love CW; I use it almost exclusively, though I occasionally enjoy AM,
along with RTTY, SSTV, MFSK16, hellschreiber, PSK31 and even -- dare I say
it? -- SSB, but *I* don't think CW should be the end-all and be-all for
becoming an Extra.
Maybe the Eastern Block nations during the Cold War had something of merit
in this regard. When I got my Extra (1970mumble, I think 1975), one had to
have been licensed at least at or above above the General level (I don't
think Conditional counted but I've forgotten) for at least 2 years, and had
to have an Advanced license. Or something along those lines. As I
understand it, in the Eastern Block countries, one had to be an SWL that
collected a set number of QSL cards over a given period, on various modes,
to be licensed. This displayed an "appropriate interest," etc. Some may
have needed licensed sponsors.
The Freedom of Information Act makes the question pools open, so we can't
rely on "secret" questions. Even if we did, there would be a Bash-like
industry to reveal the questions. Perhaps a minimum tenure as a licensee
is a good idea? Perhaps a huge question pool, with *thousands* of possible
questions is the answer? Perhaps also a tougher multiple-guess test? I
dunno. But logistics decrees that bringing in a working piece of home-brew
gear, or drawing schematics, or essay questions simply won't fly.
Kim Elmore, N5OP (not a vanity call in the current sense)
At 05:13 PM 1/22/2004 -0600, you wrote:
Since the number of applicants for Extra would be small in compairison to
the number for the lower levels, we could have a test that might be a bit
harder to grade. Something that demonstrated the ability of the applicant
to build his own gear. Maybe an apprentice program. The only way to
Extra would be through an existing Extra and building something to show
that skill. This is just brainstorming, and maybe some easier way of
accomplishing it could be thought of, but it seems that showing the
ability to home brew is more useful AND HARDER than learning code. You
would never teach ANY chimp to build a linear.
Tommye & Jim Wilhite wrote:
Jim:
I am not completely persuaded that elimination of code is the proper way to
go, but am also not persuaded keeping it is the best thing. As I stated
(please don't read this as combative), maybe replace the code with a 10
question test over modes and how they operate (bandwidth, composition, etc..
To me, that would keep the integrity of the Extra above the General and
somewhat meet the standards that are in place today. It seems this would
placate all those of us who want that higher plane.
I realize it won't be long that code requirement will be gone for good, but
let's be sure the Extra test meets high standards.
73 Jim
de W5JO
Kim Elmore, Ph.D.
University of Oklahoma
Cooperative Institute for Mesoscale Meteorological Studies
"All of weather is divided into three parts: Yes, No, and Maybe. The
greatest of these is Maybe" The original Latin appears to be garbled.
