September 2003 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

[ARRL-ODV:9353] Re: Tower Work
by Mike Raisbeck 02 Sep '03

02 Sep '03

Heck, I'd be willing. Mike K1TWF ----------------------------------- Law Office of Michael N. Raisbeck Phone: (978) 250-1236 Fax: (978) 250-0432 Web: www.mraisbeck.com Email: k1twf(a)arrl.net CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain privileged and confidential information intended only for the above-named recipient. If you have received this in error, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, or copying is strictly prohibited. In such case, please notify us by reply email and delete this message. -----Original Message----- From: W5JBP(a)aol.com [mailto:W5JBP@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 7:55 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:9351] Tower Work I got a phone call yesterday asking if I knew, or could I find someone willing to do tower work in Iraq. The assignment would be for a minimum of 3 months, all travel and expenses paid along with a very generous fee. Protection would be provided. The interested party must be in good physical condition, able to get a security clearance and have tower construction and maintenance experience. The tower heights are 400 feet on the average. When I ask about the salary, the response was: "Ten to twenty-thousand per month is no problem." So if you know someone with a taste for travel, adventure and willing to work under contract with a government agency for a minimum of three months, let me know and I will pass it along. Jim Haynie, W5JBP

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9352] Re: FISTS on Morse code
by Frank Fallon - N2FF 02 Sep '03

02 Sep '03

Greg, You have it correct. There were so many real or perceived abuses of the waiver that no one was happy with the old system. The 5 wpm speed made that all go away. I had a chance to read the FISTS proposal yesterday. It's pure fantasy! As Greg points out they, the FCC, said no before so "increasing" the code speed for the Extra is just not going to happen. There was a great deal of bad logic, fuzzy logic and illogic in that proposal. But I think the worst thing had nothing to do with the code issue. The most frightening part of the proposal was the request to increase the difficulty level of the test. Boy, that's the old stake in the heart for Amateur Radio if I ever saw one. I thought that by now everyone, even those who live in MI, would have realized that the fear of a great unwashed horde dragging their CB rigs into our ranks was just so much "urban myth." But I guess not. Also what is not explained in the intro to the proposal is how does Nancy gets to be the spokesperson for the group. Who put the proposal together? It's a credibility issue. As we continue to discuss this issue I think we have to keep on doing a reality check to make sure we realize what the FCC will do or accept with any proposal. As a matter of public policy I believe that the FCC will want to adopt a policy that they can defend as all inclusive rather than something like the FISTS proposal which appears to be very exclusive. Frank....N2FF..... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Greg Milnes" <w7oz(a)comcast.net> To: "arrl-odv" <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 4:24 AM Subject: [ARRL-ODV:9349] Re: FISTS on Morse code > Kay > As I remember, the FCC said no, no, no, a thousands times no to going over 5 > wpm. Apparently 5 wpm does not support a physician waiver (why, I don't > know). I recall that there were lots of FCC staff people who were upset > with our move to tighten up the waiver standards. 5 wpm was a way to side > step the issue all together. Am I wrong? I've telling lots of folks that > the chances of going above 5 wpm are somewhere between zero and none > (because of what I remember before). > 73/Greg W7OZ > PS I assume you are a member...I can't tell from our member look up file. > >

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9351] Tower Work
by W5JBP＠aol.com 02 Sep '03

02 Sep '03

I got a phone call yesterday asking if I knew, or could I find someone willing to do tower work in Iraq. The assignment would be for a minimum of 3 months, all travel and expenses paid along with a very generous fee. Protection would be provided. The interested party must be in good physical condition, able to get a security clearance and have tower construction and maintenance experience. The tower heights are 400 feet on the average. When I ask about the salary, the response was: "Ten to twenty-thousand per month is no problem." So if you know someone with a taste for travel, adventure and willing to work under contract with a government agency for a minimum of three months, let me know and I will pass it along. Jim Haynie, W5JBP

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9350] Re: RAC
by Greg Milnes 02 Sep '03

02 Sep '03

>From the Northwestern Division, my email is about 55% - 45% for no code or a greater percentage when I include a CW only option for Amateur Extras (the no-coders have 65%). Many do say we could tighten up the written exam to compensate for no-code. That's 100 emails in the last week. 73/Greg W7OZ

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9349] Re: FISTS on Morse code
by Greg Milnes 02 Sep '03

02 Sep '03

Kay As I remember, the FCC said no, no, no, a thousands times no to going over 5 wpm. Apparently 5 wpm does not support a physician waiver (why, I don't know). I recall that there were lots of FCC staff people who were upset with our move to tighten up the waiver standards. 5 wpm was a way to side step the issue all together. Am I wrong? I've telling lots of folks that the chances of going above 5 wpm are somewhere between zero and none (because of what I remember before). 73/Greg W7OZ PS I assume you are a member...I can't tell from our member look up file.

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9348] Re: CORRECTION!
by Greg Milnes 02 Sep '03

02 Sep '03

Here, hear, of there, they're for Wojciech! Great choice. 73/Greg W7OZ

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9347] Another Correction
by W5JBP＠aol.com 02 Sep '03

02 Sep '03

> > Did you all see that in the poll that RAC took, 63% of their members voted to retain CW as a testing element? Jim Haynie I was in error on this as well. Not a good weekend. Actually it was the other way around. I send RAC President Gillis a note asking about the poll and the results were just the opposite. He was kind enough to send Ken Pulfer's data which I can share once I get permission to do so. Jim

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9345] Re: Oklahoma PRB1 Bill
by W3KD＠aol.com 01 Sep '03

01 Sep '03

In a message dated 8/31/2003 10:28:39 PM Eastern Standard Time, n5ok.ok(a)worldnet.att.net writes: > > Some of the hams in Oklahoma are drafting a PRB1 type bill. Who would you > recommend they go to for assistance and review? > > Coy > Coy, no question. Mike Salem, N5MS. Best lawyer in OK. Tell him I said so. I just hired him to work with me on a 9th circuit appeal in a commercial antenna case. Chris

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9344] Re: Oklahoma PRB1 Bill
by Henry R. Leggette 01 Sep '03

01 Sep '03

Coy, Tennessee's PRB1 Bill recently pass. I suggest you contact the Tennessee Section Manager, Terry Cox, KB4KA. I know the ARRL Tennessee Government Liason was involved and I don't know to what extent. If I can be of any further help, please let me know. Good luck! Henry - WD4Q ----- Original Message ----- From: "R. B. Vallio" <w6rgg(a)sbcglobal.net> To: "arrl-odv" <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2003 9:58 PM Subject: [ARRL-ODV:9342] Re: Oklahoma PRB1 Bill > I believe the Nevada and California bills are pretty well crafted, Coy. The > folks at HQ, who make it their business to follow such things, can certainly > give you some good advice, I'm sure. > > Bob W6RGG > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Coy Day" <n5ok.ok(a)worldnet.att.net> > To: "arrl-odv" <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> > Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2003 7:13 PM > Subject: [ARRL-ODV:9341] Oklahoma PRB1 Bill > > > > Hi all, > > > > Some of the hams in Oklahoma are drafting a PRB1 type bill. Who would you > > recommend they go to for assistance and review? > > > > Coy > > ........... > > Coy Day, N5OK, ARRL West Gulf Division Director > > RR 1 Box 254, Union City, OK 73090-9726 > > Home: (405) 483-5632, Cell: (405) 740-8990 > > n5ok(a)arrl.org Web: http://home.att.net/~n5ok.ok/ > > > > > >

1 0

[ARRL-ODV:9343] Re: Oklahoma PRB1 Bill
by Mike Raisbeck 01 Sep '03

01 Sep '03

Hi Coy, This is great news. Here are several things to consider. Which ones are the right choices depends what you think can get through your legislature. I. breadth of the bill Here are some of the possibilities: A. a simple PRB-1 bill, ie., one which incorporates PRB-1 into the state law either by direct citation or by paraphrasing, is probably the easiest to get through. Examples of these include California, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. B. a statute that adds a minimum height that may be considered reasonable accommodation. For an example of this, have a look at Oregon and Wyoming (both set a 70 ft. lower bound.) C. a statute that has a variable height (depending on population density) for reasonable accommodation. Look at Alaska and Virginia for this D. a statute that preempts both zoning and CCRs. For an example, see Nevada. This is great if you can get it through the legislature. Perhaps you would have a good chance at this in Oklahoma. II. where the bill should be inserted into the state laws. Most states incorporate the language either into their zoning enabling statutes or their municipal powers statutes. I've attached a summary of the various states and their PRB-1 statutes, with cites. I'll bet that John Hennessee at HQ can get you text - if not, drop me a note and I'll print it all out. Mike K1TWF ----------------------------------- Law Office of Michael N. Raisbeck Phone: (978) 250-1236 Fax: (978) 250-0432 Web: www.mraisbeck.com Email: k1twf(a)arrl.net CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain privileged and confidential information intended only for the above-named recipient. If you have received this in error, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, or copying is strictly prohibited. In such case, please notify us by reply email and delete this message. -----Original Message----- From: Coy Day [mailto:n5ok.ok@worldnet.att.net] Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2003 10:14 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:9341] Oklahoma PRB1 Bill Hi all, Some of the hams in Oklahoma are drafting a PRB1 type bill. Who would you recommend they go to for assistance and review? Coy ........... Coy Day, N5OK, ARRL West Gulf Division Director RR 1 Box 254, Union City, OK 73090-9726 Home: (405) 483-5632, Cell: (405) 740-8990 n5ok(a)arrl.org Web: http://home.att.net/~n5ok.ok/

1 0