August 2008 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

[arrl-odv:17094] Re: Current Licensing Structure
by Andy Oppel 18 Aug '08

18 Aug '08

Well said. I would also add that enforcement actions have been spread across license classes proportional to the number of licencees in that class. The numbers don't show that extras (even those who passed code tests) are better citizens on the air. -- Andy Oppel, N6AJO Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -----Original Message----- From: "Kay Craigie" <n3kn(a)verizon.net> Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 14:33:24 To: arrl-odv<arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:17091] Re: Current Licensing Structure Of course as I'm sure Greg knows, the old process did *not* ensure that creeps, loonies, and knuckleheads were kept out of ham radio. It just ensured that you had creeps, loonies, and knuckleheads who could copy code and draw a schematic. As a new ham in the early 1980s, I knew a 13 wpm General who no doubt took exams much harder than the ones I had to pass and who taught electronics at a technical school. One day, he blew his wife's brains out, threatened to kill a witness to this deed, and probably also killed his aged mother by pushing her down the stairs though that charge was never proved. He's doing life in prison for murder. He was always nice at my house, but I'm sure glad I never pissed him off. In the same era, I knew a 20 wpm Extra, an electrical engineer and good contester, who turned out to be a serial molester of teenage boys, including his own son's friends and his own friends' sons. Don't know where he is today, and don't care, except to say he no longer has a ham license. One of the best-known filthy mouths of the pre-Riley era was a broadcast engineer from the Washington, DC, area. Nice-looking guy, still has his Extra class license and is even an ARRL member, but back in the day he and his groupies dumped the linguistic equivalent of raw sewage on the HF bands. Plenty of the whackazoids our members used to raise the roof about, pre-Riley, were guys who knew electronics inside & out. Having that knowledge did not make them good citizens or sane human beings or responsible operators, but if you just looked at their technical qualifications and the ham radio exams they had to pass, you might have assumed otherwise. None of us were born knowing how to do this. We had to be willing to learn and others had to be willing to teach us, and to tolerate us while we muddled through. Since it has come to my attention on several occasions that I don't know it all, I am glad there are *still* hams out there who'll help me learn stuff and refrain from calling me a dunce when I don't get it right the first time. 73 - Kay N3KN

1 0

RE: [arrl-odv:17091] Re: Current Licensing Structure
by Kay Craigie 18 Aug '08

18 Aug '08

Of course as I'm sure Greg knows, the old process did *not* ensure that creeps, loonies, and knuckleheads were kept out of ham radio. It just ensured that you had creeps, loonies, and knuckleheads who could copy code and draw a schematic. As a new ham in the early 1980s, I knew a 13 wpm General who no doubt took exams much harder than the ones I had to pass and who taught electronics at a technical school. One day, he blew his wife's brains out, threatened to kill a witness to this deed, and probably also killed his aged mother by pushing her down the stairs though that charge was never proved. He's doing life in prison for murder. He was always nice at my house, but I'm sure glad I never pissed him off. In the same era, I knew a 20 wpm Extra, an electrical engineer and good contester, who turned out to be a serial molester of teenage boys, including his own son's friends and his own friends' sons. Don't know where he is today, and don't care, except to say he no longer has a ham license. One of the best-known filthy mouths of the pre-Riley era was a broadcast engineer from the Washington, DC, area. Nice-looking guy, still has his Extra class license and is even an ARRL member, but back in the day he and his groupies dumped the linguistic equivalent of raw sewage on the HF bands. Plenty of the whackazoids our members used to raise the roof about, pre-Riley, were guys who knew electronics inside & out. Having that knowledge did not make them good citizens or sane human beings or responsible operators, but if you just looked at their technical qualifications and the ham radio exams they had to pass, you might have assumed otherwise. None of us were born knowing how to do this. We had to be willing to learn and others had to be willing to teach us, and to tolerate us while we muddled through. Since it has come to my attention on several occasions that I don't know it all, I am glad there are *still* hams out there who'll help me learn stuff and refrain from calling me a dunce when I don't get it right the first time. 73 - Kay N3KN

1 0

[arrl-odv:17092] Re: Current Licensing Structure
by Andy Oppel 18 Aug '08

18 Aug '08

I agree completely. The exam isn't supposed to be like a bar or medical board exam. I am a soccer referee instructor and the people that pass the exam and obtain the entry level referee license aren't expected (or qualified) to go out and do the World Cup or the Olympics. It takes many years of training and experience to achieve that level. I view amateur licenses the same way -- Technician is an "entry level" license. -- Andy Oppel On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 9:11 AM, Coy Day <n5ok(a)arrl.org> wrote: > I have one Mike, W5UC, that insists that our licensing structure is > broken and that the ARRL must fix it. I've relayed to him that their > isn't much desire, at this point, to change the licensing structure. He > didn't like that answer! He is saying that it is too easy to get a > license and that the FCC is licensing those that are totally unqualified > to be on the bands. > > My feelings are that we don't test people into being "fully qualified". > We test to see if they are qualified to begin learning amateur radio > through experience. > > Anyone have any good answers for Mike? > > Coy > -- > Coy Day, N5OK > 20685 SW 29 > Union City, OK 73090 > 405-483-5632 > > > > -- ----- Andy Oppel andy.oppel(a)gmail.com

1 0

[arrl-odv:17091] Re: Current Licensing Structure
by K0GW 18 Aug '08

18 Aug '08

Coy Day wrote: > My feelings are that we don't test people into being "fully qualified". > We test to see if they are qualified to begin learning amateur radio > through experience. > For what it's worth, the analogy that I use, especially when I teach Tech classes, is that the first license especially is a "learner's permit" that allows the licensee to get out on the road in some places that would inconvenience fewer people than others. I could extend the analogy, but I'm sure you get the idea. If I were trying to engage the fellow in an argument, I'd ask what specifically about the old process ensured that we didn't get lids into ham radio. I still can't figure that one out. I don't think it's possible to discuss this rationally with such people, since they are so stubborn in clinging to their views, regardless of the arguments and facts presented to them. -- 73, Greg, KØGW Vice Director, Dakota Division

1 0

[arrl-odv:17090] Re: Current Licensing Structure
by Marty Woll 18 Aug '08

18 Aug '08

Hi, Coy. Mike's concern is similar to that many hams had when the Morse code test was eliminated; i.e., that "lowering the standards" would result in an influx of poor operators who would show little regard for the rules or for developing their radio knowledge and skills. In my experience as an instructor, examiner and trainer, this fear is largely unfounded. Unlike most of us on this reflector and our contemporaries, who got interested due to the technical aspects or the "gee whiz" factor of talking to Russia in the middle of the night, many new hams are attracted by the use of radio as a tool to support public service or some other focus in their lives. I have found these newcomers to be very concerned about following the rules as well as anxious to learn and to build their radio skills. At least as important, many of them bring new "outside" skills to the clubs and activities they join. New members of our LAX ARES group, for example, include a courtroom visual-display specialist, , an iPod applications programmer, several EMT's, networking and Web specialists, a Red Cross instructor and more. While many new licensees may start out exhibiting poor practices due to lack of guidance or bad examples form the past, they are generally receptive to being shown the right way to operate and respond well to encouragement and instruction. When we "old pros" turned our weekly ARES net control duties over to less experienced hams,we cringed for a while as they struggled on the air. However, with continued training and support, some of them have become reasonably proficient, and some are now downright good at it. In politics, it is often said, "If you didn't vote, don't complain." I would say to Mike, "If you are part of the solution, there won't much of a problem to worry about." The more of us that model good operating practices on the air, mentor newcomers and provide them with instruction, the more quickly they will develop into good operators. Growing our numbers by adding proficient operators is essential to the future viability of Amateur Radio. Getting one's license "the hard way" is no guarantee of being a good operator. Each of you knows some "old-school" hams whose skills or practices are more an embarrassment than an asset. Not every new licensee will become an exemplary ham, but that's nothing new. It is our collective responsibility to guide, teach and lead by example to make sure the numbers work in our favor. 73, Marty Marty Woll N6VI Vice-Director, ARRL Southwestern Division ADEC, ARES-LAX-NW BCUL 15, LAFD ACS CERT ----- Original Message ----- From: "Coy Day" <n5ok(a)arrl.org> To: "arrl-odv" <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 9:11 AM Subject: [arrl-odv:17088] Current Licensing Structure I have one Mike, W5UC, that insists that our licensing structure is broken and that the ARRL must fix it. I've relayed to him that their isn't much desire, at this point, to change the licensing structure. He didn't like that answer! He is saying that it is too easy to get a license and that the FCC is licensing those that are totally unqualified to be on the bands. My feelings are that we don't test people into being "fully qualified". We test to see if they are qualified to begin learning amateur radio through experience. Anyone have any good answers for Mike? Coy -- Coy Day, N5OK 20685 SW 29 Union City, OK 73090 405-483-5632

1 0

[arrl-odv:17089] Re: Current Licensing Structure
by w3kd＠aol.com 18 Aug '08

18 Aug '08

Not better than the second paragraph of your e-mail, Coy. But you can tell him that the FCC has very recently made some substantial changes in the licensing structure for Amateur Radio, and without any doubt at all, a further petition to FCC to change them yet again is, at this point, certainly doomed to failure as a practical matter. It would not matter whether ARRL filed such a petition or whether it came from any other source, the license structure was just revisited in Docket 05-235, which we heavily lobbied (in a way that would have made the various license classes more meaningful) The effective date of those new rules was February 23, 2007, a year and a half ago. FCC would never consider changing license classes, licensing requirements, or privileges this soon after the conclusion of a comprehensive license restructuring proceeding. But as I say, your point is more appropriate, though not want W5UC wants to hear. Licensing is not?a means of keeping people out who some think should not be on the air. It is?instead just?the?minimum level of qualifications to allow?shared use of the precious resource. Riley was always properly talking about how it is not for the FCC to regulate behavior on the bands unless it crosses?certain thresholds.?Prior to the time that those thresholds are met, and in?general,?successful shared use of the bands?depends on self-restraint by all concerned. 73, Chris W3KD ? Christopher D. Imlay BOOTH, FRERET, IMLAY & TEPPER, P.C. 14356 Cape May Road Silver Spring, Maryland 20904-6011 (301) 384-5525 telephone (301) 384-6384 facsimile W3KD(a)ARRL.ORG -----Original Message----- From: Coy Day <n5ok(a)arrl.org> To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 12:11 pm Subject: [arrl-odv:17088] Current Licensing Structure I have one Mike, W5UC, that insists that our licensing structure is broken and that the ARRL must fix it. I've relayed to him that their isn't much desire, at this point, to change the licensing structure. He didn't like that answer! He is saying that it is too easy to get a license and that the FCC is licensing those that are totally unqualified to be on the bands. My feelings are that we don't test people into being "fully qualified". We test to see if they are qualified to begin learning amateur radio through experience. Anyone have any good answers for Mike? Coy -- Coy Day, N5OK 20685 SW 29 Union City, OK 73090 405-483-5632

1 0

[arrl-odv:17088] Current Licensing Structure
by Coy Day 18 Aug '08

18 Aug '08

I have one Mike, W5UC, that insists that our licensing structure is broken and that the ARRL must fix it. I've relayed to him that their isn't much desire, at this point, to change the licensing structure. He didn't like that answer! He is saying that it is too easy to get a license and that the FCC is licensing those that are totally unqualified to be on the bands. My feelings are that we don't test people into being "fully qualified". We test to see if they are qualified to begin learning amateur radio through experience. Anyone have any good answers for Mike? Coy -- Coy Day, N5OK 20685 SW 29 Union City, OK 73090 405-483-5632

1 0

[arrl-odv:17087] Candidates for ARRL Director and Vice Director
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 18 Aug '08

18 Aug '08

The following are candidates for ARRL Director or Vice Director in the fall election. The Ethics and Elections Committee is still in the process of reviewing the eligibility of candidates whose names are marked with an asterisk; this process is scheduled to be completed by Friday, August 22. The other candidates have been determined to be eligible. Atlantic Division for Director: Bill Edgar, N3LLR Atlantic Division for Vice Director: Thomas Abernethy, W3TOM Dakota Division for Director: Jay Bellows, KØQB Dakota Division for Vice Director: Gregory Widin, KØGW Delta Division for Director: Karl Bullock, WA5TMC Mickey Cox, K5MC Delta Division for Vice Director: *Ariel Elam, K4AAL David Norris, K5UZ Great Lakes Division for Director: Jim Weaver, K8JE Great Lakes Division for Vice Director: *Gary Johnston, KI4LA *John Meyers, NB4K *Daniel Romanchik, KB6NU Midwest Division for Director: Bruce Frahm, KØBJ Midwest Division for Vice Director: Cliff Ahrens, KØCA Messrs. Edgar, Abernethy, Bellows, Widin, Weaver, Frahm and Ahrens are declared elected. Congratulations to all. Sincerely, David Sumner, K1ZZ Secretary, ARRL

1 0

[arrl-odv:17086] Re:Fwd: Please overturn the recent decision regarding the use of CW Skimmer in the 2008 ARRL Sweepstakes
by WY7FD, Dwayne Allen 15 Aug '08

15 Aug '08

Dick, I hate to admit it but you said it well and I agree with you. (Ouch, that hurt). Skimmer allows an operater (and that shack computer) to see the whole band pportion. This is clearly assisted operation. WY7FD, Dwayne ----- Forwarded message from richardjnorton(a)gmail.com ----- Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 06:41:46 -0700 From: "Richard J. Norton" <richardjnorton(a)gmail.com> Reply-To: "Richard J. Norton" <richardjnorton(a)gmail.com> Subject: [arrl-odv:17084] Re: Please overturn the recent decision regarding the use of CW Skimmer in the 2008 ARRL Sweepstakes To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> I agree with the "ARRL system is working. Let's let it continue." attitude expressed here previously. I thought I'd add a little background information. As all of you likely know, the "Skimmer" is a computer program which simultaneously decodes CW over an entire amateur band, and produces a map of the CQing stations and their frequencies. The output is essentially the same as a well-organized display of packet spotting information. Use of the Skimmer has been evaluated. If anyone wants a real-world report on use by an experienced single-operator, see http://w4pa.journalspace.com/ and look at the K4TD IARU section. Scott's comments included, "It may even be better than packet, because it gives you ALL the callsigns for the whole band." The contesting community has looked at the Skimmer issue, and has overwhelmingly concluded that its use belongs in the assisted or multi-operator categories. The CQWW Committee voted 25 to zero for that designation. The ARRL CAC appears to favor it as well. There are a few who notice that there are no other humans involved, and would like to see it permitted, claiming it is no different from using other "technology" such as memory keyers. The contesting community does not agree. I've known Bob Wilson, N6TV, since he was a high school kid that I hired to help paint my house. He went off to college at UC Berkeley, where he was apparently radicalized by the likes of new neighbor, W6RGG, and stayed up north after graduation. I understand N6TV's frustration in competing for a spot at the upcoming WRTC. Selection is a function of where you placed in contests, something that is very station dependent. Bob has attempted to compete using his own station, whereas his competitors have gone to the biggest stations in the region. I personally don't think permitting Skimmers in single-op contests is a reasonable cure. In fact, Skimmer use has the potential to make it unlikely for little guys to ever work anything until all the bigger stations have done so. No matter where you tune your radio, Skimmers are listening on that frequency as well. 73, Dick, N6AA On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 6:20 PM, Bob Vallio <rbvallio(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Folks: > > I have known Bob Wilson for a long time. In fact he has operated my station > in contests when he had no station of own, more than 30 years ago. He is a > fierce competitor, who stays abreast, or ahead, of contest techniques and > hardware. I believe he makes a good point here, and ask that you consider > his position in this matter. > > Thanks, > > Bob -- W6RGG > > > > On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 2:35 PM, Bob Wilson, N6TV <n6tv(a)arrl.net> wrote: >> >> Dear Bob, >> >> If I understand this post to SkimmerTalk by K0HB, KX9X has announced that >> CW Skimmer will not be permitted for the single-op category in the upcoming >> ARRL Sweepstakes. I am very disappointed by this ruling. I believe this >> represents a rush to judgment, completely unnecessary at this time, and >> inconsistent with ARRL objectives to accelerate adoption of new technologies >> into our hobby. ----- End forwarded message -----

1 0

[arrl-odv:17085] Strategic Planning
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 15 Aug '08

15 Aug '08

The September QST editorial set into motion the process of soliciting membership input on strategic planning (Minute 29, July 2008 Board Meeting). The comments are beginning to flow in. If your members-only access to the Web site is coded as ODV you should be able to see several "private" comments posted at www.arrl.org/stratplan. All members may view the other posted comments. Dave K1ZZ

1 0