on 8/6/02 9:39 AM, Kustosik, Lisa, KA1UFZ at lkustosik@arrl.org wrote:

John Johnston spoke up stating that he thought the rule may be broad enough to allow reinterpretation as to what "present" and "observing" means. He noted that the three VEs would themselves be putting their licenses on the line if any concern about the requirements were an issue. He asked who are we to say that the VEs wouldn't meet the requirements through a video link with a local proctor of appropriate trustworthiness credentials. Further he said the term test "session" is not defined as an in-person activity.

When Bill Cross was asked to provide a written statement to authorize such an activity, he replied it wasn't necessary as the rule was broad enough to encompass this application. Again, recognizing three VEs must agree to the use of such procedures.

An interesting statistic is the pass/fail rate. Looking at the VEC stats spreadsheet with a pass rate (%) column added, and then sorted by pass rate, Alaska doesn't do so well (~47% failure rate!). (If I were Riley, I might take a closer look at the 77 and 80% pass rate groups). 73, Gary KI4LA VEC Pass rate N - Sandarc 80.2% G - Sunnyvale 77.0% L - W5YI 75.9% A - Milwaukee 75.7% Q - Jefferson 75.0% B - Laurel 74.7% J - GEARS 73.5% (AVERAGE) (71.9%) D - ARRL 71.3% H - WCARS 70.7% M - MoKan 69.9% F - Greater LA 67.9% K - CAVEC 65.9% E - W4VEC 60.1% C - Anchorage 53.3%