I agree that the code is definitely no longer a reasonable requirement but
you are right that there needs to be some major changes to the exam process
and more serious enforcement of the rules by the FCC to prevent the "CB
syndrome". Out of curiosity I tried the Technician and General online
practice tests last night. I got my General in 1961 and have not even
thought about the technical side in 40 years but scored 97 on the Tech and
91 on the General. If I can do that without even thinking hard any dodo can
pass with a couple of hours of preparation.
The FCC doesn't even seem to be able to stop those self appointed SSB disk
jockeys now. I would hate to see the bedlam if CB became intercontinental.
--
Glenn Ashmore
I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
there of) at:
http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division:
http://www.spade-anchor-us.com
"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 08:06:01 -0400, "Gerald"
wrote:
"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
ink.net...
jds wrote:
well, call me an old fart then. if someone is too damn lazy to learn
code, let em be limited to a technician. i use cw 99% of the time.
I don't agree with the code argument, though there needs to be some
form of rite of passage to prevent the airwaves from becoming like
1976 CB radio.
Sounds like a merit badge you have to learn to enter the club.
And that is it's only semi-useful purpose.
Seriously, if you choose to use code, so be it.
And it should be a *choice* not a requirement.
I have better things to do with my time than learning to use a totally
dead language.
Good point. At the advent of Ham Radio, CW was of paramount
importance. Today it is a small side interest, primarily, I suspect,
for DXers.... personally, I have interest in that.
If you aren't interested in HAM radio as a hobby, then why should the
hobby
have to change to accommodate you?
First of all, "CW" does not equal "HAM."
The hobby has already changed... so has the equipment and most
frequently employed modes of operation. Why not catch up?
Why not expect the licensing test to
drop all the electronics requirements since you don't expect to build /
design / modify any radios.
Electronics requirements are requisites.... code is not.
Want another potentially usefull communications option? If you do much
offshore work, you should consider getting a hand held Aviation VHF radio
with a AA battery pack to put in your "ditch bag". Legal to own? yes.
Legal to operate? Not with out an appropriate license.
Technically, not legal to operate, period.... but in distress. you
will surely get away with it. Anybody that expects to rely on that
sort of emergency com equipment should stay on shore.
But, if you just
stepped up from your boat into your life raft, it might be nice to talk
with
commercial airline pilots overhead while the rescue people figure out who
the unregistred EPIRB you activated belongs to. --- ILLEGAL ??? COME
ARREST
ME --- PLEASE ---- NOW!!!!
I'm not betting that you'll actually talk to an airplane with that
screwy set-up... as for reliability, I've never seen an aviation unit
I'd trust around water/humidity...
Then there is that damn USCG Master License test. You need to know inland
river rules when you only operate in the atlantic coast.
You need to know that to get an OUPV.... because most of us expect to
pass through some form of inland water to enter COLREGS water. This
seems to be some reference to one's inability to communicate via radio
without knowing code.... I can talk and I can type.
Bear in mind that the USCG hasn't used any Morse radiotelegraphy
services in over 10 years...
You need to know
how many bolts on a 6 inch fire hose coupling when you only operate a 50
foot motor vessel.
Only if you seek a master's rating.... if one has no interest in
carrying more than 6 people for hire, why would one bother? If one
only wants to communicate via voice or digital, why would one learn to
use code? Is your 50 foot motor vessel "Inspected?" If not, what's the
point?
They actually expect you to know how to navigate with a
chart, dividers, parallel ruler and a pencil --- how archaic is that?
They know that an understanding of TVMDC, tides, winds, and the
likelihood that equipment can fail is important. CW is not the *basis*
for any electrical/electronic knowledge.... in the present day, it is
a poor language for communication. In CWs day, it made sense, it
doesn't any longer. Your argument should be that learning crystals and
tubes is necessary to understanding solid state technology... Not,
learning pig-latin make you part of the Ham Club....
Everyone uses GPSs now. .They really need to dumb that test down too to
accomodate those too dumb, lazy or uninterested enough to be bothered to
learn.
You need to concentrate on that GMDSS and GROL license to go with that
Master's License....
The GMDSS will help you not rely on CW as such a crutch..... :-)
--
_ ___c
\ _| \_
__\_| oooo \_____
~~~~|______________/ ~~~~~
~~~ ~~~~~~
~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~
~~~~ }((((o ~~~~~~ }{{{{o ~~~~~~~
Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Southport, NC.
http://myworkshop.idleplay.net/
Homepage*
http://www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats
Rec.boats at Lee Yeaton's Bayguide