Some thoughts on Amateur Testing and Requirements

Licensing requirements seem to be a big topic of conversation. Code or no code. Should question be know ahead of time. Waiting time for upgrades. And I'm sure there are others.

So here's my take on these matters.

Extra Light?

First you should realize who's spouting off. I've been licensed since November of 2001 -- about five months, as I write this. I went from no license to Extra in one month. I took Tech and General written in one session, and code and Extra written a month later. I've never transmitted on HF, and haven't seriously listened on HF for twenty years.

In short, I epitomize what a lot of people hate about the current licensing scheme.

When I received my Extra, I knew I was still a newbie. I still am. In some sense I was almost ashamed to call myself an Extra knowing just how little I knew compared to friends who held Advanced licenses.

But how much or little I know doesn't really make a difference.

According to the FCC rules, I earned my Extra Class license. I have all rights, priviledges, and limitations of that license, regardless of what others think or how much they know. Further, while I thought the Tech and General written elements were easy, the Extra written was not. I studied and read and took practice tests, spending hours a day on readying myself for that test. Some theory I completely learned, some I did not. And I'm proud of passing the code. Of the five or so that tested that day, I was the only one who passed by answering the questions correctly. One passed using the 25 chars in a row rule, one was invited to retest, and two failed.

So while I didn't want anyone to think I was putting on airs because I had an Extra, I'm still proud of my achievement. It was difficult for me, and I did it in about four weeks. I'm a "real" Extra, regardless of what anyone might say, and I refuse to call myself an "Extra Lite" or any of the other perjuratives thrown around these days.

Okay, now on to some of the other matters.

Code or No-Code?

I believe that code should continue to be a requirement for HF licenses. It has nothing to do with the fact that my license required code, but with the fact that there are times when code can get through when nothing else can. To send and receive code, one needs only the most minimal tranmitter and receiver, and, to send, you don't even need a "real" transmitter to transmit code.

Still think code's not useful? A woman in Pensilvania tapped code on the brakelights of a car to inform others she had been kidnapped. An alert ham saw the message and informed police, and she was saved.

I see a lot of people who ask why the tests include CW but not any other mode -- the usual implication being that since testing isn't done on any other mode, that testing shouldn't be done for CW. Or someone says that tests should include each mode the ham wants to use -- seperate tests for CW, RTTY, PSK31, etc. The falacy with these arguments is that the other modes simply require equipment in the form of hardware, software, or both, while CW requires a personal skill. While there are code readers out there, they can't read code as well as a human who knows code, and with at times a human can hear the code when a reader can hear nothing.

It's simple. No other mode can claim equivilent readability with the same low power and equipment requirements.

The real problem with this position is that it takes a major disastor to destroy lines of communication and physical resources so badly that code is the only thing that can get through. Even if voice can't make it, one or more of the digital modes often still can, notably PSK31.

But when disastors happen, as they do happen, shouldn't amateur radio operators be prepared to provide assistance?

I believe they should, so I believe that CW should remain a testing requirement. Unless amateurs can provide emergency communications whenever and whereever they are needed, we aren't fulfilling our charter as specified by the FCC. All amateurs should be prepared to use code -- or what ever means necessary -- to provide communications when an emergency situation develops.

Question Pools? Waiting Times?

I don't really have strong feelings either way on this one. Most people advocating eliminating the question pools do so because they believe the tests should be more difficult. Often they feel that people are becomming licensed without the knowledge to actually operate in the bands in which they are licensed.

There's at least some truth to this. I was licensed as an Extra within a month of being licensed as a Technician. I'd barely been on the air as a Tech, and I had the highest priviledges available to a ham. I knew I didn't really know enough.

Not having a known question pool would have slowed me down. I don't believe it would have stopped me from passing my General written when I did, but I doubt I would have bothered with the Extra.

And obviously a waiting time would have slowed me down.

I've seen it proposed that there should be a waiting time between getting a Tech license and a General, and then another between getting a General and an Extra.

I'm completely against a waiting time between Tech and General. The way most people operate using their Tech license is on 2 meters and 70 cm, using repeaters and some simplex. This is so different from operating on HF, that I don't see the point of a waiting time.

I can see a point of a waiting period between General and Extra. Forcing hams to operate as a General on HF and learn proper procedures before upgrading to Extra seems reasonable to me. I'm not all for it, as I'm not sure that it's necessary, but neither am I completely against it.

I guess I have no desire to make the Tech license any harder, but neither have I any desire to make the General/Extra tests any easier. People value things that cost them time and/or effort, and I believe the licenses should be valued.