Proposed Changes in Licensing Rules includes Decreasing # of VEs from 3 to 2

[Todd, KA1KAQ]

This thread is getting a bit silly, isn't it?  Are there any thoughtful responses out there?  

I see you're a fairly infrequent participant here Jim, so I'll first say that I'm sorry if my response gave you some idea that we don't take important issues pertaining to our hobby with the proper amount of consideration. We do. This just isn't one of them, in my opinion. Over the years we've always had a few members who enjoy posting things in such a way as to create a controversy where there isn't one, present a conspiracy that doesn't exist, and so on. Old age, retirement, too much free time, boredom - who knows.

The possible(probable) implication being, the VE program is a bad thing, corruption galore, CBers will take over and destroy amateur radio without the CW requirement, the sky is falling, etc etc.

As Pete alluded to, this is not a new topic or discussion, we've had the same or similar on here many times throughout the years. It goes nowhere and changes nothing. It's a chance to bash the ARRL, newbies to ham radio, and so on. As Dave said, some people just like to complain, stir the pot, but do nothing to change or improve the situation by action.

I'm sure that the original poster takes the comments as being worth exactly what he paid for them. Don has been with us for many years, is second to none in technical discussions, and has made plenty of similarly-cheeky responses in these types of threads.

No harm, no foul. It's a hobby, after all. Though not a free-for-all, the QSO section is a bit looser than the Tech or other sections just for this reason.
 

[AL7FS]

Pete and Todd, thank you for your responses.  I hope you actually understood I was not taking a stand for 2 or 3 but rather that a serious discussion was more interesting to me.  I apologize for my "knee-jerk" response to the flippant or non-related posts.

My original post suggested that there may be ways that three examiners can work out.  We have not found three to be much of a burden.  I would be interested to hear of other VECs and their issues with examiners. 

I confess I don't read the QSO forum much but I am on the AM Forum daily for other technical topics.  I just don't post unless I have something to say.

73,
Jim Larsen, AL7FS
http://www.AL7FS.us/
Anchorage, Alaska

[Todd, KA1KAQ]

Well Jim, you're wise for hanging around the best part of 'fone - the Tech section - over the QSO section. That's where the meat of it is. I'm endlessly impressed by the depth and breadth of knowledge available on this site to the new or old AMer who is active and needs some answers. Beyond the impossible ("I need an antenna that will run legal limit on 75m but only 3 feet long, 5 feet off the ground and invisible"), I've never seen a question go unanswered.

Glad to see you on here, wonder if you ever work Brian/W1LYD? In the Skagway area IIRC. He's an old buddy from VT. His entire family from mom (now in her 90s) to younger brother are hams. He has his dad's old call, used to be N1HUT.

[k4kyv]

Actually, this is probably a nowhere going thread other then for more "off-the-cuff" type comments. The VE issue of potential fraud, corruption, bad boy club members, constipation, WMD's, back room black-robed gangsters, insurance mafia, black heel marks, etc. should be addressed directly to the FCC in the filing comments. Back and forth ratter-tatter here does nothing and changes nothing

Over the years we've always had a few members who enjoy posting things in such a way as to create a controversy where there isn't one... It goes nowhere and changes nothing. It's a chance to bash the ARRL, newbies to ham radio, and so on... some people just like to complain, stir the pot, but do nothing to change or improve the situation by action.

...This thread is getting a bit silly, isn't it?  Are there any thoughtful responses out there?...  I hope you actually understood I was not taking a stand for 2 or 3 but rather that a serious discussion was more interesting to me...
My original post suggested that there may be ways that three examiners can work out.  We have not found three to be much of a burden.

Why all the pissing, moaning and silly replies regarding this thread? Indeed if one is passionate enough about the issue, one should submit comments to the FCC via the ECFS. But hashing over the issue and sharing opinions with other hams prior to composing a submission, and not just shooting from the hip with a poorly thought-out response, is likely to result in comments that are more convincing to the FCC.

Few hams were likely even aware of everything that is being proposed in this NPRM until the item was specifically pointed out. Isn't that one of the fundamental purposes of this Forum, to promote awareness within the AM community of petitions and rulemaking proposals that might possibly in some way or another affect our hobby, and to facilitate discussion pro- and con-?  If discussions are to be limited to "non-controversial" HI HI FB OM drivel, then what's the point?

[W2VW]

Many licensees are communicator types.

Why not just make it easy for them?

All this soldering and replacing parts business just gets in the way.

The license sponsor can also offer discounts from the local tech. Everyone needs a tech.

I'm just the messenger.

[W4EWH]

Do you think this is a good idea?

That's a tough call. My personal opinion is that three VE's is a good policy, but I can't provide hard evidence that using only two would lead to errors in test sessions.

I've been at exam sessions, as a VE, when the team leader tried to convince me that a certain question should be deleted from the applicant's test because it was ambiguous. I had to make a choice to insist that the question be counted, since it had not been deleted from the examination question pool by the VEC.

My decision meant that the applicant failed the exam.

This is a question about Human Nature, not the law. It's only human to say "Jeez, the guy drove Forty-Two miles to get here and it's snowing, let's give him a break". It's also human to say "You must meet the requirement of the rule book I promised to enforce".

The question is really "Which side of my human nature do I listen to"?

I think three VE's makes the process less prone to bias.

73,

Bill, W1AC

[Todd, KA1KAQ]

Why all the pissing, moaning and silly replies regarding this thread?

I'd bet it has a lot to do with how you presented it, Don. That and your past record of questionable topics in this section.  

Rather than it being a 'sky is falling, oh on, No Code Techs and CBers are taking over' take, perhaps it's a a change that would allow small or isolated areas without three or more VEs to provide testing.

Anytime I ever took a test there were always far more VEs there than needed. The possibility for corruption exists anywhere there's an opportunity for it. Discussing it here won't stop it, you need to spend some time back in the classroom with the kids before they get warped. Good luck.

If discussions are to be limited to "non-controversial" HI HI FB OM drivel, then what's the point?

Clearly this topic and the varied responses in it are proof that there is no danger of H-I OM-itis setting in anytime soon. As I said, it has more to do with creating controversies where there really aren't any than discussing them. The old 'tempest in a teapot' and so on. If it was as bad as you're implying, I'm sure the topic would've been dumped early on. It wasn't, and it drew the types of responses we expected. Hence the 'here we go again' attitude from some of us.

If you want to discuss a topic, throw it out there as a topic. If you want to preface it by saying 'Do you think this is a good idea?' or 'Is this the end of amateur radio?' or similar to stir things up, you'll draw the types of replies you got. Then again, you already know this.

[K4RT]

I'm a VE.  If I'm not mistaken the instances of exam fraud system-wide have been low. That being said, I personally believe that the potential for fraud would increase as the number of examiners decrease.

It seems to me that the FCC should continue the requirement for 3 examiners for a test session, but give VE coordinators the discretion to allow just 2 examiners to conduct a test session where the local club or exam team demonstrates that assembling 3 examiners has been difficult or impossible, eg distant or remote locations.

73,
Brad K4RT

[k4kyv]

Why all the pissing, moaning and silly replies regarding this thread?

I'd bet it has a lot to do with how you presented it, Don. That and your past record of questionable topics in this section.

Then, precisely, how do you suggest I should have presented it?  It was presented as simply as possible: a clearly defined factual statement in the title, and then the pertinent paragraph was quoted verbatim from the NPRM with no attempt to spin the facts, taking no side in the matter. The question was left up in the air, tossed to the reader to decide if (s)he thinks it would be a good idea or not. Not expecting unanimous agreement, I anticipated nothing more than pro- and con- discussion, backed up with reasons explaining why one would be for or against the idea. What is "questionable" about that?

FYI, I say keep the 3 VEs; I have never heard of a case where a volunteer exam session was cancelled because 3 examiners could not be rounded up.  Not to say it hasn't happened, but it has never become enough of an issue to be mentioned in any amateur radio forum or publication as far as I know, let alone even be discussed in ham radio circles, until the FCC released this NPRM. With the initial post, I was not sure that I would be concerned enough to submit comments to the FCC, but if I do, I will probably draw some ideas from the few serious replies posted in this thread, and some of what has been mentioned here has in fact increased the likelihood that I will submit.

[Steve - K4HX]

Zzzzzzzzzz

[Bill, KD0HG]

Ihad only one examiner for my pilot's written exam and check flights.Not three, not even two.
There was only one proctor when I took my college entrance exams.

Why is Ham Radio so much more sancrosanct?

Bill

[kb3ouk]

I say do away with VEs altogether, and just have one or two people to proctor the exam, sign the actual answer sheet to verify that the examinee didn't cheat, then put it into an envelope and send it to the FCC. Then they run it through a scanner that automatically grades it. That's how almost all of the standardized school tests are graded, by machine, so why can't the FCC do it too? If they passed, license gets processed and goes out in the mail.

[K5WLF]

When I was first licensed in 1966, I was living so far out in the sticks that we didn't get the Grand Ol' Opry 'til Thursday. My written exams (I got my Novice and Tech at the same time) and my code test were administered by my Elmer/next door neighbor. Only one examiner.

I'm a VE, and I've never seen any examinee cheat, nor have I nor any VE in our group ever been approached to falsify an exam in any way. I don't believe that lowering the number of VEs from 3 to 2 will increase the amount of cheating. If it does, we need VEs with better morals and ethics. Our VE group has agreed that if we ever catch an examinee cheating, we will immediately terminate the exam and will never test that person again. No matter what.

We don't usually have any shortage of VEs, but on occasion we'll go to someone's home or place of work if they can't make a club meeting where we test every month. Sometimes it'd be handy to only need two VEs in that situation, but I'm not gonna campaign for it either way. It's not going to spell the apocalyptic death of amateur radio however it turns out.

Personally, if I'm going to campaign for anything in amateur radio, it'll be to outlaw one-day "ham crams" and force the teaching of "how to be good amateur radio operator" in addition to the material on the test.

[Pete, WA2CWA]

The proposal has now then published in the Federal Register, dated 10/24/12. You have 61 days to file any comments.

https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2012/10/24/2012-26201/amateur-service-rules

To links where to file comments, click ADDRESSES in the Table of Contents.

[AL7FS]

Thanks for the heads-up.  I am down in Iowa helping my Mom and not in touch with filings from here.

Jim, AL7FS

[W3RSW]

Stevereno,
Loved your care-o-meter.  Say, what does it take to get to PI care on your scale?  I see it's in the upper reaches.  What happens when you get to 2 PI?  
Your anointed as  "One Whole" ?  
Urk,  

Also meant to say, going to two VE's helps to insure that at least two extra class examiners show up to administer an extra class exam.  Back when I was an advanced I couldn't grade an applicant's test for extra.  But really, think about back in the "conditional" class days. ho hum. Can't be any worse or better depending on your outlook of human nature, (already pretty much explored here.)

Belongs in another topic, but I've heard several hams say that they stay in Advanced class so that everyone will know how hard they worked for 13 wpm in front of a "real" examiner.
QRZ.com gives previous calls and previous license grade in a lot of cases, so why not upgrade to extra? Good way to re-visit old or long forgotten skills.  Hey, you get to test others for highest license too, and that is on topic.

[Knightt150]

Hello: I have been a VE for a lot of years, our group have followed the rules VERY carefully. I may try to send the FCC my comments on this, I belive that 2 VE's and a tester can be (buddys buddys). 3 VE's and a tester keeps it all legal.

Thanks DON for making me aware of the possible problem.

John W9BFO

[WA3VJB]

It looks like the FCC's proposal springs from anecdotal complaints from people inconvenienced by the prevailing rule requiring three examiners.

But the agency provides NO information to establish the quantity of complaints, the number of people affected, and whether there's a chronic or considerable shortage among exam schedules across the country.

The FCC typically asks questions like this when a Petition is filed -- has the petitioner established the need for a change in the Rules?

It's nice that in the past 30 years "fraud or abuse has been minimal."  This helps validate the agency's shift toward a VE system in 1983.

But the other side of their current proposal is the purported benefit. Not only did they fail to establish the magnitude of the problem, but I don't see any quantification as to how the exam schedule would be enhanced.

Sure, that's the way it is with a volunteer system of examination -- you can create the environment and let the participants make the most of it.

Here, the environment has been stable for nearly 30 years, and the "problem" does not seem to warrant the change proposed.

When the FCC asserts:
"We tentatively conclude that the required number of administering VEs can now be reduced without jeopardizing the integrity of the amateur operator license examination system"

I am reminded of what the State Department security guy recently said about the U.S. protection force in Libya. It applies in this far-less important context of hobby radio, and may illustrate the risk of finding out too late what the impact may be.

 "How thin does the ice have to get before someone falls through?"

[Pete, WA2CWA]

HUH! That's quite a message.

[Steve - K4HX]

If the current day tests are so easy that any idiot can pass them, why the concern over cheating?  

When the meter goes to Pi, things are irrational.

[W3RSW]

Not to mention already zipping through "e" and an infinite number of other irrational numbers on your analog metros finos.

"..I was singing on the moon one day."
  on my way to irrationality they say..."

[Steve - K4HX]

Pi and j are having an argument. j says, "You are irrational." Pi says, "Get real."

Geek humor at its worst.

[W1RC]

Most VE teams I have seen have many members and it seems that there's enough work to keep them all busy.

At NEAR-Fest the VE team is headed by Bruce, W1LUS.  There are about ten members.  They often have a sizeable crowd of candidates.  The tests are administered according to the rules and I am amazed at how smoothly things go every time. 

"If it ain't broke don't fix it."

73,

Mister Mike, W1RC

[Pete, WA2CWA]

The ARRL has continued the process, no more code requirements, etc.

Wrong.
The ARRL had nothing to do with it.
ARRL Letter 7/22/2005:
"...The FCC has proposed dropping the 5 WPM Morse code element as a requirement to obtain an Amateur Radio license of any class...To support dropping the code requirement, the FCC cited changes in Article 25 of the international Radio Regulations adopted at World Radiocommunication Conference 2003. WRC-03 deleted the Morse testing requirement for amateur applicants seeking HF privileges and left it up to individual countries to determine whether or not they want to mandate Morse testing. Several countries already have dropped their Morse requirements for HF access.

ARRL CEO David Sumner, K1ZZ, said he was not surprised to see the FCC propose scrapping the code altogether, although the League and others had called for retaining the 5 WPM requirement for Amateur Extra class applicants. Sumner also expressed dismay that the FCC turned away proposals from the League and other petitioners to create a new entry-level Amateur Radio license class..."

[Sam KS2AM]

The ARRL has continued the process, no more code requirements, etc.

Wrong.
The ARRL had nothing to do with it.
ARRL Letter 7/22/2005:
.....

Aww Pete, there you go again, always clouding the issue with cold hard facts.     

Come to think of it, I received my last issue of QST in the mail just before Sandy hit so I'm wondering if the hurricane could have actually been the ARRL's fault too?     

Glad too see you're back.


Sam