A Merry Crapmas to all our readers, except.....
Airy R. Bean
CBer-Masquerading-As-A-Radio-Ham, ie, anybody who
buys their rigs new from a shop and then takes them back to
the shop if ever needing repair.
Such people are not Radio Hams by any stretch of the
imagination, do not belong here, and must look to other NG, such as
uk.rec.radio.cb, for their seasonal felicitations.
cask...@hotmail.com
not an amateur, an amateur is just an apprentice knob twirler. Now a
bootlegger or a Pirate... there's respect for ya...
Dave H
Airy,
Sod off and get a *new* life. This newsgroup was so nice when you were not
present.
Now its time to add you to my annual Kiil file list.
Merry Christmas to you.
Dave
M3CVM and proud of it.
Just because I'm an M3 doesn't mean I haven't got any technical background
or ability.
But that's for you to find out !
Airy R. Bean
personal remarks that you originate below shows that
one thing that you are not, and, indeed, can never be,
is a Radio Ham.
As to technical ability, the only yardstick by which such
ability can be judged in this NG is the qualifications that
you have achieved. If you boast of a licence that was
issued under the gangrenous degeneration that is the
M3/CB Fools' Licence scheme, that says more about
you than your childish sneer below.
"Dave H" <bm...@aralc.net> wrote in message
news:11039852...@nnrp-t71-03.news.uk.clara.net...
> > The M3/CB Fools' Licensee, the CBer, and the
> > CBer-Masquerading-As-A-Radio-Ham, ie, anybody who
> > buys their rigs new from a shop and then takes them back to
> > the shop if ever needing repair.
> > Such people are not Radio Hams by any stretch of the
> > imagination, do not belong here, and must look to other NG, such as
> > uk.rec.radio.cb, for their seasonal felicitations.
Airy R. Bean
Radio Hams who have a tradition of gentlemanliness.
Perhaps your complaint, if you have one, is a complaint
against the CBers who infest herein, whether overt CBer,
M3/CB Fools' Licensee or CBer-Masquerading-As-A-Radio-Ham?
There have been no sentiments of personal unpleasantness that
have originated from me.
Grow up, Dave H!
"Dave H" <bm...@aralc.net> wrote in message
news:11039852...@nnrp-t71-03.news.uk.clara.net...
Airy R. Bean
can never be a _REAL_ Radio Ham with all the
technical excitement and spirit of exploration that
is implied.....
"Dave H" <bm...@aralc.net> wrote in message
news:11039852...@nnrp-t71-03.news.uk.clara.net...
tox
"Airy R. Bean" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:335mksF...@individual.net...
> The closed mind of the M3/CB Fools' Licensee who
> can never be a _REAL_ Radio Ham with all the
> technical excitement and spirit of exploration that
> is implied.....
>
Stupid boy...
Alan
Bran muffins, dinner rolls, soft breadsticks, rice pilaf, croissants
Apple cake with rum sauce, frosted banana nut bread sherbet, home made brownies
Iced tea, water, beer, bloody marys, lemonade, coffee
The guests select food, beverages, silverware... everything from the buffet table.
They move to wherever they are comfortable, and sit with whoever they choose.
Provide trays so your guests will not spill everything all over your house from
carrying too much, nor will they have to make 10 trips back and fourth from the
service stations.
Roast Leg of Amputee
By all means, substitute lamb or a good beef roast if the haunch
it is in any way diseased. But sometimes surgeons make mistakes,
and if a healthy young limb is at hand, then don?t hesitate to cook
it to perfection!
1 high quality limb, rack, or roast
Potatoes, carrot
Oil
celery
onions
green onions
parsley
garlic
salt, pepper, etc
2 cups beef stock
Marinate meat (optional, not necessary with better cuts).
Season liberally and lace with garlic cloves by making incisions,
and placing whole cloves deep into the meat.
Grease a baking pan, and fill with a thick bed of onions,
celery, green onions, and parsley.
Place roast on top with fat side up.
Place uncovered in 500° oven for 20 minutes, reduce oven to 325°.
Bake till medium rare (150°) and let roast rest.
Pour stock over onions and drippings, carve the meat and
place the slices in the au jus.
Bisque à l?Enfant
Honor the memory of Grandma with this dish by utilizing her good
silver soup tureen and her great grandchildren (crawfish, crab or
lobster will work just as well, however this dish is classically
made with crawfish).
Stuffed infant heads, s
Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI
news:MPG.1c37dbc...@news.uku.co.uk...
> In article <11039852...@nnrp-t71-03.news.uk.clara.net>,
> bm...@aralc.net says...
>
>> Airy,
>>
>> Sod off and get a *new* life. This newsgroup was so nice when you were
>> not
>> present.
>> Now its time to add you to my annual Kiil file list.
>> Merry Christmas to you.
>>
>> Dave
>> M3CVM and proud of it.
>> Just because I'm an M3 doesn't mean I haven't got any technical
>> background
>> or ability.
>> But that's for you to find out !
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Why don't you and Beanie get a room together?
--
;>)
73 de Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI - mine's a pint.
http://turner-smith.co.uk
Michael
all the crap posted later last evening...at 19:22..20:28...20:55, all
totally non radio.news:335131F...@individual.net...
Airy R. Bean
the M3/CB Fools' Licence scheme is a major threat to
the health and to the future of Ham radio.
It is "meet and right" (to borrow a phrase from the
religionists) to speak out against such a decline in
technical standards.
"Michael" <Mik...@replyhere.com> wrote in message
news:cqmab6$akk$1...@hercules.btinternet.com...
Steve H
Steve H
"Airy R. Bean" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:337pc1F...@individual.net...
> Hardly nothing. The gangrenous degeneration that is
> the M3/CB Fools' Licence scheme is a major threat to
> the health and to the future of Ham radio.
>
> It is "meet and right" (to borrow a phrase from the
> religionists) to speak out against such a decline in
> technical standards.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.822 / Virus Database: 560 - Release Date: 22/12/04
Dave Edmonds
> Hardly nothing. The gangrenous degeneration that is
> the M3/CB Fools' Licence scheme is a major threat to
> the health and to the future of Ham radio.
Why not use your so called 'threat' in a more positive way - read below
for my suggestion Mr Bean;
> It is "meet and right" (to borrow a phrase from the
> religionists) to speak out against such a decline in
> technical standards.
Yes it is right to speak out against such a decline in technical
standards - but - on the other hand - you don't offer any practical way
or suggestions of how to improve things do you?
Bleating, on usenet, will not create or form any change against the
current UK licence structure, I, for one as a late G3, feels that is
needed to move on and the current situation, while not ideal, is
ensuring new blood is entering the hobby.
Put your typing skills to better use and send your concerns to OFCOM and
the RSGB - and then at least your points of view will be noted. How many
OFCOM or RSGB contributions do you read on this newsgroup?
Sadly, from first hand experience, I also see this class of 'new amateur
(often with a M3 callsign)' not wanting to further their role or gain
the incentives of a Intermediate or Full (or do we call it Advanced?)
licence.
(The same happened, I recall, in the early 1980s when a sudden rush of
G1/G6 operators came on the air from CB radio - and the same is
happening now..... we seems to go from one complaint to the other - same
happened when the written RAE was changed for a multiple choice - same
happened when 12wpm was lowered to 5 wpm - same happened when 5wpm was
dropped as a requirement!!!! Our hobby, and critism within it is just a
case of 'same old, same old....'. I've heard the same gripes and
complaints aired on 80m for years!)
Ask yourself why - it's due to a cluster of people, while objecting to
the licence scheme and stucture, don't offer any solutions.
These are also the people, who attend radio clubs, week in, week out,
that also have M3 members, and just sit and look at them while moaning
of 'how things used to be' - rather than going over to them and saying
"lets help you get your M0 call" etc.
These are also the amateur radio enthusiasts who have a 'M3' filter and
won't speak to them on any frequency. I've personally lost a lot of good
friends as I chose to speak with ANY operator, whereas some just refuse
to converse with them.
So - Mr Bean and others, lets do something different for 2005 - lets
befriend a M3 or at least, if even only once, suggest they further
themselves to obtain an M0 callsign - so advancing their learning while
contributing, personally, even if only in a very small way, to the
future of your own hobby.
The more operators we get, especially with some threats to the band,
etc, the better I say, so we can all club together and say "Hands off
the bands - they are ours".
Maybe, just maybe, with some encouragement, we can do something to rid
our hobby of, what Mr Bean calls a "gangrenous degeneration" and the
future will be improved for all of us?
David. G3Y**
Dave H
> (often with a M3 callsign)' not wanting to further their role or gain the
> incentives of a Intermediate or Full (or do we call it Advanced?) licence.
Can I shock people in saying that I *do* want to further my Licence grade.
But, can I find a club willing and able to do the Intermediate or Advance
licence near to me. No I cant.
According to one club there is just no interest from M3's to take the next
step. Slightly leaves me in the brown stuff.
Dave
Brian Reay
Dave,
contact me off list and I will try and find you a club running those
courses.
--
Brian Reay
www.g8osn.org.uk
www.amateurradiotraining.org.uk
FP#898
Spike
>Can I shock people in saying that I *do* want to further my Licence grade.
>But, can I find a club willing and able to do the Intermediate or Advance
>licence near to me. No I cant.
>
>According to one club there is just no interest from M3's to take the next
>step. Slightly leaves me in the brown stuff.
I'm sorry you are in this predicament.
When the new scheme was being discussed, I wrote to the RA and
specifically raised the subject about which you are now complaining as
a likely issue. There were other issues I also raised, and I was
generous enough to suggest viable alternatives to what was being
proposed that would also minimise or avoid such problems, in effect
proposing a viable alternative to what we have now.
I got the impression that, much like the September dossier of Hutton
and Butler fame, that the 'shutters had come down' and no discussion
was being undertaken. None of my suggestions was taken up - and we now
have the situation you describe.
I can't do anything to help you - but don't think that alternative
systems weren't thought of or put forward. This would have been an
excellent opportunity for an alternative arrangement to the RSGB - an
informal lobby group, in this case pursuing workable, thought-through
alternatives that would have avoided problems such as yours. But, it's
all history now. But good luck with your endeavours - it's a great
hobby that'll last a lifetime if you have the least bit of technical
curiosity in any of the many fields covered by it.
--
from
Aero Spike
Brian Reay
news:j2mvs0ps6eisu78vc...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 19:53:37 -0000, "Dave H" <bm...@aralc.net> wrote:
>
> >Can I shock people in saying that I *do* want to further my Licence
grade.
> >But, can I find a club willing and able to do the Intermediate or Advance
> >licence near to me. No I cant.
> >
> >According to one club there is just no interest from M3's to take the
next
> >step. Slightly leaves me in the brown stuff.
>
> I'm sorry you are in this predicament.
>
> When the new scheme was being discussed, I wrote to the RA and
> specifically raised the subject about which you are now complaining as
> a likely issue. There were other issues I also raised, and I was
> generous enough to suggest viable alternatives to what was being
> proposed that would also minimise or avoid such problems, in effect
> proposing a viable alternative to what we have now.
>
> I got the impression that, much like the September dossier of Hutton
> and Butler fame, that the 'shutters had come down' and no discussion
> was being undertaken. None of my suggestions was taken up - and we now
> have the situation you describe.
I'm curious what those suggestions are- especially as they relate to Dave's
problem.
>
> I can't do anything to help you - but don't think that alternative
> systems weren't thought of or put forward. This would have been an
> excellent opportunity for an alternative arrangement to the RSGB - an
> informal lobby group, in this case pursuing workable, thought-through
> alternatives that would have avoided problems such as yours.
Dave's problem seems to be he can't find anyone running a course locally.
How did you plan to overcome this?
You can't force clubs to offer training, or run exam sessions. Indeed, under
the old RAE scheme finding a venue to take the RAE was becoming a real
problem.
Spike
<brian.reay@(spamstopper)bigfoot.com> wrote:
>Dave's problem seems to be he can't find anyone running a course locally.
>How did you plan to overcome this? You can't force clubs to offer training,
>or run exam sessions. Indeed, under the old RAE scheme finding a venue
>to take the RAE was becoming a real problem.
But we now have the 'real problem' of finding training. Is that any
better a situation? The result is much the same....
I'd have to dig out the papers, and on a nice day like this with an
excess of Christmas Fayre to walk off, have other things I'd like to
do instead
AFAICR I put forward the idea of a multi-level entry exam scheme (that
is, a candidate could enter the scheme at any level, including the
final RAE equivalent) using freely-available training materials, or
those made available by organisations for a fee. This would have
avoided the need for candidates to find suitable clubs for training
(which is the problem Dave is having) and led to a low-cost approach
of easy availablity. If clubs wanted to run a scheme, then they could
have done so.
Having all-level entry would not disincentivise those who were already
highly-skilled enough, or suitably-motivated enough, to take the
new-RAE equivalent (I think figures were available to show this was a
significant proportion of candidates at the time).
The exam system could have been run by, say, the RSGB, local clubs,
some kind of 24/7 availability online from a pool of selected
questions, exam providers, or any mixture of these. Again, low-cost,
availablity, and flexible entry were the keystones I forecast were
important attributes.
No scheme is perfect or suits everybody, but I certainly think the
present scheme has serious drawbacks, and Dave has complained of one
that, with forethought, could have been avoided.
--
from
Aero Spike
Brian Reay
> On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 10:43:59 -0000, "Brian Reay"
> <brian.reay@(spamstopper)bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
> >Dave's problem seems to be he can't find anyone running a course locally.
> >How did you plan to overcome this? You can't force clubs to offer
training,
> >or run exam sessions. Indeed, under the old RAE scheme finding a venue
> >to take the RAE was becoming a real problem.
>
> But we now have the 'real problem' of finding training. Is that any
> better a situation? The result is much the same....
>
> I'd have to dig out the papers, and on a nice day like this with an
> excess of Christmas Fayre to walk off, have other things I'd like to
> do instead
>
> AFAICR I put forward the idea of a multi-level entry exam scheme (that
> is, a candidate could enter the scheme at any level, including the
> final RAE equivalent) using freely-available training materials, or
> those made available by organisations for a fee. This would have
> avoided the need for candidates to find suitable clubs for training
> (which is the problem Dave is having) and led to a low-cost approach
> of easy availablity. If clubs wanted to run a scheme, then they could
> have done so.
Which is EXACTLY the case. There is LOADS of material freely (even for free-
the Chelmsford Club stuff is especially good) around. It can be used by
clubs to run courses, or by individuals to self study. There IS NO NEED to
attend a course. That was charged very early on and has been widely reported
(although the myth still hangs around).
Candidates can do all exams and assessments in one hit, thus 'going in' at
the top level- in fact a recent contributor the NG did just that.
There is a 'support' scheme in place for clubs wanting to run training, it
offers training to instructors on how to run courses, exam procedures etc
etc. This has been in place for about a year, sessions have been run in the
Midlands, NW, Westcountry, and SE. All reported on the RSGB news and even a
nice photo or three in RadCom. Attendees were not charged for this training.
The support scheme also includes a mechanism for 'finding' courses / exam
venues for people like Dave. He is (now) already in that system. The system
'matches' candidates to venues, helping them find a course or just somewhere
to do the exam. I've lost count how many people, even just of the NG, have
used it.
>
> Having all-level entry would not disincentivise those who were already
> highly-skilled enough, or suitably-motivated enough, to take the
> new-RAE equivalent (I think figures were available to show this was a
> significant proportion of candidates at the time).
>
> The exam system could have been run by, say, the RSGB, local clubs,
> some kind of 24/7 availability online from a pool of selected
> questions, exam providers, or any mixture of these. Again, low-cost,
> availablity, and flexible entry were the keystones I forecast were
> important attributes.
On line exams have been suggested but getting venues isn't as easy as it
first appears. You also need suitable software and still need independant
(of the training) observers to oversee the exam.
At the moment, the use of 'paper exams' isn't really a pacing item.
The most expensive exam is £25 to take, plus maybe a venue charge (for the
sessions we run locally this varies up to about £5, depending on numbers).
Going 'on line' may get this down, but £30 isn't really a lot in the scheme
of the hobby.
> No scheme is perfect or suits everybody, but I certainly think the
> present scheme has serious drawbacks, and Dave has complained of one
> that, with forethought, could have been avoided.
Well, as it happens, most of the things you think should have been avoided
actually have been.
No need to attend a course.
Training material (either for clubs to run courses or individuals to self
study) freely available (sometimes for fee)
Support / Training for clubs wishing to offer training available.
Scheme to match candidates to course / exam venues
"One stop" entry at any level.
So, most of your good ideas are actually 'in place'. Let me know if there is
anything else I can clarify.
Spike
<brian.reay@(spamstopper)bigfoot.com> wrote:
>Well, as it happens, most of the things you think should have been avoided
>actually have been.
>
>No need to attend a course.
Dave's problem seems to be that he can't find anyone running a course
locally. Although you asked him to contact you off-list about a
suitable venue, you didn't mention this rather important fact to him.
>Training material (either for clubs to run courses or individuals to self
>study) freely available (sometimes for fee)
It wasn't so AT THE TIME OF MY PROPOSAL.
>Support / Training for clubs wishing to offer training available.
>Scheme to match candidates to course / exam venue
>"One stop" entry at any level.
I didn't propose a one-stop solution to a three-exam system. I
proposed a top-level entry system, which is quite different. I'm
surpised you seem to think this is the same thing.
I notice you also selectively mention only one cost item. What would
be the TOTAL cost under the present scheme?
One of the advantages of my scheme was availability - something
clearly lacking at the present time. There would have been a variety
of training methods, matched with a variety of exam facilities. Dave
is struggling with the former - and will probably meet the latter
later.
The mere fact that *parts* of the present scheme are currently
paralleled by my proposals of some years ago neither improves the
situation as it is now, nor diminishes from my approach of low-coast,
easy availability, continuous exam system - which to my mind is one of
a number of serious deficiencies of the current scheme - and which
gives the impression of being stitched together rather badly.
--
from
Aero Spike
Dave H
>
> Dave's problem seems to be that he can't find anyone running a course
> locally. Although you asked him to contact you off-list about a
> suitable venue, you didn't mention this rather important fact to him.
In all fairness, Brian did mention this to me in his first email and I was
aware of this thanks to a club in Oldham and as I mention to Brian i would
like to do a course for the hell of it, but dont mind.
Dave
Brian Reay
> On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 11:52:39 -0000, "Brian Reay"
> <brian.reay@(spamstopper)bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
> >Well, as it happens, most of the things you think should have been
avoided
> >actually have been.
> >
> >No need to attend a course.
>
> Dave's problem seems to be that he can't find anyone running a course
> locally. Although you asked him to contact you off-list about a
> suitable venue, you didn't mention this rather important fact to him.
Actually, I have. First Email. I've also stated it many time on the group in
the past, it is also published elsewhere.
> >Training material (either for clubs to run courses or individuals to self
> >study) freely available (sometimes for fee)
>
> It wasn't so AT THE TIME OF MY PROPOSAL.
Can you give me a date for your proposal. You may be surprise. First free
online material of the FL was available within weeks of the scheme starting.
>
> >Support / Training for clubs wishing to offer training available.
> >Scheme to match candidates to course / exam venue
> >"One stop" entry at any level.
>
> I didn't propose a one-stop solution to a three-exam system. I
> proposed a top-level entry system, which is quite different. I'm
> surpised you seem to think this is the same thing.
Key difference is the number of papers taken, unless you are suggesting
that some can get a 'waiver' for the other assessments.
A scheme whereby those wish to take, say the Advanced exam only, would mean
special papers, with questions from every level, a different pass criteria,
........ All possible, but does demand warrant it?
Currently candidates can do the exams in quick succession- pausing where
they wish, to.
OK, not 'perfect' in your eyes but a solution that offers both a 'step by
step' and one off solution. If demand is such that a true 'one paper'
solution is warranted, it may happen.
>
> I notice you also selectively mention only one cost item. What would
> be the TOTAL cost under the present scheme?
>
FL exam is £15, IL is £20, AL is £25. - they are from memory but you can
check on the RSGB site.
Clubs may charge for venue. If we do it works out at max of £5 usually. We
don't charge for training for members.
> One of the advantages of my scheme was availability - something
> clearly lacking at the present time. There would have been a variety
> of training methods, matched with a variety of exam facilities. Dave
> is struggling with the former - and will probably meet the latter
> later.
Well, they are. Some control over exam falities is needed to ensure
procedures are followed.
>
> The mere fact that *parts* of the present scheme are currently
> paralleled by my proposals of some years ago neither improves the
> situation as it is now, nor diminishes from my approach of low-coast,
> easy availability, continuous exam system - which to my mind is one of
> a number of serious deficiencies of the current scheme - and which
> gives the impression of being stitched together rather badly.
Well, you may think so. However, it seems to model your ideas quite closely.
If you believe that is accidental, go ahead. Either way, most of what you
would like to have seen is in place.
However, as someone involved in putting together the new scheme, I know the
thought processes that were employed. Most match your ideas closely.
Jock.
>The more operators we get, especially with some threats to the band,
>etc, the better I say, so we can all club together and say "Hands off
>the bands - they are ours".
What threats are these exactly, OM?
--
Jock.
--
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so
are we.They never stop thinking about new ways to
harm our country and our people, and neither do we,"
- George W. Bush, 4 Aug 2004
Spike
<brian.reay@(spamstopper)bigfoot.com> wrote:
>"Spike" <Aero....@Speed.invalid> wrote in message
>news:khvvs05m6euv7ak0b...@4ax.com...
>
>> Dave's problem seems to be that he can't find anyone running a course
>> locally. Although you asked him to contact you off-list about a
>> suitable venue, you didn't mention this rather important fact to him.
>
>Actually, I have. First Email. I've also stated it many time on the group in
>the past, it is also published elsewhere.
Clearly, Dave didn't see any of these; and your e-mails to Dave don't
appear on here.....
>Can you give me a date for your proposal. You may be surprise. First free
>online material of the FL was available within weeks of the scheme starting.
AFAICR they were contained in a number of letters in the summer and
autumn of 2000.
>> I didn't propose a one-stop solution to a three-exam system. I
>> proposed a top-level entry system, which is quite different. I'm
>> surpised you seem to think this is the same thing.
>
>Key difference is the number of papers taken, unless you are suggesting
>that some can get a 'waiver' for the other assessments.
No. I suggested a top-level entry - no 'waivers', no exemptions, no
intermediate exams, just turn up and take the top exam. We don't have
a system that supports that, and I think that is a drawback.
>A scheme whereby those wish to take, say the Advanced exam only, would mean
>special papers, with questions from every level, a different pass criteria,
>........ All possible, but does demand warrant it?
The demand doesn't exist because the system doesn't exist.
It could have been organised in the way I suggested. But it wasn't,
and I for one am not supporting what you seem to be suggesting. It's a
post-facto patch-up, and is essentially non-viable.
>> One of the advantages of my scheme was availability - something
>> clearly lacking at the present time. There would have been a variety
>> of training methods, matched with a variety of exam facilities. Dave
>> is struggling with the former - and will probably meet the latter
>> later.
>
>Well, they are. Some control over exam falities is needed to ensure
>procedures are followed.
Of course it is, and I never suggested otherwise.
>> The mere fact that *parts* of the present scheme are currently
>> paralleled by my proposals of some years ago neither improves the
>> situation as it is now, nor diminishes from my approach of low-coast,
>> easy availability, continuous exam system - which to my mind is one of
>> a number of serious deficiencies of the current scheme - and which
>> gives the impression of being stitched together rather badly.
>
>Well, you may think so. However, it seems to model your ideas quite closely.
>If you believe that is accidental, go ahead. Either way, most of what you
>would like to have seen is in place.
>
>However, as someone involved in putting together the new scheme, I know the
>thought processes that were employed. Most match your ideas closely.
I think what I was putting forward was more radical, more widely
available, more frequently available, and possibly cheaper, than the
present system, with the advantage of multi-level entry. There's
nothing new here, all these things exist somewhere, and it wasn't
beyond the wit of man to have grasped the nettle and made a *real*
advance.
--
from
Aero Spike
Brian Reay
>
> Clearly, Dave didn't see any of these; and your e-mails to Dave don't
> appear on here.....
A course hasn't been compulsory for years- it was stated in the very early
stages but lasted only a couple of months (if that). I still come across
people who think a course is compulsory but they always seem to have 'heard
it from a mate', rather than from anyone actually involved in the scheme.
It seems to be a myth that has survived despite information to the converse
being published. If you have any magical ideas to dispell such myths do
share them.
> >Can you give me a date for your proposal. You may be surprise. First free
> >online material of the FL was available within weeks of the scheme
starting.
>
> AFAICR they were contained in a number of letters in the summer and
> autumn of 2000.
Fair enough. Either way, free material has been around from the early days-
I was involved in one of the first FL courses and the material we used was
published on the internet at that time and others did the same. Likewise for
the IL and Advance pilots.
Again, there is always space for more contributors. Have you thought of
writing some material yourself?
>
> >Key difference is the number of papers taken, unless you are suggesting
> >that some can get a 'waiver' for the other assessments.
>
> No. I suggested a top-level entry - no 'waivers', no exemptions, no
> intermediate exams, just turn up and take the top exam. We don't have
> a system that supports that, and I think that is a drawback.
Well, there would have to be a waiver for the scheme you propose- or it
would be possible to circumvent the various practical assessments.
>
> >A scheme whereby those wish to take, say the Advanced exam only, would
mean
> >special papers, with questions from every level, a different pass
criteria,
> >........ All possible, but does demand warrant it?
>
> The demand doesn't exist because the system doesn't exist.
Well, I suspect I've had more to do with candidates than you have. I've only
come across a few who wish to 'do it in one', most have enjoyed the stepwise
approach. No one has ever complained to me about needing to do all of the
exams and assessments, or quieried the cost. (The RAE costs in the latter
days could be over £100- worst I heard was £132. I know some locals paid £82
to do the RAE in its last year (not the last exam).)
>
> It could have been organised in the way I suggested. But it wasn't,
> and I for one am not supporting what you seem to be suggesting. It's a
> post-facto patch-up, and is essentially non-viable.
In practice, the current system seems to be very similar to what you seem to
favour (yes, there are differences). You seem to think because it isn't
exactly as you propose that it is post-facto. Well, while the system was
refined in detailed as it developed, it is much as was envisaged from the
early days- time frame about the same as your own ideas.
You may not think it perfect (I don't) but it isn't far from what you seem
to have in mind, and you seem more concern with the differences than the
similarities.
Either way, it is what it is. It may change and develop (as it should). If
you wish to influence that, some concrete suggestions should be submitted.
Even better, why not volunteer to help?
>
> I think what I was putting forward was more radical, more widely
> available, more frequently available, and possibly cheaper, than the
> present system, with the advantage of multi-level entry. There's
> nothing new here, all these things exist somewhere, and it wasn't
> beyond the wit of man to have grasped the nettle and made a *real*
> advance.
We effectively have 'multilevel entry', it may not be exactly what you would
like to see but it does exist, and people have used it.
As regards the cost, please share how you think it can be made cheaper.
ZZZPK
: M3CVM and proud of it.
: Just because I'm an M3 doesn't mean I haven't got any technical background
: or ability.
: But that's for you to find out !
well,,, that about sums it up.
ZZZPK
: On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 13:11:22 -0000, "Brian Reay"
: <brian.reay@(spamstopper)bigfoot.com>, paused briefly between playing
: with his doll's house, to write:
:
: >A scheme whereby those wish to take, say the Advanced exam only, would mean
: >special papers, with questions from every level, a different pass criteria,
: >........ All possible, but does demand warrant it?
:
: Did demand for the M3 form of licence exist before the M3 was created?
:
of course not.
but remember ..... IT SAVED AMATEUR RADIO !!
or so we were told at the time.
ZZZPK
: "Spike" <Aero....@Speed.invalid> wrote in message
: news:mgi0t0p2dem3ioimc...@4ax.com...
: >
: > Clearly, Dave didn't see any of these; and your e-mails to Dave don't
: > appear on here.....
:
: A course hasn't been compulsory for years- it was stated in the very early
: stages but lasted only a couple of months (if that). I still come across
no but the exam and morse assessment are!
: > AFAICR they were contained in a number of letters in the summer and
: > autumn of 2000.
:
: Fair enough. Either way, free material has been around from the early days-
: I was involved in one of the first FL courses and the material we used was
yes.... and a lovely picture it makes too.
you with your BIG YELLOW piece of paper.
: published on the internet at that time and others did the same. Likewise for
: the IL and Advance pilots.
pilots.... my god.... 2e's to get pilot licences !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:
: Again, there is always space for more contributors. Have you thought of
: writing some material yourself?
:
: >
: > >Key difference is the number of papers taken, unless you are suggesting
: > >that some can get a 'waiver' for the other assessments.
: >
: > No. I suggested a top-level entry - no 'waivers', no exemptions, no
: > intermediate exams, just turn up and take the top exam. We don't have
: > a system that supports that, and I think that is a drawback.
:
: Well, there would have to be a waiver for the scheme you propose- or it
: would be possible to circumvent the various practical assessments.
:
: >
: > >A scheme whereby those wish to take, say the Advanced exam only, would
: mean
: > >special papers, with questions from every level, a different pass
: criteria,
: > >........ All possible, but does demand warrant it?
: >
: > The demand doesn't exist because the system doesn't exist.
:
:
: Well, I suspect I've had more to do with candidates than you have.
here we go again.... i've trained more people than you.
i have more cars than you
i have more degrees than you
i have more patios than you.
:
:
: We effectively have 'multilevel entry', it may not be exactly what you would
: like to see but it does exist, and people have used it.
with now compulsory morse no matter what level.
unlike prior to december 2003 when all yuou needed was the rae.
but hey..... dont let that out..people might twig whats happened!