The abolition of the international requirement for morse proficiciency testing of radio amateurs

1. the role of the test has been reduced to a filtering mechanism which reduces the number of people able to satisfy the licence requirements (so is like a sign saying "do not throw stones at this sign")
2. passing the test is no indicator of whether people ever become good or frequent users of morse (just as a primary school history test is no indicator of anything other than memory)
3. the test is no longer a test of a vital skill required to operate a station (which it once was, i.e. in the 1920s)
4. the testing of morse speed is not a proper test of proficiency (a true test would be interactive)
5. different countries have vastly different standards for the test, supporting the concept that the test exists for its own sake, rather than to prove a skill at a given standard
6. morse is increasingly irrelevant in the information age, where we would be better off having heaps of amateurs who are able to integrate technical radio skills with technical networking and computer skills.

WIA Survey

In the June 1997 issue of its journal Amateur Radio the Wireless Institute of Australia included a survey asking members whether they believed that the international requirement for morse code testing should be retained.

The text of the survey is repeated below, essentially unaltered except for explanatory notes added in square brackets [].

------------------------------------------------------------
[start quote]
                      WIA Federal
MORSE CODE A COMPULSORY INTERNATIONAL REQUIREMENT
                 WE NEED YOUR OPINION

Regulation S25.5 of the ITU Radio Regulations, an international
treaty, makes it an obligation for countries to test morse code
ability before granting an amtaeur licence allowing operation below 30
MHz.

The WIA has the results of the previous questionnaire which confirms
that a majority of WIA members wish to see Morse Code retained as an
examination requirement in Australia.  Any change to the international
regulations would not necessarily require Australia to drop the Morse
Code Exam requirement.

As explained in Amateur Radio, April, 1997, Article S25 in the ITU
International Radio Regulations dealing with the Amateur and Amateur
Satellite Service is to be reviewed at the Word Radio Conference in
1999, the first time since 1979.  It is unlikely that there will be
any review of the amateur service regulations again for many years.
In the replies received in response to our discussion paper there were
a number which while supporting morse code as a national examination
requirement, did not see the necessity of it continuing to be an
international treaty obligation.

As the FASC Report is on the agenda for the IARU R3 Conference to be
held in Beijing in September this year,

We [the WIA] would like an answer to the following further question:

Do you consider that S25.5 [a section of the ITU radio regulations
which currently reads as follows:]

  "Any person seeking a licence to operate the apparatus of an
   amateur station shall prove that he is able to send correctly by
   hand and to receive correctly by ear, texts in Morse code signals.
   The administrations concerned may, however, waive this requirement
   in the case of stations making use exclusively of frequencies above
   30 MHz."

should be maintained as an international treaty obligation on
administrations, noting that removal does not preclude local [specific
countries'] regulators from continuing to test for morse code
knowledge?

[  ] Yes     [  ] No   [ ] No Opinion      Callsign  _____________
                                                       (optional)
please tick one

Please return this survey to PO Box 2175 Caulfield Junction, 3161 by
June 30th 1997.
[end quote]

Comment

This raises many questions, including

• whether WIA members' views are representative of the total Australian radio amateur population (if not, it serves the non-members right, but does leave the validity of the outcome to question)
• whether the survey adequately represented the views of members (ie. was the fraction of members replying statistically relevant?)
• whether those replying in the affirmative actually realised that they were voting for continued examinations, rather than whether Morse should be allowed on the bands.

I fully agree with these feelings about the use of the mode. But many of those authors then make a superb leap of logic in claiming that because of all those wonderful attributes, all amateur radio licencees (subject to the band restrictions of various licence classes) must be examined in morse code.

What is missing from the "logic" of their arguments, consistently, is a link between the advantages of using morse and being examined in morse.

They don't address these issues, for example:

1. whether examining people in morse actually promotes morse as a mode for new amateurs to use on the air;

   We all know of many licenced amateurs who have passed their full call morse test yet proudly state that after passing the exam they put the morse key away, or sold it, and never intend to use it again in their life.

2. whether morse exams improve the "quality" of licencees, whatever the definition of quality is;

   There are plenty of examples of people without morse qualifications but who are leaders in their professional fields. There are also plenty of examples of amateurs who are leaders in amateur VHF/UHF communications. To risk losing such people to other hobbies in 1997 because of a requirement to pass a practical test in the communications technology of 1920 is ludicrous.

3. whether conducting morse exams support the continued existence of the hobby, knowing as we do that all government-controlled activities require political clout;

   There must be many people whose ambitions for using amateur radio have been thwarted by the morse test requirement. The movement needs all the numbers it can get. Again, to lose such people to other hobbies because of a slavish adherence to the rules of a bygone era is shortsighted.

4. whether morse exams are anything other than a filter mechanism to reduce the number of successful applicants for licences, ie. an artificial device, a "hoop" to jump through.

   One writer claimed that the government needed to limit the number of HF licencees because otherwise the bands would be too crowded. Other claims are based on the essential excellence of morse and that people passing a morse exam have proved they are the right kind of people to allow on the air.

   My response to that argument: take a listen to HF. All those people chatting about the faults of the government, their arthritis, their latest car or, these days, their computer (!) all passed a morse exam! Did the filter work?

   And the people using bad language, which used to be frowned upon back in those oh-so-good old days, all passed morse exams too. So this claim is also spurious.

I think the answer is that there is no good reason why skills in morse alone are examined.

Responses to some frequent objections and "facts"

• Morse used to represent the one single relevant "operational" skill required to be a competent operator of a radio station. When bandwidths of transmitted signals (and receivers) were measured in the hundreds of kilocycles and the wavebands were effectively shared by all services, it made good sense to make sure hams were competent operators of the only communications mode available. They could and did monitor the bands used by marine operators and could and did hear and respond to SOS calls.
• The idea that amateurs have a role to play in civil emergency communications because of their morse skills is questionable. Since tight frequency control became commonplace, amateurs have had strict allocations of frequencies to use. Their equipment has not been permitted legally to transmit on frequencies outside amateur bands. Their antennas have been purpose built for amateur bands. Their interests are generally inside amateur bands. Thus it is that amateurs rarely hear distress calls. When they do, the calls are from sailors using amateur radio equipment and always, at least in the last 30 years, using voice modes.

  When an expedition sailed across the Pacific on a balsawood raft, the operator had a ham radio transceiver on board. He used voice. He did not have a morse key. When the microphone failed, he clicked the transmitter on and off using the PTT switch of the microphone. Listeners heard clicks. But he did not use morse, because he did not know it. [why was he on the amateur bands? beats me]. It was communication at its most primitive. A triumph of amateur communication? No, more like illegal use of amateur bands.

• Does the operating manual for electronics officers on board commercial ships include instructions on the use of amateur bands in the event of an emergency? If not, why are millions of radio amateurs worldwide poised ready to handle emergency calls in morse on bands that these operators won't use?
• So astronauts are trained in morse code? Well, so are scouts. Irrelevant to the compulsory examination of radio amateurs.
• There is no international skill standard for morse code examinations.
• In many countries, the international requirement is ignored or implemented so poorly that it is a farce.

Summary

My opinions on this subject are clear. I do not support the compulsory examination of amateur radio licence applicants in morse code. I do support the use of morse code on the air. I like it, in fact. But I respect your right not to use it if you don't want to, and will support your right to gain a radio licence without passing a test in morse.

Top