Dear friends,

Sadly time and effort do not always produce effective results.

The new guide is bloated, overwritten, dense and thus often rather confusing.  It reads as a first draft.

Its 'predecessor' was a more direct document and thus easier to learn from.

Some points:

1. the layout of the new guide is visually uncommunicative of the material within;
2. chapter intentions and learning outcomes should be emphasised more clearly;
3. chapter synopses or text boxes with key learning outcomes would help;
4. make the footnotes into endnotes and cut back their content;
5. engage a professional copy-editor to review the text; 
6. has the document been thoroughly fact-checked?
7. sometimes less is more: review the content entirely and rewrite all to strip comprehensively to the core points a student with no prior knowledge needs to understand the practical and technical aspects of amateur radio and, having passed the exam, go on air.

There is too much editorialsing across the document and, in the section on etiquette, amongst others, the tone is, I think, rather patronising: it is never appropriate to talk down to students.

A good guide should bring the student on a exciting learning journey to prepare them first for the exam, hopefully enable them to have a body of knowledge to pass, and ultimately entry into a hobby where they arrive with the understanding of how to get on air and a desire to do so. 

The only way to pass an exam is to know and understand the syllabus (not learn the answers by rote). Students must be able to deploy the information to answer exam questions and ultimately, and perhaps more importantly in the long term, use the information learned in real-world scenarios on air  (you take driving lessons to drive a car, not to sit a test.). 

Regrettably, I don't feel this guide helpfully conveys its content to the student or equips them effectively for the learning journey through the syllabus they are embarking on.

I'm writing this having a background in third-level teaching, examining, syllabus development and research in the UK and Ireland for over thirty years. I hope the above comments, made in the spirit of a 'critical friend' are taken constructively.  I can see a lot of work went into the document we are discussing, but it is overworked and not, at this point, 'learning-friendly'.

Best wishes,
Michael (EI6IRB)

Dear Michael, thank you for your feedback, which is gladly received, including all negative feedback. You made a lot of points—let me address most of them. Above all, we will try to incorporate your constructive suggestions, subject to our time and resources. You are very welcome to give us a hand improving the guide!

An overall concern of yours seems to be that the previous guide was a more appropriate learning tool than the new one. That is not what are students say—270 of them so far. The key issue, and the key difference, is that the previous guide did not offer explanations. You needed either to attend a class, or to use something like the ARRL or RSGB handbooks. Students asked for one document with everything in it.

Let me give you a few random examples of insufficient explanations from the old guide:

• Section on EMC just states "Mode of transmission – FM is the most benign, ssb the worst offender" without explaining what the "offending" issues are or how to fix them. You would need to do much self research to understand the problem.
• Section of filters just states "LCR T-notch filter (bridged-T) can provide notch at higher frequencies. L adjusts frequency, R depth of notch" without explaining what are LC circuits, not to mention how they are connected to the rest of the equipment, or where or even what is a notch. Good for rote learning, not for understanding.
• Section on impedance just provides a formula, Z = sqrt(R2 + X2), without explaining anything. Students cannot use that formula with the calculator provided during the exam (no square root), and besides, that formula is incorrect. It refers to the magnitude of impedance, forgoing entirely the issue of reactance. No explanation how to match that to the rest of your station equipment, even in later chapters, something of importance in radio to achieve a proper transfer of power.
• Section on DSP, which did not cover the current HAREC requirements anyway, would state things like "The sampling rate has to be at least twice the highest frequency contained in the analogue signal or it will not be possible to reconstruct the analogue signal from the digital data" which is factually incorrect. The issue are artefacts and distortions rather than impossibility to reconstruct the signal. Besides, no explanation how sampling works, nor why there is a need for that frequency.
• Section on receivers just states that "In superhet, mixer can produce an output at IF for frequencies on either side of local oscillator" which is very cryptic to a newcomer and requires plenty of further explanation. Besides, the statement is using a somewhat misleading shortcut of "either side of local oscillator".
• Section on propagation, which contained incorrect information on ionospheric layers (wrong way F1 and F2 and wrong heights), and many shortcuts such as "Gradients in the index of refraction due to turbulence and temperature changes cause scattering, creating over-the-horizon paths (troposcatter)" without explaining what are gradients or the index of refraction.
• Section on meters, just states "If the tuned circuit of an lightly oscillating valve LC oscillator is brought near (coupled with) a tuned circuit with the same resonant frequency a dip in the grid current will occur"—again, with no explanation of what it means, what is the grid current etc.
• Anyway, the old guide did not cover many of the sections that ComReg have recently requested in line with their realignment of our exam to the HAREC standard, with a particular request to properly treat ICNIRP radiation exposure compliance guidelines and antenna safety, or indeed, Ethics and Operating procedures.

The new guide offers explanations to everything it covers. The early feedback is very positive, although we will have to wait till the next Spring to see if it translates into more exam passes.

However, I am hoping that once published, we will can produce a cut-down set of "Revision Notes" with no explanations, no footnotes, nor anything bar the facts—similar to the old guide. I suspect those Revision Notes will be closer to what you are looking for. They may be suited for someone learning by memorising (rote), while the new guide, thanks to the explanations, will suit someone who wishes to understand things a bit more. I do not know if I will have the time or the manpower to do it.

Michael, you write that you have background in third-level teaching, examining, syllabus development and research in the UK and Ireland for over thirty years. I would warmly welcome you to rewrite any portion of the guide that you wish to improve. Can you do that for our Society and for the Irish radio amateurs?

Let me address your specific points—just as I do for everyone submitting feedback.

1. The layout of the new guide is visually uncommunicative of the material within;
Please explain, with an example, what is the issue with the layout. What should be changed?

2. Chapter intentions and learning outcomes should be emphasised more clearly;
I agree. It would be good to expand the guide by adding clearer chapter intentions and learning outcomes. Can you help us write those?

3. Chapter synopses or text boxes with key learning outcomes would help;
I assume this is the same point as 2 above—if not, please explain.

4. Make the footnotes into endnotes and cut back their content;
I respectfully disagree because no one likes constantly turning from the page they are reading to a page at the back to see the endnotes. They would be very inconvenient to read. We have already received very positive feedback on the footnotes, and I expect they help some students learn. They are easy enough to disregard if one wishes to focus on the core material.

5. Engage a professional copy-editor to review the text;
I am not sure of the costs involved and budgets, but the guide has been done purely voluntarily. I have donated a lot of my own time to the project. Can you suggest any options and outline the costs, or is that something you or your Club could volunteer to do?

6. Has the document been thoroughly fact-checked?
You are part of this process! This is the 32nd draft, and all the previous versions have been read by quite a few people. Some sections have been rewritten a few times, for example, on SDR. As part of the process we have now asked all IRTS members, as well as external parties, to read it and to provide feedback on any inaccuracies. So far, I have received approx. 20 suggestions, some of which are minor, a few will require a little more work. I am grateful to all who are doing this checking. For example, Daniel EI8ICB has spotted that the new guide included sections from the old guide related to station requirements and log keeping whilst at an alternate address. Those requirements have been lifted by ComReg, however, they appeared in the new guide because we have transcribed that section from the previous guide in the early stages of the project. This will be fixed. If you or anyone else spots any other issues, please let us know. This is a collaborative effort of our club and our Society, after all.

7. Sometimes less is more: review the content entirely and rewrite all to strip comprehensively to the core points a student with no prior knowledge needs to understand the practical and technical aspects of amateur radio and, having passed the exam, go on air.
I doubt I will be able to donate as much time again to "rewrite all". After 9 months of work, if you or anyone else is able to rewrite all of it, you are very welcome to do that. All help is welcome. If none comes, the published guide will only contains the fixes and the corrections that have been provided by the reviewers, and which are in line with HAREC syllabus and regulations.

8. There is too much editorialsing across the document and, in the section on etiquette, amongst others, the tone is, I think, rather patronising: it is never appropriate to talk down to students.
Can you provide some examples of "editorialsing" so that I better understand what we need to fix? The section of ethics and operating procedures has been transcribed, almost literally, from the IARU Ethics and Operating Procedures guide, 3rd Edition. I note that another member of your club (ELARC) has contacted us with concerns about the IARU Ethics guide, too. Regrettably, we are not in position to write our own ethics guide. We must cover the subject in line with the HAREC and ComReg requirements using existing reference publications. If you can suggest a different source for that chapter, I would be grateful to see it. In general, since the only negative comments that we have received came from ELARC, may I respectfully ask that your club does some research for us to suggest alternatives? I am open to amending the section—but I cannot write our own ethics guide, it must be an accepted reference.

Thank you again, Michael. I hope you can contribute your time to help us improve the guide to meet your vision.
--
73 Rafal EI6LA

Thank you, Albert, for your feedback. I would be open to changing the title if there is a consensus that "IRTS HAREC Amateur Licence Study Guide" is not the correct one. May I ask you, and others, for suggestions or comments on the title?

Regarding your other points:

- Circuit diagram colours. I understand the diagrams have been generated and tested using CAD software. I suspect we may not have the time to redo all of them, as it is not just a matter of changing the diagrams, but also their trimming and placement on pages—might be able to do that later on. Right now the focus is on checking the technical and regulatory correctness. I will get back when I hear from Robert EI9ILB.

- References. Yes, I would like to quote them like academic bibliography, but that, in turn, either adds a lot more footnotes or breaks apart the reading flow with inserted bibliographic references. Besides, that would require quite an effort to re-research the materials looking for source page references in the sources. Instead, may I ask if there are any particular paragraphs or sections that should have further references added? That may be easier to do.

- Short sections. We can add footnotes referring to further educational sources on satellites. Do you have any books to recommend? Please also suggest such additional books and references for any other sections that you feel are too short at the moment. Or, should we expand them—as long as covered by HAREC?

- /P and /QRP. Yes, practice differs from regulations sometimes, but the correct answer to a frequent exam question is the one given in the regulations and in the guide. :) There is, however, a footnote addressing the discrepancy—unless you have spotted somewhere without one?

As for recording the course on video, regrettably not. We have discussed it and we have decided we could not do it given our time and resources. Video requires a lot of extra work. See also my comment about videos below, at #1453. Perhaps someone else wants to record a course? We and our students are happy with the progress we are making with the live training model.

Thanks again for your suggestions.
--
73 Rafal EI6LA

I am afraid I would have to agree with Michael EI6IRB, and with the content, if perhaps not the tone, of John EI6IZB's posts.

 

My benchmark for a study guide is the material that I used to study for my exams (bearing in mind that I was first licensed while living in the UK) – the RSGB’s Foundation, Intermediate and Full Licence manuals. How does this document – which repeatedly asserts that it is the minimum necessary to be fully prepared for the exam – manage to be 60% longer than the combined length of the RSGB's Foundation, Intermediate and Full licence manuals, especially given that (a) there is a very significant amount of duplication across the three RSGB manuals; and (b) the combined content of the three RSGB syllabuses is widely accepted as meeting and exceeding by a considerable margin the HAREC syllabus, with the result that a considerable number of amateurs from Northern Ireland choose to travel to Dublin as the exam is “easier” than the RSGB Full exam.

I think there is a failure to understand that for many people looking to become involved in amateur radio, this is the document they will come across first. “You just need to learn everything in this 400 page book before you can get involved” is not a welcoming introduction to a hobby. When I was about 15, I thought about becoming licensed, found this guide’s predecessor, read it, and decided it was beyond me. It took the enforced shutdown of normal human society before I seriously considered it again. I’m sorry to say that this guide would have made me even more sure that it was beyond me, rather than making me feel it was something I was capable of with effort.

 

Echoing Michael’s comments about the tone, I will quite bluntly say that the guide seems to jump randomly backwards and forwards between treating the reader like an imbecile on one hand, and assuming a level of knowledge that many will not have on the other hand.

At one point, the guide states that “The HAREC syllabus requires candidates to be familiar with the formulae used in this syllabus and to be able to transpose them”, but provides no explicit guidance on how to actually do this beyond “There are many resources on the Internet to help you understand how to rearrange formulae” and an instruction to search the internet if you “need a refresher”. This shows complete ignorance of the fact that a significant proportion of the population struggles greatly with what you and I would consider “basic maths”, and need considerably more than a “refresher” – they need to learn it, possibly for the first time.

At another point, the reader is treated to a long-winded and patronising description of magnetism and static electricity (concepts which, unlike the ability to transpose formulae, it is reasonable to assume most people have a basic understanding of) like what you would give to a child – “A magnet, for example, has a static magnetic field around itself. You can feel its force by bringing an iron object close to it and by resisting the pull of the magnet. If you place the iron object on a wooden board, and the magnet on the other side, the object will move when you move the magnet“; and “If you get static electricity in your hair, or a sheet of cling film, or a woollen jumper, they may attract or repel themselves and other objects. Your hair may be standing up, the piece of cling film just keeps getting stuck to itself or to your finger as you try to shake it off, or the sheets of paper stick together.”

 

On the subject of the footnotes – they seem to contain a considerable amount of content which is, in my opinion, utterly irrelevant – yet leave out certain information on the practical application of the theory learned that I feel it would be remiss not to mention.

As an example, I will use Section 23, The Phonetic Alphabet.

I have never (with the sole exception of one particular radio amateur whose full-time job is as an air traffic controller, who does so on occasion from habit) heard a radio amateur pronounce phonetically the number 5 as “fife” or 9 as “nin-er” - nor indeed 3 as “tree” or 4 as “fow-er” unless that is how they pronounce these letters in everyday life because of their accent.

While I understand that the “correct” pronunciation of the numbers is required for the exam (although I would raise the question of whether it should be), it would be remiss not to mention that in practice these are rarely, if ever, used in amateur radio. This would certainly be of more practical use than a listing of the ITU phonetic alphabet’s numbers (nadazero, unaone, bissotwo etc.) which are not used by radio amateurs – or indeed to the best of my knowledge by anyone – and have limited utility in any context save perhaps in a table quiz.

In another example. Section 29.3, Making Initial Calls, fails to mention that you do not, as a rule, call CQ through a repeater. That may not be required knowledge for the purposes of the exam, but it would be substantially more useful than an eleven-line footnote debating whether it’s okay to not give your callsign when asking if the frequency is in use. Likewise, Section 29.5, RST Code, fails to mention that you will not give a signal report as part of a QSO through a repeater – and again, this would be substantially more useful than a description of how many microvolts a signal should be for a signal meter to show it as S9.

 

I would also, as someone not involved in any way, shape or form with the East Leinster Amateur Radio Club, echo the serious concerns regarding the IARU Ethics guide. I note that you claim that “We must cover the subject in line with the HAREC and ComReg requirements using existing reference publications”, however neither ComReg’s tender (ComReg 21/123) for the HAREC, nor the HAREC Syllabus set out in Recommendation T/R 61-02 refer to the IARU Ethics guide. I would therefore be interested to know where the decision to include this document by name in the Irish HAREC Syllabus came from?

Is it right that we are teaching prospective amateurs that “any subject that has no relation whatsoever with the ham radio hobby" is a "no-no in amateur radio conversations on the air", and that “Except [in] emergencies… the subjects of our communications should always be related to the amateur radio hobby” with the implication that any other discussion is unethical? Have we really learned nothing from the past two years of the social and mental health benefits of amateur radio?

During the 2021 lockdown, I had nightly chats on 2m with other operators in Belfast, often continuing well into the early hours of the morning. The topic of radio rarely came up unless perhaps someone had gotten some new equipment, or made a contact they were particularly proud of. Almost every imaginable other topic came up at one point or another – music, film and TV, cars, history, other hobbies, foreign travel, news and current affairs, mental health. This improved both mine and their mental wellbeing no end, at a time where it was a criminal offence to meet those you did not live with in person, and where many people, myself included, were in a very dark place as a result – but apparently it was unethical to have those conversations by amateur radio? I find that suggestion personally offensive.

- Daniel EI8ICB

I have already communicated these suggestions to Rafal. So, for the sake of transparency, I’ve now posted these suggestions here. I think some common sense should be applied here. Not a strict adherence to IARU operating procedures which may not apply or be aligned with accepted practice in EI.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Paragraph 29.2.1. Subjects to avoid.

 

-  any subject that has no relation whatsoever with the ham radio hobby

 

I note that the source of this section is the IARU R1 Operating Procedures. We cannot try to restrict conversations to Amateur Radio subjects only. This is preposterous, excessively restrictive and will give the wrong impression of amateur radio as being unfriendly and cold. Based on this guidance we cannot talk about the weather, our family, our various illnesses or our holiday plans. Ridiculous, Very silly, this line really needs to be removed.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Paragraph 27.1.2. Radiotelephony (Voice) Distress Signal:

 

Mayday  Mayday  Mayday

 

In an emergency situation the word Mayday should be repeated three times. This is done to remove any doubt and increase the chance of being heard above background noise.

 

Paragraph 27.1.3. Radiotelephony (Voice) Urgent Call:

 

Pan-Pan. Pan-Pan. Pan-Pan

 

The words Pan-Pan, repeated three times indicate an urgent situation, such as a mechanical failure or a medical problem, of a lower order than a "grave and imminent threat requiring immediate assistance". 

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Source: Industry Canada: Radio, Spectrum and Telecommunications: Radiocom Information Circulars (RIC). RIC-22 - General Radiotelephone Operating Procedures

Although it might be useful to add a source, it seems a bit unnecessary when discussing a Mayday or Pan-Pan call, which has been used for decades.

This additional text clarifies the procedure for a Mayday call and also introduces the Pan-Pan call for assistance.

It's important that amateur operators are aware of the Pan Pan call and what it means. There was a recent Pan-Pan call in Carlingford Lough when a small boat lost its engine power and was drifting out to open sea.

 

Note: Add in the text in Blue to the current Draft. 

The "Study Guide" in its current format is a work in progress, it needs a little bit of Cop-on in the Ethics and Operational Practice guidelines.

I've tried to read all this document (note it can not be referred to as a guide) and spent considerable time doing but it is a difficult task, I have compiled hundreds of Manuals, weapon guides, and Training Aide Memoirs, I'm not taking a jab at any of the editors of this document, either the title is incorrect or this document fails the title.

Thank you for trying to take a personal swipe at my comment. I agree that the NSWLC have done some fantastic work, I was glad that I attended as many of their online nights as I could but we are discussing and trying to offer constructive criticism on a document and not on a clubs method of instruction.

"All the info needed to pass the test and get there licence and get on air is there you just need to learn it," 

A local library is full of books on many different subjects it's a great resource to utilise to study to pass any test in the world, it does not make the library a study guide but a mere resource, in it's current layout the document is unfit as a study guide, it is a manual on what amateur radio is like in Ireland from a single users viewpoint.

I have tried to read the context as a subject matter but the indepth information is very much opinioned, as others have picked up which will always fail as a guide.

If it was focused to give the relevant information as a study guide then it should be condensed to about 50 pages, with all footnotes removed. There is scope for end notes to allow the student to broaden their knowledge, but to have statements that all paragraphs in the document may contain questions on the exam is incorrect and misleading.

I am going to nitpick the document pointing out flaws nor am I going to rewrite it, I have returned documents in the past that were to be military training manuals on the grounds that too much off topic material is included, training manuals and guides have to be direct and to the point.

A great starting point for any training manual is to list the objective for that section, write about that section, review the objective, sample questions or problems and give links for further information. It allows the student to grab the book look at the objective and they decide if it's a relevant section for them to study or if they can skip to the review/sample questions problems and score their knowledge.

"Are you looking for the American way that just teaches the Answers to the questions and lets a load of people that have zero clue what there at on the air, "

I'm against rote learning for certain subjects and definitely against being taught the basic information to pass a test, but I'm big believer in having clear well laid out information that can be quickly reference if needed. But this is an issue with ComReg viewpoint of what the exam layout is and should be if the want us to learn the band plans by rote then so be it, they are the licensing body and it's their rules we must follow.

Once you have read the document I'll look forward to having more of a chat and discussion about it but until then your interest is based on an individual and not the document itself which makes your comment null and void.

Sorry my above comment was in direct reply to EI2GLB5 comment, I thought I had included their post as linked text.

Best 73 EI6IZB Mack.

Dear Rafal,

Many thanks for your comments on my mail. All my points are made with a constructive approach at the core, and it is refreshing you appreciate this and reply in a similar manner. I hope I continue in the same vein below.

The old training document was insufficient in many ways and often rather badly written. Yet it was direct.  A direct approach is what the current draft guide lacks.  It is flabby and indulgent and it needs to be lean or at least be nimble.

Variety being the spice of life, students need to range widely (echoing Karl EI5DPB’s point). One over-long document purporting to have ‘everything’ in it is a siloed approach that is anathema to the broad learning required to pass any exam based on knowledge, not on the basis of rote learning.  I do not believe in learning by rote – it results in the intellectual malaise I see in many students and by extension in society today – but this is off topic.

It is very good that the syllabus has been updated, but as a point of access to it the draft guide is at best lacking in effective direction and is often a collection of somewhat disjointed statements.  Much could be achieved by working out whether this is meant to be a handbook, a textbook, or the personal views of the authors conveyed as their combined perspectives on amateur radio.

Intellectual curiosity should be at the core of what we do as amateurs. That curiosity spurred me on to comment on the draft guide. I am not looking for revision notes – these are for students to compile themselves from a variety of sources to understand the syllabus.  I am looking for a clear and accessible text written in a neutral tone (I concur with Daniel EI8ICB’s comments). 

And on the point of curiosity, I would be rather reluctant to get involved in work that would link me directly with this draft guide as I am not sure I understand the relationship between the IRTS as the examining body and the NSLWC as the teaching body.  The examining body sets the syllabus and the exam and the teaching body teaches the syllabus to students to take the exam?  This draft guide is published by the examining body for the teaching body and both seem interlinked through the guide? Forgive me if I am missing something here.

In response to your points:

1. The layout of the new guide is visually uncommunicative of the material within;
My eye doesn’t fall naturally to the key points to be conveyed, the text is densely set and paginated, the content does not breathe and present itself in an accessible manner. Make use of bullet points, shorter sentences, text boxes – split up the very dense content. Make use of better visual signposting and link ideas and concepts together.

2. Chapter intentions and learning outcomes should be emphasised more clearly;
I would be very slow to become involved in rewriting for the reasons outlined above.

3. Chapter synopses or text boxes with key learning outcomes would help;
Taking my points 2 and 3 together it is the old teaching adage of ‘tell them what you are going to tell them, tell them it, tell them what you told them’. And make the text enjoyable and ‘un-put-down-able’!

4. Make the footnotes into endnotes and cut back their content;
The footnotes are an over-busy addendum to the text and contain material that is rather off topic or waffle.  It is easier to keep a ‘post-it’ in the end notes to refer to material as required (I do prefer hard copy).

5. Engage a professional copy-editor to review the text;
IRTS has a substantial balance on hand – despite my uncertainties outlined above – they could fund copy-editing, why not apply for funding? There are many good freelance professional copy-editors available in Ireland and I have worked with a number on my own monographs and other  publications. Happy to advise of names here directly to you and your colleagues. A good copy-editor will ensure consistency of style and approach.

6. Has the document been thoroughly fact-checked?
I would suggest a more comprehensive peer-review process whereby the document is submitted to RSGB or another appropriate body worldwide for feedback and checking. Perhaps there is an international amateur radio ‘Brains Trust’ NSWLC or IRTS might approach?

7. Sometimes less is more: review the content entirely and rewrite all to strip comprehensively to the core points a student with no prior knowledge needs to understand the practical and technical aspects of amateur radio and, having passed the exam, go on air.
I take your point here. However, what you have provided is a compendium where all relevant matter is in effect treated equally (unless readers are told to ignore certain areas). There is good material in what you have provided, but it is smothered in the attempt to include ‘everything’, even that which is not relevant. The text needs greater tactical focus, considerable slimming down and simply to be made accessible to all. My eyes began sliding over the page at times as I tried to find the relevant point amidst the sea of information.

8. There is too much editorialising across the document and, in the section on etiquette, amongst others, the tone is, I think, rather patronising: it is never appropriate to talk down to students.
Yes, the material from IARU is patronising and simple reflection on its content will surely lead to the conclusion that it does not reflect real world on-air discussions. I would suggest authors, many with more hours on air than I have, revise the section in a more common-sense manner from their own experience.  While you might wish to refer to widely available reference works, surely they should be interrogated for content and tone and not slavishly reproduced (by rote)? 

On other editorialising I’d drop the ‘Introduction’ almost totally and other cloying points like:

‘Propagation is a wonderfully complex phenomenon, with many contributing factors. Much of it is still being studied. Most unusual [sic], long distance propagation paths are possible from time to time.

Without any doubt, as a radio amateur, you will experience those surprises.’ (p. 267)

(Actually, I’d correct that: I got those ‘surprises’ for decades as a listener too!)

 Do we really need reference to Erin Brockovich? Yeah, perhaps its funny ... , but really.

In the simplest terms my advice on the guide is take on board the positive and the negative comments this discussion is helpfully generating and go back for another severe edit, undertake peer review and follow the advice often given to fiction authors: ‘Kill your darlings’.

 

All the best,

Michael EI6IRB

On Thu, Dec 8, 2022 at 12:12 AM, Michael Kennedy (EI6IRB) wrote:

And on the point of curiosity, I would be rather reluctant to get involved in work that would link me directly with this draft guide as I am not sure I understand the relationship between the IRTS as the examining body and the NSLWC as the teaching body.  The examining body sets the syllabus and the exam and the teaching body teaches the syllabus to students to take the exam?  This draft guide is published by the examining body for the teaching body and both seem interlinked through the guide? Forgive me if I am missing something here.

Michael, I cannot agree with this statement enough. I would be extremely reluctant to have anything to do with this myself for similar reasons.

I understand that Rafal is not only the Chairman of and a Tutor with the NSWLC, and the author of this IRTS/NSWLC study guide, but he was also a member of the IRTS subcommittee which wrote the current HAREC syllabus.

 

The syllabus is exceptionally and concerningly vague, setting out nothing more than a list of topics that may be examined, with no indication in most cases, especially in the Technical section, as to what level of knowledge is required. It is so vague that anything from a basic set of questions, the answers to which could clearly be guessed by a five-year-old; to a set of inane questions more suited to an obscure Amateur Radio Trivia round in a quiz at a radio club’s Christmas party; and everything in between could be deemed fully compliant with the syllabus. There is almost no point of knowledge, no matter how obscure, about amateur radio that couldn’t be examined in an exam, whilst still complying with this syllabus.

 

I quote just one particular point: “Antenna tuning (matching) units (ATUs).” What about them?

 

Do I just need to know that they exist? Do I need to know what they are? Do I need to know what they do? Do I need to know how they work? Do I need to know how to use one? Do I need to know the advantages and disadvantages of them? Do I need to know about the various types? Do I need to be able to identify one given a circuit diagram? More facetiously, do I need to know who invented them? Do I need to know what the common brands of ATU on the market are? Do I need to know the approximate cost of one? Do I need to know the approximate physical size and weight of one? These are all questions about ATUs which are within the scope of the syllabus, because there is no indication whatsoever as to the scope actually is, beyond “Antenna tuning (matching) units (ATUs).”

By contrast, the RSGB Syllabus clearly sets out what knowledge is required at each level, and more importantly whether a given point of knowledge simply needs to be "recalled" (remembering that something is the case, without necessarily needing to understand why or how) or "understood" (fully comprehending exactly why and how something is the case):

Foundation: “Recall that where an antenna has not been designed for the frequency being used, the feed resistance will change resulting in a mismatch and that an Antenna Matching Unit (AMU), also sometimes referred to as an ATU, can correct the mismatch and is used to ensure that the transmitter can supply energy to the antenna without damage to the transmitter.”

Intermediate: “Recall that a transmitter is designed to transfer energy into a specific impedance. Understand that an antenna matching unit (AMU) can change the impedance presented to the transmitter and that an AMU does not tune the feeder or the antenna to resonance. Understand that if the AMU is located at the transmitter, it will have no effect on the actual SWR on the feeder between the AMU and antenna.”

 

Full: “Understand that Antenna Matching Units (AMUs) can cancel reactive components of the antenna system feed point impedance (before or after the feeder) and can transform impedances to an acceptable resistive value. Identify typical AMU circuits i.e. T, Pi and L circuits. Understand that a quarter-wave length of feeder can be used as an impedance transformer. Apply simple examples of the formula Zo2 = Zin × Zout”

I would urge anyone reading this to compare the 13-page IRTS Syllabus document (https://www.irts.ie/dnloads/IRTS_HAREC_Exam_Syllabus.pdf) with the 97-page RSGB Syllabus document (https://rsgb.services/public/exams/specifications/syllabus_2019_complete_specification_v1.5_revision_sep_2022.pdf) for themselves, and see how the two are chalk and cheese.

It is apparent to me, given the vagueness of the syllabus, that candidates who have attended the NSWLC classes, which are taught by at least one of the authors of the syllabus. will be at a very significant advantage over self-taught candidates and those taught by persons not involved in the writing of the syllabus, as the authors of the syllabus will know exactly what “Antenna tuning (matching) units (ATUs)” or indeed any other syllabus point actually means in terms of the level of knowledge required. This could indeed cause certain candidates for whom the NSWLC online classes are not suitable for any number of reasons - disability, poor internet access, work commitments, etc. - to be at a significant disadvantage in the exam through no fault of their own.

- Daniel EI8ICB

Some of the students who have attended the NSWL HAREC course have high academic abilities. Others have the opposite. To write a study guide to suit one group is to do so largely at the detriment of the other. In so may ways then the author is caught between a rock and a hard place. I'm reminded of the phrase, "You can only please some of the people some of the time"...ect

Further, some previous comments appear to suggest the guide should be focused upon how to become a radio amateur in Ireland, yet others feel it should explain how to pass the HAREC exam. Two aspects that are not, as one might assume, necessarily the same.

My friend Rafal EI6LA has invested a vast amount of time, effort and enthusiasm in writing, and in many cases, rewriting various sections of this new guide over and over again. For that hard work, in the spirit of amateur radio if not common courtesy, I believe he deserves nothing but praise.

Even without any further amendments I believe the new guide will assist not only tutors of the syllabus but those wishing to self study for the HAREC exam as well. I look forward to using it in future.

Keith EI5KJ

Without wanting to add more work and confusion, I recalled a posting on the Southgate ARC news a short while ago (before its demise). The whole domain  has been turned off but I did find the information I was looking for:

https://www.amc.edu.au/industry/amateur-radio/syllabus

.au (VK) have just gone through the very recent adoption of HAREC under the banner of their 'Advanced' licence level. Click  on the last PDF on the page given to view their new syllabus (now that that topic has been raised).
Without comprehensive research it's hard to see how everything 'matches up' to qualify as being HAREC across different countries; EI, UK, VK, etc.
Those of you on the IRTS Examination Board should know this well, but I was curious if you had seen the VK document, seeing as it was so recent.
--
73, Paul EI6LC

It helps bridge the gap between knowledge and understanding and has had blood, sweat and tears poured into it (none of it mine .. I’m a student who benefits and appreciates) .. Many people need many thanks .. 73