Add the BQQ data on the immediately prior and immediately after screen

3 votes

It is extremely easy for VEs to miss the BQQ. It should be listed along with other 605 data, such as name, address, call sign, FRN immediately before the exam and immediately after the exam. The only place it is right now is when you are reviewing the 605 with the candidate, and too often the VEs in the room immediately go to the "I certify that" section. Also some candidates are running pdf blockers or managers and you never see the 605 and CSCE pages . . . thus the VEs never see the BQQ as it is the only data item missing on the before and after exam pages. BQQ should be included there.

Done Suggested by: Dave Wickert (20 Apr, '21) • Upvoted: 19 Apr, '23 • Comments: 20

Comments: 20

20 Apr, '21
Alwin N6ATF
At least one more data item that's missing on those pages (and even 605s) is when there's someone with a license that says in ULS, with precisely these line breaks:

Their Name
P.O. Box ###
### Street
City, State ZIP
20 Apr, '21
Alwin N6ATF
Whoops... "Is Line 2"
20 Apr, '21
Heather KM6ZQB
As a SM, I always confirm ahead of the exam that the applicant intended to mark yes. Are you concerned someone marked no and should mark yes? In an in-person, the applicant would fill out form and give it to you. How many times does someone have to confirm that online when in-person they would mark it and be done with it? I would prefer that they not have to be reminded of that question before they take the exam. Who wants to talk about something stressful before you are going to take an exam.
20 Apr, '21
Richard Bateman Admin
PDF blockers? As in it actually blocks downloading the PDF, even though it's displayed in the page not using an external viewer?
21 Apr, '21
Dave Wickert
Yes, we have ran into a significant number of users who have add-in pdf download managers running on their machines. When this happens in ET, the pdfs for the 605 and the CSCE are blocked. Our only option is to bypass showing them the 605 and CSCE, or showing them some other way, such as having one of the VEs show it by screen sharing on our machine. This again makes it easier to not notice the BQQ being YES.
21 Apr, '21
Grant
I believe that the BQQ data should be visible only to the VEs, showing this to the applicate before the test will only stress them out even more. It’s not bad having to say yes to the BQQ, and we need to remember that. Why stress out the candidate more than we have to? A little indication should be shown up somewhere to mark, hey read this/click me, or even including it on the registration email, then the session manger can make a mark of it, so they are ready to give this person a test, and explain the attach605 process.
21 Apr, '21
Dave Wickert
For Heather, yes, I agree as part of the candidate flow after registration, I also sweep looking for BQQ. But things can slip through as has happened on many sessions where we caught the felony question. But ultimately it is the room's responsibility to catch this and handle it properly. It should part of our regular scanning and not delegated to an obscure part of our procedures, where many rooms immediately go to "I certify that" -- and bypass the rest of the 605 because the candidate has already seen it . . . which they have for everything *EXCEPT* the BQQ.
21 Apr, '21
n2ygk
I'm wondering why the BQQ is considered relevant at all here? The BQQ is between the candidate and the FCC and none of the VE's concern. If they answered Yes, then they need to follow the instructions within 14 days and provide an explanation to the FCC. As a convenience, my post-processing script notes when an application is in Pending status and sends an email that provides a link to the ARRL VEC's instructions (http://www.arrl.org/fcc-qualification-question) that describes how to deal with the BQQ, making it clear not to contact the VE team about it.

As the ARRL VEC instructions say:

EXAM CANDIDATES:
DO NOT PRESENT DOCUMENTS AT THE EXAM SESSION OR TO THE EXAM TEAM. Candidates must file documents directly to FCC following the procedures outlined below.
21 Apr, '21
Richard Bateman
The reason is that we have a surprising number of applicants who manage to get through the three separate steps of verification including typing "I have" without realizing that what they are doing is specifically telling us that they *have* committed a felony, and thus answer the question incorrectly. The desire to have it highlighted is so that they can verify it was filled out correctly.
21 Apr, '21
Dave Wickert
Yes, just like your name, address, and other verifications that we do with 605 fields, we should also do with the BQQ. It is as valid a data field as all of the rest of them. Part of the examination process is confirming the 605 fields with the applicant -- and fixing them right away if the applicant filled them out incorrectly --- which happens *a lot*. All I am asking is that the BQQ be part of the applicant's data like all of the other 605 fields. Thanks.
21 Apr, '21
n2ygk
We've had maybe 3 BQQ=yes for 500+ candidates and only 1 done in error, so I don't see this as such an urgent item.
21 Apr, '21
n2ygk
I might have misspoken about the 1 in error. We had 1 who didn't follow up in 14 days because the instructions on the back of the 605 are not presented by ET and had to be resubmitted by the VEC. So I am all for ET reminding those who answer yes that it is on them to follow up directly with the FCC.
21 Apr, '21
Alwin N6ATF
I question what exactly is the magic quantity & quality of warnings, instructions, process steps, that will ever be sufficient for those bound and determined to disregard 100% of the multiple layers of defenses that have already been in place. Dozens more? Hundreds more?
21 Apr, '21
Allan R Batteiger WB5QNG
The current level of verification when answering the BQQ questions seems to have shutdown the bulk of the BQQ being answered wrong ( except in the cases of fraud ) BTW we have had enough I have lost count. Before the current setup we had quite a number answer "Y" when they meant "N" and we have had a few licenses revoked when they Answered "N" but should have answered "Y".
21 Apr, '21
Nick AA0NM
We've had maybe 3 in the last 5 years, over 1,500 applicants. With the full use of ET we have occasionally see it checked in error but when they check in the check in person opens the edit screen and verifies the information for them and especially when a name, address or the felony question is checked. If the felony question is truly a yes our VEs that do check in are trained to stop them if they start to explain and just tell them they will get a sheet with instructions on what they need to do when they pass. We also suggest they open the 605 and look when going through the signing process. We've not encountered 1 person who can't open that in over 700 applicants in the last year. Don't see the need for an additional layer.
22 Apr, '21
Chris w8wot
I agree with Grant and Alan N2YGK that is something that is between the candidate and the FCC. I stated this elsewhere, but feel it needs to be restated again. Adding more things we have to verify in the testing room is NOT necessary. This is something the session manager should catch when looking things over before the session. If anything adding a field to the status of the candidate in ET where you see registered, mark complete, and manage that shows BQQ with a dropdown showing how they responded. If a session manager feels the VE's in the testing room should be catching this then they need to be trained to look for it. But adding it to the reviewing og PII pages is not IMO the proper way to address this.
22 Apr, '21
Richard Bateman
The way I think I'll address this is by adding a "quick check" type icon which will show up somewhere on the applicant line with any warnings which can be easily detected -- answering BQQ "yes" is uncommon enough that it'll always just be note, but can be acknowledged. Other things that would show up include: mismatched call sign / license class, name or address change, etc
22 Apr, '21
Alwin N6ATF
Like other higher-ranked only functions of ET, would it be possible to make that icon exclusively visible to VE Admins/Co/Owners & NOT regular VEs (who wouldn't be able to modify anything anyway)?
06 May, '21
Heather KM6ZQB
All VEs can view applicant info and not seeing the alert would be an additional step to check for BBQ for those who are volunteer examiners. Not sure of an alert like that as it would draw attention to the applicant in large sessions. In small sessions, I do not have the same concern. Any way for session manager or co-owner to dismiss the alert once it has been acknowledged?
04 Jul, '23
Richard Bateman Admin
Since there is a warning now when the BQQ is marked yes I'm going to mark this done.