Checkboxes on user registration for paid and ID checked.
Adding a checkbox to mark that an applicant has paid would help everyone's flow, local and remote testing, and a checkbox to mark that their ID had been checked would facilitate flow for in person exams where people go from one stage to another.
Comments: 11
-
29 Mar, '21
Michael WT9VOn the applicant's display. for the owner/co-owner probably.
-
29 Mar, '21
Heather KM6ZQBMy work around was to assign a certain VE to an applicant as they paid. Right before the exam, I removed that VE from the applicants. I had a few VEs, but hey it worked!
1 -
30 Mar, '21
NickThis can’t be a system wide thing as not all teams (VECs) charge for exams. There is currently the ‘seen’ option which works well for in person flow for checking ID’s and could be used for those teams that charge, or, as we do to indicate we’ve added them to a calendar invite, assign a specific VE to the applicant.
-
30 Mar, '21
MikeI think it CAN be system wide so long as it is a simple check box and does not trigger other ET functions. That way if your team does not want to use it you don't have to. But it is available for those that do.
-
30 Mar, '21
Heather KM6ZQB@nick I have been using the **Seen** status for those who have arrived in Zoom for remote exams. I don’t provide the VEs with a spreadsheet and **seen** is a great way to check in applicants. Still don’t have good way to mark paid in ET without using VEs as designations. I believe that we have another feature request which asks for a note field for a similar purpose. A very small field with a limited number of alpha numeric characters would meet my needs. A field where I could put a 2 to 4-digit code. Each team could develop their own key. The small field would prevent someone from writing a lot of personal info about the applicant. I guess if it were four-digits, then there are four-letter words that could be used. ;) Of course, paid comes to mind first.
-
03 Apr, '21
wt9vNick, please explain why a checkbox can't be a "systemwide thing". Use of it is optional.
-
03 Apr, '21
Richard Bateman AdminBecause some of the VECs don't charge fees and would be upset to have it there. Suffice it to say that something like this may come in the future, but it would probably be less specific and more customizable
-
05 Apr, '21
Greg N6NYXFor a failed in-person applicant, the administering VE's return the 'application document(s) to meet 47 CFR §97.509(j). Whatever paper the applicant submits is returned if no elements are passed. What is the 'application document', if any, that administering VE's must return to the applicant to meet 47 CFR §97.509(j) using Exam Tools?
-
05 Apr, '21
Joyce Schetter KN6HJYComment on same thread regarding 605s when applicant fails. I have no issue with signing so the information on the 605 is certified/verified as administered per Part97. Whether form ( or virtual information) is merely part of the applicants file or is physically returned to applicant. However I am uncomfortable that my signature also appears on a CSCE ( yes blank spaces where the element passed information would go if the applicant was successful). I am uncomfortable with my signature on the CSCE of a failed applicant even if the document is an internal one. My suggestion: fix it so VE signatures do not autofill a failed applicant’s CSCE.
-
05 Apr, '21
Richard Bateman AdminLet's please try to keep discussion on a feature to just that feature, otherwise it becomes useless for voting; more general discussions should happen on the discord server, that's what it's for.
-
14 Sep, '24
Philip-AC5GWould still love this feature. Not sure about the "global" issue since I know nothing of how ET is written, but it already inputs the exam fee based on the VEC. Could you just add another status of "paid" that's only visible to exams that have fees associated or filter by VEC?