RadioBanter - View Single Post

February 6th 04, 04:06 PM

On 06 Feb 2004 14:54:40 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:

In article , Leo
writes:

in Canada, as we grant full Amateur license privileges upon
request to persons with appropriate Professional license
qualifications.

In the USA, there are almost no professional radio operator licenses
left. There's the GROL and some radiotelegraph licenses, the latter
because Morse operation on ships is still permitted (but no longer
required).

An excerpt from Industry Canada's Radio Information Circular follows:

It would seem to me that this makes perfect sense - radio operation is
radio operation,

Is it? Then why all the various endorsements? Is "operating" a TV broadcast
transmitter the same thing as 160 meter RTTY operation? I don't think so.

Of course not - operating RTTY on the Amateur bands is dead easy -
connect the transmitter to your sound card, install a software
program, make a couple of tests and adjustments, and away you go!
And, if you make a few mistakes along the way, or if it takes a week
to get it running, so what? You're experimenting, and that's what
amateur radio is all about.

Now, make a couple of mistakes and knock WNEP-TV off the air for a
couple of minutes - you might be an unemployed professional!

and the Pros have made a career of it

All that means is that they get paid. There are some ladies and gentlemen
on the streets of most major cities who make a "profession" out of something
most people do as amateurs. (Some say it's the oldest profession).

Politicians?

Those people must be qualified to give advice on the subject of their profession,
don't you think? ;-) We should revere what they say and do, and not
question their knowledge and opinions on the subject, right? ;-) ;-) They
must be better at it than us unpaid amateurs because they get paid to
do it, right? ;-) ;-) ;-)

I'll take your word for it, having no personal experience with the
profession that you are referring to. If you say they're good, Jim,
then they're good!

Generally speaking, though, professionals are more knowledgable than
lay people because they are involved in their field full time, and are
held to standards of conduct and proficiency set by not only the
regulators but by their employers. And, rather than just sounding like
experts, they are expected to demonstrate their proficiency - that's
what they get paid for! 'Stay current or move out' is the rule of the
technically-oriented workplace.

- and invested
considerably more education, time, effort and ongoing training than
would be possible for most hobbyists.

Maybe - remember that most of them got the license *before* the job. Back when
the USA granted such things, the old Extra written was considered by most to be
at least the equivalent of the First 'Phone.

But now here's the big one: do the professional licenses include testing of
the
amateur rules, regulations, and operating practices? USA ones don't.

Of course not - they don't teach professional photographers how to
take amateur pictures either....

But the rules and regs can be learned pretty easily - the pros are
used to keeping abreast (sorry)! of the laws and regulations
pertaining to their field....it goes with the territory!

And are professional licensees allowed to build their own transmitters and put
them
on the air without any certification?

Nope - this is what the Amateur bands are for (type approval not
required, unlike the commercial frequencies).

In fact, there are precious few Amateurs left who could do that, Jim,
even though our bands permit it. Passing any one of the current ARS
tests does not require that sort of undestanding of electronics
anymore. Not like when you first got involved - it has changed a lot
since then.

After all, it would be pretty
silly for the folks at the local photo club to argue that Yosuf
Karsh's pictures were pretty good, but not up to "Amateur" standards!

After all, the testing done for Amateur licences today is pretty easy
to pass, even without a formal education in electronics.

Agreed! But at least it still exists.

Sort of, in vestigial format.

Too easy,
I'd say,

The FCC disagrees.

Unfortunately.

IC has been advised of this under the recommendations that the RAC
made to them following WRC-03 - I sincerely hope that they listen!

but that is another issue......(when 7 year olds can pass
exams with questions requiring calculation of squares, logs and
complex numbers - which sure as heck weren't part of my kids Grade 2
syllabus - I start thinking rote memorization of question pools....)

And that's not going to change any time soon. The GROL pool is public info,
too.

True, but if one did that, they'd have a tough time staying employed
with it - employers have a nasty habit of asking their staff to
demonstrate their abilities empirically, on a frequent basis!

Rote memorization was what my point was about, though - and I'm sure
that was the case.

Do you know the 7 year old in question? If not, how can you say whether or not
she's qualified or knows how to do the required math?

Well, if she can, she certainly is a prodigy alright. Grade 11 math
in Grade 2 - that is impressive! I'd say highly unlikely. Ever talk
to a 7-year old kid, Jim? They just don't operate at that level.
Good memories, though - like a sponge!

She is an Extra, though - I'll just bet she could build her own
transmitter from scratch (forgetting for a moment that 7-year olds
generally have enough trouble making neat letters with a pencil, let
alone operating a soldering iron....) - unlike the chief engineer at
your local NBC affiliate, who is merely a professional in his field

You know, everyone seems to be holding this event up as a great
accomplishment for Amateur Radio. And I applaud the little girl's
dedication to memorizing the material and passing all of the required
tests. That took a lot of effort on her part.

But it is a clear indication that the testing procedure is far too
easy - IMHO. It can be memorized, which removes any requirement to
comprehend the material. Do you believe that a 7-year old can
comprehend the theories of complex numbers as they relate to impedance
in a resonant circuit? Bull.

A question - was a similar arrangement for the recognition of
professional credentials in the Amateur service ever in place in the
US?

No, except that some radiotelegraphy test elements were credited
because they were essentially the same in both services.

The problem has always been that the commercial (not professional - in the USA
that means something very specific) licenses did not test for knowledge of
amateur regs or operating practices. So a commercial licensee was not
qualified to operate an amateur station based on the commercial license test
alone.
And that's still the case.

With the reciprocity agreement between Canada and the US, someone
who has obtained their Amateur licence based on their Professional
qualifications automatically gains full Amateur operating privileges
when travelling in the US. One would think it logical for this
arrangement to be bidirectional, n'est pas?

No. It's a bad arrangement. Unless the Canadian professional tests include
the amateur rules and operating practices, your government is derelict in
its duty to the ARS. That's a plain and simple fact.

IC disagrees. But I'll ask them to take your opinion under advisement

Personally I'd think, for example, that the guy who sits in a control
tower accurately vectoring planes all over our busy airspace is far
better equipped to carry on a two-way conversation on 2-meters than
the average amateur who passed a relatively simple test! He could
learn all of the operating procedures that he needs by reading a
couple of sections of the RAC study guide....a couple of nights would
be all it would take. And, in a real emergency, that's the guy that I
would want to see on the radio, coordinating things! Not the guy with
the mag mount 2-meter antenna on his callsigned baseball cap at the
local hamfest.....(I swear he goes to every hamfest in the world -
you've seen him at yours, haven't you?

)

For the USA to make the
same mistake would be a very bad thing, unless the GROL tests were changed.
Even then it would be questionable, because it would probably be possible
for someone to pass the Commercial exam but get all the amateur-radio-related
questions wrong. Such a person is simply not qualified to operate an amateur
radio station.

....unless they can find a 7-year old to elmer them, that is. That is
some prettty tough material to master! LOL!

73 de Jim, N2EY

73, Leo