On 6 Feb 2004 15:18:39 -0800, (N2EY) wrote:

Leo wrote in message . ..
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!

Are those "tests and adjustments" covered in the "professional"
license
tests?

Are the amateur frequencies where RTTY is allowed, and what types of
RTTY are allowed, covered in the professional license tests?

Well, the Canadian bandplans are not mandated by IC - they are
voluntary, and developed by the amaueur community themselves.
Therefore, not covered on the Amateur exam. Neither was RTTY, as I
recall - that was learned later, after licensing!

And, if you make a few mistakes along the way, or if it takes a week
to get it running, so what?

Depends on the mistake.

Well, other than operating out of band, there ain't much that a
"sorry" wouldn't cover!

You're experimenting, and that's what
amateur radio is all about.

Then why have any ham radio tests or licenses at all? You're arguing
for the end of all testing for a ham license, Leo.

Not at all - I'm suggesting that (many of) the radio skills acquired
in the acquisition of a commercial license are directly applicable to
the Amateur service. Transferrable skills.

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

Which acts as an incentive to know what you're doing.

Yup!


Does WNEP-TV change frequency, or have to listen first before
transmitting?

That is a pretty simple skill - I'm sure the broadcast engineers could
figure it out rather quickly

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?

Some say politicians are a subset of the oldest profession. ;-)

Fully agreed!


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!

I wouldn't know - I'm only an amateur in that field too.

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.

Generally speaking. However, commercial radio and amateur radio are
different fields. Being a "professional in radio", by itself, is no
indication of qualification to operate an amateur radio station, and
even less of an
indication of qualification to determine amateur radio policy.

Two different concepts.

Being a licensed professional in radio implies a knowledge of radio
theory and concepts - many of which are tranferrable from one area
(commercial) to another (amateur). By nature, amateur activities have
much greater margins for error than professional ones - they are hobby
based, after all!

Amateur radio policy, on the other hand, is made by legislators, none
of whom require any knowledge of radio to carry out the
responsibilities of their office.
..

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.

Current with what? Most TV stations are still broadcasting NTSC
signals, based
on a mode that's at least 50 years old. If you don't care about color,
a 1946
NTSC TV (if you can find one that works) is still usable. Then there's
FM
broadcasting which is about as old and good old MW AM, which goes back
to the
1920s.

With equipment that is vastly more complex than what the average
amateur is using, though. If you get the opportunity, have a look
inside a cellular base station sometime - all of the equipment in
there is computer controlled - nothing even resembling a piece of
radio gear to be seen.

The signal out, though, is Hertzian, and as old as the universe....

- 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....

Then they are not qualified.

But the rules and regs can be learned pretty easily

Then there's no problem with requiring them to take a test
for an amateur license.

Sure, but according to IC, that isn't a concern!


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).

Then the "pros" aren't necessarily qualified in that area, either.

In fact, there are precious few Amateurs left who could do that, Jim,
even though our bands permit it.

I can, and have.

I know - but they just ain't making them like you anymore!

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.

It was not required when I got started either. The US tests went to
all-multiple-choice in 1960. Pick enough right answers on the written
tests and you pass, regardless of whether you understand the material
or not.

Canada may be different. But I don't live there.

Same, actually. 100 questions, 60 correct gets you a basic license.


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.

You seem to be arguing that such licenses aren't really needed
anymore.

No - I'm arguing that they are becoming meaningless - simple memory
work that a child can do.


Too easy, I'd say,

The FCC disagrees.

Unfortunately.

They're PROFESSIONALS, Leo! They have to "keep current or move out",
right?
It's their JOB to know what's needed, right? Who are we poor dumb old
broken
down amateurs to question them? ;-)

They are regulators and politicians, actually....


Must not question the professionals. Their egos can't take it.

Well, I'm sure that if you asked a holder of a first class radio
license who has worked in the field for years a radio theory question,
they'd probably get it right!


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

Me too.

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!

How often does the average employee at WNEP have to demonstrate
knowledge
of calculation of squares, logs and complex numbers?

The receptionist - never. The hands-on technical people - rarely -
but they would need it to complete their formal education in radio
theory, I'd reckon.


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

How do you know for sure?

I don't - but I'd say the odds are pretty heavily in my favour.


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.

Not Grade 11 stuff. Squares are 4th grade stuff around here. Logs
maybe
6th grade. Complex numbers probably 9th or 10th.

Not Grade 2, though

As I recall, Grade 2 was time for "Fun With Dick And Jane", not "Fum
With Maxerll And Hertz".


The 7 year old in question is homeschooled, btw.

Ever talk to a 7-year old kid, Jim?

At least daily.

Listen often too?


They just don't operate at that level.

Some of them do. It depends on the child and the environment. Ever had
a
barely-7-year-old read "Watership Down" to you, and not miss a single
word? I have.

Yup - I have yet to meet one who could read a schematic, or calculate
impedance though - no wonder the watership went down!


Good memories, though - like a sponge!

Much of what's on the test (band edges, regs) is pure memory stuff.

Thought the Extra was more theoretical than regulation based?


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....)

The 7 year olds I know write and draw quite well. Also use computers
and
do math.

In one local second grade class, one of the first week's assignments
was to
write what you did over the summer. Expectation was 1-1/2 to 2-1/2
pages after
editing. (The kids are expected to do a rough draft, edit and final.
By the end of third grade it's outline, rough draft, edit, final). One
7 year old turned in a 31 page story (after editing) in the required
time. It was quite readable, legible, accurate and had all the
required elements.

I built my first transmitter at age 13. From junk parts. Worked quite
well. Of course I had previously built a couple of receivers and used
them
to learn the Morse code off the air.

There is a huge difference between 7 and 13, Jim. Big difference.

Since then I've homebrewed-from-scratch at least 7 transmitters,
8 receivers, 3 transceivers, and their related power supplies, antenna
tuners, control systems, accessories, test equipment, antennas and
shack
furniture.

The above does not include kits built and rebuilt, old gear restored
to
operation, military surplus converted to ham use, repairs and
adjustments,
and stuff done for other hams. Of which I've done plenty...

It's easy and fun. Too many hams don't know what they're missing.

Absolutely.

But you're not 7!


- unlike the chief engineer at
your local NBC affiliate, who is merely a professional in his field


He probably doesn't have a license and probably never built a
transmitter.

Is that a requirement for an Amateur license? Wasn't on my test....


You know, everyone seems to be holding this event up as a great
accomplishment for Amateur Radio.

It points out that the tests aren't that hard. Which some of us have
been saying for years.

Agreed.


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?

I'm sure some can.

Sure, Jim.

The whole point of putting that on the test was to encourage people to
learn technical material, not memory walk through it.


Bull.

Have you ever been around really bright children whose talents are
recognized and supported, Leo? They're capable of far more than
many adults give them credit for.

Complex numbers are simply a way of dealing with a pair of related
electrical quantities. There's no need to have a detailed
understanding of that whole
field of math just to do some LCR calculations.

Agreed - and any idiot can learn to plug numbers into a formula. The
idea was to learn the root concepts and theories!


And there is *no* requirement that *any* ham understand complex
numbers.

There is, if he really wants to figure out why his 50 ohm antenna has
an SWR of 2.6 to 1......


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


Wrong is wrong. But the IC are professionals, aren't they?

Yep - professional regulators. Them who makes the rules!


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!

Maybe. But there's no requirement that he have any sort of radio
operator's license. He doesn't need to know how the radios work.
Complex numbers?

They aren'r required - you just told me that....


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!

maybe - if he knows the environment.

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? )

No. I'm too busy looking at rigs and parts.

Look up - he's there, along with the guys who look like the local
homeless shelter burnt down!


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!

Would you talk that way to a 7 year old, Leo?

Why not?


btw, when I was in EE school, I wound up elmering my faculty advisor.
He was a
PhD EE but didn't know much about radio, because radio is only a small
part of EE. He knew *his* part of EE backwards and forwards, but
needed *me* to help
him figure out ham radio. I was glad to help, of course.

Yep, you're quite the guy alright!


73 de Jim, N2EY

73, Leo