Alun wrote in message . ..
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in
:
"N2EY" wrote in message
...
[snipped stuff where we seem to be in agreement]
I also dislike the entry level class name proposed by the NCVEC
proposal - "communicator" - I prefer retaining the traditional
"novice" name, which is recognized around the world (and has been
used in other countries as well).
How about "Basic"?
Why not? It's good enough for the Canadians, eh!
Exactly!
I still prefer "Novice" ... anyone who's more than a beginner
technically will
probably go straight through to General, or even Extra, in one sitting.
That depends on what is in those tests.
Anyone
who's truly a technical "newbie" and needs to learn more should not be
offended by the class name Novice.
But what if they are? You're telling other people how they should
feel, what they should like...
It's been around a long time, still fits, and is recognized worldwide -
some other
countries even have a beginner class called Novice.
Some other countries have a beginner class called Basic.
The word Novice still makes me think of nuns before I think of amateur
radio!
Me too. It's an embarassing name for a license.
What do you think of this idea, Carl: NCVEC proposes that, rather than
have a lot of regulations questions in the "Communicator" pool, that
they be *replaced* by having each Communicator sign a statement that
they have obtained a copy of Part 97, have read it and will abide by
it. This is proposed so that the "Communicator" test and its pool can
be made smaller.
Is that a good idea?
It's clearly a "learn as you go" proposition any way you look at it ...
NOBODY knows everything there is to know from day one.
I'm not asking that anyone know everything from day one, just that
they be tested on the rules for the license they are granted. That's
reasonable.
Since the rules can be looked up (just as one can use a "crib sheet" to
remember sub-band
edges) it seems to me that its not an unreasonable proposition.
From the experience of Phil Kane and others, it's just not a good idea
at all. Anyone who is a newbie to amateur radio regulations should not
have any trouble passing a few questions on the regulations.
I'd
rather have someone
know a bit more about radio and operating and have to refer to the
rules as they learn to
make sure they did things "by the book" than to shortcut the *basic*
theory and operating practices.
Why? If they can look up the rules, why can't they look up the other
things as well?
Sorry, but I think they should have to learn both. If you have a ham
licence you should _know_ the rules at least for your own class of licence,
period.
I agree with Alun 100%. The rules are the one thing that every
licensee *HAS* to know *BEFORE* the license is granted.
Look at the enforcement letters of FCC, and you'll see that the vast
majority of alleged violations by hams are violations of operating
rules, not technical violations.
However, having said that, I personally much prefer the ARRL proposal
to the NCVEC one
for the following reasons:
1) less conversion of CW/data space to SSB
But it still falls well short of the amount of phone allowed in the IARU
Region 2 (North and South America) bandplan. Try reading that particular
document. You may find that it's an eye opener.
Izzat the one that gives CW and digital about 10-15% of the available
HF amateur spectrum?
2) I don't like the "commercial gear only" part of the NCVEC petition
because it unnecessarily
discourages homebrew and tinkering - something that novices have
*always* been allowed (and
encouraged by 97.1) to do.
Agreed, but the test needs to cover basic electronics theory accordingly
Only after it covers the rules.
3) I don't like the "low voltage" only part of the NCVEC petition,
because it precludes the new
ham from getting a good hamfest deal on an older rig like FT-101,
TS-520/820, etc. for no good
reason (nothing stops them from building power supplies that use 110VAC
or 220VAC on the
*primaries*, so what's the sense in this proposal.
and,
Agreed, but the appropriate safety guidelines should be in the test
Ditto.
We're not talking a lot, here. The "old" Novice covered all that. No
reason the new one can't.
4) I don't like the NCVEC to "put the mark of Cain" on the newbies with
a special, never-used
callsign block that makes them stand out as targets for those who are
disgruntled with ANY change.
Agreed, but _only_ if they don't get to take a new ultra-lame theory test
It adds an unnecessary level of regs and no real benefits.
Instead, just do this:
1) Basic/Novice: Six-character callsigns (including vanity) in 2x3
format.
2) General: Six- or five-character callsigns (including vanity) in
2x3, 1x3, or 2x2 format.
3) Extra: Six-, five- or four-character callsigns (including vanity)
in 2x3, 1x3, 2x2, 1x2 or 2x1 format.
Nobody in any license class has to give up a callsign they hold now.
Closed-off license classes can choose future vanity calls from the
groups for the next-lowest license class.
Simple, universal, gives an incentive and no "mark".
73 de Jim, N2EY
|