"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
. net...
On 24 Mar 2004 10:59:08 GMT, N2EY wrote:

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?

I can't speak for Carl, but having worked for a long time in
enforcement of regulations which included the requirement that the
licensee obtain, read, and retain a copy of the applicable Rule
part, I feel that it is no substitute for demonstrating that the
licensee has a working knowledge of the Rules.

Whether one compllies with the Rules is another matter.....
--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

I've already gone on record as *personally* favoring the ARRL plan over
the
NCVEC plan for a number of reasons.

I'll take that to mean you do not
support the "signed statement" idea, Carl?

What's interesting about the NCVEC
proposal is that if you remove the "signed
statement" bad idea, and the "no home-
brew/30 volt final" bad ideas, and the
"additional unnecessary widening of the
phone bands at the expense of CW/data"
bad idea, and the "special beginner
callsign" bad idea, you wind up with a
proposal that's pretty darn close to the
ARRL one. (Yeah, I know about the 5
wpm for Extra thing).

As to support of ARRL petition...
I'll let Carl speak for himself (although I believe we both agree).
Specifically, I support the ARRL petition almost 100%.
The ONLY aspect of the ARRL petition I disagree with is
(as you know already) the retention of a code test for Extra.

Personally, I think many of the provisions
of the NCVEC proposal actually insult beginners.

I agree completely.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK