Subject: Hans' views/complaints about NCI and the ARRL and NCVEC
petitions ...
From: (N2EY)
Date: 4/29/2004 11:58 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
Many people's mileage varys on that ...
Whose mileage, Carl? Yours?
Is Morse Code "mainstream" in amateur radio or not?
Judging by the amount of RF I hear on HF and the presnece of a key jack on
even the most prestigeous of HF transceivers, I'd have to say "yes, it's
mainstream".
Kids aren't put off by code tests *or* written tests, in my
experience. And I do have a bit of experience in that area....
You must know different kids than I do ... the vast majority of the ones I
know couldn't give a rat's backside about learning or using Morse.
How many kids do you really know, Carl? How many of them would be
interested in *any* sort of radio avocation?
In CAP we have dozens of kids chomping at the bit to "get on the air". Of
the current "crop" of Cadets at th local unit, seven out of 12 are licensed
Amateurs, six of them have already one on to General.
Testing = knowledge = bad
No ...
Irrelevant/unnecessary requirements = waste of time/lack of interest = bad
OK, fine. Now imagine FCC enacts free upgrades. How are you going to
argue that the General written test is "relevant" or "necessary" when
about 2/3 of the then-licensed Generals never passed the test for the
license they hold? How are you going to sell the idea that the General
written is "necessary"?
And who's making the call on what's irrelevant and what's
unnecessary...?!?!
Isn't that the "call" of the person seeking Amateur licensure...?!?!
Sure. But that part of the ARRL proposal isn't the problem. And if the
majority of NCI members support NCVEC's "appliance operator" class,
and their "copy of Part 97" idea, will NCI support that, too?
Read the numbers ...
Where? You won't even tell us how many members NCI has, or how many of
them are US hams. How many NCI members actually answered the survey?
The League and CQ Magazine always provide the numbers of those responding
to surveys.
the majority of NCI members did NOT support either the
"commercial gear only for newbies" or the "low voltage finals only for
newbies" proposals from NCVEC - that implies pretty clearly to me that they
want newbies to be able to tinker, build, modify, and experiment, just as
did the Novices of our beginning days ...
Yep, I built my first station and many more since then. And a key part
of being able to do it was being able to start with simple projects
that gave good results. Like a simple Morse Code transmitter and
receiver.
Suppose a 'kid' with a brand-new license told you she wanted to build,
not buy, her ham radio station. Tools, skills, time and $$ are limited
- we're talking about a middle-schooler, not an adult.
What would you suggest to her as a first project, Carl?
I'm a bit curious too...........
As far as the NCVEC proposal that applicants be required to certify that
they have read and understand the Part 97 rules, most felt that was
reasonable, and so do I. However, the way the question was worded (mea
culpa), it doesn't indicate that that would be a substitute for at least
some rules and regs questions on the written test - just "should folks
certify that they understand the rules."
All hams should certify that they have read and understand the rules.
That's not a substitute for testing. But NCVEC's proposal wants to do
just that. Read the "21st Century" paper - it's a blueprint for the
NCVEC proposal. The proposers don't think new hams will learn the
rules well enough to pass a test on them!
This was exactly the response I got from one of the guys who wrote that
paper. I e-mailed him a lengthy resposne and got a very pleasant reply. I
believe them to have the right "motivations", but thier executions will be
wrong, wrong, wrong...
However, for a "one shot adjustment" to align the current licensees with
the
new structure proposed, I personally don't have a problem with the ARRL
proposal.
Why is such an adjustment needed at all? We've had 3 classes of
"legacy license" for over 4 years now. What's the problem?
Agreed.
The "numbers" continue to demonstrate that plenty of people are able to
pass the requisite examinations. If there's ANY "upgrade", it should include a
written exam on the added privileges and pretinent HF propagation and
practices, even if the "upgrade" does NOT include Morse Code.
I think it's the only way to avoid the fiasco that occured 50-some years
ago
when folks lost privileges ... you know about that, and I'm sure you're
aware that there are still some folks around who are very bitter about it.
What "fiasco" of 50 some years ago?
In 1951, FCC replaced the old ABC incentive licensing system with the
Novice/Technician/Conditional/General/Advanced/Extra incentive
licensing system that still forms the basis for our system today.
In 1953, FCC reversed its 1951 program and gave all operating
privileges to all US hams except Novices and Technicians, effective
mid-Feb., 1953. (51 years ago - was that the fiasco you meant?)
I wasn't around for those two. Some folks were bitter about the 1953
changes (no kids no lids no space cadets). The "legacy" Advanced class
was kept separate by FCC for more than 14 years.
In 1968, FCC reinstituted differences in operating privileges between
the Extra, Advanced, and General/Conditional licenses. These were
expanded in 1969. I was there, I lost privileges, and I had to wait
two years before I was even allowed to take the tests to get them
back. I wasn't bitter then, nor now. Other folks feel differently. But
most hams today weren't hams when those changes took place.
The FCC won't do that twice...I hope.
73
Steve, K4YZ