RadioBanter - View Single Post - Another D-H* NCVEC proposal

August 13th 04, 12:41 PM

In article ,
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes:

Subject: Another D-H* NCVEC proposal
From: (N2EY)
Date: 8/11/2004 11:06 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: Another D-H* NCVEC proposal
From: PAMNO (N2EY)
Date: 8/11/2004 5:08 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Why not do like the Germans and create an "operator only"
license?

Because it goes against the Basis and Purpose of the amateur radio
service as defined in Part 97.

OK, Jim...Please explain to me how having a "student operator"
license would violate ANY of the spirit of the Basis and Purpose of
Part 97...I've read it several times over in preparation of responding
to this post, and I can't find a single thing that would violate
either the spirit of the letter of the law...

One theme of the B&P is that hams are skilled operators. Another is that they
are technically knowledgeable.

By reducing the license tests to the point that there would be a class of
license which did not allow unsupervised operation works against those goals.
So does a license which disallows homebrewing or requires some sort of Big
Brother protection against the horrific dangers of 32 volt power supplies.

The
purpose of which is to allow a person to operate a radio, but under
the supervison of an experienced operator.

We have that now. A licensed ham is the control operator, and someone
else actually turns the knobs, pushes, the buttons, talks into the
mike, taps on the keyboard.

Sure, you can do it that way, but that's not the point now, is it?

Actually, yes it is.

There's no present need for a "student license" because someone who wants to
learn amateur radio operating techniques "by doing" can do so without any
license at all - *as long as there is a control op*.

We're (supposedly) talking about a new entry license to promote
the service.

Right. Something like the old Novice, which got me and hundreds of thousands of
others started in amateur radio.

A "student operator" would not only be cumulative
towards a higher grade license, it would encourge mentorship.

But why is it necessary or even beneficial? If the "student operator" cannot
use the rig unless a mentor is present, why have a student operator license at
all?

Student operators could be given a certain amount of independence
even, by allowing approved mentors to "sign off" thier card and
operate under the mentor's call, ie: KN/K4YZ.

That's somewhat different. How is the mentor ham supposed to judge when the
student is ready to solo?

The precedent is already
federal practice for student pilots. Can't solo until the IP signs
you off!

Sure - but is that what's really best for amateur radio?

The words "operate an amateur radio station" have an exact definition
under FCC rules. It means to be in charge of the station, even is
someone else does the actual knob turning, etc.

Words written by people can be changed by people, Jim.

Even the Constitution has ammendments.

Point is, right now the term has a precise meaning.

Then after some period of time or
minimum operating hours, the "student" is eligible for an upgrade?

Based on what other requirements?

Take a shot, Jim...This was a general discussion...Not definitive
proposals.

I say it unnecessarily hampers the new ham.

What if somebody wants to bypass the whole student operator thing and go
straight for a higher-class license? Would that be forbidden?

Today, and for more than a quarter century, a person who can go for Extra
"right out of the box". Would you change that?

Let's rehash the previous "Novice license", as it seemed to
work, update the technical standards, and determine where we would
like new operators to be in terms of skill level, then set up the new
license from there...(We are only using the "old" Novice as a
guideline...NOT the standard to set)

OK, fine. How about this:

3) "Basic" license test is simple 20-25 question exam on regs, procedures,
and safety. Very little technical and RF exposure stuff. Main objective
is to keep Basics out of trouble. Basics get 100-150 watts on HF/MF and
25 watts or so on VHF/UHF (power level determined by RF exposure limits).

Modes are CW, analog voice, PSK31 and many of the other common data
modes
like packet. Basics cannot be VEs, control ops for repeaters, or club
trustees. Basics get most VHF/UHF and about half of HF/MF spectrum. Basic

is meant as the entry level. Easy to get, lots of privs, yet there's still
a reason to upgrade.

What's wrong with that concept for an entry-level ham license?

Such a system would essentially require that a prospective ham would
have to know a more-experienced ham in order to operate. Why do we
need such complications?

Would it hurt?

Yes.

What if a prospective ham doesn't know any other hams who are willing to be
mentors and who are interested in the same things the student is interested in?
What if the student and mentor cannot match schedules? What about kids who
don't drive yet? Who checks out the mentors' backgrounds?

nd you're at least tentatively supporting the
idea of yet another license class...

No, I'm not. My discussion proposes three classes, like today.

so if you're going to go that far,
go a bit farther and consider ALL possibilities.

I have. The requirement for a mentor is unnecessary and hinders the process.

The biggest "drawback" to my idea as I see it is that a lot of
folks who are TALKING about Elmering and mentoring would actually have
to do it, and may even have to take a bit of responsibility for it.
Heaven forbid!

If I'd had to search for a mentor and wait around until both of us had
available free time, just to operate, I'd might never have gotten past that
stage. Instead, I was able to get a Novice license, build a station, and go on
the air unsupervised. I don't see anything wrong with keeping that concept.

And who said this would be the ONLY way to enter Amateur Radio?
There's a lot of folks out there who never operated a day with a
Novice, Tech, General or Advanced licenses...

So you would allow the student license to be bypassed? Someone could get an
Extra "right out of the box"?

Or why don't we quit wallowing in all this administrative
quagmire and just "get on with it"...???

What "quagmire"? The FCC amateur radio license system today is far
simpler and more accessible than at any time in the past 35 years.

The "quagmire" of proposals that continue to arrive the FCC,
including the present NCVEC "plan"...

The NCVEC plan isn't new; it got an RM number quite a while ago. We're just
taking another look at it. Still looks as bad as it did before. Worse, even.

That's how the democratic process works.

As you and I have both pointed out on numerous
occasisons, Jim, Gradeschoolers are passing the EXTRA, ergo there's
little validation for a new "entry class" license...

That doesn't mean things can't be improved. Do you *really* think the
current Tech is the best we can do for an entry-level license? I
don't.

Why not?

Because:

- The Tech is VHF-UHF centric. It pushes new hams into one type of amateur
radio operation, and isolates them from HF. And because of the difficulties of
homebrewing VHF/UHF gear, it pushes them away from homebrewing. (And from Morse
Code! ;- 0 )

- The Tech allows all privileges above 30 MHz. Therefore, its test must cover a
wide range of subjects, many of which are not commonly used by beginners. Yet
the beginners must learn the stuff because the license allows it. Example: Not
many new Techs will set up 2 meter stations with high gain antennas and run
high power, but the license test must and does cover such RF evaluations. And
much more.

Meanwhile, basic radio subjects are not covered in depth.

YOU have said that gradeschool kids are passing this test...Then
it can't be all THAT bad!

Yep. Yet the *license* can be improved.

That "entry-level" license already bestows
over 97% of all Amateur allocations with it. Unless you want to
suggest that we cut back privs from the E's, A's, and G's (and
remaining N's) and redistribute it in thirds? (Fourths?)

Nope. See the concept I posted some time back. It covers all those bases.

What is wrong with the "Basic" license I propose above? If you don't
like the name, call it something else, but what's wrong with the
*concept*?

Hmmm?

Now...if the POOLS were closed and the applicants actually HAD to
LEARN
something, there MIGHT be a reason to have a simpler test to get
started with..

Write up a proposal to close the Q&A pools and submit to FCC. Be sure
to explain in a convincing manner:

- why this change needs to be done

How can we really expect that the material that is PRESENTLY in
the tests is "learned" when the verbatim questions are public
knowledge

Doesn't FAA use a similar system?

- how the pools will be used and safeguarded

I thought I already addressed that, Jim...

Not in language that would be appropriate to an FCC proposal.

Fines and/or prison for the abusers. Period. A new paragraph in
Part 97 that speicifes that the questions are sequestered, and that
publishing them is a violation.

Write it up. Include who has access and who doesn't.

The VEC's can still prepare and distribute appropriate exams.
They can even solicit questions just like they do now...It would just
be illegal to publish them.

Define "publish"

- how prospective amateurs will know what to study without access to
the pools

Uhhhhh...the same way it was done BEFORE Bash...Study guides with
outlines of the required material...

Right. So somebody has to generate those, too.

- who is going to do all the work needed to make the change

The VEC'sAND the FCC.

And if they don't want to? NCVEC's proposal is full of complaints about how
much work they do.

- how the whole system will be protected against "Son of Bash"

Fines and/or prison for the abusers.

- how all of this can be done without it costing more FCC resources

You mean and not use more resources than they already use to hash
and re-hash numerous licensing structure plans?

Yep.

Most of the "changes" would be in the purview of the VEC's. They
need the letter-of-the-law to back them up, which means the FCC would
need to little more than get the laws enacted and on the books.

Then do exactly like they've been doing for other Amateur
matters...Encourage Amateurs to take care of it with internal programs
and then only use the hammer as a last resort.

So where's the complete proposal?

And what's wrong with the system I proposed?

73 de Jim, N2EY