N2EY wrote:
In article ,
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes:
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.
Somewhere in this thread maybe it was pointed out that here in the US
we don't really need a student operator license since an unlicensed
person can operate with a control operator?
Steve, I do like your idea. I think it might be well implemented as a
concept and program instead of a specific license. Getting a person to
operate is half the battle IMO. At least it worked for me. Working field
day with a control operator got me hooked.
Any ideas there?
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*.
Hehe, I guess someone did point this out!
For this entry grade license, the operation under a control op would
almost have to be eliminated? I dunno, there is a bit of interference
between the concepts there.
the rest snipped for brevity
What Steve proposes is a good idea that just has a few bugs in it. the
major one is that in principle, the situation already exists, just not
"officially". In other words, an unlicensed person can operate a station
under the "steely eye" ;^) of a control Op.
Let's take a step back now to Field day. I have run the GOTA station at
our FD since it's inception. I know of at least two people that have
become interested by use of it and have gone on to become active hams.
It is a good concept, and I think that getting people on the air in a
low-pressure environment is key to getting prospective Hams hooked. It
works.
Now to the subject at hand. If instead of a separate license class, why
not have an ARRL sponsored initiative, similar to "Kids Day", in which
an effort to get anyone that has some interest to work HF and VHF to
come out to the local mall or wherever and operate. The same can be done
at a club's radio site.
It would not only be good from a "getting people interested"
perspective" but would be good to potentially get more league members.
- Mike KB3EIA -