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

August 16th 04, 01:25 AM

In article , (Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:

Subject: Another D-H* NCVEC proposal
From: PAMNO (N2EY)
Date: 8/14/2004 10:55 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:

Subject: Another D-H* NCVEC proposal
From: PAMNO (N2EY)
Date: 8/13/2004 6:41 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

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.

WHO SAID "unsupervised"...?!?!..

I did.

And what is wrong with a "supervised training license", Jim?

Not "wrong", just unnecessary.

You're approaching this as if it were the ONLY way to do this.

It's a binary problem: Either a ham is allowed to be a control op of a
particular operation, or s/he isn't.

I for one never suggested that.

What we have now, and have always had in the USA, is the concept that a ham
can
operate an amateur station *unsupervised* within the limits of his/her
license privs. And nobody else can.

IOW, either you is a control operator, in charge and responsible, or you
ain't.

Your "student operator" idea would create an unnecessary intermediate step.
A "licensed ham" who cannot operate unsupervised. Bad idea, I say.

Un-necessary to YOU, Jim.

Yep. IMHO.

Imagine...a whole new "crop" of licensees TRAINED as they learned....

If they aren't trained, they haven't learned.

No more nets interrupted...No more autopatches initiated in the middle of a
QSO...No more 10-4 good buddy language.

The only way to have no more of that stuff is to outlaw it *and* to require all
hams to take the training course. If any new ham can bypass the student phase,
you cannot guarantee "no more" of the above.

Yep...I can see how you might find that untenable!~

Does it really require a training program for new hams to learn not to
interrupt a net, initiate an autopatch in the middle of a QSO, or not use 10-4
good buddy language?

The "operator only" license idea is the
very epitome of "supervised" licenses,

Which is a bad idea.

To you.

Yep.

Not to the new students.

They have all of the opportunities and resources listed by K0HB - and more!

Or they can read books and listen to other hams on the air first...

and would probably provide that
""skilled operator" a heck of a lot faster than the present "here's your
license now go learn" situation we have now!

I don't see how.

Sheeeeesh.

By not having to "relearn" everything from the git-go...From HAVING a
knowledgeable, capable mentor to direct those "dumb" questions to.

All I did was read a little and listen to how other hams did it. And I learned
stuff like how to handle CW traffic that way.

All to the Orwellian doublespeak on 11 meters is the most obvous example
of what I am trying to avoid...The misadventures of many who either "thought"
that this was "the way" things were done because "no one told me..."

11 meters isn't a ham band. It's a mess not because of lack of training but
because of lack of tradition, standards, and procedures.

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*.

OK, Jim.

Isn't what I wrote true?

Sure it's "true".

It's also not very productive.

Really? It's how I and hundreds of thousands of others learned.

See my comments above. Yet another "Novice" class without some kind of
mentorship will create a whole yet another subclass of Hams trying to
reinvent
the wheel...Why not implement a REAL training-level license that REALLY
trains them...?!?!

Suppose we fastforward to a time when FCC has acted on your suggestion and
replaced the Tech with a "Student" class, and dropped the code test for General
and Extra.

Which do you think most new hams will do:

1) Get a "Student" license, and only operate when a mentor says they can

or

2) Get a General or Extra and have at it full blast, unsupervised?

And now the Technician Class does that. And......?!?!

And the Tech is not the best we can do. For a whole bunch of reasons.

OK...Ante up.

I did. See "Basic" description a few posts back. Replace Tech with Basic as the
entry class.

Details, Jim...It assigns a trail of responsibility in the training of
the new ops.

Why is that needed?

To put some quality into the program.

How do we avoid bypassing the program?

When the student has met the criteria for a "solo", whatever those final
criteria may be later determined to be...Just like a CFI allowing a
Student
Pilot to take it around the patch with the right seat empty.

So would this be by mode or band or what?

Make a suggestion, Jim.

It's *your* idea, not mine.

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

I don't know...Do you?

I think I do. I think it's not a good idea.

OK...So you make the rules Jim and the rest of us will just follow.

Sounds good!

Then we will know who to blame!

We CW-loving, licensed-for-decades 1x2 Extras get blamed anyway....

The FCC get's a dozen petitions a year suggesting new license proposals
that will immeidately and undoubtedly save Amateur Radio from certain
impending failure.

I'm not saying that at all. Just that there's no reason to implement what
you suggest.

There's no reason to implement what NCVEC suggests either, but it made
it to RM status. It's a heck of a lot more dangerous to Amateur Radio than a
program that mentors trainees

THAT I agree with!!!

Do YOU have THE one failure-proof idea? I Sure don't.

It's not a question of perfect, but of better and worse ideas.

Sorry, Jim.

I don't acccept the idea of "Whelp...it's better than nothing..."

I didn't say that.

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.

Uh huh.

Yep.

You have yet to show me where in the Constitution it is prohibited from
changing federal regulation, or definitions within those regulations, Jim.

It doesn't. But until the definitions change, let's use what we have.

Has anyone here said the student operator idea is a good one?

Is this forum even remotely represntitive of a valid cross section of
the Amateur demograpic, Jim?

Heck no!

I forget the exact numbers, but at one time we figured out that the
"regulars" and "occassional" posters here (the one's we can verify as being
licensed, active Amateurs) was something like 0.015% of the Amateur
community.

And in my opinon, no...If someone wants to just dive right in, let'em.

I predict most folks would do just that, rather than hunt down a mentor ham
every time they want to call CQ.

They don't HAVE to "every time they want to call CQ", Jim...I didn't
have
to hunt down my CFI everytime I wanted to do some touch and go's after he
signed me off as qualified. A student Amateur wouldn't have to either.

But first you had to qualify.

And the reason for student pilot status is that an untrained person at the
controls of a plane will probably hurt or kill hisself and others, plus
property. Radio isn't that way.

When flying, you cannot simply turn off the machine and walk away. But except
in a life-and-death emergency, you can simply turn off the rig. Or just the
transmitter.

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

Only that I would like to see a return to the "time-in-service"
requirement that used to be part of the Extra. The Extra SHOULD represent
evidence of more than having taken a written test. It should say "I
accomplished this and have PROVED it through accomplishments noted".

On that we agree.

Whew...I was beginning to wonder.

If the student and mentor can't match schedules, they change mentors.

Are you volunteering?

Absolutely. And I already do.

Then you know about the mentor programs listed by K0HB

And kids can get around.

Depends where you live. You going to send your 9 year old daughter to a
stranger's house 25 miles away?

No, but I'd TAKE her to a stranger's house and be there...Just like I
did
when Samantha was in Brownies...Just like tens-of-thousands of other parents
take thier kids to "special activites".

Yep - but it makes it tougher to learn than simply going into the shack and
operating.

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.

Were you the exception or the rule?

The rule.

Uh huh! =)

Yep. I knew very few Novices who had other hams in the family. Very few with
formal mentors. Most simply read books and got a little help here and there.

(now you can insert that old one liner: "He's a wonderful lover - he taught
himself..;-)

Shall we base ALL future expectations on how well you did...???

We should base them on what works. The reality is that reducing requirements
and pushing VHF/UHF hasn't done much.

=0

Jim...there was less than 400K Amateurs whe I got licensed...There's now
almost 700K.

There were 250K when I started. 18 years later that number had more than
doubled. 18 years after that it's only 50% greater.

There are more "coded" Amateurs now than in recent history.

Sure.

HOW can you say it hasn't done much...?!?!

The growth from 1991 to today does not match the growth for a similar time
period before 1991.

It also put's them in the MAINSTREAM of Amateur Radio by virtue of
exposure to 2 meters...The Amateurs Campfire, if you will.

In some places. In others 2 meters isn't much.

Why not set them down with a whole choice of options?

Why not?

Exactly!

And why not provide them an option that provides them with a
structured training and qualification program?

That option exists today - without a government mandate.

73 de Jim, N2EY