From: Bob Brock on Wed, Jan 24 2007 9:12 am

On 23 Jan 2007 22:36:44 -0800, " wrote:
On Jan 22, 2:370m, "Bob Brock" wrote:
"KH6HZ" wrote in ...
"KC4UAI" wrote:

From the same perspective, I think that all hams should be required to
re-test on a regular basis to keep their ham license.
Afterall, that is what they do with driver's licenses isn't it?

Can you drive your ham rig on the streets and
kill or main others by losing control?

That "license comparison" subject was done to
death in here years ago. It is presuming that a
hobby radio license "is the same as" vehicular
operation...it is far from that.

The FCC decides. In the case of the Commercial
Radiotelephone licenses (three classes merged
into one General class) they were made lifetime.
NO renewals needed. Ever. [sometime around
the 1980s? I'd have to look in my licenses folder
elsewhere to get the exact date]

I wasn't being serious Len. I didn't read here years ago and would be
surprised if someone seriously suggested periodic retesting.

My apologies to you, Bob. Sometimes it is hard to
discern who is serious or who is wry in this Din
of Inequity. [as in ham-on-wry... :-) ]

In my
state, they don't require a written test to renew drivers licenses
unless the person has been convicted of a moving violation since the
last renewal.

That's pretty much the case in my state, California...but
somewhat graded. Every five years it was into a DMV
office to take a real shortie of a written test, check
appropriate physical things (corrective eyeware required
in my case), do the fingerprint thing, photos, etc. No
actual vehicle driving test. After ten years I was called
to take the full written. Went to the California state
DMV website and brushed up on new laws. Passed the
written and again, NO actual vehicle driving test. [I had
then been driving every day of those ten years...how did
they think I GOT to the DMV office? :-) ] No, none, zip,
nada moving or stationary violations in ten years.

But, seriously speaking, voice in hushed tone a radio
hobby test isn't even close to a requirement to operate
a vehicle that can KILL others as a result of a minor
lapse of attention. The California DMV driver test (full-
on version) is multiple-choice. The number of questions?
I forgot, but the latest info can be obtained on the 'net.
The nature of operating a heavy vehicle mandates at least
a cursory check of basic physical abilities by officials
whose main task is public safety.

There's NO such need in amateur radio, nor has it been so
for commercial radio licenses for as long as I've been
licensed there (51 years). PERHAPS a periodic review of
new radio regulations? Sort of like what I call the
"shortie" test at the CA DMV. That might be applicable
for the single-Part amateur regs in the USA, but the
commercial radio licenses cover operating in MANY
different radio services covered by as many Parts in
Title 47. Plus, some radio services don't need all
radio operating personnel to have any form of license.

SOME form of licensing is needed for a station, especially
one that can spritz out RF energy all over the globe,
ionosphere permitting. For safety reasons? I don't think
so. Amateurs aren't allowed microwave-cooking kinds of
powers or have they the kilowatts needed to heat-cure
plywood laminations in 32 sq. ft. sheets. Radio amateurs
can kill themselves doing dumb NON-amateur things, so
there isn't a need for yet-another governmental watchdog
on that. I'd say the jury is still out on "RF exposure"
at HF even though it is codified in law (and has questions
on the test)...at least at amateur allowed RF powers.
For technical reasons? Yes, the activity IS technological.
For regulatory reasons, absolutely. Part 97 alone is many
many changes in the last 10 years; I can see that in bound
volumes from the GPO on Title 47 versus today's regs
available at the GPO website.

But, bottom line, the FCC is still the final decider. They
grant the licenses, try to enforce the written (and spirit)
law, can fine miscreants, and yank back the licenses of
offenders.

wrote in message
ups.com...
From: Bob Brock on Wed, Jan 24 2007 9:12 am

On 23 Jan 2007 22:36:44 -0800, " wrote:
On Jan 22, 2:370m, "Bob Brock" wrote:
"KH6HZ" wrote in
...
"KC4UAI" wrote:

From the same perspective, I think that all hams should be required to
re-test on a regular basis to keep their ham license.
Afterall, that is what they do with driver's licenses isn't it?

Can you drive your ham rig on the streets and
kill or main others by losing control?

That "license comparison" subject was done to
death in here years ago. It is presuming that a
hobby radio license "is the same as" vehicular
operation...it is far from that.

The FCC decides. In the case of the Commercial
Radiotelephone licenses (three classes merged
into one General class) they were made lifetime.
NO renewals needed. Ever. [sometime around
the 1980s? I'd have to look in my licenses folder
elsewhere to get the exact date]

I wasn't being serious Len. I didn't read here years ago and would be
surprised if someone seriously suggested periodic retesting.

My apologies to you, Bob. Sometimes it is hard to
discern who is serious or who is wry in this Din
of Inequity. [as in ham-on-wry... :-) ]

Not a problem Len.


In my
state, they don't require a written test to renew drivers licenses
unless the person has been convicted of a moving violation since the
last renewal.

That's pretty much the case in my state, California...but
somewhat graded. Every five years it was into a DMV
office to take a real shortie of a written test, check
appropriate physical things (corrective eyeware required
in my case), do the fingerprint thing, photos, etc. No
actual vehicle driving test. After ten years I was called
to take the full written.

In North Carolina, all one has to do to renew drivers licenses is an eye
examination, test for color blindness, and go through the road signs to tell
the examiner what the various signs mean. The only time you have to take
the written test or drivers test is if you have had a moving violation since
your last license issue date.


But, bottom line, the FCC is still the final decider. They
grant the licenses, try to enforce the written (and spirit)
law, can fine miscreants, and yank back the licenses of
offenders.

I agree completely. The test pools appear to be adequate. For the most
part the new hams I have observed appear to be capable of making that first
contact and improve as they gain experience. It's a safe and fun hobby that
has practical application during times of emergency or national need. My
experience has been that, when asked, they will make the sacrifice of time
and personal equipment during disasters to provide that essential common
radio communications between various federal and state organizations who
cannot communicate directly with each other via radio. IMO, having more
hams at the current level of standards is a good thing.

From: "Bob Brock" on Sat, 27 Jan 2007 09:12:18
-0500

In my
state, they don't require a written test to renew drivers licenses
unless the person has been convicted of a moving violation since the
last renewal.

That's pretty much the case in my state, California...but
somewhat graded. Every five years it was into a DMV
office to take a real shortie of a written test, check
appropriate physical things (corrective eyeware required
in my case), do the fingerprint thing, photos, etc. No
actual vehicle driving test. After ten years I was called
to take the full written.

In North Carolina, all one has to do to renew drivers licenses is an eye
examination, test for color blindness, and go through the road signs to tell
the examiner what the various signs mean. The only time you have to take
the written test or drivers test is if you have had a moving violation since
your last license issue date.

That seems to be the case with most, if not all, states in
the USA. In California the DMV has a "study guide" free in
printed form, PDF download, or HTML perusal on-line for its
written test. I did mine a couple years ago and it was
comprehensive. No qualms, no anxiety, just kicking myself
mentally for missing ONE question that was obvious as to
what the correct answer should have been. :-)

Interesting to note all the remarks some make about "needing"
real equipment to operate and a good simulation of station
environment. That's comparable to the driver's license road
test where an inspector rides along observing-directing as one
is out in traffic. Not a "simulation" but the REAL thing.
Yet MOST states have dropped that road test, satisfied with
the written test...plus the eye quick-check, new-legislation-
since-last-tested quickie quiz, and some other subtle clues
the clerks observe to find out if a person is "with it." :-)

Operating a ton or two of moving machinery in the midst of
other moving machinery on a street or road is FAR MORE
HAZARDOUS to both operator and anyone nearby. Yet most
states have dropped doing that sort of testing except, as
you note, moving violations have been done or just requiring
a ten-plus year period of such retesting. That's for
practical reasons NOT bounded on the cost of maintaining
road driving inspectors but more like the following:

1. Most drivers doing testing are NOT (generally) trying
to kill themselves or anyone else in the near future...they
will be needing an automobile for regular transportation
and have enough common sense to follow driving laws and
procedure to keep that ability.

2. Most DMV (or state equivalent) testing offices-locations
are some distance from a testee's residence and/or place of
work. They have used their vehicle to get to the test area,
itself a form of "being able to operate a vehicle."
Exceptions of first-license applicants are just exceptions
and a minority - they MUST have the road test in most states.
California used to be nit-picky about new residents bearing
another states' drivers license: in 1956 I had to take a
road test despite having held an Illinois license since
1950 (was "becoming a resident by accepting employment here").
That may still be in force but irrelevant.

3. In my infrequent observations of California DMV offices,
there's been no change of the number of road test inspectors
nor of facilities and they have made the same number of free
guides and information for the public. Plus, they've
implemented the photo ID and now issue license cards with
holographic impressions and a magnetic data stripe on them.
This state, like most states, has a computer data network
on drivers licenses as well as identified vehicles. The
cost of all those things has increased budget requirements,
not decreased them. Much of that has been to aid police
departments since vehicular operation CAN, and unfortunately
does lead to fatal incidents.

In comparison to the amateur radio hobby, there really isn't
much. Operation of a hobby radio seldom results in any
fatality. Of course, any amateur may make stupid mistakes
and off themselves but home accidents happen to all humans
and aren't related to amateur radio licensing. The RF
safety regulations have always been questionable to me (I've
dug into comprehensive medical studies of such things done
by the USAF by medical researchers). Much of today's "RF
Safety" regulations seem to be the result of legislative
hysteria based on such "dangerous" sources of radiation as
HVAC power lines, cell phones, and microwave ovens. :-)

To have "practical amateur radio station operation" as a
test is in the realm of the highly impractical. For one
thing there is little standardization in form-fit-function
or control of desk-mount transceivers...except for a single
brand's model series. Desk-mount transceivers share very
few common controls with compact, multi-function handheld
two-way radios. Compare any ready-built ham transceiver
of this brand-new century with any available in, say, 1960
and there is a world of difference in technology between
them. On the other hand, basic automobile operational
controls have only varied slightly in the last half century,
including instrumentation. Steering wheel, gearshift,
speedometer, lights, turn-signals, accelerometer, brake
pedal are all there today as they were in 1950. Only the
clutch as a basic control has all but disapperared with the
automatic transmission (the gearshift remains although its
function settings are different).

But, bottom line, the FCC is still the final decider. They
grant the licenses, try to enforce the written (and spirit)
law, can fine miscreants, and yank back the licenses of
offenders.

I agree completely. The test pools appear to be adequate.

I looked into www.ncvec.org to refresh my memory. There's
only ONE graphic file there and that for Extra. Seems to
be covering the FCC regulations as well as the California
DMV does its Motor Vehicle Code questions.

For the most
part the new hams I have observed appear to be capable of making that first
contact and improve as they gain experience.

I can't comment much on that since my "first contact" on
real radio was back in 1952 in training at Fort Monmouth,
NJ. :-) Very strict protocol observance, of course. The
Army was not a hobby activity, just involved in a skill
set of DESTROYING an enemy with self-survival a plus. :-)
The next three years of active duty was more of the same
with a much bigger, more complex set of "radios."

Much later as a civilian and taking flying lessons, I had
NO problem operating an aircraft radio, using Civil
Aviation flying jargon and FAA procedures. That seemed
to really **** off one of my two instructors. Apparently
he wanted to play control-freak in constantly berating me
for being such a newbie dummy. The other one kept
insisting I needed that 3rd Class (Restricted) Radio-
telephone License (no test required) to "be lawful." Had
to explain to VNY Skyways CEO that my First 'Phone (then
6 years since issuance) was quite lawful and had to get
an FAA tower man at VNY to back me up. Skyways had the
temerity of billing me the usual 1-hour rate of $17.50
I spent NOT in flying lessons but instead arguing with
folks who supposedly "knew better." I quit that flying
thing for various other reasons afterwards although lack
of spare money at the time was primary motivator. :-)

It's a safe and fun hobby that
has practical application during times of emergency or national need. My
experience has been that, when asked, they will make the sacrifice of time
and personal equipment during disasters to provide that essential common
radio communications between various federal and state organizations who
cannot communicate directly with each other via radio.

It's been my life experience that MOST citizens will
voluntarily help out others in REAL emergencies, whether
or not they know how to operate a radio. Having been
IN a couple of REAL emergencies locally, I have yet to
experience first-hand any flurry of amateur activity to
"aid organizations who cannot communicate directly via
radio." During one of those REAL emergencies I've found
that the existing organizations were quite adequately
prepared...and drilled and trained on emergencies WITH
their equipment and worked-out emergency plans that
weren't public-relations news releases.

IMO, having more hams at the current level of standards is
a good thing.

For the hobby, I'll agree with you. For the electronics
industry it won't make a dent either way...and it won't
much change the REAL Public Safety organizations in a
few urban government structures who've already had their
emergency plans proven by the REAL thing.

On the other hand, as a resident of the Center of Film
and TV production city of Los Angeles, CA, I have the
displeasure of being close to the show biz elite who
produced such "documentaries" as "Independence Day."
Still, I'm not worried about Alien Invaders from Outer
Space or whether or not there are enough morsemen to
"Save the World" with their intrepid morse skills...:-)

Best regards,
LA

wrote in message
ups.com...
From: "Bob Brock" on Sat, 27 Jan 2007 09:12:18
-0500

It's been my life experience that MOST citizens will
voluntarily help out others in REAL emergencies, whether
or not they know how to operate a radio. Having been
IN a couple of REAL emergencies locally, I have yet to
experience first-hand any flurry of amateur activity to
"aid organizations who cannot communicate directly via
radio." During one of those REAL emergencies I've found
that the existing organizations were quite adequately
prepared...and drilled and trained on emergencies WITH
their equipment and worked-out emergency plans that
weren't public-relations news releases.

Back in 1999, I spent a week or so coordinating commumications between E-Com
(AKA 911) the National Guard, and the American Red Cross taking people to
shelters during an ice storm and major power outage. Nothing has upgraded
around here since then to allow the different agencies to communicate if
cell phones went out, so I'd be ready to do it again. Not all of us live in
the big cities and based on what I've seen critiqued, they aren't much
better than those of us out in the sticks when it comes to interagency
communications.

From: "Bob Brock" on Mon, Jan 29 2007 12:18 am

wrote in message
From: "Bob Brock" on Sat, 27 Jan 2007 09:12:18

It's been my life experience that MOST citizens will
voluntarily help out others in REAL emergencies, whether
or not they know how to operate a radio. Having been
IN a couple of REAL emergencies locally, I have yet to
experience first-hand any flurry of amateur activity to
"aid organizations who cannot communicate directly via
radio." During one of those REAL emergencies I've found
that the existing organizations were quite adequately
prepared...and drilled and trained on emergencies WITH
their equipment and worked-out emergency plans that
weren't public-relations news releases.

Back in 1999, I spent a week or so coordinating commumications between E-Com
(AKA 911) the National Guard, and the American Red Cross taking people to
shelters during an ice storm and major power outage. Nothing has upgraded
around here since then to allow the different agencies to communicate if
cell phones went out, so I'd be ready to do it again. Not all of us live in
the big cities and based on what I've seen critiqued, they aren't much
better than those of us out in the sticks when it comes to interagency
communications.

Yes, I can understand that "the sticks" (as you say) don't
have all the communications facilities. However, we can't
neglect the fact that so much of the USA population lives
in urban areas.

In my life experience, as I wrote, I've also been in
emergencies. Further, since I live in a "sunbelt" area,
we don't have ice storms and, usually, electric power
here is a reliable thing. But, I spent the first 19
years of my life IN a northern Illinois city that DID
experience ice storms, regular winter snowfall, etc.,
and the electric power was not always reliable. No, I
wasn't involved in radio comms then.

My urban area has a LARGE population. On January 17, 1994,
we all experienced a sizeable earthquake here. It killed
58 people. It left thousands temporarily homeless,
hundreds requiring medical aid for injuries. The ENTIRE
population (roughly 8 million) was without ANY electric
power for half a day, a few areas (physically damaged)
without for 3 days. My point was not a "can you top this"
thing but to point out that the public safety and utility
infrastructure had ALREADY prepared for this sort of thing
and acted as they had planned and trained for when
disaster struck. At that time the centralized emergency
communications network was new, involving dozens of
neighboring government public safety organizations. It
received a "trial by fire" test and passed it. Now I don't
claim (or "boast") that it is best, only that it WORKS.
Intelligent advanced planning and continuing training
WORKS.

Let's see. Others have complained that "the sticks" don't
have lots of money to do such things. No doubt true. But
the Greater Los Angeles area doesn't have "lots of money"
either. TAXES pay for nearly all. If there are 8 million
taxpayers, then the amount becomes large. In the case of
the LA emergency communications network, the local public
safety organizations ALREADY HAD the major part of the
communications equipment. So did the utility companies.
The thing needed was some way to tie them all together,
ORGANIZE, PLAN AHEAD, and KEEP TRAINING in the different
possible scenarios.

Out here there's lots of nature lovers who grouse and
grumble about our "concrete rivers." Flood control
channels, numerous in the 1.5 million population San
Fernando Valley. What most of them don't realize is that
the normally quiet, peaceful rivers and streams have
become raging torrents during heavy rainfall and flash
flooding. There's a few old, old motion pictures still
around that recorded one of the old floods. It used to
KILL people and render a lot of "the Valley" impossible
to settle for cities. Some good thinking, PLANNING AHEAD,
help from the WPA following the Great Depression enabled
the flood control channels to be built and make the place
safe from flood destruction. Yeah, "the sticks" couldn't
afford that, either...the federal government had to help
out. [need I mention the TVA?] But, we wound up with
no terrible destructive flash flooding as had been
nature's norm in past centuries. Mama Nature goes on a
big bender every once in a while, everywhere. We can't
stop that, only divert some of it.

The key is not necessarily money, just to ORGANIZE, PLAN
AHEAD, and KEEP TRAINING for any area, large, small, or
in-between, using resources at hand. More resources is a
different problem...politics of money disbursement is
something to handle at the local level.

ORGANIZE, PLAN AHEAD, TRAIN and keep on TRAINING.
It works. For professionals and amateurs alike. Press
releases won't do it.

"Bob Brock" wrote in
:


wrote in message
ups.com...
From: "Bob Brock" on Sat, 27 Jan 2007 09:12:18
-0500

It's been my life experience that MOST citizens will
voluntarily help out others in REAL emergencies, whether
or not they know how to operate a radio. Having been
IN a couple of REAL emergencies locally, I have yet to
experience first-hand any flurry of amateur activity to
"aid organizations who cannot communicate directly via
radio." During one of those REAL emergencies I've found
that the existing organizations were quite adequately
prepared...and drilled and trained on emergencies WITH
their equipment and worked-out emergency plans that
weren't public-relations news releases.

Back in 1999, I spent a week or so coordinating commumications between
E-Com (AKA 911) the National Guard, and the American Red Cross taking
people to shelters during an ice storm and major power outage.
Nothing has upgraded around here since then to allow the different
agencies to communicate if cell phones went out, so I'd be ready to do
it again. Not all of us live in the big cities and based on what I've
seen critiqued, they aren't much better than those of us out in the
sticks when it comes to interagency communications.

And you can bet any new systems that come along will have more
layers of structure embedded in them. Which of course will fail sooner
rather than later.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo wrote:

...
And you can bet any new systems that come along will have more
layers of structure embedded in them. Which of course will fail sooner
rather than later.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Mike:

In college, in the very early '70s, I had an electronics instructor,
came to teach through the military. I was confused and seen academia as
a series of VERY rigid hoops you had to jump through.

On day, Mr. Willet(sp) said to me, during a discussion, "It doesn't
matter how you learn a thing, it only matters you learn it."

At the time I did not realize the importance of his words, but not too
much after, I adopted them and have shared them with others, along the
way ... and, more importantly, I have adopted them as a rule to live by.

Those words have served me well ...

Warmest regards,
JS