Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message igy.com...
"KØHB" wrote in message hlink.net... "N2EY" wrote Suppose FCC enacted your proposal as you submitted it. Why would a person with the entry-level license be qualified for that license for ten years but then be unqualified for it after ten years? Particularly if they were willing to retest for the same license? It's a learners permit, NOT a license. If they couldn't/didn't learn enough in 10 years to pass the examination for a license, then they are obviously not qualified for a license. 73, de Hans, K0HB PS: Since it's my proposal, I get to define the terminology. Class "B" is a learners permit. Class "A" is a license. If you truly mean "learner's permit" and that it is not a license, then they really should be supervised each and every time they are on the air. If they are allowed on the air without supervision, then in reality it is a license not a learner's permit regardless of the limitations and whether or not it is renewable. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Jim and Steve insist they be self-taught to meet the Basis and Purpose. I propose that they also self-supervise, and the reduced power level keeps them and others out of harms way. 73, Brian |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
ARRL Propose New License Class & Code-Free HF Access | Antenna | |||
ARRL Walks Away From Bandwidth Restrictions | Dx | |||
BPL, the ARRL and the UPLC | Homebrew | |||
NEWS: N2DUP announces for ARRL section manager in Minnesota | General | |||
ARRL FUD about BPL | General |