| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#41
February 6th 04, 09:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Len, just get the dammed license. It's more fun to operate then to whine..... |
|
#42
February 6th 04, 10:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#43
February 6th 04, 11:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Leo" wrote in message ... On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 05:34:03 GMT, Dave Heil wrote: I'm not sure if Len's First Class license is equal to any of the Canadian ones listed in RIC-3 above - but if they are, the Canadian equivalent to his license would be sufficient to acquire a VEx callsign absolutely free upon request. Well, for a 49-cent stamp, anyway  At least they have to take the initiative to request it and that would make all the difference. Len has made no effort that anyone can see to get an amateur license. He appears to want to make changes without being a member of the affected group. It's rather like complaining about your congressman when you don't bother to vote. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
|
#44
February 6th 04, 11:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Leo wrote in message . ..
On 06 Feb 2004 14:54:40 GMT, (N2EY) wrote: In article , Leo writes: in Canada, as we grant full Amateur license privileges upon request to persons with appropriate Professional license qualifications. In the USA, there are almost no professional radio operator licenses left. There's the GROL and some radiotelegraph licenses, the latter because Morse operation on ships is still permitted (but no longer required). An excerpt from Industry Canada's Radio Information Circular follows: It would seem to me that this makes perfect sense - radio operation is radio operation, Is it? Then why all the various endorsements? Is "operating" a TV broadcast transmitter the same thing as 160 meter RTTY operation? I don't think so. Of course not - operating RTTY on the Amateur bands is dead easy - connect the transmitter to your sound card, install a software program, make a couple of tests and adjustments, and away you go! Are those "tests and adjustments" covered in the "professional" license tests? Are the amateur frequencies where RTTY is allowed, and what types of RTTY are allowed, covered in the professional license tests? And, if you make a few mistakes along the way, or if it takes a week to get it running, so what? Depends on the mistake. You're experimenting, and that's what amateur radio is all about. Then why have any ham radio tests or licenses at all? You're arguing for the end of all testing for a ham license, Leo. Now, make a couple of mistakes and knock WNEP-TV off the air for a couple of minutes - you might be an unemployed professional! Which acts as an incentive to know what you're doing. Does WNEP-TV change frequency, or have to listen first before transmitting? and the Pros have made a career of it All that means is that they get paid. There are some ladies and gentlemen on the streets of most major cities who make a "profession" out of something most people do as amateurs. (Some say it's the oldest profession). Politicians? Some say politicians are a subset of the oldest profession. ;-) Those people must be qualified to give advice on the subject of their profession, don't you think? ;-) We should revere what they say and do, and not question their knowledge and opinions on the subject, right? ;-) ;-) They must be better at it than us unpaid amateurs because they get paid to do it, right? ;-) ;-) ;-) I'll take your word for it, having no personal experience with the profession that you are referring to. If you say they're good, Jim, then they're good! I wouldn't know - I'm only an amateur in that field too. Generally speaking, though, professionals are more knowledgable than lay people because they are involved in their field full time, and are held to standards of conduct and proficiency set by not only the regulators but by their employers. Generally speaking. However, commercial radio and amateur radio are different fields. Being a "professional in radio", by itself, is no indication of qualification to operate an amateur radio station, and even less of an indication of qualification to determine amateur radio policy. And, rather than just sounding like experts, they are expected to demonstrate their proficiency - that's what they get paid for! 'Stay current or move out' is the rule of the technically-oriented workplace. Current with what? Most TV stations are still broadcasting NTSC signals, based on a mode that's at least 50 years old. If you don't care about color, a 1946 NTSC TV (if you can find one that works) is still usable. Then there's FM broadcasting which is about as old and good old MW AM, which goes back to the 1920s. - and invested considerably more education, time, effort and ongoing training than would be possible for most hobbyists. Maybe - remember that most of them got the license *before* the job. Back when the USA granted such things, the old Extra written was considered by most to be at least the equivalent of the First 'Phone. But now here's the big one: do the professional licenses include testing of the amateur rules, regulations, and operating practices? USA ones don't. Of course not - they don't teach professional photographers how to take amateur pictures either.... Then they are not qualified. But the rules and regs can be learned pretty easily Then there's no problem with requiring them to take a test for an amateur license. And are professional licensees allowed to build their own transmitters and put them on the air without any certification? Nope - this is what the Amateur bands are for (type approval not required, unlike the commercial frequencies). Then the "pros" aren't necessarily qualified in that area, either. In fact, there are precious few Amateurs left who could do that, Jim, even though our bands permit it. I can, and have. Passing any one of the current ARS tests does not require that sort of undestanding of electronics anymore. Not like when you first got involved - it has changed a lot since then. It was not required when I got started either. The US tests went to all-multiple-choice in 1960. Pick enough right answers on the written tests and you pass, regardless of whether you understand the material or not. Canada may be different. But I don't live there. After all, it would be pretty silly for the folks at the local photo club to argue that Yosuf Karsh's pictures were pretty good, but not up to "Amateur" standards! After all, the testing done for Amateur licences today is pretty easy to pass, even without a formal education in electronics. Agreed! But at least it still exists. Sort of, in vestigial format. You seem to be arguing that such licenses aren't really needed anymore. Too easy, I'd say, The FCC disagrees. Unfortunately. They're PROFESSIONALS, Leo! They have to "keep current or move out", right? It's their JOB to know what's needed, right? Who are we poor dumb old broken down amateurs to question them? ;-) Must not question the professionals. Their egos can't take it. IC has been advised of this under the recommendations that the RAC made to them following WRC-03 - I sincerely hope that they listen! Me too. but that is another issue......(when 7 year olds can pass exams with questions requiring calculation of squares, logs and complex numbers - which sure as heck weren't part of my kids Grade 2 syllabus - I start thinking rote memorization of question pools....) And that's not going to change any time soon. The GROL pool is public info, too. True, but if one did that, they'd have a tough time staying employed with it - employers have a nasty habit of asking their staff to demonstrate their abilities empirically, on a frequent basis! How often does the average employee at WNEP have to demonstrate knowledge of calculation of squares, logs and complex numbers? Rote memorization was what my point was about, though - and I'm sure that was the case. How do you know for sure? Do you know the 7 year old in question? If not, how can you say whether or not she's qualified or knows how to do the required math? Well, if she can, she certainly is a prodigy alright. Grade 11 math in Grade 2 - that is impressive! I'd say highly unlikely. Not Grade 11 stuff. Squares are 4th grade stuff around here. Logs maybe 6th grade. Complex numbers probably 9th or 10th. The 7 year old in question is homeschooled, btw. Ever talk to a 7-year old kid, Jim? At least daily. They just don't operate at that level. Some of them do. It depends on the child and the environment. Ever had a barely-7-year-old read "Watership Down" to you, and not miss a single word? I have. Good memories, though - like a sponge! Much of what's on the test (band edges, regs) is pure memory stuff. She is an Extra, though - I'll just bet she could build her own transmitter from scratch (forgetting for a moment that 7-year olds generally have enough trouble making neat letters with a pencil, let alone operating a soldering iron....) The 7 year olds I know write and draw quite well. Also use computers and do math. In one local second grade class, one of the first week's assignments was to write what you did over the summer. Expectation was 1-1/2 to 2-1/2 pages after editing. (The kids are expected to do a rough draft, edit and final. By the end of third grade it's outline, rough draft, edit, final). One 7 year old turned in a 31 page story (after editing) in the required time. It was quite readable, legible, accurate and had all the required elements. I built my first transmitter at age 13. From junk parts. Worked quite well. Of course I had previously built a couple of receivers and used them to learn the Morse code off the air. Since then I've homebrewed-from-scratch at least 7 transmitters, 8 receivers, 3 transceivers, and their related power supplies, antenna tuners, control systems, accessories, test equipment, antennas and shack furniture. The above does not include kits built and rebuilt, old gear restored to operation, military surplus converted to ham use, repairs and adjustments, and stuff done for other hams. Of which I've done plenty... It's easy and fun. Too many hams don't know what they're missing. - unlike the chief engineer at your local NBC affiliate, who is merely a professional in his field He probably doesn't have a license and probably never built a transmitter. You know, everyone seems to be holding this event up as a great accomplishment for Amateur Radio. It points out that the tests aren't that hard. Which some of us have been saying for years. And I applaud the little girl's dedication to memorizing the material and passing all of the required tests. That took a lot of effort on her part. But it is a clear indication that the testing procedure is far too easy - IMHO. It can be memorized, which removes any requirement to comprehend the material. Do you believe that a 7-year old can comprehend the theories of complex numbers as they relate to impedance in a resonant circuit? I'm sure some can. Bull. Have you ever been around really bright children whose talents are recognized and supported, Leo? They're capable of far more than many adults give them credit for. Complex numbers are simply a way of dealing with a pair of related electrical quantities. There's no need to have a detailed understanding of that whole field of math just to do some LCR calculations. And there is *no* requirement that *any* ham understand complex numbers. A question - was a similar arrangement for the recognition of professional credentials in the Amateur service ever in place in the US? No, except that some radiotelegraphy test elements were credited because they were essentially the same in both services. The problem has always been that the commercial (not professional - in the USA that means something very specific) licenses did not test for knowledge of amateur regs or operating practices. So a commercial licensee was not qualified to operate an amateur station based on the commercial license test alone. And that's still the case. With the reciprocity agreement between Canada and the US, someone who has obtained their Amateur licence based on their Professional qualifications automatically gains full Amateur operating privileges when travelling in the US. One would think it logical for this arrangement to be bidirectional, n'est pas? No. It's a bad arrangement. Unless the Canadian professional tests include the amateur rules and operating practices, your government is derelict in its duty to the ARS. That's a plain and simple fact. IC disagrees. But I'll ask them to take your opinion under advisement Wrong is wrong. But the IC are professionals, aren't they? Personally I'd think, for example, that the guy who sits in a control tower accurately vectoring planes all over our busy airspace is far better equipped to carry on a two-way conversation on 2-meters than the average amateur who passed a relatively simple test! Maybe. But there's no requirement that he have any sort of radio operator's license. He doesn't need to know how the radios work. Complex numbers? He could learn all of the operating procedures that he needs by reading a couple of sections of the RAC study guide....a couple of nights would be all it would take. And, in a real emergency, that's the guy that I would want to see on the radio, coordinating things! maybe - if he knows the environment. Not the guy with the mag mount 2-meter antenna on his callsigned baseball cap at the local hamfest.....(I swear he goes to every hamfest in the world - you've seen him at yours, haven't you? )No. I'm too busy looking at rigs and parts. For the USA to make the same mistake would be a very bad thing, unless the GROL tests were changed. Even then it would be questionable, because it would probably be possible for someone to pass the Commercial exam but get all the amateur-radio-related questions wrong. Such a person is simply not qualified to operate an amateur radio station. ...unless they can find a 7-year old to elmer them, that is. That is some prettty tough material to master! LOL! Would you talk that way to a 7 year old, Leo? btw, when I was in EE school, I wound up elmering my faculty advisor. He was a PhD EE but didn't know much about radio, because radio is only a small part of EE. He knew *his* part of EE backwards and forwards, but needed *me* to help him figure out ham radio. I was glad to help, of course. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#46
February 7th 04, 03:13 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Leo
writes: On 6 Feb 2004 15:18:39 -0800, (N2EY) wrote: Leo wrote in message ... On 06 Feb 2004 14:54:40 GMT, (N2EY) wrote: In article , Leo writes: in Canada, as we grant full Amateur license privileges upon request to persons with appropriate Professional license qualifications. In the USA, there are almost no professional radio operator licenses left. There's the GROL and some radiotelegraph licenses, the latter because Morse operation on ships is still permitted (but no longer required). An excerpt from Industry Canada's Radio Information Circular follows: It would seem to me that this makes perfect sense - radio operation is radio operation, Is it? Then why all the various endorsements? Is "operating" a TV broadcast transmitter the same thing as 160 meter RTTY operation? I don't think so. Of course not - operating RTTY on the Amateur bands is dead easy - connect the transmitter to your sound card, install a software program, make a couple of tests and adjustments, and away you go! Are those "tests and adjustments" covered in the "professional" license tests? Are the amateur frequencies where RTTY is allowed, and what types of RTTY are allowed, covered in the professional license tests? Well, the Canadian bandplans are not mandated by IC - they are voluntary, and developed by the amaueur community themselves. Not talking about bandplans. Therefore, not covered on the Amateur exam. Neither was RTTY, as I recall - that was learned later, after licensing! Band edges. Power limits. Amateur operating practices. Requirements to ID. Content limitations. All different for hams. Not covered in commercial license exams. And, if you make a few mistakes along the way, or if it takes a week to get it running, so what? Depends on the mistake. Well, other than operating out of band, there ain't much that a "sorry" wouldn't cover! So when somebody decides to run ten or twenty times the legal power, a "sorry" is supposed to cover it? Or when somebody uses ham radio for commercial purposes, or music, etc.. a "sorry" is supposed to cover it? Sorry, that's not good enough. You're experimenting, and that's what amateur radio is all about. Then why have any ham radio tests or licenses at all? You're arguing for the end of all testing for a ham license, Leo. Not at all - Yes, you are. If a "sorry" can cover most violations, there's no need for most of the tests. I'm suggesting that (many of) the radio skills acquired in the acquisition of a commercial license are directly applicable to the Amateur service. Transferrable skills. Maybe. But most of what a ham needs to know is not covered by a commercial license test. Now, make a couple of mistakes and knock WNEP-TV off the air for a couple of minutes - you might be an unemployed professional! Which acts as an incentive to know what you're doing. Yup! Does WNEP-TV change frequency, or have to listen first before transmitting? That is a pretty simple skill - I'm sure the broadcast engineers could figure it out rather quickly I don't think so. They're used to doing all the talking and none of the listening. and the Pros have made a career of it All that means is that they get paid. There are some ladies and gentlemen on the streets of most major cities who make a "profession" out of something most people do as amateurs. (Some say it's the oldest profession). Politicians? Some say politicians are a subset of the oldest profession. ;-) Fully agreed! So we should listen to those professionals? Those people must be qualified to give advice on the subject of their profession, don't you think? ;-) We should revere what they say and do, and not question their knowledge and opinions on the subject, right? ;-) ;-) They must be better at it than us unpaid amateurs because they get paid to do it, right? ;-) ;-) ;-) I'll take your word for it, having no personal experience with the profession that you are referring to. If you say they're good, Jim, then they're good! I wouldn't know - I'm only an amateur in that field too. Generally speaking, though, professionals are more knowledgable than lay people because they are involved in their field full time, and are held to standards of conduct and proficiency set by not only the regulators but by their employers. Generally speaking. However, commercial radio and amateur radio are different fields. Being a "professional in radio", by itself, is no indication of qualification to operate an amateur radio station, and even less of an indication of qualification to determine amateur radio policy. Two different concepts. That's right. Amateur radio and commercial radio are two different concepts. Being a licensed professional in radio implies a knowledge of radio theory and concepts - many of which are tranferrable from one area (commercial) to another (amateur). Some. Not many. By nature, amateur activities have much greater margins for error than professional ones - they are hobby based, after all! Then why have licenses at all? Amateur radio policy, on the other hand, is made by legislators, none of whom require any knowledge of radio to carry out the responsibilities of their office. They need to understand certain concepts of radio in order to do the job. Doesn't mean they all do. And, rather than just sounding like experts, they are expected to demonstrate their proficiency - that's what they get paid for! 'Stay current or move out' is the rule of the technically-oriented workplace. Current with what? Most TV stations are still broadcasting NTSC signals, based on a mode that's at least 50 years old. If you don't care about color, a 1946 NTSC TV (if you can find one that works) is still usable. Then there's FM broadcasting which is about as old and good old MW AM, which goes back to the 1920s. With equipment that is vastly more complex than what the average amateur is using, though. So what? They don;t have to buy it with their own money, nor take care of it with their own money in their spare time. Amateurs do. Makes all the difference in the world. If you get the opportunity, have a look inside a cellular base station sometime - all of the equipment in there is computer controlled Which means no licensed operators are needed at all. Elimination of operators has been a major goal of commercial and military radio services for years. One less warm body to pay. Just like the railroads eliminated most block operators years ago, and the telephone company went to dial equipment, and the airlines went to planes that can be flown by two, not three. - nothing even resembling a piece of radio gear to be seen. Only if you don't know what it looks like ;-) The signal out, though, is Hertzian, and as old as the universe.... If it's as old as the universe, it existed before Hertz. - and invested considerably more education, time, effort and ongoing training than would be possible for most hobbyists. Maybe - remember that most of them got the license *before* the job. Back when the USA granted such things, the old Extra written was considered by most to be at least the equivalent of the First 'Phone. But now here's the big one: do the professional licenses include testing of the amateur rules, regulations, and operating practices? USA ones don't. Of course not - they don't teach professional photographers how to take amateur pictures either.... Then they are not qualified. But the rules and regs can be learned pretty easily Then there's no problem with requiring them to take a test for an amateur license. Sure, but according to IC, that isn't a concern! IC is just wrong. And are professional licensees allowed to build their own transmitters and put them on the air without any certification? Nope - this is what the Amateur bands are for (type approval not required, unlike the commercial frequencies). Then the "pros" aren't necessarily qualified in that area, either. In fact, there are precious few Amateurs left who could do that, Jim, even though our bands permit it. I can, and have. I know - but they just ain't making them like you anymore! Yes, they are. There are plenty of hams like me around, building, operating, using Morse code....That sort of thing really bothers some people. Passing any one of the current ARS tests does not require that sort of undestanding of electronics anymore. Not like when you first got involved - it has changed a lot since then. It was not required when I got started either. The US tests went to all-multiple-choice in 1960. Pick enough right answers on the written tests and you pass, regardless of whether you understand the material or not. Canada may be different. But I don't live there. Same, actually. 100 questions, 60 correct gets you a basic license. 60% passing? At least here it's ~74%. After all, it would be pretty silly for the folks at the local photo club to argue that Yosuf Karsh's pictures were pretty good, but not up to "Amateur" standards! After all, the testing done for Amateur licences today is pretty easy to pass, even without a formal education in electronics. Agreed! But at least it still exists. Sort of, in vestigial format. You seem to be arguing that such licenses aren't really needed anymore. No - I'm arguing that they are becoming meaningless - simple memory work that a child can do. If they're meaningless they aren't needed. Has the licensing of young children caused any problems for the ARS? Are they making a mess of the bands? btw, Canada used to have an age requirement of 15 for any class of amateur license. Would you have them put that requirement back? The USA never had an age requirement for a ham license, but at least one frequent poster here petitioned the FCC to add an age requirement of 14 years. Fortunately the FCC did not do so. Too easy, I'd say, The FCC disagrees. Unfortunately. They're PROFESSIONALS, Leo! They have to "keep current or move out", right? It's their JOB to know what's needed, right? Who are we poor dumb old broken down amateurs to question them? ;-) They are regulators and politicians, actually.... They're still PROFESSIONALS IN RADIO. Who are you or I to question them? ;-) Must not question the professionals. Their egos can't take it. Well, I'm sure that if you asked a holder of a first class radio license who has worked in the field for years a radio theory question, they'd probably get it right! I've seen them get it wrong. Some don't even know what firmware is. IC has been advised of this under the recommendations that the RAC made to them following WRC-03 - I sincerely hope that they listen! Me too. but that is another issue......(when 7 year olds can pass exams with questions requiring calculation of squares, logs and complex numbers - which sure as heck weren't part of my kids Grade 2 syllabus - I start thinking rote memorization of question pools....) And that's not going to change any time soon. The GROL pool is public info, too. True, but if one did that, they'd have a tough time staying employed with it - employers have a nasty habit of asking their staff to demonstrate their abilities empirically, on a frequent basis! How often does the average employee at WNEP have to demonstrate knowledge of calculation of squares, logs and complex numbers? The receptionist - never. The hands-on technical people - rarely - but they would need it to complete their formal education in radio theory, I'd reckon. Is formal education necessary for the license? Rote memorization was what my point was about, though - and I'm sure that was the case. How do you know for sure? I don't - but I'd say the odds are pretty heavily in my favour. They are - but you wrote as if there were no other possibility. Do you know the 7 year old in question? If not, how can you say whether or not she's qualified or knows how to do the required math? Well, if she can, she certainly is a prodigy alright. Grade 11 math in Grade 2 - that is impressive! I'd say highly unlikely. Not Grade 11 stuff. Squares are 4th grade stuff around here. Logs maybe 6th grade. Complex numbers probably 9th or 10th. Not Grade 2, though Nope. But not grade 11 either. As I recall, Grade 2 was time for "Fun With Dick And Jane", not "Fum With Maxerll And Hertz". "Fun with Dick And Jane" is long gone. The 7 year old in question is homeschooled, btw. Ever talk to a 7-year old kid, Jim? At least daily. Listen often too? At least daily. How about you? They just don't operate at that level. Some of them do. It depends on the child and the environment. Ever had a barely-7-year-old read "Watership Down" to you, and not miss a single word? I have. Yup - I have yet to meet one who could read a schematic, or calculate impedance though - no wonder the watership went down! You obviously never read the book. Good memories, though - like a sponge! Much of what's on the test (band edges, regs) is pure memory stuff. Thought the Extra was more theoretical than regulation based? None of them are heavy on theory. Not anymore. She is an Extra, though - I'll just bet she could build her own transmitter from scratch (forgetting for a moment that 7-year olds generally have enough trouble making neat letters with a pencil, let alone operating a soldering iron....) The 7 year olds I know write and draw quite well. Also use computers and do math. In one local second grade class, one of the first week's assignments was to write what you did over the summer. Expectation was 1-1/2 to 2-1/2 pages after editing. (The kids are expected to do a rough draft, edit and final. By the end of third grade it's outline, rough draft, edit, final). One 7 year old turned in a 31 page story (after editing) in the required time. It was quite readable, legible, accurate and had all the required elements. I built my first transmitter at age 13. From junk parts. Worked quite well. Of course I had previously built a couple of receivers and used them to learn the Morse code off the air. There is a huge difference between 7 and 13, Jim. Big difference. Sure. But the point is that simple transmitter building isn't that hard. And there's no requirement that a ham build anything. Since then I've homebrewed-from-scratch at least 7 transmitters, 8 receivers, 3 transceivers, and their related power supplies, antenna tuners, control systems, accessories, test equipment, antennas and shack furniture. The above does not include kits built and rebuilt, old gear restored to operation, military surplus converted to ham use, repairs and adjustments, and stuff done for other hams. Of which I've done plenty... It's easy and fun. Too many hams don't know what they're missing. Absolutely. But you're not 7! I'm not 13 either. - unlike the chief engineer at your local NBC affiliate, who is merely a professional in his field He probably doesn't have a license and probably never built a transmitter. Is that a requirement for an Amateur license? Wasn't on my test.... Then why does it matter? You know, everyone seems to be holding this event up as a great accomplishment for Amateur Radio. It points out that the tests aren't that hard. Which some of us have been saying for years. Agreed. And I applaud the little girl's dedication to memorizing the material and passing all of the required tests. That took a lot of effort on her part. But it is a clear indication that the testing procedure is far too easy - IMHO. It can be memorized, which removes any requirement to comprehend the material. Do you believe that a 7-year old can comprehend the theories of complex numbers as they relate to impedance in a resonant circuit? I'm sure some can. Sure, Jim. There are plenty of older hams who can't do it either. Would you take their licenses away? The whole point of putting that on the test was to encourage people to learn technical material, not memory walk through it. Hasn't worked, has it? It's just a hoop most hams have to jump through, isn't it? Bull. Horse. Have you ever been around really bright children whose talents are recognized and supported, Leo? They're capable of far more than many adults give them credit for. Complex numbers are simply a way of dealing with a pair of related electrical quantities. There's no need to have a detailed understanding of that whole field of math just to do some LCR calculations. Agreed - and any idiot can learn to plug numbers into a formula. Why such a nasty tone? "Idiots"? The idea was to learn the root concepts and theories! Hasn't worked, has it? And there is *no* requirement that *any* ham understand complex numbers. There is, if he really wants to figure out why his 50 ohm antenna has an SWR of 2.6 to 1...... Not at all. And why would a 50 ohm antenna have such a high SWR if it's 50 ohms? A question - was a similar arrangement for the recognition of professional credentials in the Amateur service ever in place in the US? No, except that some radiotelegraphy test elements were credited because they were essentially the same in both services. The problem has always been that the commercial (not professional - in the USA that means something very specific) licenses did not test for knowledge of amateur regs or operating practices. So a commercial licensee was not qualified to operate an amateur station based on the commercial license test alone. And that's still the case. With the reciprocity agreement between Canada and the US, someone who has obtained their Amateur licence based on their Professional qualifications automatically gains full Amateur operating privileges when travelling in the US. One would think it logical for this arrangement to be bidirectional, n'est pas? No. It's a bad arrangement. Unless the Canadian professional tests include the amateur rules and operating practices, your government is derelict in its duty to the ARS. That's a plain and simple fact. IC disagrees. But I'll ask them to take your opinion under advisement Wrong is wrong. But the IC are professionals, aren't they? Yep - professional regulators. Them who makes the rules! PROFESSIONALS IN RADIO!!! Personally I'd think, for example, that the guy who sits in a control tower accurately vectoring planes all over our busy airspace is far better equipped to carry on a two-way conversation on 2-meters than the average amateur who passed a relatively simple test! Maybe. But there's no requirement that he have any sort of radio operator's license. He doesn't need to know how the radios work. Complex numbers? They aren'r required - you just told me that.... Exactly. Nor band edges, or power limits, etc. He could learn all of the operating procedures that he needs by reading a couple of sections of the RAC study guide....a couple of nights would be all it would take. And, in a real emergency, that's the guy that I would want to see on the radio, coordinating things! maybe - if he knows the environment. Not the guy with the mag mount 2-meter antenna on his callsigned baseball cap at the local hamfest.....(I swear he goes to every hamfest in the world - you've seen him at yours, haven't you? )No. I'm too busy looking at rigs and parts. Look up - he's there, along with the guys who look like the local homeless shelter burnt down! Gee, you sure have a high opinion of your fellow hams. For the USA to make the same mistake would be a very bad thing, unless the GROL tests were changed. Even then it would be questionable, because it would probably be possible for someone to pass the Commercial exam but get all the amateur-radio-related questions wrong. Such a person is simply not qualified to operate an amateur radio station. ...unless they can find a 7-year old to elmer them, that is. That is some prettty tough material to master! LOL! Would you talk that way to a 7 year old, Leo? Why not? How much time *do* you spend with children? btw, when I was in EE school, I wound up elmering my faculty advisor. He was a PhD EE but didn't know much about radio, because radio is only a small part of EE. He knew *his* part of EE backwards and forwards, but needed *me* to help him figure out ham radio. I was glad to help, of course. Yep, you're quite the guy alright! Glad you figured that out. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#47
February 7th 04, 03:25 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
(N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article , ospam (Larry Roll K3LT) writes: I was born Oct 31, 1952. I got my Novice ticket July 21, 1981. I passed Extra Feb, 7, 1983. I reckon that made me 30 years, 4 months, 7 days old at the time. What a great new game! I'll play: I was born April 24, 1954. I got my Novice ticket October 14, 1967. I got my Extra September 26, 1970. (Dates are when the actual license arrived - passed the tests about six weeks earlier). I reckon that made me 16 years, 5 months, 2 days old when the Extra came in the mail. That 2 year experience requirement held me up at least a year). Anybody else? 73 de Jim, N2EY .. . . Move over ya newbies, ALLYA, the OF has logged in . . b. 05Mar37 Novice ticket, wn3yik some time or another in the 1953-54 timeframe. 16-17 years old. Novice WAS on 80. Most memorable Q: Wire blew down overnite. I "inductively coupled" my sleeping brother to the ARC-5 output and worked a guy in Pittsburgh mid-morning. General 10 months later. Give or take. First Q as a General was G5ZK. On 80 of course. Extra whenever it was in the late '60s when ya had to pass the stupid test or get booted outta the dx hot slices. 30-31 years old? w3rv CP 30 circa 1955 DXCC mixed #10k & DXCC Phone WAZ 5BDXCC #142/'72 |
|
#48
February 7th 04, 03:56 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#49
February 7th 04, 06:57 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#50
February 7th 04, 06:57 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Leo
writes: On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 05:34:03 GMT, Dave Heil wrote: Len Five Decades Over 21 but not acting a day over eleven wrote: If you're waiting for radio amateurs to be impressed by your professional credentials, you're likely going to be disappointed. I must admit, I've taken a shot or three at Len over exactly the same issue - no Amateur callsign = no valid opinion on Amateur issues. No problem to me. :-) Somebody shoots at me in the newsgroup and I shoot back...which bothers the hokey heck out some. :-) What's fun, sort of, is to watch the adamantly stubborn they-are- right-no-matter-if-they-are-wrong-but-try-to-rationalize-their- wrongness-by-not-very-creative-spin. Usually I find those folks are to ones who get personal amusement at others' misfortunes of whatever kind. If someone doesn't have misfortunes they imagine one and apply it to them, one way or another. However, a little research reveals that this distinction would be irrelevant in Canada, as we grant full Amateur license privileges upon request to persons with appropriate Professional license qualifications. I think that is perfectly fine, but don't make book on any of the PCTA newsgroupies to agree with that. They are hidebound with gold leaf edging to hold utterly fast to their own beliefs and standards...curiously enough exactly those when They first got licensed (authorized, not qualified). An excerpt from Industry Canada's Radio Information Circular follows: snip of very informative material It would seem to me that this makes perfect sense - radio operation is radio operation, and the Pros have made a career of it - and invested considerably more education, time, effort and ongoing training than would be possible for most hobbyists. After all, it would be pretty silly for the folks at the local photo club to argue that Yosuf Karsh's pictures were pretty good, but not up to "Amateur" standards! Careful, they won't know who Karsh is/was...a decided narrowing of other interests and some lack of familiarity outside of hum radio among these newsgroupies...:-) After all, the testing done for Amateur licences today is pretty easy to pass, even without a formal education in electronics. Too easy, I'd say, but that is another issue......(when 7 year olds can pass exams with questions requiring calculation of squares, logs and complex numbers - which sure as heck weren't part of my kids Grade 2 syllabus - I start thinking rote memorization of question pools....) ...consider also benevolent, grandfatherly VEs over here, such as the ones "passing" the written exams of two six year olds about three years (?) or so ago. :-) A question - was a similar arrangement for the recognition of professional credentials in the Amateur service ever in place in the US? With the reciprocity agreement between Canada and the US, someone who has obtained their Amateur licence based on their Professional qualifications automatically gains full Amateur operating privileges when travelling in the US. One would think it logical for this arrangement to be bidirectional, n'est pas? I'm not sure if Len's First Class license is equal to any of the Canadian ones listed in RIC-3 above - but if they are, the Canadian equivalent to his license would be sufficient to acquire a VEx callsign absolutely free upon request. Well, for a 49-cent stamp, anyway Actually, I'm not absolutely interested in "being qualified" by a pretty certificate (suitable for framing) from our FCC. I got really and truly qualified to do that a half century ago, operating HF transmitters having RF power outputs of 1 to 40 KW. The operating word ought to be "authorized," not qualified. Our FCC exists to regulate U.S. civil radio and interstate communications (NTIA oversees military and government agency communications) and their use of licenses is as a regulatory tool. Besides, my 'first phone got changed to a General Radiotelephone (Commercial) license some time ago. Watch this space since the resident gunnery nurse is going to come in on that with six-guns blazing, cussing up a storm but getting only misfires and overcast. :-) heh heh heh. Over 40 years ago I joined a grass-roots campaign for a young senator from Massachusetts wanting to become President of the USA. J.F.K. was Catholic but I had no desire to become Catholic. Neither did I want any political position, favor, or anything else as a result of such voluntary work on his behalf. Kennedy won by a narrow margin. It was a "cause" that was just personal, nothing else to justify it. Some of the anal-retentive olde-tyme hammes in here DEMAND a justification for action, all but invoking a death penalty if one doesn't live up to their demands. Good grief, those are Charley Browns that Sparky never drew...except the maybe beagle dreaming of being a WW1 fighter ace in his Sopwith Camel. They dream of Being In Charge, of being some kind of "ace" in radio through their mighty macho morsemanship. [that kind of "ace" is not spelled with a C or E but with two Ss...:-) ] Maybe its some kind of "radio testosterone"? Most of the time those MMMs just try to use a humiliation ploy with the incessant "I've got a license and you ain't, nyah, nyah, nyah." Geez, its only a HOBBY license but you would think they got promoted to Chief of Staff of Amateur Signals with some kind of field grade rank (colonel to general, complete with flag on front car bumper)... :-) My only objective overall is to be one of many advocating the elimination of the morse code test for a license. That's it. But, there's another element that may be at work with some of the MMMs: If the morse code test is eliminated, they will lose bragging rights to their fabled rank, their status as guru radio operator gods in amateurism. That is extremely hard on their personal self-esteem and they get all steamed over such perceived blows to their boilers. They elevated themselves (without "bootstrap" circuit) to lofty positions and had most of their pedestals yanked away. They lost federal support for their mental hernias. They are but mortal and their works are not that mighty after all (to paraphrase Tenneyson). Nobody cares to admire their deeds and doings to standards and practices of 70 years ago, a time when they did not exist. As far as I'm concerned, by all objective measure, there's just no need for any government to require a morse code test for any amateur radio license. There's no ITU requirement to "obey." Not since July of last year. The IARU agrees, despite the spin of the ARRL trying to indicate otherwise. The ARRL doesn't agree. PCTAs don't, indeed can't agree since the loss of the code test as a requirement would be an ego blow equivalent to mass destruction. The familiar argument heard in here is to the effect that "ONLY amateurs can discuss, direct, or implement rules and regulations of and about amateurs." That's a base falsity. The United States Constitution, in its First Amendment, grants the right of ALL U.S. citizens to petition our government for the redress of grievances. We have a number of similar rights which don't discriminate in the favor of elitist, special interest groups. Our FCC was created by an Act of our Congress in 1934. In all the time since then (almost 70 years) there has been absolutely NO law or condition that any Commissioner or staff member hold any amateur radio license in order to make, change, or enforce amateur radio regulations. None. No such law exists...except in the imaginary posse commitatus fantasy of a small group of would-be tyrants of opinion...some of them in here parading around in the false patriotism of "honor and respect and tradition for 'the service.'" BS...a food group already processed through by male bovines. All of the MMMs who parrot their false patriotism and elitism are really only trying to elevate themselves to lofty but imaginary positions of glory and gradeur that don't exist. Not a good role model for enhancing any interest in a fun, recreational activity involving radio. But, it satisfies them no end for, in their imaginary ego world, they are absolute champions of whatever they have done. All others are non-existant. Actually, in such an environment, there is no possibility of rational, civilized discussion. Except for one little thing. This is (so far) an open, public newsgroup, unmoderated. There are no guards checking credentials at any door, there are only the self-styled Waffen SS equivalents roaming about, snarling about "qualifications." Interesting place, this newsgroup. Kraft-Ebbing could have had a second edition to cover it for the psychiatric professionals. Some get oriongasms even... :-) LHA / WMD |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Extra class - question about the test | General | |||
| From the Extra question pool: The dipole | General | |||
| From the Extra question pool: The dipole | Policy | |||
| Low reenlistment rate | Policy | |||
| 1x2 Calls--automatic when upgrading to Extra? | Policy | |||
Linear Mode
