| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
January 30th 04, 10:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
My Idea For A New License Structure
For implementation sometime AFTER the "code issue" is resolved:
(1) Amateur Basic. Forty question test with access to 144mHz, 50Mhz, 28mHz, 21mHz, 18mHz, 7mHz and 1.8mHz. Same phone allocations as other licensees on HF bands. Morse Code endorsement required for opera- tion in lower 100kHz of any band. Limit 100 watts output on any band. (2) Amateur Advanced. Additional written examination. All presently HF-licensed Amateurs except Extras grandfathered to new license. Privileges same as for former Advanced Class. Morse Code endorsement required for operation in lower 100kHz of any band EXCEPT for those previously code tested or already holding an Element 1 CSCE. New licensees (not grandfathered operators) limit to 500 watts on any band. (3) Amateur Radio-God Expert for Life (OK...that was for Lennie's benefit...I'D call it Amateur Extra) Comprehensive closed-pool written test. REQUIRED 5wpm Morse Code test. Full Amateur allocations and privileges. Additional phone allocations (or "wideband", if you prefer non-mode specific classifi- cations) from previous Novice class bands. Full power. Why? Why not...?!?! 73 Steve, K4YZ |
|
#2
January 31st 04, 03:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#4
January 31st 04, 11:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message . com...
(William) wrote in message om... (Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message . com... For implementation sometime AFTER the "code issue" is resolved: (1) Amateur Basic. Forty question test with access to 144mHz, 50Mhz, 28mHz, 21mHz, 18mHz, 7mHz and 1.8mHz. Same phone allocations as other licensees on HF bands. Morse Code endorsement required for opera- tion in lower 100kHz of any band. Limit 100 watts output on any band. Needs rf hazard study on 28Mhz with 100 watts. Snip to... Steve, other than one license class too many, and no term limit on "basic," sounds reasonable. Thanks, but what's the problem with an "rf hazard study"...?!?! Everyone acts as though this is going to require a Master's degree to accomplish. I don't see why any reasoable nudge towards anything having to do with safety is an imposition...Other than it might REQUIRE some acutal exercising of the grey matter, I think ALL classes should have to do it at some point in time. Then why have classes? |
|
#6
January 31st 04, 06:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
(N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article , (Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes: For implementation sometime AFTER the "code issue" is resolved: For some folks, it will only be resolved when there is no code testing at all. Agreed, but then there are folks who are still insisting on a second shooter on the Grassy Knoll. You can't please everyone! (1) Amateur Basic. Forty question test with access to 144mHz, 50Mhz, 28mHz, 21mHz, 18mHz, 7mHz and 1.8mHz. Why no 80, 30, 20, or 12 meters? Why not allow 222 in hopes of increasing use of the band? 80: Perhaps 80. 30: Let's leave this for folks who WANT to beep and for those elusive data modes. 20: This is where everyone wants to go and play...Let them get their feet wet on 17 and 15 meters...then they can come play with the Big Boys. 12: If you're going to draw limitations on bands you have to draw the line somewhere. 1.25: I think this band is fodder, Jim. I realize that the metro areas (ie: NYC, LA, ATL, etc...) make better use of it, but we've done everything except beg the Pope to support the band. We can give it a shot, but the history of this band is that it won't "sell". Same phone allocations as other licensees on HF bands. You mean same as Extras have now? Morse Code endorsement required for opera- tion in lower 100kHz of any band. Bad idea. Acts as a disincentive to use CW and digital modes, and as an incentive to use voice only! OK...Bottom 50kHz...?!?! Limit 100 watts output on any band. Requires RF exposure eval on higher bands. Why not 100/25? It rrequires an eval IF you're using that much power. As I asked "Billy Beeper", why is everyone running away from trying to make sure we are as safe as we can be? Isn't this a part of the "learning curve"...?!?! (2) Amateur Advanced. Additional written examination. OK All presently HF-licensed Amateurs except Extras grandfathered to new license. Even Novices and Techs? That's a worse giveaway than ARRL proposes! It's one-time and it's over. If current expiration of Novices and Techs are any indicator, most of those folks won't be taking advantage of it anyway. Privileges same as for former Advanced Class. Morse Code endorsement required for operation in lower 100kHz of any band EXCEPT for those previously code tested or already holding an Element 1 CSCE. New licensees (not grandfathered operators) limit to 500 watts on any band. See above about code test. Ditto my last. There's no "data" being used in the bottom 50 of most bands... (3) Amateur Radio-God Expert for Life (OK...that was for Lennie's benefit...I'D call it Amateur Extra) I have no idea why you bother with him, Steve. It's like swinging at a pinata...One guy makes a fool out of himself while everyone else gets to laugh at the process! Comprehensive closed-pool written test. How? "Son Of Bash" would make it open pool quickly. Plus, how can you make a case that only the top ticket gets a closed pool but open is OK for the others? Because this would be the "final exam". If someone is truly worthy of having "the whole enchilada", then they should be able to prove it. And as for the "Bash" syndrome, I suggest a new line in Part 97: "Test Confidentiality: Except for those test items released by the VEC as approved by the Commission, it shall be a violation of this Part to reveal content of any examination prepared for any Amateur Radio operator examination." REQUIRED 5wpm Morse Code test. Full Amateur allocations and privileges. Additional phone allocations (or "wideband", if you prefer non-mode specific classifi- cations) from previous Novice class bands. Full power. Why? Three levels - good. Incremental power and privs - good Why not...?!?! See above. Ya still snowed in, Jim? Blue skies here, and I washed the car in a scrub shirt this morning! 73 Steve, K4YZ |
|
#7
January 31st 04, 08:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steve Robeson, K4CAP wrote:
(N2EY) wrote in message ... In article , (Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes: For implementation sometime AFTER the "code issue" is resolved: For some folks, it will only be resolved when there is no code testing at all. Agreed, but then there are folks who are still insisting on a second shooter on the Grassy Knoll. You can't please everyone! (1) Amateur Basic. Forty question test with access to 144mHz, 50Mhz, 28mHz, 21mHz, 18mHz, 7mHz and 1.8mHz. Why no 80, 30, 20, or 12 meters? Why not allow 222 in hopes of increasing use of the band? 80: Perhaps 80. 30: Let's leave this for folks who WANT to beep and for those elusive data modes. 20: This is where everyone wants to go and play...Let them get their feet wet on 17 and 15 meters...then they can come play with the Big Boys. 12: If you're going to draw limitations on bands you have to draw the line somewhere. 1.25: I think this band is fodder, Jim. I realize that the metro areas (ie: NYC, LA, ATL, etc...) make better use of it, but we've done everything except beg the Pope to support the band. We can give it a shot, but the history of this band is that it won't "sell". Same phone allocations as other licensees on HF bands. You mean same as Extras have now? Morse Code endorsement required for opera- tion in lower 100kHz of any band. Bad idea. Acts as a disincentive to use CW and digital modes, and as an incentive to use voice only! OK...Bottom 50kHz...?!?! Limit 100 watts output on any band. Requires RF exposure eval on higher bands. Why not 100/25? It rrequires an eval IF you're using that much power. As I asked "Billy Beeper", why is everyone running away from trying to make sure we are as safe as we can be? Isn't this a part of the "learning curve"...?!?! Very good point, Steve! If we have to learn about RF safety, we might as well use it. I would want ANY amateur at ANY license level to be capable of doing an RF safety evaluation. To not have such a thing is to me criminal negligence! (2) Amateur Advanced. Additional written examination. OK All presently HF-licensed Amateurs except Extras grandfathered to new license. Even Novices and Techs? That's a worse giveaway than ARRL proposes! It's one-time and it's over. If current expiration of Novices and Techs are any indicator, most of those folks won't be taking advantage of it anyway. Privileges same as for former Advanced Class. Morse Code endorsement required for operation in lower 100kHz of any band EXCEPT for those previously code tested or already holding an Element 1 CSCE. New licensees (not grandfathered operators) limit to 500 watts on any band. See above about code test. Ditto my last. There's no "data" being used in the bottom 50 of most bands... (3) Amateur Radio-God Expert for Life (OK...that was for Lennie's benefit...I'D call it Amateur Extra) I have no idea why you bother with him, Steve. It's like swinging at a pinata...One guy makes a fool out of himself while everyone else gets to laugh at the process! HOWL!!!!!! Best comeback all week, Steve! I owe ya for the good laugh. 8^) - Mike KB3EIA - |
|
#8
January 31st 04, 09:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Steve Robeson, K4CAP wrote:
(N2EY) wrote in message ... In article , (Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes: Comprehensive closed-pool written test. How? "Son Of Bash" would make it open pool quickly. Plus, how can you make a case that only the top ticket gets a closed pool but open is OK for the others? Because this would be the "final exam". If someone is truly worthy of having "the whole enchilada", then they should be able to prove it. And as for the "Bash" syndrome, I suggest a new line in Part 97: "Test Confidentiality: Except for those test items released by the VEC as approved by the Commission, it shall be a violation of this Part to reveal content of any examination prepared for any Amateur Radio operator examination." Never going to happen; this would require a FCC exemption from the Freedom of Information Act. The FAA has such an exemption and still publishes all the questions and answers for FAA tests. Of course there are those that seem to think an amateur extra license is of greater importance than an airline transport pilot certificate and an instrument rating. -- Jim Pennino Remove -spam-sux to reply. |
|
#9
February 1st 04, 02:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , writes:
Steve Robeson, K4CAP wrote: (N2EY) wrote in message ... In article , (Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes: Comprehensive closed-pool written test. How? "Son Of Bash" would make it open pool quickly. Plus, how can you make a case that only the top ticket gets a closed pool but open is OK for the others? Because this would be the "final exam". If someone is truly worthy of having "the whole enchilada", then they should be able to prove it. Sell that to FCC. And as for the "Bash" syndrome, I suggest a new line in Part 97: "Test Confidentiality: Except for those test items released by the VEC as approved by the Commission, it shall be a violation of this Part to reveal content of any examination prepared for any Amateur Radio operator examination." Never going to happen; this would require a FCC exemption from the Freedom of Information Act. And how could it ever be enforced? Someone slips a disk in the right 'puter and swipes the secret Q&A pool, then retypes or OCRs and slightly edits it to hide its origins. How you gonna *prove* what was done? And who's going to do it? The FAA has such an exemption and still publishes all the questions and answers for FAA tests. Of course there are those that seem to think an amateur extra license is of greater importance than an airline transport pilot certificate and an instrument rating. HAW! That's a good one! And it makes the point perfectly. On a completely different note, here's proof that even USAF levels of training, testing, evaluation, leadership and review can't stop all operator errors. Experienced pilot had a history of hotdog behavior, and may have tried to roll a BUFF: http://s92270093.onlinehome.us/crmde...e/darkblue.htm http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photoga...52%20Crash.mpg 73 de Jim, N2EY |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Response to "21st Century" Part Two (Communicator License) | Policy | |||
| Low reenlistment rate | Policy | |||
| There is no International Code Requirement and techs can operate HF according to FCC Rules | General | |||
| ATTN: Tech Licensee USA Morse Code Freedom Day is August 1st | Policy | |||
| Hey CBers Help Get rid of Morse Code Test and Requirement | Policy | |||
Hybrid Mode
