Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() It's clearly a "learn as you go" proposition any way you look at it ... NOBODY knows everything there is to know from day one. Since the rules can be looked up (just as one can use a "crib sheet" to remember sub-band edges) it seems to me that its not an unreasonable proposition. I'd rather have someone know a bit more about radio and operating and have to refer to the rules as they learn to make sure they did things "by the book" than to shortcut the *basic* theory and operating practices. Back in the olden days before Bash published his books, I imagine that some ham clubs had compiled remembered questions from FCC tests. To help members upgrade. And I suppose someone had snuck a peek at those mail in novice and tech tests before the FCC said everyone had to test at a field office (Early 1976 they decreed that, so I had to test at the FCC). However, having said that, I personally much prefer the ARRL proposal to the NCVEC one for the following reasons: 2) I don't like the "commercial gear only" part of the NCVEC petition because it unnecessarily discourages homebrew and tinkering - something that novices have *always* been allowed (and encouraged by 97.1) to do. 3) I don't like the "low voltage" only part of the NCVEC petition, because it precludes the new ham from getting a good hamfest deal on an older rig like FT-101, TS-520/820, etc. for no good reason (nothing stops them from building power supplies that use 110VAC or 220VAC on the *primaries*, so what's the sense in this proposal. A few questions on electrical safety and procedures on the test should address this issue. Besides, other than an FCC inspector paying a visit, how could be enforced? The FCC doesn't have the budget for that. Output power can be limited to say 100W. Easier to enforce, as signal strength can be measured remotely (not foolproof, maybe his beam is aimed right at you). The power limit would avoid the RF exposure issue. and, 4) I don't like the NCVEC to "put the mark of Cain" on the newbies with a special, never-used callsign block that makes them stand out as targets for those who are disgruntled with ANY change. The old Novice licensees got WN#XXX callsigns to designate them as novices. Other than a few bozos, everyone accepted them as legit hams. When you upgraded to general, the FCC replaced the N with A or B in your callsign. The FCC must have had an internal use only note as to which you'd get when they issued your novice call. Today, you could get a vanity callsign with the WN if you want, even if you're an extra. Wonder if WN2ISE was ever issued? Someone did have WA2ISE before I was issued it in 1976, as a tech (general written and 5wpm). |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
New ARRL Proposal | Policy | |||
My restructuring proposal | Policy | |||
Responses to 14 Petitions on Code Testing | Policy | |||
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1362– September 19 2003 | General | |||
What's All Dose Numbers Hams Use | Dx |