In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
. net...
On 24 Mar 2004 10:59:08 GMT, N2EY wrote:

What do you think of this idea, Carl: NCVEC proposes that, rather
than have a lot of regulations questions in the "Communicator" pool,
that they be *replaced* by having each Communicator sign a statement
that they have obtained a copy of Part 97, have read it and will abide
by it. This is proposed so that the "Communicator" test and its pool
can be made smaller.

Is that a good idea?

I can't speak for Carl, but having worked for a long time in
enforcement of regulations which included the requirement that the
licensee obtain, read, and retain a copy of the applicable Rule
part, I feel that it is no substitute for demonstrating that the
licensee has a working knowledge of the Rules.

Whether one compllies with the Rules is another matter.....

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane


I've already gone on record as *personally* favoring the ARRL plan over the
NCVEC plan for a number of reasons.

I'll take that to mean you do not support the "signed statement" idea, Carl.

What's interesting about the NCVEC proposal is that if you remove the "signed
statement" bad idea, and the "no homebrew/30 volt final" bad ideas, and the
"additional unnecessary widening of the phone bands at the expense of CW/data"
bad idea, and the "special beginner callsign" bad idea, you wind up with a
proposal that's pretty darn close to the ARRL one. (Yeah, I know about the 5
wpm for Extra thing)/

Personally, I think many of the provisions of the NCVEC proposal actually
insult beginners.

73 de Jim, N2EY