| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#41
August 15th 04, 06:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
#42
August 15th 04, 06:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"William" wrote Numerous people wanted to join the amateur service because of the emergency service aspect of our hobby. That's fine with me. I welcome them with open arms. They may have no interest in building NE602 receivers or CW memory keyers. That's fine with me. I welcome them with open arms. As such, the Technician exam is too complex material for a person with such intentions. Maybe so, which is why I've proposed a new privilege rich/reduced power beginners permit to the FCC. On the other hand, a student license with mandatory hand holding is lunacy. I absolutely agree. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
|
#43
August 15th 04, 08:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
KØHB wrote:
I feel that the idea of a "Here, Kid, let me hold your hand and show you how to be a ham" license would send absolutely the wrong message to new ham 'wannabes'. There's also an issue of the kid being at risk from someone the parents might not know too well. Michael Jackson...... |
|
#44
August 15th 04, 08:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I feel that the idea of a "Here, Kid, let me hold your hand and show you how to be a ham" license would send absolutely the wrong message to new ham 'wannabes'. Hans, where's the "wrong message" about offering a program that provides a structured training program for those that want it? Those who want it can find Elmers today. But I wouldn't want to make it a required path. Kids run into many requirements as it is, like being required to study some foriegn language selected by someone else, or history classes that are little more than preparation for Jepordy or trivial presuit games. |
|
#45
August 15th 04, 08:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Imagine...a whole new "crop" of licensees TRAINED as they learned....No more nets interrupted...No more autopatches initiated in the middle of a QSO...No more 10-4 good buddy language. Some of these mistakes would be "newbie" errors and the new ham will likely spot the error and not do it again. And how many people do autopatch anymore, now that cell phones are very common? I don't have a cell phone, but I think in my 27 years of being a ham I autopatched once or maybe twice. And saying "10-4 good buddy" I don't see as a serious mistake. If the new license requires manufactured rigs and low power, it doesn't sound much different to a newcomer than getting a CB setup. And CB doesn't require a license or supervision. You want kids to choose that route? Actually I started in CB back in 1976 and then decided to get the ham license as I liked 2 way radio. |
|
#46
August 15th 04, 09:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#48
August 16th 04, 01:25 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , (Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes: Subject: Another D-H* NCVEC proposal From: PAMNO (N2EY) Date: 8/14/2004 10:55 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: In article , (Steve Robeson K4CAP) writes: Subject: Another D-H* NCVEC proposal From: PAMNO (N2EY) Date: 8/13/2004 6:41 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: By reducing the license tests to the point that there would be a class of license which did not allow unsupervised operation works against those goals. WHO SAID "unsupervised"...?!?!.. I did. And what is wrong with a "supervised training license", Jim? Not "wrong", just unnecessary. You're approaching this as if it were the ONLY way to do this. It's a binary problem: Either a ham is allowed to be a control op of a particular operation, or s/he isn't. I for one never suggested that. What we have now, and have always had in the USA, is the concept that a ham can operate an amateur station *unsupervised* within the limits of his/her license privs. And nobody else can. IOW, either you is a control operator, in charge and responsible, or you ain't. Your "student operator" idea would create an unnecessary intermediate step. A "licensed ham" who cannot operate unsupervised. Bad idea, I say. Un-necessary to YOU, Jim. Yep. IMHO. Imagine...a whole new "crop" of licensees TRAINED as they learned.... If they aren't trained, they haven't learned. No more nets interrupted...No more autopatches initiated in the middle of a QSO...No more 10-4 good buddy language. The only way to have no more of that stuff is to outlaw it *and* to require all hams to take the training course. If any new ham can bypass the student phase, you cannot guarantee "no more" of the above. Yep...I can see how you might find that untenable!~ Does it really require a training program for new hams to learn not to interrupt a net, initiate an autopatch in the middle of a QSO, or not use 10-4 good buddy language? The "operator only" license idea is the very epitome of "supervised" licenses, Which is a bad idea. To you. Yep. Not to the new students. They have all of the opportunities and resources listed by K0HB - and more! Or they can read books and listen to other hams on the air first... and would probably provide that ""skilled operator" a heck of a lot faster than the present "here's your license now go learn" situation we have now! I don't see how. Sheeeeesh. By not having to "relearn" everything from the git-go...From HAVING a knowledgeable, capable mentor to direct those "dumb" questions to. All I did was read a little and listen to how other hams did it. And I learned stuff like how to handle CW traffic that way. All to the Orwellian doublespeak on 11 meters is the most obvous example of what I am trying to avoid...The misadventures of many who either "thought" that this was "the way" things were done because "no one told me..." 11 meters isn't a ham band. It's a mess not because of lack of training but because of lack of tradition, standards, and procedures. There's no present need for a "student license" because someone who wants to learn amateur radio operating techniques "by doing" can do so without any license at all - *as long as there is a control op*. OK, Jim. Isn't what I wrote true? Sure it's "true". It's also not very productive. Really? It's how I and hundreds of thousands of others learned. See my comments above. Yet another "Novice" class without some kind of mentorship will create a whole yet another subclass of Hams trying to reinvent the wheel...Why not implement a REAL training-level license that REALLY trains them...?!?! Suppose we fastforward to a time when FCC has acted on your suggestion and replaced the Tech with a "Student" class, and dropped the code test for General and Extra. Which do you think most new hams will do: 1) Get a "Student" license, and only operate when a mentor says they can or 2) Get a General or Extra and have at it full blast, unsupervised? And now the Technician Class does that. And......?!?! And the Tech is not the best we can do. For a whole bunch of reasons. OK...Ante up. I did. See "Basic" description a few posts back. Replace Tech with Basic as the entry class. Details, Jim...It assigns a trail of responsibility in the training of the new ops. Why is that needed? To put some quality into the program. How do we avoid bypassing the program? When the student has met the criteria for a "solo", whatever those final criteria may be later determined to be...Just like a CFI allowing a Student Pilot to take it around the patch with the right seat empty. So would this be by mode or band or what? Make a suggestion, Jim. It's *your* idea, not mine. Sure - but is that what's really best for amateur radio? I don't know...Do you? I think I do. I think it's not a good idea. OK...So you make the rules Jim and the rest of us will just follow. Sounds good!  Then we will know who to blame! We CW-loving, licensed-for-decades 1x2 Extras get blamed anyway.... The FCC get's a dozen petitions a year suggesting new license proposals that will immeidately and undoubtedly save Amateur Radio from certain impending failure. I'm not saying that at all. Just that there's no reason to implement what you suggest. There's no reason to implement what NCVEC suggests either, but it made it to RM status. It's a heck of a lot more dangerous to Amateur Radio than a program that mentors trainees THAT I agree with!!! Do YOU have THE one failure-proof idea? I Sure don't. It's not a question of perfect, but of better and worse ideas. Sorry, Jim. I don't acccept the idea of "Whelp...it's better than nothing..." I didn't say that. The words "operate an amateur radio station" have an exact definition under FCC rules. It means to be in charge of the station, even is someone else does the actual knob turning, etc. Words written by people can be changed by people, Jim. Even the Constitution has ammendments. Point is, right now the term has a precise meaning. Uh huh. Yep. You have yet to show me where in the Constitution it is prohibited from changing federal regulation, or definitions within those regulations, Jim. It doesn't. But until the definitions change, let's use what we have. Has anyone here said the student operator idea is a good one? Is this forum even remotely represntitive of a valid cross section of the Amateur demograpic, Jim? Heck no! I forget the exact numbers, but at one time we figured out that the "regulars" and "occassional" posters here (the one's we can verify as being licensed, active Amateurs) was something like 0.015% of the Amateur community. And in my opinon, no...If someone wants to just dive right in, let'em. I predict most folks would do just that, rather than hunt down a mentor ham every time they want to call CQ. They don't HAVE to "every time they want to call CQ", Jim...I didn't have to hunt down my CFI everytime I wanted to do some touch and go's after he signed me off as qualified. A student Amateur wouldn't have to either. But first you had to qualify. And the reason for student pilot status is that an untrained person at the controls of a plane will probably hurt or kill hisself and others, plus property. Radio isn't that way. When flying, you cannot simply turn off the machine and walk away. But except in a life-and-death emergency, you can simply turn off the rig. Or just the transmitter. Today, and for more than a quarter century, a person who can go for Extra "right out of the box". Would you change that? Only that I would like to see a return to the "time-in-service" requirement that used to be part of the Extra. The Extra SHOULD represent evidence of more than having taken a written test. It should say "I accomplished this and have PROVED it through accomplishments noted". On that we agree. Whew...I was beginning to wonder. If the student and mentor can't match schedules, they change mentors. Are you volunteering? Absolutely. And I already do. Then you know about the mentor programs listed by K0HB And kids can get around. Depends where you live. You going to send your 9 year old daughter to a stranger's house 25 miles away? No, but I'd TAKE her to a stranger's house and be there...Just like I did when Samantha was in Brownies...Just like tens-of-thousands of other parents take thier kids to "special activites". Yep - but it makes it tougher to learn than simply going into the shack and operating. If I'd had to search for a mentor and wait around until both of us had available free time, just to operate, I'd might never have gotten past that stage. Instead, I was able to get a Novice license, build a station, and go on the air unsupervised. I don't see anything wrong with keeping that concept. Were you the exception or the rule? The rule. Uh huh! =) Yep. I knew very few Novices who had other hams in the family. Very few with formal mentors. Most simply read books and got a little help here and there. (now you can insert that old one liner: "He's a wonderful lover - he taught himself..;-) Shall we base ALL future expectations on how well you did...??? We should base them on what works. The reality is that reducing requirements and pushing VHF/UHF hasn't done much. =0 Jim...there was less than 400K Amateurs whe I got licensed...There's now almost 700K. There were 250K when I started. 18 years later that number had more than doubled. 18 years after that it's only 50% greater. There are more "coded" Amateurs now than in recent history. Sure. HOW can you say it hasn't done much...?!?! The growth from 1991 to today does not match the growth for a similar time period before 1991. It also put's them in the MAINSTREAM of Amateur Radio by virtue of exposure to 2 meters...The Amateurs Campfire, if you will. In some places. In others 2 meters isn't much. Why not set them down with a whole choice of options? Why not? Exactly! And why not provide them an option that provides them with a structured training and qualification program? That option exists today - without a government mandate. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#49
August 16th 04, 01:34 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Robert Casey ) writes: KØHB wrote: I feel that the idea of a "Here, Kid, let me hold your hand and show you how to be a ham" license would send absolutely the wrong message to new ham 'wannabes'. There's also an issue of the kid being at risk from someone the parents might not know too well. Michael Jackson...... It's happened. Locally, there was a case from about 1991 where a teacher went on trial for doing things he shouldn't have. The stories specifically mentioned that he lured the boys in through computers and amateur radio. I vaguely knew the guy, but from the details I even knew one of the victims. And the ham who went to jail for this achieved a certain prominence due to some articles in the ham magazines where many hams might recognize his name. Michael VE2BVW |
|
#50
August 16th 04, 12:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Robert Casey
writes: If the new license requires manufactured rigs and low power, it doesn't sound much different to a newcomer than getting a CB setup. And CB doesn't require a license or supervision. You want kids to choose that route? WOW! Excellent point! End result is they pick up bad habits from cb, which then have to be unlearned. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Amateur Radio Newslineâ„¢ Report 1412 Â September 3, 2004 | General | |||
| Why the caste system? was: NCVEC files license restructuringdepends | Policy | |||
| NCVEC files license resstructuring proposal | Policy | |||
| NCVEC NPRM for elimination of horse and buggy morse code requirement. | Policy | |||
| NCVEC Position on Code | Policy | |||
Linear Mode
