"KØHB" wrote in news:fAURc.14700$cK.2691
@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:

W5YI fingerprints all over this POS.

http://www.rrsta.com/rain/ncvec.html

"Entry Level" 20-item examination, renewable forever.

No homebrewing allowed.

30 Volt limit to the final stage on all transmitters.

Ghetto-ized with distinctive call signs (similar to the "Star of David"
sleeve insignia seen in Warsaw during WW-II?)

Restricted to legacy modes (stifling experimentation with emerging
amateur techniques, SS for example)

Hopefully this one doesn't ever see daylight as an FCC docket.

73, de Hans, K0HB

-----

*D-H = Dump Huck









Actually, I am in favour of this proposal. This maybe contradicts my former
position, but I have changed my mind.

Alun, N3KIP

"Alun" wrote


Actually, I am in favour of this proposal.


What part are you in favor of.....

......the part about an entry level licensee who takes a 20-item exam and
can be a ham until he dies?

......the part about an amateur radio licensee who cannot build their own
equipment?

......the part about an amateur radio licensee who cannot experiment with
new transmission modes?

......the part which places specific limits on the voltage values in the
finals?

This whole thing flies in the face of just about every tenet of 97.1.
FCC should not toss it aside lightly, they should hurl it aside with
great force.

73, de Hans, K0HB

In article , Alun
writes:

Actually, I am in favour of this proposal. This maybe contradicts my former
position, but I have changed my mind.

Why?

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article . net, "KØHB"
writes:

W5YI fingerprints all over this POS.

http://www.rrsta.com/rain/ncvec.html

It's not anything new, Hans. But there is a new twist - see end of this post.
And yes, W5YI had a big piece of developing it. The rationale for it was
written up in an article called "Amateur Radio in the 21st Century" by KL7CC. I
did a commentary/reply on that paper, which I sent to its authors and also
posted here some months back.

"Entry Level" 20-item examination, renewable forever.

It's worse than that. The 20 questions would include very little of the
regulations or theory.

No homebrewing allowed.

Only the assembly of "approved" kits.

30 Volt limit to the final stage on all transmitters.

Something about shock hazard. Yet the same person can work on any other type of
electronic, electrical or radio equipment with high voltages present and no
license. Why house current is not considered hazardous is left unexplained.

What the 30 volt rule effectively does is outlaw anything with tubes for those
with the proposed license. Got an old TS-520 or FT-101 that would get a
beginner started? Sorry, they can't use it legally.

Ghetto-ized with distinctive call signs (similar to the "Star of David"
sleeve insignia seen in Warsaw during WW-II?)

Paging Mr. Godwin...

Restricted to legacy modes (stifling experimentation with emerging
amateur techniques, SS for example)

Hopefully this one doesn't ever see daylight as an FCC docket.

It's already got an RM-number.

*D-H = Dump Huck

That's putting it mildly.

There's one other point, which everybody seems to have missed first time
through:

The proposed "Communicator" license doesn't conform to S25, nor to CEPT
requirements. Holders of such a license would probably not be eligible for CEPT
reciprocal licensing. (Just like how the UK "Foundation" licenses are only good
in the UK).

Simply a collection of very bad ideas. Did you read the "21st Century" paper? I
can provide a link if you want.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Subject: Another D-H* NCVEC proposal
From: (N2EY)
Date: 8/11/2004 11:06 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: Another D-H* NCVEC proposal
From: PAMNO (N2EY)
Date: 8/11/2004 5:08 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Why not do like the Germans and create an "operator only"
license?

Because it goes against the Basis and Purpose of the amateur radio
service as defined in Part 97.

OK, Jim...Please explain to me how having a "student operator"
license would violate ANY of the spirit of the Basis and Purpose of
Part 97...I've read it several times over in preparation of responding
to this post, and I can't find a single thing that would violate
either the spirit of the letter of the law...

The
purpose of which is to allow a person to operate a radio, but under
the
supervison of an experienced operator.

We have that now. A licensed ham is the control operator, and someone
else actually turns the knobs, pushes, the buttons, talks into the
mike, taps on the keyboard.

Sure, you can do it that way, but that's not the point now, is it?

We're (supposedly) talking about a new entry license to promote
the service. A "student operator" would not only be cumulative
towards a higher grade license, it would encourge mentorship.

Student operators could be given a certain amount of independence
even, by allowing approved mentors to "sign off" thier card and
operate under the mentor's call, ie: KN/K4YZ. The precedent is already
federal practice for student pilots. Can't solo until the IP signs
you off!

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.

Then after some period of time or
minimum operating hours, the "student" is eligible for an upgrade?

Based on what other requirements?

Take a shot, Jim...This was a general discussion...Not definitive
proposals. Let's rehash the previous "Novice license", as it seemed to
work, update the technical standards, and determine where we would
like new operators to be in terms of skill level, then set up the new
license from there...(We are only using the "old" Novice as a
guideline...NOT the standard to set)

Such a system would essentially require that a prospective ham would
have to know a more-experienced ham in order to operate. Why do we
need such complications?

Would it hurt? And you're at least tentatively supporting the
idea of yet another license class...so if you're going to go that far,
go a bit farther and consider ALL possibilities.

The biggest "drawback" to my idea as I see it is that a lot of
folks who are TALKING about Elmering and mentoring would actually have
to do it, and may even have to take a bit of responsibility for it.
Heaven forbid!

And who said this would be the ONLY way to enter Amateur Radio?
There's a lot of folks out there who never operated a day with a
Novice, Tech, General or Advanced licenses...

Or why don't we quit wallowing in all this administrative
quagmire and
just "get on with it"...???

What "quagmire"? The FCC amateur radio license system today is far
simpler and more accessible than at any time in the past 35 years.

The "quagmire" of proposals that continue to arrive the FCC,
including the present NCVEC "plan"...

As you and I have both pointed out on numerous
occasisons, Jim, Gradeschoolers are passing the EXTRA, ergo there's
little
validation for a new "entry class" license...

That doesn't mean things can't be improved. Do you *really* think the
current Tech is the best we can do for an entry-level license? I
don't.

Why not?

YOU have said that gradeschool kids are passing this test...Then
it can't be all THAT bad! That "entry-level" license already bestows
over 97% of all Amateur allocations with it. Unless you want to
suggest that we cut back privs from the E's, A's, and G's (and
remaining N's) and redistribute it in thirds? (Fourths?)

What is wrong with the "Basic" license I propose above? If you don't
like the name, call it something else, but what's wrong with the
*concept*?

Now...if the POOLS were closed and the applicants actually HAD to
LEARN
something, there MIGHT be a reason to have a simpler test to get
started
with..

Write up a proposal to close the Q&A pools and submit to FCC. Be sure
to explain in a convincing manner:

- why this change needs to be done

How can we really expect that the material that is PRESENTLY in
the tests is "learned" when the verbatim questions are public
knowledge

- how the pools will be used and safeguarded

I thought I already addressed that, Jim...

Fines and/or prison for the abusers. Period. A new paragraph in
Part 97 that speicifes that the questions are sequestered, and that
publishing them is a violation.

The VEC's can still prepare and distribute appropriate exams.
They can even solicit questions just like they do now...It would just
be illegal to publish them.

- how prospective amateurs will know what to study without access to
the pools

Uhhhhh...the same way it was done BEFORE Bash...Study guides with
outlines of the required material...

- who is going to do all the work needed to make the change

The VEC'sAND the FCC.

- how the whole system will be protected against "Son of Bash"

Fines and/or prison for the abusers.

- how all of this can be done without it costing more FCC resources

You mean and not use more resources than they already use to hash
and re-hash numerous licensing structure plans?

Most of the "changes" would be in the purview of the VEC's. They
need the letter-of-the-law to back them up, which means the FCC would
need to little more than get the laws enacted and on the books.

Then do exactly like they've been doing for other Amateur
matters...Encourage Amateurs to take care of it with internal programs
and then only use the hammer as a last resort.

73

Steve, K4YZ

In article ,
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes:

Subject: Another D-H* NCVEC proposal
From: (N2EY)
Date: 8/11/2004 11:06 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: Another D-H* NCVEC proposal
From: PAMNO (N2EY)
Date: 8/11/2004 5:08 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Why not do like the Germans and create an "operator only"
license?

Because it goes against the Basis and Purpose of the amateur radio
service as defined in Part 97.

OK, Jim...Please explain to me how having a "student operator"
license would violate ANY of the spirit of the Basis and Purpose of
Part 97...I've read it several times over in preparation of responding
to this post, and I can't find a single thing that would violate
either the spirit of the letter of the law...

One theme of the B&P is that hams are skilled operators. Another is that they
are technically knowledgeable.

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.
So does a license which disallows homebrewing or requires some sort of Big
Brother protection against the horrific dangers of 32 volt power supplies.

The
purpose of which is to allow a person to operate a radio, but under
the supervison of an experienced operator.

We have that now. A licensed ham is the control operator, and someone
else actually turns the knobs, pushes, the buttons, talks into the
mike, taps on the keyboard.

Sure, you can do it that way, but that's not the point now, is it?

Actually, yes it is.

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*.

We're (supposedly) talking about a new entry license to promote
the service.

Right. Something like the old Novice, which got me and hundreds of thousands of
others started in amateur radio.

A "student operator" would not only be cumulative
towards a higher grade license, it would encourge mentorship.

But why is it necessary or even beneficial? If the "student operator" cannot
use the rig unless a mentor is present, why have a student operator license at
all?

Student operators could be given a certain amount of independence
even, by allowing approved mentors to "sign off" thier card and
operate under the mentor's call, ie: KN/K4YZ.

That's somewhat different. How is the mentor ham supposed to judge when the
student is ready to solo?

The precedent is already
federal practice for student pilots. Can't solo until the IP signs
you off!

Sure - but is that what's really best for amateur radio?

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.

Then after some period of time or
minimum operating hours, the "student" is eligible for an upgrade?

Based on what other requirements?

Take a shot, Jim...This was a general discussion...Not definitive
proposals.

I say it unnecessarily hampers the new ham.

What if somebody wants to bypass the whole student operator thing and go
straight for a higher-class license? Would that be forbidden?

Today, and for more than a quarter century, a person who can go for Extra
"right out of the box". Would you change that?

Let's rehash the previous "Novice license", as it seemed to
work, update the technical standards, and determine where we would
like new operators to be in terms of skill level, then set up the new
license from there...(We are only using the "old" Novice as a
guideline...NOT the standard to set)

OK, fine. How about this:

3) "Basic" license test is simple 20-25 question exam on regs, procedures,
and safety. Very little technical and RF exposure stuff. Main objective
is to keep Basics out of trouble. Basics get 100-150 watts on HF/MF and
25 watts or so on VHF/UHF (power level determined by RF exposure limits).

Modes are CW, analog voice, PSK31 and many of the other common data
modes
like packet. Basics cannot be VEs, control ops for repeaters, or club
trustees. Basics get most VHF/UHF and about half of HF/MF spectrum. Basic

is meant as the entry level. Easy to get, lots of privs, yet there's still
a reason to upgrade.

What's wrong with that concept for an entry-level ham license?

Such a system would essentially require that a prospective ham would
have to know a more-experienced ham in order to operate. Why do we
need such complications?

Would it hurt?

Yes.

What if a prospective ham doesn't know any other hams who are willing to be
mentors and who are interested in the same things the student is interested in?
What if the student and mentor cannot match schedules? What about kids who
don't drive yet? Who checks out the mentors' backgrounds?

nd you're at least tentatively supporting the
idea of yet another license class...

No, I'm not. My discussion proposes three classes, like today.

so if you're going to go that far,
go a bit farther and consider ALL possibilities.

I have. The requirement for a mentor is unnecessary and hinders the process.

The biggest "drawback" to my idea as I see it is that a lot of
folks who are TALKING about Elmering and mentoring would actually have
to do it, and may even have to take a bit of responsibility for it.
Heaven forbid!

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.

And who said this would be the ONLY way to enter Amateur Radio?
There's a lot of folks out there who never operated a day with a
Novice, Tech, General or Advanced licenses...

So you would allow the student license to be bypassed? Someone could get an
Extra "right out of the box"?

Or why don't we quit wallowing in all this administrative
quagmire and just "get on with it"...???

What "quagmire"? The FCC amateur radio license system today is far
simpler and more accessible than at any time in the past 35 years.

The "quagmire" of proposals that continue to arrive the FCC,
including the present NCVEC "plan"...

The NCVEC plan isn't new; it got an RM number quite a while ago. We're just
taking another look at it. Still looks as bad as it did before. Worse, even.

That's how the democratic process works.

As you and I have both pointed out on numerous
occasisons, Jim, Gradeschoolers are passing the EXTRA, ergo there's
little validation for a new "entry class" license...

That doesn't mean things can't be improved. Do you *really* think the
current Tech is the best we can do for an entry-level license? I
don't.

Why not?

Because:

- The Tech is VHF-UHF centric. It pushes new hams into one type of amateur
radio operation, and isolates them from HF. And because of the difficulties of
homebrewing VHF/UHF gear, it pushes them away from homebrewing. (And from Morse
Code! ;- 0 )

- The Tech allows all privileges above 30 MHz. Therefore, its test must cover a
wide range of subjects, many of which are not commonly used by beginners. Yet
the beginners must learn the stuff because the license allows it. Example: Not
many new Techs will set up 2 meter stations with high gain antennas and run
high power, but the license test must and does cover such RF evaluations. And
much more.

Meanwhile, basic radio subjects are not covered in depth.

YOU have said that gradeschool kids are passing this test...Then
it can't be all THAT bad!

Yep. Yet the *license* can be improved.

That "entry-level" license already bestows
over 97% of all Amateur allocations with it. Unless you want to
suggest that we cut back privs from the E's, A's, and G's (and
remaining N's) and redistribute it in thirds? (Fourths?)

Nope. See the concept I posted some time back. It covers all those bases.

What is wrong with the "Basic" license I propose above? If you don't
like the name, call it something else, but what's wrong with the
*concept*?

Hmmm?

Now...if the POOLS were closed and the applicants actually HAD to
LEARN
something, there MIGHT be a reason to have a simpler test to get
started with..

Write up a proposal to close the Q&A pools and submit to FCC. Be sure
to explain in a convincing manner:

- why this change needs to be done

How can we really expect that the material that is PRESENTLY in
the tests is "learned" when the verbatim questions are public
knowledge

Doesn't FAA use a similar system?

- how the pools will be used and safeguarded

I thought I already addressed that, Jim...

Not in language that would be appropriate to an FCC proposal.

Fines and/or prison for the abusers. Period. A new paragraph in
Part 97 that speicifes that the questions are sequestered, and that
publishing them is a violation.

Write it up. Include who has access and who doesn't.

The VEC's can still prepare and distribute appropriate exams.
They can even solicit questions just like they do now...It would just
be illegal to publish them.

Define "publish"

- how prospective amateurs will know what to study without access to
the pools

Uhhhhh...the same way it was done BEFORE Bash...Study guides with
outlines of the required material...

Right. So somebody has to generate those, too.

- who is going to do all the work needed to make the change

The VEC'sAND the FCC.

And if they don't want to? NCVEC's proposal is full of complaints about how
much work they do.

- how the whole system will be protected against "Son of Bash"

Fines and/or prison for the abusers.

- how all of this can be done without it costing more FCC resources

You mean and not use more resources than they already use to hash
and re-hash numerous licensing structure plans?

Yep.

Most of the "changes" would be in the purview of the VEC's. They
need the letter-of-the-law to back them up, which means the FCC would
need to little more than get the laws enacted and on the books.

Then do exactly like they've been doing for other Amateur
matters...Encourage Amateurs to take care of it with internal programs
and then only use the hammer as a last resort.

So where's the complete proposal?

And what's wrong with the system I proposed?

73 de Jim, N2EY

N2EY wrote:
In article ,
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes:

Why not do like the Germans and create an "operator only"
license?

Because it goes against the Basis and Purpose of the amateur radio
service as defined in Part 97.

OK, Jim...Please explain to me how having a "student operator"
license would violate ANY of the spirit of the Basis and Purpose of
Part 97...I've read it several times over in preparation of responding
to this post, and I can't find a single thing that would violate
either the spirit of the letter of the law...


One theme of the B&P is that hams are skilled operators. Another is that they
are technically knowledgeable.

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.
So does a license which disallows homebrewing or requires some sort of Big
Brother protection against the horrific dangers of 32 volt power supplies.

Somewhere in this thread maybe it was pointed out that here in the US
we don't really need a student operator license since an unlicensed
person can operate with a control operator?

Steve, I do like your idea. I think it might be well implemented as a
concept and program instead of a specific license. Getting a person to
operate is half the battle IMO. At least it worked for me. Working field
day with a control operator got me hooked.

Any ideas there?


The
purpose of which is to allow a person to operate a radio, but under
the supervison of an experienced operator.

We have that now. A licensed ham is the control operator, and someone
else actually turns the knobs, pushes, the buttons, talks into the
mike, taps on the keyboard.

Sure, you can do it that way, but that's not the point now, is it?


Actually, yes it is.

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*.

Hehe, I guess someone did point this out!

For this entry grade license, the operation under a control op would
almost have to be eliminated? I dunno, there is a bit of interference
between the concepts there.


the rest snipped for brevity

What Steve proposes is a good idea that just has a few bugs in it. the
major one is that in principle, the situation already exists, just not
"officially". In other words, an unlicensed person can operate a station
under the "steely eye" ;^) of a control Op.

Let's take a step back now to Field day. I have run the GOTA station at
our FD since it's inception. I know of at least two people that have
become interested by use of it and have gone on to become active hams.
It is a good concept, and I think that getting people on the air in a
low-pressure environment is key to getting prospective Hams hooked. It
works.

Now to the subject at hand. If instead of a separate license class, why
not have an ARRL sponsored initiative, similar to "Kids Day", in which
an effort to get anyone that has some interest to work HF and VHF to
come out to the local mall or wherever and operate. The same can be done
at a club's radio site.

It would not only be good from a "getting people interested"
perspective" but would be good to potentially get more league members.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Subject: Another D-H* NCVEC proposal
From: PAMNO (N2EY)
Date: 8/13/2004 6:41 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes:

Subject: Another D-H* NCVEC proposal
From: (N2EY)
Date: 8/11/2004 11:06 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: Another D-H* NCVEC proposal
From: PAMNO (N2EY)
Date: 8/11/2004 5:08 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Why not do like the Germans and create an "operator only"
license?

Because it goes against the Basis and Purpose of the amateur radio
service as defined in Part 97.

OK, Jim...Please explain to me how having a "student operator"
license would violate ANY of the spirit of the Basis and Purpose of
Part 97...I've read it several times over in preparation of responding
to this post, and I can't find a single thing that would violate
either the spirit of the letter of the law...

One theme of the B&P is that hams are skilled operators. Another is that they
are technically knowledgeable.

Uh huh...

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"...?!?!..The "operator only" license idea is the
very epitome of "supervised" licenses, 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!

So does a license which disallows homebrewing or requires some sort of Big
Brother protection against the horrific dangers of 32 volt power supplies.

The
purpose of which is to allow a person to operate a radio, but under
the supervison of an experienced operator.

We have that now. A licensed ham is the control operator, and someone
else actually turns the knobs, pushes, the buttons, talks into the
mike, taps on the keyboard.

Sure, you can do it that way, but that's not the point now, is it?

Actually, yes it is.

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.

We're (supposedly) talking about a new entry license to promote
the service.

Right. Something like the old Novice, which got me and hundreds of thousands
of
others started in amateur radio.

And now the Technician Class does that. And......?!?!

A "student operator" would not only be cumulative
towards a higher grade license, it would encourge mentorship.

But why is it necessary or even beneficial? If the "student operator" cannot
use the rig unless a mentor is present, why have a student operator license
at
all?

Details, Jim...It assigns a trail of responsibility in the training of the
new ops.

Student operators could be given a certain amount of independence
even, by allowing approved mentors to "sign off" thier card and
operate under the mentor's call, ie: KN/K4YZ.

That's somewhat different. How is the mentor ham supposed to judge when the
student is ready to solo?

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.

The precedent is already
federal practice for student pilots. Can't solo until the IP signs
you off!

Sure - but is that what's really best for amateur radio?

I don't know...Do you?

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.

Do YOU have THE one failure-proof idea? I Sure don't.

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.

And tomorrow it may have ANOTHER "precise meaning".

I am not talking about TODAY'S Amateur Radio, Jim...

Then after some period of time or
minimum operating hours, the "student" is eligible for an upgrade?

Based on what other requirements?

Take a shot, Jim...This was a general discussion...Not definitive
proposals.

I say it unnecessarily hampers the new ham.

OK...Your opinion noted. 674,999 others to go.

What if somebody wants to bypass the whole student operator thing and go
straight for a higher-class license? Would that be forbidden?

If I was clairvoyant I'd be buying Lottery tickets.

And in my opinon, no...If someone wants to just dive right in, let'em.

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 have=ing taken a written test. I should say "I
accomplished this and have PROVED it through accomplishments noted".

Let's rehash the previous "Novice license", as it seemed to
work, update the technical standards, and determine where we would
like new operators to be in terms of skill level, then set up the new
license from there...(We are only using the "old" Novice as a
guideline...NOT the standard to set)

OK, fine. How about this:

3) "Basic" license test is simple 20-25 question exam on regs, procedures,
and safety. Very little technical and RF exposure stuff. Main objective
is to keep Basics out of trouble. Basics get 100-150 watts on HF/MF and
25 watts or so on VHF/UHF (power level determined by RF exposure
limits).

Modes are CW, analog voice, PSK31 and many of the other common data
modes
like packet. Basics cannot be VEs, control ops for repeaters, or club
trustees. Basics get most VHF/UHF and about half of HF/MF spectrum.
Basic

is meant as the entry level. Easy to get, lots of privs, yet there's
still
a reason to upgrade.

Why not digital voice?

And I wouldn't be so quick to dole out that much sprectum. Otherwise, why
not?

What's wrong with that concept for an entry-level ham license?

Such a system would essentially require that a prospective ham would
have to know a more-experienced ham in order to operate. Why do we
need such complications?

Would it hurt?

Yes.

No...It wouldn't.

Local ARRL Special Service Clubs could sponsor Mentorship training and
pair up volunteers and students.

Students would get immediate exposure from working directly with a
mentor...Not a video tape.

What if a prospective ham doesn't know any other hams who are willing to be
mentors and who are interested in the same things the student is interested
in?

What if a prospective Ham just woke up from a 25 year coma, doesn't know
about the Internet or search engines. What if...

My point here Jim is that the programs will eventually become self
sustaining with word of thier existence speading.

What if the student and mentor cannot match schedules? What about kids who
don't drive yet? Who checks out the mentors' backgrounds?

If the student and mentor can't match schedules, they change mentors. And
kids can get around. And local clubs can screen mentors.

nd you're at least tentatively supporting the
idea of yet another license class...

No, I'm not. My discussion proposes three classes, like today.

so if you're going to go that far,
go a bit farther and consider ALL possibilities.

I have. The requirement for a mentor is unnecessary and hinders the process.

OK...If you say so. I say that mentors will put out more responsible and
well trained "new licensees"...

The biggest "drawback" to my idea as I see it is that a lot of
folks who are TALKING about Elmering and mentoring would actually have
to do it, and may even have to take a bit of responsibility for it.
Heaven forbid!

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?

Shall we base ALL future expectations on how well you did...???

And who said this would be the ONLY way to enter Amateur Radio?
There's a lot of folks out there who never operated a day with a
Novice, Tech, General or Advanced licenses...

So you would allow the student license to be bypassed? Someone could get an
Extra "right out of the box"?

Or why don't we quit wallowing in all this administrative
quagmire and just "get on with it"...???

What "quagmire"? The FCC amateur radio license system today is far
simpler and more accessible than at any time in the past 35 years.

The "quagmire" of proposals that continue to arrive the FCC,
including the present NCVEC "plan"...

The NCVEC plan isn't new; it got an RM number quite a while ago. We're just
taking another look at it. Still looks as bad as it did before. Worse, even.

That's how the democratic process works.

And it's not the only "license restrcturing" plan to cross thier paths,
Jim.

As you and I have both pointed out on numerous
occasisons, Jim, Gradeschoolers are passing the EXTRA, ergo there's
little validation for a new "entry class" license...

That doesn't mean things can't be improved. Do you *really* think the
current Tech is the best we can do for an entry-level license? I
don't.

Why not?

Because:

- The Tech is VHF-UHF centric. It pushes new hams into one type of amateur
radio operation, and isolates them from HF.

It also put's them in the MAINSTREAM of Amateur Radio by virtue of
exposure to 2 meters...The Amateurs Campfire, if you will.

I'll get the rest later...It was a loooooooong night.

73

Steve, K4YZ

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:

In article ,
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) writes:

Subject: Another D-H* NCVEC proposal
From: (N2EY)
Date: 8/11/2004 11:06 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: Another D-H* NCVEC proposal
From: PAMNO (N2EY)
Date: 8/11/2004 5:08 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Why not do like the Germans and create an "operator only"
license?

Because it goes against the Basis and Purpose of the amateur radio
service as defined in Part 97.

OK, Jim...Please explain to me how having a "student operator"
license would violate ANY of the spirit of the Basis and Purpose of
Part 97...I've read it several times over in preparation of responding
to this post, and I can't find a single thing that would violate
either the spirit of the letter of the law...

One theme of the B&P is that hams are skilled operators. Another is that
they are technically knowledgeable.

Uh huh...

Yep.

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.

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.

The "operator only" license idea is the
very epitome of "supervised" licenses,

Which is a bad idea.

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.

So does a license which disallows homebrewing or requires some sort of Big
Brother protection against the horrific dangers of 32 volt power supplies.

The
purpose of which is to allow a person to operate a radio, but under
the supervison of an experienced operator.

We have that now. A licensed ham is the control operator, and someone
else actually turns the knobs, pushes, the buttons, talks into the
mike, taps on the keyboard.

Sure, you can do it that way, but that's not the point now, is it?

Actually, yes it is.

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?

We're (supposedly) talking about a new entry license to promote
the service.

Right. Something like the old Novice, which got me and hundreds of thousands
of others started in amateur radio.

And now the Technician Class does that. And......?!?!

And the Tech is not the best we can do. For a whole bunch of reasons.

A "student operator" would not only be cumulative
towards a higher grade license, it would encourge mentorship.

But why is it necessary or even beneficial? If the "student operator" cannot
use the rig unless a mentor is present, why have a student operator license
at all?

Details, Jim...It assigns a trail of responsibility in the training of
the new ops.

Why is that needed?

Student operators could be given a certain amount of independence
even, by allowing approved mentors to "sign off" thier card and
operate under the mentor's call, ie: KN/K4YZ.

That's somewhat different. How is the mentor ham supposed to judge when the
student is ready to solo?

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?

The precedent is already
federal practice for student pilots. Can't solo until the IP signs
you off!

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.

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.

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.

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.

And tomorrow it may have ANOTHER "precise meaning".

Until it is redefined, we should use it as it is defined now.

I am not talking about TODAY'S Amateur Radio, Jim...

Then don't pull a Vipul and use different defintions.

Then after some period of time or
minimum operating hours, the "student" is eligible for an upgrade?

Based on what other requirements?

Take a shot, Jim...This was a general discussion...Not definitive
proposals.

I say it unnecessarily hampers the new ham.

OK...Your opinion noted. 674,999 others to go.

Has anyone here said the student operator idea is a good one?

What if somebody wants to bypass the whole student operator thing and go
straight for a higher-class license? Would that be forbidden?

If I was clairvoyant I'd be buying Lottery tickets.

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.

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 have=ing taken a written test. I should say "I
accomplished this and have PROVED it through accomplishments noted".

On that we agree.

Let's rehash the previous "Novice license", as it seemed to
work, update the technical standards, and determine where we would
like new operators to be in terms of skill level, then set up the new
license from there...(We are only using the "old" Novice as a
guideline...NOT the standard to set)

OK, fine. How about this:

3) "Basic" license test is simple 20-25 question exam on regs, procedures,
and safety. Very little technical and RF exposure stuff. Main
objective
is to keep Basics out of trouble. Basics get 100-150 watts on HF/MF
and
25 watts or so on VHF/UHF (power level determined by RF exposure
limits).

Modes are CW, analog voice, PSK31 and many of the other common data

modes
like packet. Basics cannot be VEs, control ops for repeaters, or club
trustees. Basics get most VHF/UHF and about half of HF/MF spectrum.
Basic

is meant as the entry level. Easy to get, lots of privs, yet there's
still
a reason to upgrade.

Why not digital voice?

Once it's documented, sure.

And I wouldn't be so quick to dole out that much sprectum.

I am. Offer a reasonable set of choices. The sunspots come and go, people can
put up different kinds of antennas, etc.

Otherwise, why not?

There ya go.

What's wrong with that concept for an entry-level ham license?

Such a system would essentially require that a prospective ham would
have to know a more-experienced ham in order to operate. Why do we
need such complications?

Would it hurt?

Yes.

No...It wouldn't.

Yes, it would.

Local ARRL Special Service Clubs could sponsor Mentorship training and
pair up volunteers and students.

Right. And if there's nobody nearby, or on the same schedule, or interested in
the same things, Newbie is out of luck.

Students would get immediate exposure from working directly with a
mentor...Not a video tape.

Don't need a new class of license for that.

What if a prospective ham doesn't know any other hams who are willing to be
mentors and who are interested in the same things the student is interested
in?

What if a prospective Ham just woke up from a 25 year coma, doesn't know
about the Internet or search engines. What if...

Now you're being silly.

My point here Jim is that the programs will eventually become self
sustaining with word of thier existence speading.

My point is that they don't need a new class of license to exist.

What if the student and mentor cannot match schedules? What about kids who
don't drive yet? Who checks out the mentors' backgrounds?

If the student and mentor can't match schedules, they change mentors.

Are you volunteering?

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?

And local clubs can screen mentors.

None of which requires any changes to the present rules.

nd you're at least tentatively supporting the
idea of yet another license class...

No, I'm not. My discussion proposes three classes, like today.

so if you're going to go that far,
go a bit farther and consider ALL possibilities.

I have. The requirement for a mentor is unnecessary and hinders the process.

OK...If you say so. I say that mentors will put out more responsible
and well trained "new licensees"...

Without any rules changes.

The biggest "drawback" to my idea as I see it is that a lot of
folks who are TALKING about Elmering and mentoring would actually have
to do it, and may even have to take a bit of responsibility for it.
Heaven forbid!

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.

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.

And who said this would be the ONLY way to enter Amateur Radio?
There's a lot of folks out there who never operated a day with a
Novice, Tech, General or Advanced licenses...

So you would allow the student license to be bypassed? Someone could get an
Extra "right out of the box"?

Or why don't we quit wallowing in all this administrative
quagmire and just "get on with it"...???

What "quagmire"? The FCC amateur radio license system today is far
simpler and more accessible than at any time in the past 35 years.

The "quagmire" of proposals that continue to arrive the FCC,
including the present NCVEC "plan"...

The NCVEC plan isn't new; it got an RM number quite a while ago. We're just
taking another look at it. Still looks as bad as it did before. Worse, even.

That's how the democratic process works.

And it's not the only "license restrcturing" plan to cross thier paths,
Jim.

Yep. Ain't it a great process?

As you and I have both pointed out on numerous
occasisons, Jim, Gradeschoolers are passing the EXTRA, ergo there's
little validation for a new "entry class" license...

That doesn't mean things can't be improved. Do you *really* think the
current Tech is the best we can do for an entry-level license? I
don't.

Why not?

Because:

- The Tech is VHF-UHF centric. It pushes new hams into one type of amateur
radio operation, and isolates them from HF.

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?

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Steve Robeson K4CAP" wrote

It assigns a trail of responsibility in the training of the
new ops.

"Trail of responsibility"?????? I always kind of liked the idea of
self-responsibility, even though it's less popular in your new "me"
generation.

I'm going to type kinda slow here, Steve, so you can keep up.

E v e r y o n e h e r e i s i n f a v o r o f E l m e r
s
a n d m e n t o r s a n d A R R L S S C l u b s
h e l p i n g n e w c o m e r s ( a n d o l d c o m e r s )
w h o w a n t s o m e h e l p.

N o b o d y e x c e p t y o u s e e s a n y v a l u e
i n a l i c e n s e w h i c h R E Q U I R E S t h e
l i c e n s e e t o b e S U P E R V I S E D w h e n
t h e y o p e r a t e.

73 de Hans, K0HB