Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Alun
writes: (N2EY) wrote in : 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 That's a fair question, Jim. It was really my XYL who persuaded me. She is a Tech, and her perspective is a bit different from mine as an Extra. It is easy to forget just how hard the theory tests seem to some people. She convinced me of the value of a true entry-level licence. I agree that the entry-level license could be improved. But what NCVEC proposes throws the baby out with the bath water. With all due respect to your XYL, bright elementary-school children have earned Extra class licenses. How difficult can the tests really be? Having said that, if you let anyone loose on the air after a 20 question test, it is only reasonable to restrict them in the sorts of ways that this proposal does, i.e. no microwaves, no linears/not enough power for an RF safety assesment, no control op privileges, etc. I agree with some of that. Power restrictions reduce/eliminate the RF exposure troubles, for example. But the NCVEC proposal goes too far. And it's not just the number of questions that's important. The material covered is much more the issue. IMHO the current tests cover a lot of areas at a fairly superficial level, rather than basic information in some depth. Even the voltage restriction is perfectly reasonable from a safety POV. I disagree! There's no license requirement to work on non-radio electronics like stereo amplifiers. Nor to work on house-current powered appliances. Yet all of a sudden there's some sort of extreme hazard if a "Communicator" has a transmitter with 50 volts on the final amplifier transistors. For that matter, what about power supplies connected to the AC line? More than 50 volts inside them. Of course, it does rule out a lot of boat anchors, but c'est la vie. It's a stupid rule, and there's no reason for it. Heck, under the rule, a "Communicator" ham could use a BA *receiver* with 300 volt B+, but not a modern transceiver with 50 volt finals (which do exist). And what about antennas? Many types of antenna, when fed the 100 or so watts of RF allowed by the "Communicator" license, will have exposed parts with hundreds or thousands of volts on them. Shall we require that "Communicators" only use certain approved antenna types? Do you really think someone with a 20-question test would know how to load up such a rig? Yes! Or they'd learn. Instruction manuals, newsgroups, Elmers, etc. Lots of info sources out there. One of the most basic reasons for amateur radio to exist is to facilitate and encourage learning by hams. Undue restrictions work against that. In the old days they could just have asked nearly anyone, but that ain't so anymore. Sorry, Alun, I don't accept that argument at all. I got my Novice license at the age of 13 back in 1967. Written test was 20 or 25 questions, multiple choice, all of them basic radio and regulations. None asked how to tune up a typical transmitter of the day. My first transmitter was homebrewed by me from available parts, using ideas from books and magazines. Nobody showed me how to build it or tune it up; I just read the articles and figured it out. 350 volts B+ but I never got shocked by it. Just a little common sense. Hundreds of thousands of other Novices from 1951 onwards have similar stories. Perhaps unlike the old Novices, new hams are only likely to meet other hams after they get QRV. I don't accept that argument either. Hams today have *more* Elmering resources than ever before. Just look at all the online amateur radio resources available for free. Most of them won't have anyone to warn them of the dangers of electrocution, etc. Nobody warned me. I'm still here. Basic electrical safety is part-and-parcel of any amateur license. As for CW, you all know my views. And mine! The code test is gone in most European countries, the only effect of which seems to be an increase in HF activity (the HF bands may be virtually dead, but I was EI4VXI for a week recently, and heard it from that end). I don't find the HF bands to be virtually dead at all. But I work mostly CW, and things on that mode are hopping! PS: I think that the existing grades of licence should all be merged into one, whereas this proposal maintains a General/Extra division. Then why not support K0HB's proposal? Even though I disagree with some of it, Hans' proposal is much, much, much superior to the NCVEC proposal. Which should not only be hurled aside with great force, but also stomped into the dust. What exactly do you mean by "existing grades of licence should all be merged into one"? Does this mean all existing hams from Novice to Advanced would get a free upgrade to Extra (full privileges)? Or how about this for the entry-level license class (from ideas I've posted here several times): 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? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Subject: Another D-H* NCVEC proposal
From: PAMNO (N2EY) Date: 8/11/2004 5:08 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: 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? Why not do like the Germans and create an "operator only" license? The purpose of which is to allow a person to operate a radio, but under the supervison of an experienced operator. Then after some period of time or minimum operating hours, the "student" is eligible for an upgrade? Or why don't we quit wallowing in all this administrative quagmire and just "get on with it"...??? 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... 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.. 73 Steve, K4YZ |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Steve Robeson K4CAP wrote:
Subject: Another D-H* NCVEC proposal From: PAMNO (N2EY) Date: 8/11/2004 5:08 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: 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? Why not do like the Germans and create an "operator only" license? The purpose of which is to allow a person to operate a radio, but under the supervison of an experienced operator. Then after some period of time or minimum operating hours, the "student" is eligible for an upgrade? Or why don't we quit wallowing in all this administrative quagmire and just "get on with it"...??? 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... And that is perhaps the most telling point, Steve. If a 9 year old kid can pass the Extra, there is no reason to make tests easier. I don't doubt that the child is a bit exceptional, but there are the Technician and General licenses, which are certainly easier. 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.. I don't think there are any good reasons to have a simpler test. If anything, I would like the Extra made harder. - Mike KB3EIA - |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Subject: Another D-H* NCVEC proposal
From: Mike Coslo Date: 8/11/2004 9:11 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: Steve Robeson K4CAP wrote: Subject: Another D-H* NCVEC proposal From: PAMNO (N2EY) Date: 8/11/2004 5:08 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: Or why don't we quit wallowing in all this administrative quagmire and just "get on with it"...??? 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... And that is perhaps the most telling point, Steve. If a 9 year old kid can pass the Extra, there is no reason to make tests easier. I don't doubt that the child is a bit exceptional, but there are the Technician and General licenses, which are certainly easier. And I really wonder what, if anything, one of those 9 year olds could tell you about radio propagation, modes, etc... But it's not just kids...It's just about anyone anymore. 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.. I don't think there are any good reasons to have a simpler test. If anything, I would like the Extra made harder. The test is hard enough, IF we were really testing applicants on thier knowledge...We're not...We're testing them on the questions. Would you want to go under the knife of a surgeon who got through medical school on "open pool" testing? =0 73 Steve, K4YZ |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Mike Coslo" wrote I don't think there are any good reasons to have a simpler test. If the test regime was such that the examinations were comprehensive enough to justify the privileges granted (it currently is not), then a simple test for a limited-term learners permit (like the original Novice concept) would be very appropriate. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
(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: 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? 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. 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. 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. Then after some period of time or minimum operating hours, the "student" is eligible for an upgrade? Based on what other requirements? 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? 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. 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. 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 the pools will be used and safeguarded - how prospective amateurs will know what to study without access to the pools - who is going to do all the work needed to make the change - how the whole system will be protected against "Son of Bash" - how all of this can be done without it costing more FCC resources 73 de Jim, N2EY |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Why not do like the Germans and create an "operator only" license? 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. An unlicensed friend can use your station under your supervision now. He doesn't have a callsign, so he uses yours. That's about the only difference that the german system has from ours. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1412  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 |