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

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 -

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

In article , (Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:

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...

Depends on the kid.

At age 12 I could explain to you about the ionosphere, why the low HF bands are
best at night and the higher ones during the day, the basics of CW, AM, SSB,
FM, FSK, and a whole bunch more. Not as well as I could today but to a level
sufficient to keep me out of trouble.

I suspect that plenty of younger kids could do the same, given the right
learning materials.

But it's not just kids...It's just about anyone anymore.

Depends entirely on the person. There are lots of very knowledgeable hams out
there - newbies and old timers alike.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"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

(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

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.