About Us

August 11th 04, 06:06 PM

(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

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Amateur Radio Newslineâ„¢ Report 1412 Â September 3, 2004	Radionews	General	0	September 4th 04 09:35 PM
Why the caste system? was: NCVEC files license restructuringdepends	N2EY	Policy	25	April 3rd 04 09:28 PM
NCVEC files license resstructuring proposal	Bill Sohl	Policy	47	March 23rd 04 11:59 PM
NCVEC NPRM for elimination of horse and buggy morse code requirement.	Keith	Policy	1	July 31st 03 04:46 AM
NCVEC Position on Code	Jim Hampton	Policy	0	July 31st 03 01:50 AM

Menu

About Us