| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#5
August 11th 04, 09:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
| 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 | |||
Threaded Mode
