|
Another D-H* NCVEC proposal
"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 . 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 |
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 , Alun
writes: That last point is true, but the Novice is also non-compliant with s25 and CEPT, albeit they are no longer issuing any. Which is an argument for its removal! 73 de Jim, N2EY |
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 |
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 |
"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 |
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. |
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 |
Len Over 21 wrote:
Don't waste our time repeating old stuff - with the same verbiage garbiage - all over again. Is this another case of doing as you say and not as you do? Dave K8MN |
In article , Dave Heil
writes: Len Over 21 wrote: Don't waste our time repeating old stuff - with the same verbiage garbiage - all over again. Is this another case of doing as you say and not as you do? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Poor Davie...the onset of Alzheimers so soon in you! The "dump huck' NCVEC sent their petition to the FCC on 1 March 2003. ["dump huck is Brakob's wording not NCVEC] The FCC put it in RM-10870 on 4 March 2004. Brakob commented on it. I commented on Brakob's comment as well as the petition itself. Now, as a retired member of das Amateur Schutz Staffel, you want to DO IT ALL OVER AGAIN?!?!?!? How many times do you need to rant, rave, slobber, snarl, and otherwise act like an ashpit over something ALREADY DISCUSSED AT IN LENGTH?!?!?!? 265 comments on RM-10870 in the ECFS at the FCC. [266 documents...the petition and its cover letter plus all the comments] I shouldn't be amazed. This group of amateur inmates seems to just love living in the past, recreating the past, doing the past over and over and over again. [eventually they might get it right] And you, portly old ham, seem to take great delight in TRYING to get the better of those who've gotten the better of you in the past. You've had too many oriongasms with your expensive "I was able to download firmware over the Internet!" transceiver. You are wasting your time. You are wasting everyone else's time. You've run out of valid thinking...and time. Say goodnight, portly old ham. LHA / WMD |
Len Over 21 wrote:
In article , Dave Heil writes: Len Over 21 wrote: Don't waste our time repeating old stuff - with the same verbiage garbiage - all over again. Is this another case of doing as you say and not as you do? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Poor Davie...the onset of Alzheimers so soon in you! The "dump huck' NCVEC sent their petition to the FCC on 1 March 2003. ["dump huck is Brakob's wording not NCVEC] The FCC put it in RM-10870 on 4 March 2004. Brakob commented on it. I commented on Brakob's comment as well as the petition itself. Now, as a retired member of das Amateur Schutz Staffel, you want to DO IT ALL OVER AGAIN?!?!?!? How many times do you need to rant, rave, slobber, snarl, and otherwise act like an ashpit over something ALREADY DISCUSSED AT IN LENGTH?!?!?!? 265 comments on RM-10870 in the ECFS at the FCC. [266 documents...the petition and its cover letter plus all the comments] I shouldn't be amazed. This group of amateur inmates seems to just love living in the past, recreating the past, doing the past over and over and over again. [eventually they might get it right] That's all well and good. I addressed your comment, "Don't waste our time repeating old stuff - with the same verbiage garbiage - all over again". You are, after all, a great one for repeating old stuff over and over and over again. And you, portly old ham, seem to take great delight in TRYING to get the better of those who've gotten the better of you in the past. This isn't about them. It is about you. You've had too many oriongasms with your expensive "I was able to download firmware over the Internet!" transceiver. I recall that firmware debate. You lost your ass on that one. Seems you didn't know the definition of the term. You are wasting your time. Not at all. My time is mine to use as I choose. You are wasting everyone else's time. Nope. No one is forced to read a single one of my posted comments. If you feel that I'm wasting your time, you are invited to stifle your urge to respond. You've run out of valid thinking...and time. It doesn't appear that I've run out of either. Say goodnight, portly old ham. Goodnight, sour old non-ham. Dave K8MN |
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 - |
In article , Robert Casey
writes: 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. Odds are that kid was in the top 2 percentile of the population. I'd guess more like top 20% but the important thing is: Isn't that the percentile we're trying to attract? Maybe we need an age limit to keep such young wippersnappers under control... ;-) Maybe not ;-) The ones who commit the most violations are a lot older. Maybe the new license class' test should be something that 9 year old kids in the top 20 percentile can pass, that 15 year olds at 50 percentile can pass, and that Beavis and Butthead at 25 years old can pass.... Interesting concept. BTW, let's make sure that an upgrade from the new class to tech doesn't take away priveledges, like if you went from Novice to Tech used to do. Pretty much a given. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
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 |
"N2EY" wrote Your "student operator" idea would create an unnecessary intermediate step. A "licensed ham" who cannot operate unsupervised. Bad idea, I say. Control freaks are big on supervision and rank and being in charge. People who propose the freedom to take sole responsibility for their own actions scare the bejeebers out of them. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
|
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 |
(Quitefine) wrote in message ...
In article , (Len Over 21) writes: The "dump huck' NCVEC sent their petition to the FCC on 1 March 2003. ["dump huck is Brakob's wording not NCVEC] The FCC put it in RM-10870 on 4 March 2004. Brakob commented on it. I commented on Brakob's comment as well as the petition itself. Your comments include errors of fact and misleading information. Such as? Now, as a retired member of das Amateur Schutz Staffel, you want to DO IT ALL OVER AGAIN?!?!?!? Is continued discussion forbidden? Only by non-amateurs. Everyone else can carry on. How many times do you need to rant, rave, slobber, snarl, and otherwise act like an ashpit over something ALREADY DISCUSSED AT IN LENGTH?!?!?!? We ask you the same question. Did you arrive at a different answer? |
In article , "KØHB"
writes: "N2EY" wrote Your "student operator" idea would create an unnecessary intermediate step. A "licensed ham" who cannot operate unsupervised. Bad idea, I say. Control freaks are big on supervision and rank and being in charge. People who propose the freedom to take sole responsibility for their own actions scare the bejeebers out of them. I take it you agree with me that the "student operator" idea isn't a good one. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"N2EY" wrote I take it you agree with me that the "student operator" idea isn't a good one. You take it correctly. I think the idea is a credible candidate for the DAIOTM award. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
Subject: Another D-H* NCVEC proposal
From: "KØHB" Date: 8/14/2004 11:34 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: "N2EY" wrote Your "student operator" idea would create an unnecessary intermediate step. A "licensed ham" who cannot operate unsupervised. Bad idea, I say. Control freaks are big on supervision and rank and being in charge. People who propose the freedom to take sole responsibility for their own actions scare the bejeebers out of them. There's nothing in anythiing I've said, Hans, that makes this THE way for somoene to get into Amateur Radio...This is but ONE way. This is not about "control"....It's about a way for TEACHING others to be licensed, SKILLED Amateur Radio operators. There are already 675,000 people out there with Amateur Radio licenses who are "in control" of thier own actions and I hope there will someday be another 675, 000. Sorry you think differently. Seems to me that those who yell the loudest about others being "in control" are themselves the ones worried about WHO is going to be in control. Kinda like you. Steve, K4YZ |
"licensed ham" who cannot operate unsupervised. Bad idea, I say. Control freaks are big on supervision and rank and being in charge. People who propose the freedom to take sole responsibility for their own actions scare the bejeebers out of them. How long does it take a new ham to get the basics of operating down anyway? A few hours of operating? Once he has a rig, antenna and such set up. When I got my HF privrledes when I got my "extra lite", I spent a lot of time listening to QSOs to try to figure out the methods used. Then started responding to CQs and such. One problem I find is that I can never remember the other guy's callsign... But if it's a contester I just listen to subsequent QSOs he has to get his call for the log. I don't compete myself. Having a supervised only license is more brearucratic hassle than that met learning how to operate anyway. |
"Robert Casey" wrote Having a supervised only license is more brearucratic hassle than that met learning how to operate anyway. Hi Bob, I feel that the idea of a "Here, Kid, let me hold your hand and show you how to be a ham" license would send absolutely the wrong message to new ham 'wannabes'. Hard-wired into the bedrock DNA of the Amateur Radio service is the notion of experimentation, inovation, and "let's try and see if this works". The old Novice license, with it's elementary easy examination, and it's attitude of "Hey, kid, welcome to Amateur Radio --- now build a station and let's see what you can do with it" appealed to this trait. We should lobby like hell for a return to such a license, including the non-renewable nature of it, rather than some "store-bought-only-equipment-supervised-operation" license which would, IMNSHO, carve the very heart and soul out of the attraction of a ham license to the adventuresome tinker/experimenter mindset that we desparately need to attract. Quite frankly, anyone who was attracted to such a structured supervised license environment doesn't belong in *MY* Amateur Radio service. (Watch LHA spin up his rotors over that comment!) 73, de Hans, K0HB |
|
|
In article , "KØHB"
writes: "Robert Casey" wrote Having a supervised only license is more brearucratic hassle than that met learning how to operate anyway. Hi Bob, I feel that the idea of a "Here, Kid, let me hold your hand and show you how to be a ham" license would send absolutely the wrong message to new ham 'wannabes'. Hard-wired into the bedrock DNA of the Amateur Radio service is the notion of experimentation, inovation, and "let's try and see if this works". The old Novice license, with it's elementary easy examination, and it's attitude of "Hey, kid, welcome to Amateur Radio --- now build a station and let's see what you can do with it" appealed to this trait. Exactly. Particularly with young people. We should lobby like hell for a return to such a license, including the non-renewable nature of it, rather than some "store-bought-only-equipment-supervised-operation" license which would, IMNSHO, carve the very heart and soul out of the attraction of a ham license to the adventuresome tinker/experimenter mindset that we desparately need to attract. While I disagree with the nonrenewable thing, all the rest is dead-on target. Quite frankly, anyone who was attracted to such a structured supervised license environment doesn't belong in *MY* Amateur Radio service. Nor mine! (Watch LHA spin up his rotors over that comment!) You mean the non-ham who suggested an age requirement of 14 years to FCC, and who stated he has always had trouble integrating young people into what he considers an adult activity? Perhaps he would agree with you about the undesirability of a student license. After all, who would mentor *him*? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Subject: Another D-H* NCVEC proposal
From: PAMNO (N2EY) Date: 8/14/2004 10:55 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: 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: 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. And what is wrong with a "supervised training license", Jim? You're approaching this as if it were the ONLY way to do this. I for one never suggested that. 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. Un-necessary to YOU, Jim. Imagine...a whole new "crop" of licensees TRAINED as they learned....No more nets interrupted...No more autopatches initiated in the middle of a QSO...No more 10-4 good buddy language. Yep...I can see how you might find that untenable!~ The "operator only" license idea is the very epitome of "supervised" licenses, Which is a bad idea. To you. Not to the new students. 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. Sheeeeesh. By not having to "relearn" everything from the git-go...From HAVING a knowledgeable, capable mentor to direct those "dumb" questions to. All to the Orwellian doublespeak on 11 meters is the most obvous example of what I am trying to avoid...The misadventures of many who either "thought" that this was "the way" things were done because "no one told me..." 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? Sure it's "true". It's also not very productive. See my comments above. Yet another "Novice" class without some kind of mentorship will create a whole yet another subclass of Hams trying to reinvent the wheel...Why not implement a REAL training-level license that REALLY trains them...?!?! And now the Technician Class does that. And......?!?! And the Tech is not the best we can do. For a whole bunch of reasons. OK...Ante up. Details, Jim...It assigns a trail of responsibility in the training of the new ops. Why is that needed? To put some quality into the program. 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? Make a suggestion, Jim. 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. OK...So you make the rules Jim and the rest of us will just follow. Then we will know who to blame! 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. There's no reason to implement what NCVEC suggests either, but it made it to RM status. It's a heck of a lot more dangerous to Amateur Radio than a program that mentors trainees 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. Sorry, Jim. I don't acccept the idea of "Whelp...it's better than nothing..." 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. You have yet to show me where in the Constitution it is prohibited from changing federal regulation, or definitions within those regulations, Jim. And tomorrow it may have ANOTHER "precise meaning". Until it is redefined, we should use it as it is defined now. And with THAT suggestion, nothing at all will change. I thought you were a bit more open minded than that, Jim. I am not talking about TODAY'S Amateur Radio, Jim... Then don't pull a Vipul and use different defintions. I am not trying to redefine TODAYS Amateur Radio with made-up words or concepts, Jim. We are talking about potential FUTURE programs. OK...Your opinion noted. 674,999 others to go. Has anyone here said the student operator idea is a good one? Is this forum even remotely represntitive of a valid cross section of the Amateur demograpic, Jim? I forget the exact numbers, but at one time we figured out that the "regulars" and "occassional" posters here (the one's we can verify as being licensed, active Amateurs) was something like 0.015% of the Amateur community. 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. They don't HAVE to "every time they want to call CQ", Jim...I didn't have to hunt down my CFI everytime I wanted to do some touch and go's after he signed me off as qualified. A student Amateur wouldn't have to either. 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 having taken a written test. It should say "I accomplished this and have PROVED it through accomplishments noted". On that we agree. Whew...I was beginning to wonder. If the student and mentor can't match schedules, they change mentors. Are you volunteering? Absolutely. And I already do. 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? No, but I'd TAKE her to a stranger's house and be there...Just like I did when Samantha was in Brownies...Just like tens-of-thousands of other parents take thier kids to "special activites". 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. Uh huh! =) 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. =0 Jim...there was less than 400K Amateurs whe I got licensed...There's now almost 700K. There are more "coded" Amateurs now than in recent history. HOW can you say it hasn't done much...?!?! 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? Why not? And why not provide them an option that provides them with a structured training and qualification program? 73 Steve, K4YZ |
Subject: Another D-H* NCVEC proposal
From: "KØHB" Date: 8/14/2004 8:08 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: "Robert Casey" wrote Having a supervised only license is more brearucratic hassle than that met learning how to operate anyway. Hi Bob, I feel that the idea of a "Here, Kid, let me hold your hand and show you how to be a ham" license would send absolutely the wrong message to new ham 'wannabes'. Hans, where's the "wrong message" about offering a program that provides a structured training program for those that want it? We ALREADY have a "wrong message" out there that says 'No one wants to help me and I have so many questions to ask..." A program that identified qualified "mentor stations" and "training clubs" would directly couple these folks with people who want to help and have the knowledge and skills to help. Quite frankly, anyone who was attracted to such a structured supervised license environment doesn't belong in *MY* Amateur Radio service. (Watch LHA spin up his rotors over that comment!) So as far as Hans Brakob is concerned, anyone who WANTS some sort of training to help them, they can get lost. THAT sends a message, for sure. I am sure most of us already know what the message is. Steve, K4YZ |
"KØHB" wrote in message k.net...
Quite frankly, anyone who was attracted to such a structured supervised license environment doesn't belong in *MY* Amateur Radio service. (Watch LHA spin up his rotors over that comment!) 73, de Hans, K0HB Hans, you saying, "*MY* Amateur Radio Service," just smacks of "Old Flatulencism." (Sorry Hans, I CAN"T say O.F. or the Semi-Moral Minority will cane me. Hi, hi!) Numerous people wanted to join the amateur service because of the emergency service aspect of our hobby. They may have no interest in building NE602 receivers or CW memory keyers. As such, the Technician exam is too complex material for a person with such intentions. On the other hand, a student license with mandatory hand holding is lunacy. So in the end, I agree to not have such a license class. But remember, Jim says that we need more license classes. Apparently it doesn't matter how he gets them. |
"Steve Robeson K4CAP" wrote A program that identified qualified "mentor stations" and "training clubs" would directly couple these folks with people who want to help and have the knowledge and skills to help. Perhaps it escaped your notice, but such a nationwide program already exists, without big-government establishing a "supervised only, store bought rigs only" operator class. At their web site ARRL lists all their affiliated clubs, including services those clubs offer such as organized training programs, club stations, etc. They also have established a four-level mentoring program which include ARRL Club Mentor, ARRL Mentor, Interactive Mentor and Special Interest Mentor. The ARRL Club Mentor will involve the participation of ARRL-affiliated clubs in close cooperation with ARRL Headquarters staff. Affiliated clubs will be encouraged to actively participate in this program to "mainstream" more people, licensed and otherwise, into Amateur Radio. The club mentor program also has the additional benefit of potentially increasing a club's membership as well. The ARRL Mentor program will work through ARRL Headquarters. An ARRL mentor is a person with an interest in mentoring--or "Elmering"--new licensees who may or may not be members of an ARRL-affiliated club. ARRL Headquarters staff will support these mentors, who must be ARRL members. The Interactive Mentor is intended to aid enterprising new hams via the ARRL Web site by providing answers to basic questions and through chat rooms, where discourse between new hams and mentors would help new hams to get on the air. The Special Interest Mentor is intended to match people with interests in advanced, specialized areas of Amateur Radio technology with mentors who are experienced in these technologies. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
"Steve Robeson K4CAP" wrote So as far as Hans Brakob is concerned, anyone who WANTS some sort of training to help them, they can get lost. Pure fantasy, Steve. I have 'Elmered' dozens of new hams (and continue to), am affiliated with the MNYARC ( http://www.mnyarc.org/ ), am an ARRL registered instructor, a Handi-Hams volunteer, and am a contributor to the Ham-Elmer yahoogroup, just for a few examples of my contributions to the volunteer training of new hams. But I don't support (in fact I vehemently oppose) the notion of "supervised operations only" ham radio license. If that makes me a "bad person" in your eyes, then I guess I'll just have to live with the horrible stigma of your disapproval. Why does that not bother me? 73, de Hans, K0HB |
|
"Steve Robeson K4CAP" wrote Hans, where's the "wrong message" about offering a program that provides a structured training program for those that want it? Nothing wrong with that at all. ARRL and hundreds of clubs across the country offer "structured training programs". What IS wrong with your proposed program is the notion of "you can't operate with this license unless you're supervised". Our beloved ham radio service has thrived over the years because a fundamental feature of its charter (97.1) is the encouragement of independent tinkering and just plain "I wonder if this would work" experimentation. It'd be a very stagnant and uninteresting place if that individual exhuberace were replaced with supervisors who taught only the "right way to be a ham". If you want "structured", join MARS or CAP, where structure is important and very desireable for uniform and consistent styles of operation. Let amateur radio remain vibrant, free-spirited, and willing to try a lot of "crazy crap" just to see if it works if for no other reason. That's how many of our contributions to SOTA came about, not by "supervision". 73, de Hans, K0HB |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:34 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com