RadioBanter - View Single Post

December 2nd 03, 04:55 AM

(N2EY) wrote in message . com...
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message . com...

I was reading my December 2003 "CQ" magazine and found an item
penned by Jim Wiley KL7CC, Scott Neustadter W4WW, and the snake oil
salesman of Amateur Radio...Fred Maia W5YI.

What did they call it?

Is it the same article that's on the AL7FS website ("Amateur Radio for
the 21st Century"?

That's the one. It's in "CQ's" OP-ED" column.

The whole jist of the article is aimed at creating yet another
Amateur Radio license, and the article suggests numerous "snips" of
other requirements from the regulatory, theory, practice and safety
regulations in order to "make" a slimmed-down beginners' license.

They envision replacing the existing Tech with the new license class.

Same silliness as Stewart Teaze. Yet another "Colt" or whatever
class license Stewie dreamt up.

See if you can remember where their following suggestion was once
an actual practice of the Federal Communications Commission, and how
well it worked in practice:

(From page 36, December 2003 "CQ") QUOTE "Remove some of the
math from the license exams. Remove some or even most of the "radio
law" type questions. Instead require the applicants to sign a
statement that they have read the Part 97 rulebook, and that they ahve
a copy (available for free via web download). Yes, some of the
applicants will "skate" and not read it when they signed that they
did. But most will, and even among those who dont, eventually,
probablysooner rather than later, they will get around to it. Some
never will. That's human nature. We're not looking for saints, just
people who can become productive hams". UNQUOTE

Yep. A very bad idea.

To say teh least.

My first question for these brain surgeons is HOW IN THE BLUE
BLAZES CAN SOMEONE BE "PRODUCTIVE" IF THEY DON"T KNOW THE RULES...?!?!

Heck, how can they even be *legal* if they don't know the rules?

And if we're supposed to accept a signed statement from a 12 year old
(the article repeatedly talks about aiming the license at the 6th
grade level) as proof of rules compliance, why do the rest of the
license classes require actually passing tests?

We already have literally thousands of examples of elementary and
middle school kids passing not only the Technician, but the General
and the Extra.

These people are in a position of responsibility for mentoring
the next generation of Amateurs..?!?!

I don't *think* so!

You may wish to read my rebuttal to that paper, posted here in 3
parts. Perhaps I should send it to CQ as well....

Please do. I sent an e mail to "CQ" and routed copies to the
three authors. I actually got a very nice response from KL7CC.

I doubt Maia will ever respond.

While I am a big proponent of CLOSING the question pools and
thereby requiring potential licensees to actually LEARN something,
including regulations, even our present system of open pools and rote
memorization will ingrain SOME understanding of the most of the basic
rules of the service!

Exactly. And of all subjects that should be in the tests, the
rules/regs are #1 priority.

AB-SA-LOOT-A-MUNDO!

Of course I can't help but believe this is another W5YI
initiative to help perpetuate his "publishing" business, especially
since it will soon lose part of it's subject matter (code tapes).

He sold that business.

So I found out, and I responded to KL7CC with an "I stand
corrected".

One more new license would be yet another "text" he could get
around to selling.

He's not in that business any more.

As I was saying...!

Read the whole article. It's a really poorly thought out concept
and one that's been beaten over and over again.

Actually the basic concept boils down to revamping the old Novice for
the 21st century. Fine - let's do just that, call it the Novice, and
use it as the entry level instead of the Tech.

If it's the same article, it has a few good ideas and some very bad
ones.

I am all for a GOOD "Novice" class proposal as long as it
represents some RESPONSIBLE ideas. Deleting rules and regulations and
safety issues is NOT it!

Unfortunately it's the FCC's past track record to latch on to
some really bad ideas...

73

Steve, K4YZ