Stirrings in the veldt
 

It seems that the South African authorities have dropped their recent
licencing proposal and replaced it with a new one.

Their existing licencing scheme in South Africa has a Full (ZS call)
licence and a Restricted (ZR call) licence, the latter having privileges
above 30 MHz only, both taking the same theory test, but the ZS calls
having to pass a 12wpm code test. IOW, exactly as the UK A and B licences
were back when I first got a UK licence.

The authorities in South Africa reacted to the demise of the ITU code
test requirement in a truly bizarre way, by suggesting a third class of
licence with a ZT call, with a 5wpm code test and limited HF privileges.
This has been shelved, due to what they say were a large number of
comments. No such licence will now be implemented, so don't expect to
hear any ZT calls anytime soon.

Instead, they are proposing a dual route to a full licence, offering a
choice between either an advanced theory test or a code test for each
candidate. This was proposed by many people in many countries whilst
there still was an ITU requirement for a code test, but this is the first
time I have seen it resurface since it ended. If South Africa does
implement it, they will be the first and probably only country to do so.

They are also proposing to give the same limited HF privileges that they
would have given to the new licence, to the existing restricted licence
instead, without any addtional testing.

73 de Alun, N3KIP

In article , Alun
writes:

The authorities in South Africa reacted to the demise of the ITU code
test requirement in a truly bizarre way, by suggesting a third class of
licence with a ZT call, with a 5wpm code test and limited HF privileges.

Why was this a "truly bizarre way"?

This has been shelved, due to what they say were a large number of
comments.

Democracy in action.

No such licence will now be implemented, so don't expect to
hear any ZT calls anytime soon.

Instead, they are proposing a dual route to a full licence, offering a
choice between either an advanced theory test or a code test for each
candidate. This was proposed by many people in many countries whilst
there still was an ITU requirement for a code test, but this is the first
time I have seen it resurface since it ended.

Sounds like a very reasonable compromise.

If South Africa does
implement it, they will be the first and probably only country to do so.

Why? Perhaps it could be a way out of the constant arguments. It wasn't
possible before, due to the treaty.

They are also proposing to give the same limited HF privileges that they
would have given to the new licence, to the existing restricted licence
instead, without any addtional testing.

How many has in South Africa, anyway?

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , Alun
writes:

it is bizarre to greet
the end of the code requirement by suggesting a new licence with a code
test.

Why?

The revised treaty says that each country shall determine for itself what the
code test requirements for an amateur license will be. It appears that South
Africa is in the process of determining what it shall be for South Africa.
Perhaps there will be no test, or no change, or something in between.

And Jim, I didn't say it was a bad idea to have a dual track system with
code and theory alternatives. It's actually quite a good one. No doubt now
someone will put that in petition number 18, or whatever number we are up
to now.

I first suggested such a thing several years ago in my "Chinese Menu" license
concept. The idea was that there would be a "core" test requirement for the
lowest level of license, and upgrading could be accomplished by accumulating
credits in a variety of ways, such as specialized written tests, and code
tests.

I won't though, because it isn't going to happen.

Why not? Nobody has suggested it yet in the USA because in the past it would
have violated the treaty to have an HF license with no code test. Now it could
be done.

We don't know exactly
what the FCC will do, but we do know two things that they are on record as
saying:-

1) They don't beleive that the code test serves a useful purpose;

Not true!

They said it "serves no *regulatory* purpose"

2) They won't rearrange subbands until a consensus emerges amongst us.

I sure hope they don't!

So, we do know really (although some are in denial) that the NPRM will dump
Element 1 completely.

It ain't over until it's over, and even then it ain't over.

We can be rather less sure what it will do to reform the unnecessary
proliferation of licence classes,

What "proliferation"? We have 6 right now, with one scheduled to disappear in a
little over six years even if no rules changes at all are made. Two others are
disappearing by attrition.

and the equally unneccessary slicing and
dicing of the ham bands that goes with it.

Would you have only one class of license and no subbands by mode?

I hope it might do something in
this regard, but it is perhaps more likely that it will do nothing, or at
least as little as possible, as they probably will decide that we still
don't agree with oneanother.

And we don't.

73 de Jim, N2EY