|
Easier licensing
From: Bill Sohl on Dec 5, 6:48 am
wrote in message Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message K؈B wrote: wrote snip First off, there's the reduction in code testing. Also code waivers. Elimination of the sending test, the one-minute- solid copy requirement, etc. But let's put those aside and look at the writtens: 1) there's the official publication of the written exams. Did the ARRL or any other ham organization petition for the test questions to be published? Not that I know of. The move to the VEC system was made by FCC. Making the tests public was an unavoidable consequence of the VEC system. License examination privatization happed to BOTH the commercial radio operator license exams as well as radio amateurs. There was no "VEC system" any more than it was a "COLEM system." Besides, if the FCC couldn't keep them secret from Dick Bash back when FCC made up and controlled the test distribution, how could anyone expect they could do it when the VEs ran the testing? There were no "secrets" prior to the "Bash Books" since the essential questions were included in the "Q & A" books available in the 1950s. The copyright laws of the United States haven't changed appreciably since 1950 insofar as the federal government has NO copyright on anything it publishes. One example that should be familiar to civilians looking at news stands is J. K. Lassers Income Tax guide books which include copies of all IRS forms. It's the difference between knowing a little bit of the basics of a wide variety of subjects vs. an in-depth knowledge of fewer subjects. Most people find the latter to be more challenging. Amd you know this to be true based on what scientific study/analysis? And again, who asked for that or drove that change? Those who don't like the amateur radio license examination written questions can communicate with the VEC Question Pool Committee. The VEC QPC makes up ALL the questions for EACH class' written examinations. That situation is eminently fair to me and should be to all radio amateurs desiring the "clubhouse" kind of "community." :-) It seems more likely that the longer a complainant has been licensed, the smarter they are, and the newcomers are way dumber than they, the OTs, were. :-) Have they really proposed a new license? Or (just) different privileges for the existing one? In another reply to your question, Len stated the ARRL has filed both proposals. I'll take his word on that. ARRL's Petition RM-10867. ARRL's Comments filed on 31 October 2005 on NPRM 05-143 is partly a slight rewrite of RM-10867. [Chris is trying very hard to get his handiwork approved? :-) ] ARRL's new "petition" (no RM assignment yet) calls for a revision of the "band plans." That is accessible from their www.arrl.org splash page. As to a new beginners license, I (me alone) would support that idea...but I think we need to approach that concept slowly by the following path: 1. FCC drops code test as currently proposed 2. The ham community (ARRL, etc) monitors closely the entrance/addition of new (i.e. never before) hams and upgrades of existing hams for at least a couple of years. 3.After two years, we assess if any problem exists regarding the ability to gain new hams. Whatever. :-) First item is excellent. Second, okay. Does there really need to be an "assessment" as in the third? What "assessments" were done in the past? |
Easier licensing
wrote in message oups.com... From: Bill Sohl on Dec 5, 6:48 am As to a new beginners license, I (me alone) would support that idea...but I think we need to approach that concept slowly by the following path: 1. FCC drops code test as currently proposed 2. The ham community (ARRL, etc) monitors closely the entrance/addition of new (i.e. never before) hams and upgrades of existing hams for at least a couple of years. 3.After two years, we assess if any problem exists regarding the ability to gain new hams. Whatever. :-) First item is excellent. Second, okay. Does there really need to be an "assessment" as in the third? What "assessments" were done in the past? Assessment, review, whatever. I personally think the current 3 level license structure does not reflect a good starting path for new hams because Techs are (a) only allowed VHF, yet they have (b) power privileges for full 1500 watts. My personal view is to have a beginners license with a variety of HF and VHF access and modes but with a limited power output (say 200 watts or less). The current 3 licenses and privileges are the result of piecepart change over time and the result has some less than logical consequences regarding privileges and entrance level testing when compared to the Novice tests which we had for almost 50 years. YMMV. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
Easier licensing
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message t... wrote in message oups.com... From: Bill Sohl on Dec 5, 6:48 am As to a new beginners license, I (me alone) would support that idea...but I think we need to approach that concept slowly by the following path: 1. FCC drops code test as currently proposed 2. The ham community (ARRL, etc) monitors closely the entrance/addition of new (i.e. never before) hams and upgrades of existing hams for at least a couple of years. 3.After two years, we assess if any problem exists regarding the ability to gain new hams. Whatever. :-) First item is excellent. Second, okay. Does there really need to be an "assessment" as in the third? What "assessments" were done in the past? Assessment, review, whatever. I personally think the current 3 level license structure does not reflect a good starting path for new hams because Techs are (a) only allowed VHF, yet they have (b) power privileges for full 1500 watts. My personal view is to have a beginners license with a variety of HF and VHF access and modes but with a limited power output (say 200 watts or less). The current 3 licenses and privileges are the result of piecepart change over time and the result has some less than logical consequences regarding privileges and entrance level testing when compared to the Novice tests which we had for almost 50 years. YMMV. Cheers, Bill K2UNK Well I would propose dropping the Tech altogether and upping the General written to 50 question test once the code is dropped. The difference in technical material is not great and it's not that hard to memorize the difference in privileges. Once the code is dropped, in the classes that I teach, I will combine the material and encourage all the students to go straight to General. There really won't be a need for an introductory license. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Easier licensing
From: Bill Sohl on Dec 6, 6:11 am
wrote in message As to a new beginners license, I (me alone) would support that idea...but I think we need to approach that concept slowly by the following path: 1. FCC drops code test as currently proposed 2. The ham community (ARRL, etc) monitors closely the entrance/addition of new (i.e. never before) hams and upgrades of existing hams for at least a couple of years. 3.After two years, we assess if any problem exists regarding the ability to gain new hams. Whatever. :-) First item is excellent. Second, okay. Does there really need to be an "assessment" as in the third? What "assessments" were done in the past? Assessment, review, whatever. I personally think the current 3 level license structure does not reflect a good starting path for new hams because Techs are (a) only allowed VHF, yet they have (b) power privileges for full 1500 watts. My personal view is to have a beginners license with a variety of HF and VHF access and modes but with a limited power output (say 200 watts or less). I'm not convinced that a "starting path" is necessary. Firstly, having grades or levels of license is too much like the traditional union concept of work with levels of apprentice-journeyman-master. Amateur radio isn't a union nor a guild nor a craft. Differing levels/classes of license only reinforce the already- present class-distinction social divisions in U.S. amateur radio. It is a HOBBY, a recreational pursuit done for enjoyment of radio, not on achieving some artifice of social standing. Plenty of other organizations exist for social climbers looking for status and title. Operating a radio transmitter is, in reality, not a complex task nor is "amateur radio operation" some kind of mystical event, requiring perfect incantations to have some magic occur. Unlicensed (in radio) public safety people routinely do that. Unlicensed (in radio) aircraft crew routinely do that. Unlicensed (in radio) business people routinely do that. Dozens of other examples are available where unlicensed-in-radio individuals routinely operate radio transmitters without some long "training" period of months or years in order to be "proper" operators in radio. I see absolutely no reason for amateur radio people engaging in a hobby to do that sort of thing...except to salve the egos of the long- "tenured" "senior" amateurs. The current 3 licenses and privileges are the result of piecepart change over time and the result has some less than logical consequences regarding privileges and entrance level testing when compared to the Novice tests which we had for almost 50 years. YMMV. My odometer reads the same as yours on regulations' evolution of continuing piece-part changing. That is a consequence of radio politics, and NOT, in my view, of any "necessity" to have a layered system of classes for a hobby. EM-space doesn't recognize "classes" OR human politics; electrons, fields, and waves are all unaffected by human regulations or emotion or "needs" to stratify standing within some "fellowship." The Novice class license is a failure in the long run. While it might have been a good idea at the beginning for some to "get their feet wet" (in radio waters), it started off badly with the emotional baggage of its class title, "Novice." As viewed from afar, it served only to initiate the completely ferklempt with "proper" radiotelegraphy procedure and with the "proper" jargon (which had evolved in the particular activity of amateur radio)...not to mention having the "proper attitude" of worship and respect of "elders" (who thought they "ran" things). That can work on typical teen-agers who have yet to experience more of life and the variety of humans who exist in the real world. It does not work well with adults. Longevity of a regulation such as "novice" or "beginner" or "entrant" in a field such as radio and communications that has constantly been evolving over the last half-century is not a logical necessity to keep those regulations. Time has shown that the newcomers have shunned the Novice class for decades; its class numbers are continuously decreasing. Concentration on getting young newcomers into a hobby field seems driven more by some basic paternal drive to "guide and educate the kids." Perhaps its a by- product of parenthood or a surrogate for that? It is misplaced in a "community" whose active members are predominently adult. Children don't have the monetary base to build market sales which serve to benefit the adults. Children don't have the experience to run events or keep organizations (predominently adult) together. At best, the drive to "get youngsters interested" in a primarly-adult hobby seems to be little more than eyewash, using politically-correct psycho phrases. On the other hand, targeting an entrance drive for amateur radio to teenagers will tend to steer them away from their contemporaries' activities...those activities having evolved to fit that peer group and not necessarily that of adults. It will serve to show those beginners that there is an unknown facet of the adult world ahead. It can also serve to alienate them from their own peer group by making them "different." That is a not-good thing among teen- agers who seek the stability of "their" group, a natural psychological need in that part of their life. My own experience on "entering HF" were rather drastic in "apprenticeship" consisting only of a few days (at most). So were the 4 newcomers with me, none of us having been schooled on high-power HF transmitters. We were shown how to do it by more senior signalmen and we did it. Those that did it wrong were shown why and had to practice getting it right. No re- criminations leveled, no "chewings out," no ostracizing. We all learned and did our tasks (some of which were considerably more complicated than any found in amateur radio operating). So did those that came before us and those that came after us. I can draw a parallel to the activities of infantry, armor, and artillery soldiers who had to learn how to operate radios necessary for military communications. They did it by the thousands upon thousands of soldiers, nearly all of them inexperienced in using any radio other than a broadcast receiver before their service. Those that say "they only push the button and talk" are doing them an extreme disservice since there is considerably more to do than that. Radio training for line outfits is abbreviated to, at most, a couple weeks with most of that being branch-specific procedural matters. Now, if they can all do that successfully in a short time, it makes no logical sense to have class stratification of being held in one class for a year or more. |
Easier licensing
Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message oups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message ups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message oups.com... KØHB wrote: wrote But since about the mid 1980s, we've been told that the requirementsare "too high".... Who told you that? Not FCC. Not ARRL. Not me. It has been shown by the actions of the first two, and others. In other words, that is your opinion based on your view of certain actions of others but you have NO example where anyone has said the requirements are too high. So the reality is that we have NOT been told by anyone that the requirements are too high. Here are some more examples: - ARRL has proposed free (no test) upgrades for many hams. These proposed free upgrades included Novices and Tech Pluses getting Generals with no additional testing, and Advanceds getting Extras with no additional testing. While they don't come right out and say the requirements are too high, proposing that hundreds of thousands of hams get an upgrade without taking the required tests effectively says the test requirements - the *written* test requirements - are too high. bunk! Your logic is failed because those free upgrades were proposed as a one time only set of upgrades to get people to a newly aligned set of licenses and privileges without subjecting anyone to a lose of privileges. I don't think it's "bunk" at all. Neither does FCC. Here's why: ARRL proposed that Technicians and Tech Pluses get a free upgrade to General without taking any tests. Any such action by FCC would need an effective date - a date when the rules would change, and the free upgrade would take effect. A new amateur who earned the Technician the day before the effective date would get the free upgrade, just like all other Techs. The result would be that Generals who hadn't taken the General test would outnumber Generals who *had* taken the General test. Worse, new hams who were licensed after the effective date would still have to pass the General exam. IOW, if the effective date were February 1, a Tech first licensed on January 31 would be a General on February 2, yet have only taken the Tech test. But a new ham licensed on Feb 2 would have to take the General test for the same privileges. IOW, new hams would have to pass more and harder tests for the same privileges that others got for free. Or to put it plainly: If the General test isn't needed for those who got the free upgrade, why is it needed at all? Free upgrades would effectively lower the requirements. Ditto my last comment. FCC agrees with me, though. NCI agreed with the ARRL proposal on the free upgrades, btw. But FCC disagreed and denied all proposals for free upgrades. FCC cited the comments of certain people in that denial - see footnote 142 in the NPRM. (ahem) OK, no point there. - NCVEC's "Amateur Radio In the 21st Century" paper is full of the idea that the requirements are too high, particularly for the entry-level license class. Their second proposal followed the "21st Century" paper closely. Prior to 2000, was the Novice too high? Not for the privileges granted. If the FCC went back or changed Tech to a Novice level test (retaining the General and Extra as is) would that bother you? If it retained the privileges, yes. First off, there's the reduction in code testing. Also code waivers. Elimination of the sending test, the one-minute- solid copy requirement, etc. But let's put those aside and look at the writtens: 1) there's the official publication of the written exams. Did the ARRL or any other ham organization petition for the test questions to be published? Not that I know of. The move to the VEC system was made by FCC. Making the tests public was an unavoidable consequence of the VEC system. Besides, if the FCC couldn't keep them secret from Dick Bash back when FCC made up and controlled the test distribution, how could anyone expect they could do it when the VEs ran the testing? Publicizing the exact Q&A makes the requirements lower because the prospective ham knows exactly what will be on the test, down to the exact wording, and the exact correct answers. Big difference from secret tests! Yawn.... BUT publishing the questions was never proposed by ARRL. That being so, who in the FCC do you attribute the change to? Those who wanted to save money by getting FCC out of the exam-giving process. (SNIP) I think not. I have been a VE at several sessions here in NJ and have never seen anyone allowed to take the exact same test a second time on that same session regardless of paying an additional fee. The reality also is that the VEs running the session have no desire to allow anyone to just stay all day/night until the applicant's money runs out. Yet they allow it. In the bad old days there was a mandatory 30 day wait to retest. Which meant a lot of us went to the test *really* prepared because coming back was not that easy. So? If someone wants to risk failing that's their choice. It's a real stretch to consider that making requirements easier. I disagree. (SNIP) As to a new beginners license, I (me alone) would support that idea...but I think we need to approach that concept slowly by the following path: 1. FCC drops code test as currently proposed Will probably happen regardless of anything else. 2. The ham community (ARRL, etc) monitors closely the entrance/addition of new (i.e. never before) hams and upgrades of existing hams for at least a couple of years. Someone would have to do this in a structured way, by downloading the entire database at regular intervals (say once a month) and analyzing it a la AH0A. ARRL is perfectly capable of that I'm sure. But somebody has to pay for it. And you can bet that whatever numbers ARRL puts out, some will say they are "massaged" and accuse the ARRL of "fraud" and such. It would not be possible to determine "never before" hams as opposed to "retreads" without a lot of historic info. The number of "retreads" is propably a very small percentage of those that appear as new. Agreed. Upgrades could be derived by comparing the current license class of each license with the license class from the previous analysis. OK 3.After two years, we assess if any problem exists regarding the ability to gain new hams. Sounds reasonable, except who is going to "bell the cat" - do all the analysis work? ARRL can do it. How do we get them to do it? It's also important to understand the effect of impending changes. If the rules are fairly stable, newcomers and potential upgraders have an incentive to pass the tests. But if there are possible changes coming that will reduce the requirements, at least some will simply wait to see how things turn out. Why study for a test that will be gone in a few months - or one that you won't have to take because ARRL got you a free upgrade? Sure, some will "go for it" but others will hold back. I could care less about those that might want to wait for changes they have no assurance are coming. But those changes have an enormous impact on the numbers. That's the point, whether we care about it or not. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Easier licensing
|
Easier licensing
wrote in message ups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message Here are some more examples: - ARRL has proposed free (no test) upgrades for many hams. These proposed free upgrades included Novices and Tech Pluses getting Generals with no additional testing, and Advanceds getting Extras with no additional testing. While they don't come right out and say the requirements are too high, proposing that hundreds of thousands of hams get an upgrade without taking the required tests effectively says the test requirements - the *written* test requirements - are too high. bunk! Your logic is failed because those free upgrades were proposed as a one time only set of upgrades to get people to a newly aligned set of licenses and privileges without subjecting anyone to a lose of privileges. I don't think it's "bunk" at all. Neither does FCC. The FCC never considered it a long term lowering of requirements on any permananent basis. That is YOUR conclusion only. Here's why: ARRL proposed that Technicians and Tech Pluses get a free upgrade to General without taking any tests. Any such action by FCC would need an effective date - a date when the rules would change, and the free upgrade would take effect. A new amateur who earned the Technician the day before the effective date would get the free upgrade, just like all other Techs. The result would be that Generals who hadn't taken the General test would outnumber Generals who *had* taken the General test. Worse, new hams who were licensed after the effective date would still have to pass the General exam. That is NOT the reason the FCC rejected the idea. The FCC seems much more aligned with the idea of minimum changes for now and a wait and see attitude. (IMHO) IOW, if the effective date were February 1, a Tech first licensed on January 31 would be a General on February 2, yet have only taken the Tech test. But a new ham licensed on Feb 2 would have to take the General test for the same privileges. IOW, new hams would have to pass more and harder tests for the same privileges that others got for free. Again, none of your argument presented here was a part of the FCC commentary. You may believe it is so, but the FCC never stated it as so. Or to put it plainly: If the General test isn't needed for those who got the free upgrade, why is it needed at all? Please point out wwhere the FCC said that. Free upgrades would effectively lower the requirements. Ditto my last comment. FCC agrees with me, though. No they didn't. The FCC never said anything even close to what you are concluding. - NCVEC's "Amateur Radio In the 21st Century" paper is full of the idea that the requirements are too high, particularly for the entry-level license class. Their second proposal followed the "21st Century" paper closely. Prior to 2000, was the Novice too high? Not for the privileges granted. If the FCC went back or changed Tech to a Novice level test (retaining the General and Extra as is) would that bother you? If it retained the privileges, yes. And if it didn't retain the privileges, should the FCC (a) lower privileges for all existing techs or (b) ?? (snip) Publicizing the exact Q&A makes the requirements lower because the prospective ham knows exactly what will be on the test, down to the exact wording, and the exact correct answers. Big difference from secret tests! Yawn.... BUT publishing the questions was never proposed by ARRL. That being so, who in the FCC do you attribute the change to? Those who wanted to save money by getting FCC out of the exam-giving process. So the reality is that no one in the ham community pushed that. I'll conclude then that anytime the FCC proposes a change even if not originated in the ham community, if you view it as a lowering of requirements then it is automatically bad per your opinion. (SNIP) I think not. I have been a VE at several sessions here in NJ and have never seen anyone allowed to take the exact same test a second time on that same session regardless of paying an additional fee. The reality also is that the VEs running the session have no desire to allow anyone to just stay all day/night until the applicant's money runs out. Yet they allow it. In the bad old days there was a mandatory 30 day wait to retest. Which meant a lot of us went to the test *really* prepared because coming back was not that easy. So? If someone wants to risk failing that's their choice. It's a real stretch to consider that making requirements easier. I disagree. WHY must there be a waiting period? If applicant X passes a different test at the same VE session, the applicant has still passed the test. If the applicant had taken the one he nowed passed after failing a different one first then the applicant passed...PERIOD. You seem to want a punitive element attached to failing such that the applicant is prohibited from retesting for 'N' period of time. There is NO rhyme or reason to why you want that. (SNIP) As to a new beginners license, I (me alone) would support that idea...but I think we need to approach that concept slowly by the following path: 1. FCC drops code test as currently proposed Will probably happen regardless of anything else. 2. The ham community (ARRL, etc) monitors closely the entrance/addition of new (i.e. never before) hams and upgrades of existing hams for at least a couple of years. Someone would have to do this in a structured way, by downloading the entire database at regular intervals (say once a month) and analyzing it a la AH0A. ARRL is perfectly capable of that I'm sure. But somebody has to pay for it. ARRL has more than enough ability to fund such a study or simply assign the task to one of the permanent ARRL staffers. And you can bet that whatever numbers ARRL puts out, some will say they are "massaged" and accuse the ARRL of "fraud" and such. WHO cares? There is always someone that will take issue with any study conclusion, analysis, ets. If you expect a 100% agreed to set of review and analysis as the end result, tyhen yu're expecting the impossible. (Snip) 3.After two years, we assess if any problem exists regarding the ability to gain new hams. Sounds reasonable, except who is going to "bell the cat" - do the analysis work? ARRL can do it. How do we get them to do it? Given the analysis I've seen before presented in QST on various subjects, especially as to ham population and, indirectly ARRL membership, I'll bet the ARRL is always looking at ham and new ham numbers. It's also important to understand the effect of impending changes. If the rules are fairly stable, newcomers and potential upgraders have an incentive to pass the tests. But if there are possible changes coming that will reduce the requirements, at least some will simply wait to see how things turn out. Why study for a test that will be gone in a few months - or one that you won't have to take because ARRL got you a free upgrade? Sure, some will "go for it" but others will hold back. I could care less about those that might want to wait for changes they have no assurance are coming. But those changes have an enormous impact on the numbers. That's the point, whether we care about it or not. The percent of people that might ultimately wait for "possible" (emphasis on possible as opposed to actual) future changes is, I suspect small. Odds are that there aren't many current techs waiting for future free upgrades nor where there likly many that shelved their upgrade plans when the ARRL first proposed free upgrades. (IMHO of course). Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
Easier licensing
"Dee Flint" wrote in message . .. "Bill Sohl" wrote in message t... wrote in message oups.com... From: Bill Sohl on Dec 5, 6:48 am As to a new beginners license, I (me alone) would support that idea...but I think we need to approach that concept slowly by the following path: 1. FCC drops code test as currently proposed 2. The ham community (ARRL, etc) monitors closely the entrance/addition of new (i.e. never before) hams and upgrades of existing hams for at least a couple of years. 3.After two years, we assess if any problem exists regarding the ability to gain new hams. Whatever. :-) First item is excellent. Second, okay. Does there really need to be an "assessment" as in the third? What "assessments" were done in the past? Assessment, review, whatever. I personally think the current 3 level license structure does not reflect a good starting path for new hams because Techs are (a) only allowed VHF, yet they have (b) power privileges for full 1500 watts. My personal view is to have a beginners license with a variety of HF and VHF access and modes but with a limited power output (say 200 watts or less). The current 3 licenses and privileges are the result of piecemeal change over time and the result has some less than logical consequences regarding privileges and entrance level testing when compared to the Novice tests which we had for almost 50 years. YMMV. Bill K2UNK Well I would propose dropping the Tech altogether and upping the General written to 50 question test once the code is dropped. The difference in technical material is not great and it's not that hard to memorize the difference in privileges. Sounds reasonable to me. My ultimate view/perspective... we need a tiered license structure that makes sense. Once the code is dropped, in the classes that I teach, I will combine the material and encourage all the students to go straight to General. There really won't be a need for an introductory license. But they'll still need to approach the testing on a two element basis. My question to you... should there be a true introductory license to bring new hams, especially youth, to ham radio along the lines of the previous Novice. THE only reason (IMHO) that Novice ceased to be the entry level exam was because Novice didn't get folks the majority of repeater operation which is now a mainstay of ham radio. Back in the 50s and 60s (until '68 anyway) we really only had 3 licenses: Novice, Tech and General with the ONLY difference between Tech and General being 13 wpm vs 5 wpm...and that was until 1987. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
Easier licensing
Bill Sohl wrote: Assessment, review, whatever. I personally think the current 3 level license structure does not reflect a good starting path for new hams because Techs are (a) only allowed VHF, yet they have (b) power privileges for full 1500 watts. My personal view is to have a beginners license with a variety of HF and VHF access and modes but with a limited power output (say 200 watts or less). The current 3 licenses and privileges are the result of piecepart change over time and the result has some less than logical consequences regarding privileges and entrance level testing when compared to the Novice tests which we had for almost 50 years. YMMV. Cheers, Bill K2UNK Needs a top-down review, starting with "basis and purpose." Don't build in merit badge-like license classes to make certain segments of society feel good. Three license classes would probably be one more than needed. |
Easier licensing
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message . net... "Dee Flint" wrote in message . .. [snip] Well I would propose dropping the Tech altogether and upping the General written to 50 question test once the code is dropped. The difference in technical material is not great and it's not that hard to memorize the difference in privileges. Sounds reasonable to me. My ultimate view/perspective... we need a tiered license structure that makes sense. Once the code is dropped, in the classes that I teach, I will combine the material and encourage all the students to go straight to General. There really won't be a need for an introductory license. But they'll still need to approach the testing on a two element basis. Agreed. Just like when I got my Tech+ (called Tech with HF then) in 1992. I had to take all the elements involved (i.e. code and two writtens) but I went straight to the Tech+ and never held a Novice. For now, people will still have to take two writtens to get to General after the code is dropped but I can see the possibility of an eventual two license system (General and Extra). My question to you... should there be a true introductory license to bring new hams, especially youth, to ham radio along the lines of the previous Novice. THE only reason (IMHO) that Novice ceased to be the entry level exam was because Novice didn't get folks the majority of repeater operation which is now a mainstay of ham radio. No I don't think an introductory license is needed anymore. The material for the General written is well within the grasp of young people to learn and comprehend. It's really no more difficult than what they are supposed to be learning in school. It is merely different. Going straight to General will result in the candidate having a wide range of privileges available at both VHFand up and at HF and down. This will be more meaningful and (in my opinion) more successful than some scaled down introductory license. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:05 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com