[UK-CONTEST] UK/US licensing (Off Topic)

[Don Beattie]

(clip)

Bob Henderson wrote

>
> I have heard many tales recounted and read letters in Radcom relating
> incidents in which those amply qualified to contribute to our hobby have
> been frustrated by the need for time consuming attention to the trivial.
> There is a danger these people walk away from amateur radio their 
> perception
> of our hobby having itself been trivialised.  Just how can this be good 
> for
> amateur radio?


Bob (and everyone)

Having been mentioned in Ed, G3SQX's posting as one of the people behind the 
current licensing structure, let me comment.

When we were all discussing what to do about licensing in the late '90s, it 
was against a background of the demise of C&G, dwindling input into the 
hobby (throughput in the exams had dropped 90% over the previous ten years, 
I recall) and concerns about the way in which it was possible to obtain a 
licence and yet not be competent to operate (the days of SWLing having 
generally gone). The then "Novice" licence had had limited success, because 
of the very few bands it gave access to, and overall the whole thing was 
going downhill fast.  There were those who said "So what ?. Don't "dumb 
down" amateur radio - let it die gracefully". I'm afraid I could not accept 
that laissez-faire attitude and believed that walking away from the problem 
would not work.

RSGB took the view that in the 21st century, obligatory Morse for HF 
privileges would be very hard to justify. This then flushed out those who 
said that would be the end of amateur radio, and certainly of CW. ( Has 
anyone seen the numbers in CW contests these days ? Hardly the death 
throes.)

We had at that time good relations with the Radiocommunications Agency (now 
part of Ofcom) and had some sensible discussions about options. We all felt 
that an "incentive" licensing system was needed - one that give more 
privileges for higher technical skill. But what we all agreed was that the 
initial entry barrier to the hobby needed to be set so as to attract new 
people without a lengthy and tortuous process. A "licence in a weekend" was 
one of the objectives, as was a mandatory practical element. I took the view 
that getting on the air was a little like an addiction - once you were 
hooked, you would want to progress. Fortunately there is now evidence that 
this has validity, and progression from Foundation to Intermediate to Full 
is happening. Even more importantly, by most measures, the Foundation 
licence has worked in drawing many thousands of newcomers into the hobby.

One thing that was a matter of some disagreement between the RA and the RSGB 
was how many levels of licence there should be. The RA was clear that it 
should be three. Some in RSGB felt this was over-complex, and a two-level 
structure would suffice, by re-engineering the old Novice to be the 
Foundation (with greater privileges) and then the Full. The RA view 
prevailed. We all agreed that extra demands should be placed into the "Full" 
licence syllabus in the area of EMC, given the increasingly difficult issues 
of co-existence between QRO amateur stations and domestic electronic 
equipment.

At the same time the WRC was happening which removed the requirement in 
Article 25 of the Radio Regs for CW competence on HF.

This all came together into the structure we know now. This has benefited UK 
amateur radio and many clubs - those who have risen to the challenge of 
mounting the necessary training courses. We now have much greater 
opportunity for newcomers to take examinations for licences when they like, 
and where they like.

Whilst I understand the concerns of those who feel the current arrangements 
might be over-burdensome for a few with good technical qualifications, 
please don't forget that we set out to achieve not only a graded set of 
technical quals, but also requirements to prove practical skills, both in 
construction and operating. I firmly believe this is right, and it is not a 
"given" that sound technologists have the skills to properly operate amateur 
radio, without some training. There is also the issue of the amateur 
radio-specific elements of the theoretical exams, which would need to be 
covered somehow.

So we have the issue of how/whether to create "by-pass routes" for some with 
pre-existing qualifications. And this for a "minority" activity as far as 
Ofcom is concerned, where investment of time and resources is very limited.

Personally I would simply take the view that if someone is keen enough on 
amateur radio and already possesses the technical skills, it is not a lot to 
ask for them to sit the practical, and then sequentially three exams. At the 
HFC (sorry, convention) for example, I think all three are normally 
available. I do not believe we should drop the principle of mandatory 
practicals, and I do not believe the potential volume of candidates 
justifies investment of time in creating technical "by-pass routes" for the 
few (which could not be totally eliminating the requirement to prove 
competence in all aspects of the syllabus for the reason above).

I hope this does not sound defensive. I am trying to be realistic, given the 
numbers, and the amount of time and resource available to develop new 
structures.

73

Don, G3BJ
(Shortly to be FO/G3BJ (Australs)  and ZK2BJ)