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

[Bob Henderson]

Don

Thank you for your detailed response, which I much appreciate.  I understand
the current system was predicated upon a need to maintain numbers in the
interests of survival but our needs go beyond mere numbers.  I have no doubt
you have many times faced situations in which justification based upon
criteria other than raw volume was appropriate.  We face such a situation.

Amateur radio needs friends and supporters.  It needs ambassadors.  The
assertion that anyone in possession adequate skill and enthusiasm will
tolerate the system, is flawed.  Had amateur radio no need of talented
supporters and ambassadors, we could afford to bar candidates at the gate.
Alas, we are under seige.  We need friends, supporters and ambassadors if we
are to survive at all.

We would better serve our interests by encouraging the talented minority
rather than shunning them.

73

Bob, 5B4AGN

PS I gave the Compaq Mini a thorough work out during WAE CW.  It worked a
treat.  I have ideas to take it travelling.  I look forward to hearing you
on your Pacific jaunt.



2009/8/23 Don Beattie <g3ozf at btinternet.com>

> (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)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> UK-Contest mailing list
> UK-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
>