VK5ZD wrote:VK1OD wrote:
Lets look at one existing Australian class licence, the Aircraft and Aeronautical Mobile Stations class licence. Such stations must use a call sign, and the call sign to be used is prescribed by the class licence.
That demonstrates that a class licence CAN prescribe a call sign (just as our current apparatus licence does), and that your "facts" are wrong. Your other "facts" may also be wrong.
Not quite. I suppose it depends on what you class as a callsign. The ACMA do not issue callsigns for aircraft or the associated ground stations (control towers, etc.). Aircraft have a registration mark which can be used but these stations are allowed to use 'any form of identification that clearly identifies the station'. e.g. Adelaide Approach, Melbourne Centre, QF27, etc. i.e. When using flight numbers the same station (aircraft) can have a different callsign on the next flight.
73
Iain
I did not state that ACMA issues callsigns, and I have no issue with your statement "The ACMA do not issue callsigns for aircraft or the..." other than it is a distraction.
The USE of callsigns by aeronautical stations IS prescribed, and the form of them IS prescribed "Call signs must be used for all on-air communications including testing. Call signs allocated to Aircraft stations conform with International Telecommunication Union Radio Regulations."
It is my opinion that the same provisions could work for hams, the callsigns issued by ACMA to amateur stations conform to a template that conforms with the Radio Regulations. They could continue to issue them, they could require them in an amateur class licence JUST LIKE THEY DO FOR THE AERONAUTICAL LICENCE.
I am not proposing a class licence, but just pointing out that a lot of the argument from both sides (inluding yours and Roger's) misrepresents personal opinion as fact.
To my mind, if the ACMA wanted to introduce a class licence, they would have legistlation drafters (lawyers) work through the current LCD and categorise existing words as being usable directly in a class licence, requiring some rework but capable of the same effect in principle, or that the effect of the words cannot or should not be incorporated in a class licence, and to identify what changes in administrative arrangements would be necessary. I expect the ACMA would be mindful of the Radio Regulations in any proposed change.
That has not been done as far as I am aware, not even a feasability study that has been publicly released so we just don't know, and most of us would not have the skills or knowledge to do the appraisal.
The use of an Apparatus Licence for ham stations is different to most other uses. Most other users are restricted to type approved equipment and importantly, the licence is tradable... it can be sold with a business. So there are aspects of amateur Apparatus Licences that are unique, and arguably less suitable than an appropriate class licence.
The other irrational thing is the assumption by many that there is a licence fee or there is none when there is another option, a different level of fee. There are many who view a licence fee as an insurance premium to protect against interference. Do you think aeronautical users are unprotected from interference? It doesn't necessarily follow, and there are other ways to pay for interference investigations than rolling it up in higher licence fees dressed up as spectrum tax.
Whether or not there is need for change of licence type, I doubt there will be change because of the inability of the community to work rationally and positively at such a change, being lead by fearmongers representing opinion as fact, fears as certain outcomes.
Owen
