Just fresh in my inbox from Ofcom. I wonder how we will have to keep
records.

### BEGIN QUOTE

New licence condition for spectrum licensees confirmed

Ofcom has today confirmed a new licence condition that now applies to
the vast majority of spectrum licensees.

The changes mean most licensees will need to take action to ensure their equipment operates within international guidelines on electromagnetic
fields (EMF) for the protection of the general public. Most licensees
will also need to keep records demonstrating their compliance.

Following the publication of our policy statement on EMF in October
2020, we wrote to licensees in March this year to inform them of our
proposals. We have considered licensees’ feedback carefully and made
some changes to the new licence condition and guidance documents. Today
we have published full details of our final decision on the licence
condition.

We have also published guidance on what licensees should do and how long
they have to ensure compliance – this is dependent on the frequencies
they are using. Our EMF compliance flowchart tells licensees whether or
not they need to take action and, if they do, what action is needed.

A simplified version of the full guidance and specific advice for
holders of amateur, ship radio and aeronautical licences will be
published next month.

We will shortly be writing to affected licensees to inform them of our
final decision and provide a replacement/update for their current licence.

### END QUOTE

--
Ottavio Caruso

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 18/05/2021 16:30, Ottavio Caruso wrote:

Just fresh in my inbox from Ofcom. I wonder how we will have to keep
records.

There's explanatory notes on the RSGB website, including a spread sheet
you can fill in for your own situation and equipment. The spread sheet
can be saved in pdf format as a record.

https://rsgb.org/main/technical/emc/emf-exposure/

In most cases showing compliance shouldn't be a problem.

Brian
--
Brian

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 19/05/2021 17:31, Brian Howie wrote:

On 18/05/2021 16:30, Ottavio Caruso wrote:

Just fresh in my inbox from Ofcom. I wonder how we will have to keep
records.

There's explanatory notes on the RSGB website, including a spread sheet
you can fill in for your own situation and equipment. The spread sheet
can be saved in pdf format as a record.

https://rsgb.org/main/technical/emc/emf-exposure/

In most cases showing compliance shouldn't be a problem.

Brian

but my 5rv runs along the boundary from the front bounday to the rear bundary......how can I make that comply ?....9w ?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 19/05/2021 17:31, Brian Howie wrote:

On 18/05/2021 16:30, Ottavio Caruso wrote:

Just fresh in my inbox from Ofcom. I wonder how we will have to keep
records.

There's explanatory notes on the RSGB website, including a spread sheet
you can fill in for your own situation and equipment. The spread sheet
can be saved in pdf format as a record.

https://rsgb.org/main/technical/emc/emf-exposure/

In most cases showing compliance shouldn't be a problem.

I'll be interested to see what chance my c.420ft. random horizontal wire
loop antenna has of being compliant, using 100W of processed SSB, from
160m to 15m inclusive. My other antennas, from 24.9 to 1300MHz, appear
to be compliant using FM at the maximum powers available from my gear;
in a few cases, beamwidth/radiation pattern had to be brought into the calculation.

Since a neighbour felled a small tree a month or so ago, and brought the
loop antenna down (the antenna was not attached to the tree; the tree
fell into my garden) I've not been able to use bands below 12m. I have a
10m vertical dipole at 6.5m AGL, which is just about compliant on 10m
and 12m when treated as having 2.15dBi gain on each band, so I've not
bothered, for the time being, to repair the loop, and will not operate
below 24.9MHz until a compliant HF antenna that will cover 160m - 15m
can be planned and erected.

Mobile operation will be another kettle of fish entirely; it remains to
be seen whether passengers in my car will be considered to be exposed to
a non-compliant EMF strength at normal RF output powers and sensible, believable antenna gains (not the ridiculous figures, defying the laws
of physics, which are sometimes claimed in various advertisements). I
would think they would not be so exposed, due to the Faraday-cage effect combined with the antenna radiation patterns, but if officialdom
disagrees, QRP (around 5W RF max.) will be required to remain below 10W
EIRP.

--
73,
Andrew, G8BUR, M0MAA.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 19/05/2021 19:22, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:

On 19/05/2021 17:31, Brian Howie wrote:

On 18/05/2021 16:30, Ottavio Caruso wrote:

Just fresh in my inbox from Ofcom. I wonder how we will have to keep
records.

There's explanatory notes on the RSGB website, including a spread
sheet you can fill in for your own situation and equipment. The spread
sheet can be saved in pdf format as a record.

https://rsgb.org/main/technical/emc/emf-exposure/

In most cases showing compliance shouldn't be a problem.

Brian

but my 5rv runs along the boundary from the front bounday to the rear bundary......how can I make that comply ?....9w ?

Can I stick DANGER RF signs up facing the neighbours...would that go
down well?....OFCON should be sorting out the mess they have made of
amateur radio before starting box ticking exercises like this
one.....but it could be worse it only applies above 10Mc/s ....

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 20/05/2021 15:10, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:

On 19/05/2021 19:22, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:

On 19/05/2021 17:31, Brian Howie wrote:

On 18/05/2021 16:30, Ottavio Caruso wrote:

Just fresh in my inbox from Ofcom. I wonder how we will have to keep
records.

There's explanatory notes on the RSGB website, including a spread
sheet you can fill in for your own situation and equipment. The
spread sheet can be saved in pdf format as a record.

https://rsgb.org/main/technical/emc/emf-exposure/

In most cases showing compliance shouldn't be a problem.

Brian

but my 5rv runs along the boundary from the front bounday to the rear
bundary......how can I make that comply ?....9w ?

Can I stick DANGER RF signs up facing the neighbours...would that go
down well?....OFCON should be sorting out the mess they have made of
amateur radio before starting box ticking exercises like this
one.....but it could be worse it only applies above 10Mc/s ....

Worked a guy yesterday who was at a club a few years ago and a guys
pacemaker went wonky when a member transmitted on Dstar....perhaps this
kind of thing is what is behind the exercise....

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Can I stick DANGER RF signs up facing the neighbours...would that go
down well?....OFCON should be sorting out the mess they have made of
amateur radio before starting box ticking exercises like this
one.....but it could be worse it only applies above 10Mc/s ....

It does apply below 10MHz, just nobody has worked out a sensible way of
showing that you comply. The date has just been pushed back a year.

Jeff

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 20/05/2021 15:10, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:

Can I stick DANGER RF signs up facing the neighbours...would that go

Only if they would already be trespassing before they could be in the
danger area. However, you still have a duty of care to trespassers, so
you must account for children and those with learning disabilities. You
can't put a neighbour into danger when they are somewhere they are
allowed to be.

down well?....OFCON should be sorting out the mess they have made of
amateur radio before starting box ticking exercises like this

This doesn't just apply to amateur radio, but amateur radio is permitted
on the basis that the operators have the skill level to operate safely,
which is why there are exams. A typical taxi firm would rely on their suppliers to do things safely, but amateur radio operators are expected
to be able to do things safely, themselves.

The main political driver is probably the anti-cell tower lobby. It
probably particularly badly affects amateurs in that many probably
haven't been fulfilling their duty to design for safety before, so are
caught out when concrete figures are set on safe limits.

one.....but it could be worse it only applies above 10Mc/s ....

None of it applies now. The 10 to 110 MHz band is scheduled for May
2022, which you may have misread as 2021. You still have the duty of
care that you always had.

The significance of 10MHz, is that, below that frequency, direct
stimulation of nerve becomes a significant problem, so that individual E
and H field components need to be considered, not just the power levels.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In message <s886e8$bib$[email protected]>, David Woolley <[email protected]d> writes

The main political driver is probably the anti-cell tower lobby. It
probably particularly badly affects amateurs in that many probably
haven't been fulfilling their duty to design for safety before, so are
caught out when concrete figures are set on safe limits.

Amateur radio has been going for over a century. Some of the
installations have been pretty 'hairy' (especially in the early days),
but as far as I know, there have been absolutely NO reports whatsoever
of anyone being adversely affected by the effects of RF radiation from
amateur stations.

At the risk of being considered irresponsible, I'm tempted to suggest
that it's a bit late in the day to start introducing safety precautions
when there is no evidence that we need them!




--
Ian

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 21/05/2021 17:11, Ian Jackson wrote:

Amateur radio has been going for over a century. Some of the
installations have been pretty 'hairy' (especially in the early days),
but as far as I know, there have been absolutely NO reports whatsoever
of anyone being adversely affected by the effects of RF radiation from amateur stations.

At the risk of being considered irresponsible, I'm tempted to suggest
that it's a bit late in the day to start introducing safety precautions
when there is no evidence that we need them!

I wholeheartedly agree. However, the chance of these new restrictions/impositions being retracted, or even moderated, is, I
think, from vanishingly-small to nil.

I pity the amateurs who know nothing of computers, and have been happily
and harmlessly operating on HF for the past half-century, using 100W of
SSB and/or CW to a G5RV or a longwire at twenty feet AGL; how will they
fare, I wonder?

--
73,
Andrew, G8BUR, M0MAA.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In message <s88qoc$134$[email protected]>, Andrew Marshall <[email protected]> writes

On 21/05/2021 17:11, Ian Jackson wrote:

Amateur radio has been going for over a century. Some of the
installations have been pretty 'hairy' (especially in the early days),
but as far as I know, there have been absolutely NO reports whatsoever
of anyone being adversely affected by the effects of RF radiation from >>amateur stations.
At the risk of being considered irresponsible, I'm tempted to
suggest that it's a bit late in the day to start introducing safety >>precautions when there is no evidence that we need them!

I wholeheartedly agree. However, the chance of these new >restrictions/impositions being retracted, or even moderated, is, I
think, from vanishingly-small to nil.

From what I have read elsewhere, OFCOM have essentially been obliged to enforce Public Health England's advice. OFCOM's document 'Guidance on
EMF Compliance and Enforcement' says "PHE's main advice is that EMF
exposure should comply with the Guidelines published by the
International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection
(ICNIRP)".

While OFCOM are incorporating the safety rules as a licence requirement,
it's interesting that document makes frequent use of the words 'advice', 'guidelines' and 'guidance'. But faced with three such august bodies, I
guess there will be few who will be bold enough and qualified enough to challenge the validity of the safety requirements.

I pity the amateurs who know nothing of computers, and have been
happily and harmlessly operating on HF for the past half-century, using
100W of SSB and/or CW to a G5RV or a longwire at twenty feet AGL; how
will they fare, I wonder?

I really don't know.
--
Ian

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 21/05/2021 18:30, Andrew Marshall wrote:

On 21/05/2021 17:11, Ian Jackson wrote:

Amateur radio has been going for over a century. Some of the
installations have been pretty 'hairy' (especially in the early days),
but as far as I know, there have been absolutely NO reports whatsoever
of anyone being adversely affected by the effects of RF radiation from
amateur stations.

At the risk of being considered irresponsible, I'm tempted to suggest
that it's a bit late in the day to start introducing safety
precautions when there is no evidence that we need them!

I wholeheartedly agree. However, the chance of these new restrictions/impositions being retracted, or even moderated, is, I
think, from vanishingly-small to nil.

I pity the amateurs who know nothing of computers, and have been happily
and harmlessly operating on HF for the past half-century, using 100W of
SSB and/or CW to a G5RV or a longwire at twenty feet AGL; how will they
fare, I wonder?

Well in that case they can't have re-validated their licence in the past
five years and it will technically be invalid although not revoked by
OFCOM.

You can make an initial application on paper but you must set up an
on-line account to re-validate your licence.

Dave

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

At the risk of being considered irresponsible, I'm tempted to suggest
that it's a bit late in the day to start introducing safety precautions
when there is no evidence that we need them!

Bearing in mind that it has been in the licence since the BR68 days it
should hardly be news!!!

Jeff

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

From what I have read elsewhere, OFCOM have essentially been obliged to enforce Public Health England's advice.

Almost exactly that wording has been in our licence for years!!

Jrff

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 21/05/2021 23:28, Ian Jackson wrote:

In message <s88qoc$134$[email protected]>, Andrew Marshall <[email protected]> writes

On 21/05/2021 17:11, Ian Jackson wrote:

Amateur radio has been going for over a century. Some of the
installations have been pretty 'hairy' (especially in the early
days), but as far as I know, there have been absolutely NO reports
whatsoever of anyone being adversely affected by the effects of RF
radiation from amateur stations.
 At the risk of being considered irresponsible, I'm tempted to
suggest  that it's a bit late in the day to start introducing safety
precautions  when there is no evidence that we need them!

I wholeheartedly agree. However, the chance of these new
restrictions/impositions being retracted, or even moderated, is, I
think, from vanishingly-small to nil.

From what I have read elsewhere, OFCOM have essentially been obliged to enforce Public Health England's advice. OFCOM's document 'Guidance on
EMF Compliance and Enforcement' says "PHE's main advice is that EMF
exposure should comply with the Guidelines published by the
International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP)".

So, basically, advice has been converted to regulation... hmmm... pretty
much par for the course.

ISTR that some other countries have less-restrictive limits on EMF for
amateur stations; parity with them would not be an unreasonable request,
I'd have thought.

While OFCOM are incorporating the safety rules as a licence requirement,
it's interesting that document makes frequent use of the words 'advice', 'guidelines' and 'guidance'. But faced with three such august bodies, I
guess there will be few who will be bold enough and qualified enough to challenge the validity of the safety requirements.

Sadly, I fear that you're right.

I pity the amateurs who know nothing of computers, and have been
happily and harmlessly operating on HF for the past half-century,
using 100W of SSB and/or CW to a G5RV or a longwire at twenty feet
AGL; how will they fare, I wonder?

I really don't know.

I can unfortunately see a large number of amateurs getting forced off
the air. I really hope it doesn't come to that.

--
73,
Andrew, G8BUR, M0MAA.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 22/05/2021 10:27, David Wade wrote:

On 21/05/2021 18:30, Andrew Marshall wrote:

I pity the amateurs who know nothing of computers, and have been
happily and harmlessly operating on HF for the past half-century,
using 100W of SSB and/or CW to a G5RV or a longwire at twenty feet
AGL; how will they fare, I wonder?

Well in that case they can't have re-validated their licence in the past
five years and it will technically be invalid although not revoked by
OFCOM.

You can make an initial application on paper but you must set up an
on-line account to re-validate your licence.

Curious; I had understood that for £20 it could be done by post.

--
73,
Andrew, G8BUR, M0MAA.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 22/05/2021 15:12, Andrew Marshall wrote:

ISTR that some other countries have less-restrictive limits on EMF for amateur stations; parity with them would not be an unreasonable request,
I'd have thought.

The Americans have had to comply with numerical limits that are similar
to, and sometimes more strict than, ICNIRP 2020, since 1997. The main difference is that there is a presumption of compliance below 50 W PEP,
so the calculations are not expected below that level, rather than below
10 W EIRP. On the other hand our 10W EIRP limit seems to be an absolute
get out, whereas the 50W PEP limit only removes the need to do
calculations; if the presumption of compliance proves invalid, it looks
like a US amateur would still be in trouble.

Given 100W PEP is a fairly common transceiver rating, I think a lot of
people would have to do the calculations, even on US rules.

In any case, I cannot see why something that is considered unsafe for commercial users, who typically have professionally installed equipment,
could be ruled safe for amateur users. These rules are being applied
for all users, not just amateurs.

<http://www.arrl.org/the-fcc-s-new-rf-exposure-regulations>

<http://www.arrl.org/files/file/Technology/RFsafetyCommittee/hbkrf.pdf>

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 22/05/2021 23:06, David Woolley wrote:

On 22/05/2021 15:12, Andrew Marshall wrote:

ISTR that some other countries have less-restrictive limits on EMF for
amateur stations; parity with them would not be an unreasonable
request, I'd have thought.

The Americans have had to comply with numerical limits that are similar
to, and sometimes more strict than, ICNIRP 2020, since 1997. The main difference is that there is a presumption of compliance below 50 W PEP,
so the calculations are not expected below that level, rather than below
10 W EIRP. On the other hand our 10W EIRP limit seems to be an absolute
get out, whereas the 50W PEP limit only removes the need to do
calculations; if the presumption of compliance proves invalid, it looks
like a US amateur would still be in trouble.

Given 100W PEP is a fairly common transceiver rating, I think a lot of
people would have to do the calculations, even on US rules.

In any case, I cannot see why something that is considered unsafe for commercial users, who typically have professionally installed equipment, could be ruled safe for amateur users. These rules are being applied
for all users, not just amateurs.

<http://www.arrl.org/the-fcc-s-new-rf-exposure-regulations>

<http://www.arrl.org/files/file/Technology/RFsafetyCommittee/hbkrf.pdf>

Is the whole exercise merely a paper tiger?

Will station inspections resume to check compliance in the light of M3
stations
reputedly breaching their licence conditions with 100W rigs and
going unchecked?

My last station inspection was by Dennis Hedges in Bristol in 1973 when
I didn't actually have a TX, but he inspected my absorption
wavemeter and signed the log!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 22/05/2021 23:06, David Woolley wrote:

On 22/05/2021 15:12, Andrew Marshall wrote:

ISTR that some other countries have less-restrictive limits on EMF for
amateur stations; parity with them would not be an unreasonable
request, I'd have thought.

The Americans have had to comply with numerical limits that are similar
to, and sometimes more strict than, ICNIRP 2020, since 1997.  The main difference is that there is a presumption of compliance below 50 W PEP,
so the calculations are not expected below that level, rather than below
10 W EIRP.  On the other hand our 10W EIRP limit seems to be an absolute
get out, whereas the 50W PEP limit only removes the need to do
calculations; if the presumption of compliance proves invalid, it looks
like a US amateur would still be in trouble.

From that, they clearly have to observe some restrictions, though quite
a lot of them still manage to run 1.5kW output with impunity, their
ubiquitous hundred-foot towers no doubt helping with that.

I had in mind European countries' rules, which I understood to be less restrictive.

Given 100W PEP is a fairly common transceiver rating, I think a lot of
people would have to do the calculations, even on US rules.

In any case, I cannot see why something that is considered unsafe for commercial users, who typically have professionally installed equipment, could be ruled safe for amateur users.  These rules are being applied
for all users, not just amateurs.

Yes; unfortunately we've been caught by a blanket regulation (which to
my mind is quite unnecessary, given the absence of any proven problem).

I wonder whether there might be room for a dB or two of easement in our
limits, as AIUI the official separation distance calculator is said to
be very conservative. It could make the difference between being able to continue to operate or having to close down.

--
73,
Andrew, G8BUR, M0MAA.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 23/05/2021 13:22, gareth evans wrote:

Is the whole exercise merely a paper tiger?

Most UK legislation is. It generally assumes that people are law
abiding, and actual enforcement has been underfunded in many areas of life.

My guess is that violations will be more addressed in the civil courts
than through criminal sanctions or government funded monitoring.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 23/05/2021 14:29, Andrew Marshall wrote:

I wonder whether there might be room for a dB or two of easement in our limits, as AIUI the official separation distance calculator is said to
be very conservative. It could make the difference between being able to continue to operate or having to close down.

The solution to that is to do more accurate calculations (or
measurement, although accurate measurements are difficult). The
spreadsheet is designed to be simple to use, which means it doesn't
gather enough information to give an accurate figure for every
situation, meaning that it will sometimes err significantly on the
pessimistic side. You'll still have to use conservative figures, as you
won't be able to prove any model you use perfectly fits reality.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 23/05/2021 19:31, David Woolley wrote:

On 23/05/2021 13:22, gareth evans wrote:

Is the whole exercise merely a paper tiger?

Most UK legislation is.  It generally assumes that people are law
abiding, and actual enforcement has been underfunded in many areas of life.

I'm already (I believe) in breach of my licence as I haven't printed it
off. I just have a .pdf on the 'puter. Also when I built the station
many years ago I did so with emf in mind and I know I'm well within the
new regs. If any one comes to inspect my station I'll happily lend them
a tape measure and challenge them to prove I now exceed the regs. Then
I'll put the .pdfs of their calcs in the same directory as my licence. Basically I claim "they" need to prove I'm not compliant rather than I
have to prove I am every time I key up. (guilty until proved innocent)!

I know I'm a "bad boy" but I can't be arsed with unnecessary nonsense.

--
Nev
It causes me a great deal of regret and remorse
that so many people are unable to understand what I write.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

I'm already (I believe) in breach of my licence as I haven't printed it
off. I just have a .pdf on the 'puter.  Also when I built the station
many years ago I did so with emf in mind and I know I'm well within the
new regs. If any one comes to inspect my station I'll happily lend them
a tape measure and challenge them to prove I now exceed the regs. Then
I'll put the .pdfs of their calcs in the same directory as my licence. Basically I claim "they" need to prove I'm not compliant rather than I
have to prove I am every time I key up. (guilty until proved innocent)!

I don't see anything in the licence that says that it has to be printed,
merely "kept" at the main station address.

The new regulation put the onus on you to prove that you meet the
required levels, and to document and keep a record of such.

Jeff

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 25/05/2021 10:57, Jeff wrote:

I'm already (I believe) in breach of my licence as I haven't printed
it off. I just have a .pdf on the 'puter.  Also when I built the
station many years ago I did so with emf in mind and I know I'm well
within the new regs. If any one comes to inspect my station I'll
happily lend them a tape measure and challenge them to prove I now
exceed the regs. Then I'll put the .pdfs of their calcs in the same
directory as my licence.
Basically I claim "they" need to prove I'm not compliant rather than I
have to prove I am every time I key up. (guilty until proved innocent)!

I don't see anything in the licence that says that it has to be printed, merely "kept" at the main station address.

The new regulation put the onus on you to prove that you meet the
required levels, and to document and keep a record of such.

Jeff

won't bother then

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 26/05/2021 09:05, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:

On 25/05/2021 10:57, Jeff wrote:

I'm already (I believe) in breach of my licence as I haven't printed
it off. I just have a .pdf on the 'puter.  Also when I built the
station many years ago I did so with emf in mind and I know I'm well
within the new regs. If any one comes to inspect my station I'll
happily lend them a tape measure and challenge them to prove I now
exceed the regs. Then I'll put the .pdfs of their calcs in the same
directory as my licence.
Basically I claim "they" need to prove I'm not compliant rather than
I have to prove I am every time I key up. (guilty until proved
innocent)!

I don't see anything in the licence that says that it has to be
printed, merely "kept" at the main station address.

The new regulation put the onus on you to prove that you meet the
required levels, and to document and keep a record of such.

Jeff

won't bother then

You choice, the chances of getting caught are quite remote.

Jeff

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 27 May 2021 at 09:36:20 BST, "Jeff" <[email protected]> wrote:

On 26/05/2021 09:05, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:

On 25/05/2021 10:57, Jeff wrote:

I'm already (I believe) in breach of my licence as I haven't printed
it off. I just have a .pdf on the 'puter.  Also when I built the
station many years ago I did so with emf in mind and I know I'm well
within the new regs. If any one comes to inspect my station I'll
happily lend them a tape measure and challenge them to prove I now
exceed the regs. Then I'll put the .pdfs of their calcs in the same
directory as my licence.
Basically I claim "they" need to prove I'm not compliant rather than
I have to prove I am every time I key up. (guilty until proved
innocent)!

I don't see anything in the licence that says that it has to be
printed, merely "kept" at the main station address.

The new regulation put the onus on you to prove that you meet the
required levels, and to document and keep a record of such.

Jeff

won't bother then

You choice, the chances of getting caught are quite remote.

Jeff

OTOH, if by any mischance OFCOM did find out an amateur could face the local press accusing them of thoughtlessly frying the neighbours and passers-by by not checking. Could create local unpopularity. Would it be an offence under the Wireless Telegraphy Act, or successor legislation?


--
Roger Hayter

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 27/05/2021 12:20, Roger Hayter wrote:

On 27 May 2021 at 09:36:20 BST, "Jeff" <[email protected]> wrote:

On 26/05/2021 09:05, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:

On 25/05/2021 10:57, Jeff wrote:

I'm already (I believe) in breach of my licence as I haven't printed >>>>> it off. I just have a .pdf on the 'puter.  Also when I built the
station many years ago I did so with emf in mind and I know I'm well >>>>> within the new regs. If any one comes to inspect my station I'll
happily lend them a tape measure and challenge them to prove I now >>>>> exceed the regs. Then I'll put the .pdfs of their calcs in the same >>>>> directory as my licence.
Basically I claim "they" need to prove I'm not compliant rather than >>>>> I have to prove I am every time I key up. (guilty until proved
innocent)!

I don't see anything in the licence that says that it has to be
printed, merely "kept" at the main station address.

The new regulation put the onus on you to prove that you meet the
required levels, and to document and keep a record of such.

Jeff

won't bother then

You choice, the chances of getting caught are quite remote.

Jeff

OTOH, if by any mischance OFCOM did find out an amateur could face the local press accusing them of thoughtlessly frying the neighbours and passers-by by not checking. Could create local unpopularity. Would it be an offence under the Wireless Telegraphy Act, or successor legislation?

I might be worried if my neighbour had a pacemaker and I transmitted
100w on D Star ....otherwise no

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 27 May 2021 at 22:32:52 BST, ""Jim GM4DHJ ..."" <[email protected]> wrote:

On 27/05/2021 12:20, Roger Hayter wrote:

On 27 May 2021 at 09:36:20 BST, "Jeff" <[email protected]> wrote:

On 26/05/2021 09:05, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:

On 25/05/2021 10:57, Jeff wrote:

I'm already (I believe) in breach of my licence as I haven't printed >>>>>> it off. I just have a .pdf on the 'puter.  Also when I built the >>>>>> station many years ago I did so with emf in mind and I know I'm well >>>>>> within the new regs. If any one comes to inspect my station I'll >>>>>> happily lend them a tape measure and challenge them to prove I now >>>>>> exceed the regs. Then I'll put the .pdfs of their calcs in the same >>>>>> directory as my licence.
Basically I claim "they" need to prove I'm not compliant rather than >>>>>> I have to prove I am every time I key up. (guilty until proved
innocent)!

I don't see anything in the licence that says that it has to be
printed, merely "kept" at the main station address.

The new regulation put the onus on you to prove that you meet the >>>>> required levels, and to document and keep a record of such.

Jeff

won't bother then

You choice, the chances of getting caught are quite remote.

Jeff

OTOH, if by any mischance OFCOM did find out an amateur could face the local
press accusing them of thoughtlessly frying the neighbours and passers-by by
not checking. Could create local unpopularity. Would it be an offence
under
the Wireless Telegraphy Act, or successor legislation?

I might be worried if my neighbour had a pacemaker and I transmitted
100w on D Star ....otherwise no

I fully realise that most ordinary amateurs are producing RF fields near their homes several orders of magnitude too small to do any harm. I'm just saying that if the newspapers got hold of the fact that an amateur had failed to do a compulsory risk assessment that it could make very bad publicity, for the amateur concerned and for amateur radio in general. They would spin it as ignoring terrible dangers!

--
Roger Hayter

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 28/05/2021 08:40, Roger Hayter wrote:

On 27 May 2021 at 22:32:52 BST, ""Jim GM4DHJ ..."" <[email protected]>
wrote:

On 27/05/2021 12:20, Roger Hayter wrote:

On 27 May 2021 at 09:36:20 BST, "Jeff" <[email protected]> wrote:

On 26/05/2021 09:05, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:

On 25/05/2021 10:57, Jeff wrote:

I'm already (I believe) in breach of my licence as I haven't printed
it off. I just have a .pdf on the 'puter.  Also when I built the >>>>>>> station many years ago I did so with emf in mind and I know I'm well
within the new regs. If any one comes to inspect my station I'll >>>>>>> happily lend them a tape measure and challenge them to prove I now >>>>>>> exceed the regs. Then I'll put the .pdfs of their calcs in the same >>>>>>> directory as my licence.
Basically I claim "they" need to prove I'm not compliant rather than
I have to prove I am every time I key up. (guilty until proved >>>>>>> innocent)!

I don't see anything in the licence that says that it has to be >>>>>> printed, merely "kept" at the main station address.

The new regulation put the onus on you to prove that you meet the >>>>>> required levels, and to document and keep a record of such.

Jeff

won't bother then

You choice, the chances of getting caught are quite remote.

Jeff

OTOH, if by any mischance OFCOM did find out an amateur could face the local
press accusing them of thoughtlessly frying the neighbours and passers-by by
not checking. Could create local unpopularity. Would it be an offence >>> under
the Wireless Telegraphy Act, or successor legislation?

I might be worried if my neighbour had a pacemaker and I transmitted
100w on D Star ....otherwise no

I fully realise that most ordinary amateurs are producing RF fields near their
homes several orders of magnitude too small to do any harm. I'm just saying that if the newspapers got hold of the fact that an amateur had failed to do a
compulsory risk assessment that it could make very bad publicity, for the amateur concerned and for amateur radio in general. They would spin it as ignoring terrible dangers!

Well we do ...that is why we are amateurs and not professionals and have unfettered fun... I thought I had left my risk assessment days behind
when I retired eleven years ago....I have just been up a ladder and up a
tree at the holiday hacienda here puting up a 40m end fed...nothing safe
and in cotton wool here ... but then again only onlooking donkeys at risk

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 22/05/2021 23:06, David Woolley wrote:

The main difference is that there is a presumption of compliance below
50 W PEP, so the calculations are not expected below that level, rather
than below 10 W EIRP

This information has proved to be out of date. The American exemption
was removed on May 3rd, this year, with existing stations grand-fathered
for three years, unless changed in a way that might affect compliance.
There is now no lower limit below which an assessment can be avoided.

Source QST June 2021, Page 66.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)