Robert Casey wrote:


And here is the conundrum IMO. We are now considering allowing hf
access to a batch of new amateurs. At the same time, we are talking
about s significant (IMO) reduction in the qualifications for that
access. So unless the General test element meant and means absolutely
*nothing*, we are going to launch a lot of people onto HF with even
less qualifications than we have now.



It's been done. Namely the old Novice on HF. Albeit at lower power, a
novice still had to
contend with TVI and RFI issues. Sometimes he had help from an Elmer.








Agreed - or a reduced power level for some classes.



If we don't test for safety, I would support a reduced power of 5
watts. QRP level. I've done harm to myself at 50 watts


Except for unusual propagation, 5 watts won't go far. You won't be
heard and you
won't be able to play with the bigger dogs. That could be a serious
turn off to a
beginner. "Nobody will talk to me". Running 100w can still require
patience in
a crowded contest environment.


Agreed, Robert. My actual position on the RF and high voltage is "test
'em for it, and let 'em play with it". If we don't test 'em for it, then
we shouldn't let them play with *anything* they can hurt themselves with.

Some of the proposals want to limit the beginners power levels,
ostensibly for safety reasons. They rationalize that if we reduce power
levels, or even have bizarre requirements such as a "voltage to the
finals" limit for the newbies, this will even serve to reduce the
questions needed on the test, making it easier to get a license.

I wonder how many prospective hams have ever stated "I was going to
become a Ham, but a 50 question test? I absolutely refuse to take a test
with more than 30 questions!"

oops, I digress.....


Hams should be taught from the get-go about RF and high voltage safety.
We operate with high voltages, and if we homebrew (ohh noo, that is
another thing some proposals want to eliminate for the young'uns) we
will possibly have some serious voltage running around. And the
transistor and IC generations should probably be reminded of that.

I think that elimination or even reduction of the number of test
questions by eliminating the RF safety questions verges on criminal
negligence by the parties involved. there has been a precedent set in
what we have now. I wonder if the ARRL might feel itself at the pointy
end of a lawsuit (remember, they are involved in the makeup of the
tests) if it reduces that requirement. After all, someone at some point
felt it was a good idea to put those questions in.

That is why I believe if we're putting them out to play without
adequate learning, we must limit that power to something that is not
likely at all to hurt them.


- Mike KB3EIA -