"KØHB" wrote in message link.net...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote


And what makes you think that techs don't erect towers, Jim???


I don't think Jim said that Techs don't erect towers, but that he has a
concern (which I share) that many amateurs (including you) support the
ill-concieved proposal of ARRL which would extend a "free pass" to
hundreds of thousands of licensees who have not demonstrated by
examination that they are qualified for a license upgrade to General.

The theory behind the exams is run a rough check on an individual's
competence to operate therefore reducing perceived assorted problems
on the bands. What's missing from the Tech written which would lead to
problems on the low bands if they were simply grandfathered to HF as
Generals? What problems?

-or-

What's the difference between Techs running 1.5 kW of ssb on 6M which
they're allowed to do under the current regs and the same individuals
running 1.5 kW of ssb on 20M which they're not allowed to do? Besides
the positions of the station's bandswitches.

73, de Hans, K0HB

w3rv

Brian Kelly wrote:

"KØHB" wrote in message link.net...

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote


And what makes you think that techs don't erect towers, Jim???


I don't think Jim said that Techs don't erect towers, but that he has a
concern (which I share) that many amateurs (including you) support the
ill-concieved proposal of ARRL which would extend a "free pass" to
hundreds of thousands of licensees who have not demonstrated by
examination that they are qualified for a license upgrade to General.


The theory behind the exams is run a rough check on an individual's
competence to operate therefore reducing perceived assorted problems
on the bands. What's missing from the Tech written which would lead to
problems on the low bands if they were simply grandfathered to HF as
Generals? What problems?

Hf type questions? I also have a question along these lines. I
personally think that not having Technicians take and pass a test that
was considered to prepare the applicant for operation on HF is ripping
them off! The question is "Why would anyone support screwing over half
the Ham population out of something they should have?

Honest, Folks, knowledge is good!

-or-

What's the difference between Techs running 1.5 kW of ssb on 6M which
they're allowed to do under the current regs and the same individuals
running 1.5 kW of ssb on 20M which they're not allowed to do? Besides
the positions of the station's bandswitches.

Well, the Techs are vetted on safety issues, so I'm not all that
worried about letting them use QRO. But specifically, I think that RFI
problems are different between HF and VHF and above.

As opposed to the "nolege is bad" folks, that simply want to reduce
power to levels considered "safe" so that we don't upset the applicants
with silly questions about RF safety.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
Brian Kelly wrote:

"KØHB" wrote in message link.net...

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote


And what makes you think that techs don't erect towers, Jim???


I don't think Jim said that Techs don't erect towers, but that he has a
concern (which I share) that many amateurs (including you) support the
ill-concieved proposal of ARRL which would extend a "free pass" to
hundreds of thousands of licensees who have not demonstrated by
examination that they are qualified for a license upgrade to General.


The theory behind the exams is run a rough check on an individual's
competence to operate therefore reducing perceived assorted problems
on the bands. What's missing from the Tech written which would lead to
problems on the low bands if they were simply grandfathered to HF as
Generals? What problems?

Hf type questions?

Being able to correctly answer "HF type questions" gets one an
upgrade? I see (??!).

I also have a question along these lines. I
personally think that not having Technicians take and pass a test that
was considered to prepare the applicant for operation on HF is ripping
them off! The question is "Why would anyone support screwing over half
the Ham population out of something they should have?

Honest, Folks, knowledge is good!

-or-

What's the difference between Techs running 1.5 kW of ssb on 6M which
they're allowed to do under the current regs and the same individuals
running 1.5 kW of ssb on 20M which they're not allowed to do? Besides
the positions of the station's bandswitches.

Well, the Techs are vetted on safety issues,

'Nother piece of nonsense. Any number of EEs who worked with HV for a
living have killed themselves on the job and in ham shacks over the
years professional experience and ham radio test questions aside. I
never had to answer any questions on tower climbing or RF exposure
topics to get my Extra. I've dangled by my whatchmacallit up towers at
150+ feet more times than I can recall and I'm no more RF brain-fried
than any of the rest of you RRAP lurkers.


so I'm not all that
worried about letting them use QRO. But specifically, I think that RFI
problems are different between HF and VHF and above.

Different freqs, same ballgame, the basics are the same. Should not
have anything to do with segregating the Tech/General operating
priveleges.


As opposed to the "nolege is bad" folks, that simply want to reduce
power to levels considered "safe" so that we don't upset the applicants
with silly questions about RF safety.

- Mike KB3EIA -

w3rv

Brian Kelly wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...

Brian Kelly wrote:


"KØHB" wrote in message link.net...


"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote



And what makes you think that techs don't erect towers, Jim???


I don't think Jim said that Techs don't erect towers, but that he has a
concern (which I share) that many amateurs (including you) support the
ill-concieved proposal of ARRL which would extend a "free pass" to
hundreds of thousands of licensees who have not demonstrated by
examination that they are qualified for a license upgrade to General.


The theory behind the exams is run a rough check on an individual's
competence to operate therefore reducing perceived assorted problems
on the bands. What's missing from the Tech written which would lead to
problems on the low bands if they were simply grandfathered to HF as
Generals? What problems?

Hf type questions?


Being able to correctly answer "HF type questions" gets one an
upgrade? I see (??!).


I also have a question along these lines. I
personally think that not having Technicians take and pass a test that
was considered to prepare the applicant for operation on HF is ripping
them off! The question is "Why would anyone support screwing over half
the Ham population out of something they should have?

Honest, Folks, knowledge is good!


-or-

What's the difference between Techs running 1.5 kW of ssb on 6M which
they're allowed to do under the current regs and the same individuals
running 1.5 kW of ssb on 20M which they're not allowed to do? Besides
the positions of the station's bandswitches.

Well, the Techs are vetted on safety issues,


'Nother piece of nonsense. Any number of EEs who worked with HV for a
living have killed themselves on the job and in ham shacks over the
years professional experience and ham radio test questions aside.

Nonsense? There is no doubt that an engineer can fry themselves. But
that really isn't the point. There is no level of education that can
insure complete safety.

What the idea - and the point is - is to provide the exposure to some
relevent material, and hope it sinks in. It is an excercise for the
student to use or not to use.

I
never had to answer any questions on tower climbing or RF exposure
topics to get my Extra. I've dangled by my whatchmacallit up towers at
150+ feet more times than I can recall and I'm no more RF brain-fried
than any of the rest of you RRAP lurkers.

Times change, Brian. Safety is considered important these days.


so I'm not all that
worried about letting them use QRO. But specifically, I think that RFI
problems are different between HF and VHF and above.


Different freqs, same ballgame, the basics are the same. Should not
have anything to do with segregating the Tech/General operating
priveleges.



As opposed to the "nolege is bad" folks, that simply want to reduce
power to levels considered "safe" so that we don't upset the applicants
with silly questions about RF safety.

- Mike KB3EIA -


w3rv

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
Brian Kelly wrote:

Well, the Techs are vetted on safety issues,


'Nother piece of nonsense. Any number of EEs who worked with HV for a
living have killed themselves on the job and in ham shacks over the
years professional experience and ham radio test questions aside.

Nonsense? There is no doubt that an engineer can fry themselves. But
that really isn't the point. There is no level of education that can
insure complete safety.

Agreed.

What the idea - and the point is - is to provide the exposure to some
relevent material, and hope it sinks in. It is an excercise for the
student to use or not to use.

Where in the charter of the FCC does it state that one of it's
missions is to provide any form of education as part of it's radio
operators licensing processes?? The FCC is a federal regulatory
agency, not an academic institution at any level. In the context of
ham radio it's *sole* missison is to take a reasonable poke at
maintaining law and order within the portions of the RF spectrum
allocated for ham radio operations. It does this via testing the
technical and operating competence levels of ham radio license
applicants. Period.

I've long held the view that peripheral issues like HV and tower
climbing safety questions creeping into the tests are for the most
part out of place because they have no implications with respect to
the public interest in the RF spectrum. I disagree with the concept of
the FCC trying to "teach" personal safety as part of the licensing
process. RF safety questions on the other hand are germain to the
testing process because the public does have a stake in radiation
exposure issues.

My bottom line in all this is that the FCC is testing for subjects
which have nothing to do with it's role as a regulator and is failing
to include topics which should be included in the tests like emergency
communications procedures and others I could dredge up.


I
never had to answer any questions on tower climbing or RF exposure
topics to get my Extra. I've dangled by my whatchmacallit up towers at
150+ feet more times than I can recall and I'm no more RF brain-fried
than any of the rest of you RRAP lurkers.

Times change, Brian. Safety is considered important these days.

You're lecturing the choir . . . I've spent over a half century in the
manufacturing sector much of it out on the production floors in
various roles in the bowels of smokestack America. I've seen the blood
and gore up close and personal, nobody around here supports safety
education any more strongly than I do. The question is where that
education should come from.

Twisting your comment a bit "Personal safety education in ham radio
should be
left as an exercise for the individual".


- Mike KB3EIA -

w3rv

In article ,
(Brian Kelly) writes:

Mike Coslo wrote in message
...
Brian Kelly wrote:

Well, the Techs are vetted on safety issues,

'Nother piece of nonsense. Any number of EEs who worked with HV for a
living have killed themselves on the job and in ham shacks over the
years professional experience and ham radio test questions aside.

Nonsense? There is no doubt that an engineer can fry themselves. But
that really isn't the point. There is no level of education that can
insure complete safety.

Agreed.

What the idea - and the point is - is to provide the exposure to some
relevent material, and hope it sinks in. It is an excercise for the
student to use or not to use.

Where in the charter of the FCC does it state that one of it's
missions is to provide any form of education as part of it's radio
operators licensing processes?? The FCC is a federal regulatory
agency, not an academic institution at any level.

Heh heh...I've been saying that all along.

[maybe persistence pays off... :-) ]

In the context of
ham radio it's *sole* missison is to take a reasonable poke at
maintaining law and order within the portions of the RF spectrum
allocated for ham radio operations. It does this via testing the
technical and operating competence levels of ham radio license
applicants. Period.

According to the political aspects of regulation, the safety of
OTHERS reared its anxious head.

RF exposure safety is involved at reducing the amount of RF
energy radiated towards others not directly involved in radio.

I've long held the view that peripheral issues like HV and tower
climbing safety questions creeping into the tests are for the most
part out of place because they have no implications with respect to
the public interest in the RF spectrum. I disagree with the concept of
the FCC trying to "teach" personal safety as part of the licensing
process. RF safety questions on the other hand are germain to the
testing process because the public does have a stake in radiation
exposure issues.

Quite true...from the political context of regulations.

In the history of radio communications, there are no real physical
threats of RF damage to humans from communications RF
radiation. The RF safety levels regulated by the Commission
are well below any danger observed by scientists and researchers
for years and years of radio communications.

My bottom line in all this is that the FCC is testing for subjects
which have nothing to do with it's role as a regulator and is failing
to include topics which should be included in the tests like emergency
communications procedures and others I could dredge up.

Excellent point!

never had to answer any questions on tower climbing or RF exposure
topics to get my Extra. I've dangled by my whatchmacallit up towers at
150+ feet more times than I can recall and I'm no more RF brain-fried
than any of the rest of you RRAP lurkers.

Times change, Brian. Safety is considered important these days.

You're lecturing the choir . . . I've spent over a half century in the
manufacturing sector much of it out on the production floors in
various roles in the bowels of smokestack America. I've seen the blood
and gore up close and personal, nobody around here supports safety
education any more strongly than I do. The question is where that
education should come from.

Twisting your comment a bit "Personal safety education in ham radio
should be left as an exercise for the individual".

It should be common sense. :-)

But, given this place is full of "barracks lawyers" all involved in
"legalities," the public RF exposure safety issues got all
changed around to "personal safety of the amateur" with all the
blabbering about RF burns and assorted physical accidents
not really involving radio per se.

Thousands and thousands of military personnel have cycled
through tours of radio communications facilities where far more
than 2 KW of RF was being radiated and they haven't been
harmed in any measureable way.

[I'm not talking about mental harm from just listening to too
much telegraphy...BTASE :-) ]