Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 11
By patowalker
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1833327
johnm wrote:The more I read on this topic the more it looks like a hurricane in an espresso cup, I have a definite gold plate feeling....


I agree. New licences only need to include wording to the effect that installations comply with EMF regulations.

It would help if the CAA or alphabet organisations advised the minimum compliant separation distance for the types of radios and transponders usually installed in GA aircraft, so that we can make a logbook entry to confirm compliance. Should not be difficult.

If only my radio and transponder manuals included something like "Place the antenna at least 4cm away from any part of your body or that of other cabin occupants" in their installation instructions. :)
By riverrock
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1833336
The problem is that many people's feet may be within 28cm of the antenna. I believe on my Bulldog, the antenna is mounted directly under where you put your feet. Does the duty cycle go down significantly if you don't have ADS-B enabled, so are only responding to interrogations?
Are airliner transponders (which I suspect broadcast using dual antenna top and bottom of fuselage) within 28cm of a cabin? They must be pretty close to being - so all those people who are over 6 feet tall will no longer be allowed to standup once the transponder is on?

Is there any real danger here? What is the evidence that there is a risk?
By patowalker
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1833342
Calculator limitations
This calculator has been designed to allow licensees to simply and easily assess compliance, without the need for technical knowledge. It therefore uses simplified assumptions and will produce conservative results. In some cases, it may significantly overestimate the separation distance that is strictly needed to ensure compliance with the ICNIRP general public limits. Licensees can undertake a more detailed analysis, e.g. by using a more advanced assessment tool or by seeking help from a professional installer, and this would likely result in smaller separation distances.
By patowalker
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1833358
Keep a record of how compliance is achieved. A once only logbook entry should suffice.

This should exempt single seaters.
It does not require spectrum users to protect any person from EMF exposure who is:
a) the licensee, owner, operator or installer of the relevant radio equipment; or ...
By Spooky
#1833361
Crash one wrote:Has someone been vaporised by a handheld radio pointed at them that has prompted this? Why now?


Worse than that. Someone has seen the opportunity to justify their job :shock:
User avatar
By Dave W
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1833368
It does not require spectrum users to protect any person from EMF exposure who is:
a) the licensee, owner, operator or installer of the relevant radio equipment; or ...


So is it a hazard to health or not?

Make your mind up, OFCOM.
By johnm
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1833376
Dave W wrote:So is it a hazard to health or not?

Make your mind up, OFCOM.


From WHO:

Heating is the main biological effect of the electromagnetic fields of radiofrequency fields. In microwave ovens this fact is employed to warm up food. The levels of radiofrequency fields to which people are normally exposed are very much lower than those needed to produce significant heating. The heating effect of radiowaves forms the underlying basis for current guidelines. Scientists are also investigating the possibility that effects below the threshold level for body heating occur as a result of long-term exposure. To date, no adverse health effects from low level, long-term exposure to radiofrequency or power frequency fields have been confirmed, but scientists are actively continuing to research this area.
By patowalker
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1833383
Dave W wrote:
It does not require spectrum users to protect any person from EMF exposure who is:
a) the licensee, owner, operator or installer of the relevant radio equipment; or ...


So is it a hazard to health or not?

Make your mind up, OFCOM.


That would be like asking the DVLA about the health hazard of CO2 emissions.

In the UK, Public Health England (PHE) takes the lead on public health matters associated with radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, and has a statutory duty to provide advice to Government on any health effects that may be caused by exposure to EMF. PHE's main advice is that EMF exposure should comply with the Guidelines published by the International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP).
User avatar
By Dave W
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1833388
Chaps, my point was that if it is a hazard it logically is a hazard for every human regardless of whether they are owner, operator, maintainer or passenger.

It is illogical to exempt by role some humans and not others.
By patowalker
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1833393
It might be illogical, but the aim is to ensure spectrum users do not expose members of the general public to EMF.

4.1 The EMF condition requires spectrum users to ensure members of the general public (as defined in the EMF condition) are not exposed to levels of EMF above the ICNIRP general public limits. It does not require spectrum users to protect any person from EMF exposure who is:
a) the licensee, owner, operator or installer of the relevant radio equipment; or
b) acting under a contract of employment or otherwise acting for purposes connected with their trade, business or profession or the performance by them of a public function.
4.2 This means that the EMF condition does not require spectrum users to comply with the ICNIRP general public limits if they have determined that only the licensee, owner, operator or installer of radio equipment may be exposed to EMF in breach of the ICNIRP general public limits. For example, an amateur radio licensee does not need to comply with the EMF condition in respect of their own exposure to EMF. The EMF condition also does not require amateur licensees to protect each other from EMF when they are visiting each other or working together.
4.3 The EMF condition concerns public exposure to EMF i.e. exposure to the general public. It does not concern occupational exposure and does not therefore require spectrum users to protect workers from EMF.
User avatar
By xtophe
#1833395
Dave W wrote:Chaps, my point was that if it is a hazard it logically is a hazard for every human regardless of whether they are owner, operator, maintainer or passenger.

It is illogical to exempt by role some humans and not others.


Yes but as the radio owner/operator you control the risk and you can choose to accept it for yourself.
But you cannot force that risk on third parties.
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 11