littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Hmmm...Seems much words to cast doubt about FPVers frequency use in this thread...then someone makes a clear headed statement like this...unfortunately what followed seemed word-smithed to continue the doubt casting about them no-good-for-nothing-ruless-no model having FPVers...


If we could just form an organization that would outright ban the darn FPVers, then all would be well... We could point to that organization as proof positive that FPVers are not worthwhile and chastise those that practice the despicable activity with impunity never before imagined... Wouldn't that be grand??? To have an another organization that validates our interests all the while shoring up our ability to devalue other's pursuits??????????????????????????????

bradpaul

Hey as we are discussing FCC rules, if I fly FPV with a 72mhz TX can I change the crystal in my TX without a FCC Technician License?

init4fun

[8D] Hi Frank ,

It's the middle part of your statement that I'm curious about . When I read the AMA doc. 550 , it mentions using Ham frequencies only if a pilot has a Ham license , but provides NO guidance of , which of the regularly used frequencies for FPV are free use VS needing a license ? I understand that boosting the power of just about any signal beyond FCC allowed limits is illegal , And such activity is generally understood to be not allowed for interferance reasons . It's just that I think a clear list of exactly which frequencies are free use VS licensed would help to dispel a bit of the oft repeated (by myself also) mantra that "ya gotta have a Ham license to fly FPV" .... This is what I took away from my discussions with a couple of claimed Ham operators , I've been repeating this in good faith believing the Ham's info to be good , and come to find out Ya DON"T need a Ham license as long as a pilot sticks to 72MHZ rc control and 2.4 GHZ video within the allowed power limits of the FCC !

It would appear that our organization , while setting out it's rules for safe FPV as provided in doc. 550 , should go the extra mile of providing a frequency chart of allowable frequencies and the power levels allowed for free use , for those of us who may want to experience #550 condoned FPV flight without having to become Hams ourselves to decipher which frequencies are allowed or not .

If I decide to try FPV myself , I want to be Damned sure that I'm not breakin the rules by buying equipment that is illegal the second I turn it on .

EddieDean

My Feedback: (3)

bradpaul

Your question involves two parts.

(1) The 72 MHz channels used for radio control are not Ham frequencies. If you mean Amateur Radio Technician License when you say FCC Technician License the answer is NO as the 72 MHz Band has nothing to do with Ham radio.

(2) 72 MHz transmitters are FCC Type Accepted. If your transmitter only has a replaceable transmitter crystal then no one but the manufactuer or a FCC General Radiotelephone Operator License holder (note: I'm not talking about an Amateur Radio General Class Operator License - two seperate things) may replace the transmitter crystal. If your transmitter uses a tranmitting module to change frequencies then anyone can legally to that.

I know a lot of people just change the tranmitter crystal but that does not make it legal.

EddieDean

Charley

My Feedback: (2)

Here's a link to one of the irresponsible FPV fliers, IMO. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWKEW...ture=endscreen

The guy is lucky it lit in a tree. Then he flies it again in a congested neighborhood.

CR

Charley

My Feedback: (2)

SNIP
Do you have a link to the info above? I'd like to see it. I've been trying to nail it down since you asked. []

That said, you have to keep in mind that some of the 2.4 GHz- band video transmitters are on ham frequencies, some are not. Here's an example:
http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/s...200mW_FPV.html

This looks like a Wii Xmitter board normally incorporated into some other device and offered bare by HK. 3 of its 4 channels are in the 2390 - 2450 MHz (2.39 - 2.45 GHz) ham band, one is not. I'm not sure what radio service in the USA uses the one that is not, 2.468 GHz. The 2.450 GHz channel is not usable because its center frequency is right on the edge of the ham band and and its video bandwidth would take it out of band on the high side. Also, who knows if it's type accepted in the USA?

Clear as mud, huh? But you have to keep these things in mind. Better to get your tech license and be sure. Also once you acquire the knowledge to pass the Tech exam you'll know what to look for in FPV equipment. Here's another link: http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showt...1#post22831620

CR

init4fun

[8D] Hi Charley ,

I read that on one of the dedicated forums of FPV (in other words , not RCU , RCG , or one of the "big" boards , it was on a small FPV only chat site . I've looked again and can't find where I saw the 2.4 that claimed it was license free [] )

Your statement of "Clear as mud" is exactly what I have been mentioning and trying to clarify a bit . To be honest , as I'm approaching 70 and in poor health , I'm just as likely to fly to the moon as to fly FPV , but in the odd chance that either of em happen , I'd like all my Ducks in a row .

I seems our organization would be doing us all a great service if a frequency /power level list was compiled as to exactly what's what ..... [8D]

Charley

My Feedback: (2)

Yes.

CR

Charley

My Feedback: (2)

I understand your quandary. The FCC could do us better. We're stuck in engineer speak with a liberal dose of CYA.

Well, let me suggest that you might enjoy pursuing these amateur licenses. Give ya something to do....as it were. I was gratified to find that I could still learn and retain new info. You might also enjoy the trip! Let me say also that you can enter a new world of adventure by rag-chewing with people all over the world.

OK, off the soapbox.....

CR

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Sure! Its real easy on some transmitters... Just pull out the old one and stick in the new one. But keep in mind if you change the "channel" or frequency the FCC will mail you a $25,000 fine...

I don't know why you ask me??

Come on Brad, you must know the answer to the question you asked...plainly evident by how you asked it! Silly questions, deserves silly answers... Why you single out FPVers is blatantly obvious... And you are a leader member!!! No wonder AMA has such problems.

jester_s1

I don't see anyone here who is picking on FPV flyers. It's been stated that there are things that one could do to improve FPV equipment's performance that are illegal, which is an important consideration. And there has been lots of discussion about what is and is not allowed regarding FPV electronics regarding licensing and such. If FPV pilots picked on because the RC community wants them to remain legal with their equipment then maybe we really don't need them.

EddieDean

My Feedback: (3)

Concerning swapping crystals in R/C transmitters, this is from the horse's mouth so to speak.

Check out page 7 at http://apps.fcc.gov/eas/comments/Get...=116&tn=790725

Rule Interpretations

􀂉Removable crystal -Section 95.645(b)

􀂃Section 95.645(b) does not allow user-accessible plug-in crystals for R/C transmitters. TCB’sshould check the manual for user instructions on plug-in crystals, and external photos for access panels that allow user access to internal crystals.

􀂃Section 95.645(b) does permit plug-in frequency determining modules that contain all of the frequency generating circuitry, including a crystal oscillator. The modules are certified with the R/C transmitter.

EddieDean - WA4DRM

jester_s1

The whole crystal swapping thing is just a consequence of how crystal radios work. The TX crystal can't be counted on to be exactly the same as every other one of the same channel, so the fine tuning of the radio must be checked after changing frequencies.

warningshot

Are you sure there was a requiremnt to be done only at AMA chartered club fields? Sounds fishy to me.

804

My Feedback: (1)

No, not sure.
I was thinking that the original document, from a few years ago, contained that provision.
Could be wrong.

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

well...I do!

jester_s1

People doing illegal things have gotten picked on a little bit, so if you're grouping all FPV flyers with them then I suppose they've been picked on. The crux of the FPV issue though (and what I see FPV pilots being so sensitive about) is that we have a solid 80 years of hobby tradition that has established a set of safety regulations. Some of those regulations, like flying over people and property are just good common sense considering how often RC planes crash unexpectedly, sometimes due to equipment failures that remain unexplained. Some others, such as flying beyond line of sight, are also good common sense but haven't been possible before FPV came out. For some reason though, the FPV community wants to thumb its nose at the established safety regulations that have served the hobby quite well and have kept us from needing to worry about government regulations. You're getting sensitive that FPV pilots are being picked on, but I'm pretty sensitive that a group of hobbyists are ignoring common sense safety regulations for their own amusement. If you do something illegal (the original point) expect to get picked on by responsible modelers. If you do something unsafe, expect to be reprimanded for it. FPV is a really neat and exciting new way to do the hobby, but some maturity is in order to make sure that it doesn't become a less safe activity than standard flying is.

phlpsfrnk

Well said jester_s1. Thank you.

For 804 see attached, it did not specify an AMA field.

Regards
Frank

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

I guess we should go ahead and throw them free flight boys under the bus too... as I've listened to many accounts from the old timers reveling about the good 'ole days when their models flew away....

Oh wait, that is part of traditional hobbying...sorry... Yep, they should be allowed to fly those type of models even though they have zero on-board vision capability or any ability to change course what-so-ever, since we've already been doing that.... Hey...I started to sound like Kid epoxy a little bit there...


Look, rationalize however you wish but a few little FPV foam airplanes or small light weight flying devices only present big problems to small minds...and we need not fuel them...

phlpsfrnk

crank,
It appears to me that the only one making a problem here is you.

Regards
Frank

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Well, if by that you mean I'm not getting on your band wagon and agreeing that FPV is not a modeling activity or is the beginning of the demise of our hobby because of their inherent danger, then yes I'm the problem.

Look, we had people weigh in here and assert that somehow FPVers are not operating legally in regards to FCC regs... We've had them point to an innocuous video with the intentions to show the great peril someone put a community in...on and on and on...If someone doesn't step in you guys would probably have the torches lit already... and by that I mean to say, You guys appear to be the problem to me if you participate to any degree in this witch hunt against FPVers.

Charley

My Feedback: (2)

I don't know where you get this '..a few little foam airplanes..." bit. Here's a popular FPV bird: http://www.ebay.com/itm/FPV-Raptor-T...537#vi-content This one is ~78" wingspan

Here's a more recent model: http://www.bananahobby.com/super-sky...0089-prd1.html This on is over 94" WS, weighs ~4.4 lbs Before you add all the FPV gear & batteries into it.

These are not little foam airplanes.

CR

phlpsfrnk

crank,
The only assertions I've seen here are that if one uses uncertified equipment or modifies certified equipment they are doing so illegally. The discussion happened to occur while discussing FPV but applies to all FCC certified equipment including conventional use (non FPV) RC equipment.

Your baiting sarcasms quoted above was nothing more than trying to lower the discussion to an us versus them discussion like you are wont to do in so many other threads. There is no witch hunt.

Regards
Frank

DadsToysBG

My Feedback: (35)

And as far as the old FF planes, they had a timer or limited fuel to keep them from flying off. In most cases they didn't last that long. Dennis

littlecrankshaf

My Feedback: (58)

Nice Planes. Thanks. Makes FPV more inviting than ever before... and you must know they fit within AMA's guidelines very well. You know what I think everyone is missing, it's not about the models used as much as the pilots using them...and that can be applied to most models we fly. Control line may be the only exception but even with those modelers I can form hypotheticals that can include those pilots as well...