tommy s

My Feedback: (55)

Man , there are enough disturbed people that post in this forum to keep all the
psychiatrists in Houston busy for the rest of their lives. Every time I look in here
someone is screaming about one thing or the other. PEOPLE ---GET A LIFE !!!!
This hobby is for having fun and relaxing , if you are looking for a thrill by making
fun of someone else, sueing someone , and bashing everything you don't like , then
you have some serious social problems and should consider professional help.
Just my opinion.

SoCal GliderGuider

What type of drugs are you on? Do you share?

Best to have any debate about the AMA boldly in the public forum. Even the heated debates that border on personal insults.

There must be something that gets your dandruff up. Or are the drugs that good?

Spadinator

For me it's not the debating that is the problem..in fact it is good in some manner. For me it's the insults and bashing. Some one asks a simple question and it turns into debate over who is the most right. The you have to read through 30 posts to finally get the answer to the original question. And yes...I am new to the hobbie (1 year) and have alot of questions sometimes. It helps to read other's post and have them answered with out the degrading and insulting remarks to those who have the knowledge and answers I need!!!! WHEW..I feel better now!!

scottrc

I sought professional help for my social disorder, and the Dr. told me to get a hobby.

Shok

My Feedback: (28)

I went to a funfly and a hockey game broke out

Spadinator

Isn't Hockey just a legal way to beat the $*&! out of someone?


Sorry off topic[]

tommy s

My Feedback: (55)

You know something , the AMA is sort of like television shows and radio broadcasts
people gripe about , no one forces you to participate , if it's not to your liking turn them off
or don't join. As for me I have been flying for over 30 years and I know what the AMA has
done so we can all fly the way we do now. Without the AMA lobby we would not have radio
frequencies designated for model aircraft use only and I for one am glad we have the liability
insurance along with our membership , I have seen what happens when one of our "toys" hits
someone. I agree with you Spadinator it's not the debating , it's the hateful and insulting remarks
that are the problems. I guess some people get some sort of perverse pleasure in being a wiseass.
Enough said about this stuff , I prefer to discuss airplanes. You guys be cool!!

tommy s

Sport_Pilot

Better to blow off steam here than to go out and hit someone, or worse!

Matt Kirsch

My Feedback: (21)

People think that if the AMA disappeared tomorrow, nothing would change about the hobby. Yes, the last time they did anything huge and noteworthy was when they got the 50 frequencies, but that's not what makes this hobby work. It's the everyday stuff that the AMA does behind the scenes, the paperwork, and dare I say the INSURANCE, that makes it possible to practice this hobby conveniently.

What bothers me is not the personal attacks. That just destroys all the attacker's credibility. No, what bothers me most is the complete and utter lack of logic and common sense that is displayed when people make some of these accusations against the AMA.

stalspin-delete

Cangratulations Matt, you are one that appears to be in touch with reality.

archerry

My Feedback: (6)

I too love ,"GOOD CONVERSATION."............

[:@][:'(][>:][sm=drowning.gif][sm=redface.gif][sm=thumbdown.gif][sm=thumbup.gif][sm=bananahead.gif]

C_Watkins

My Feedback: (10)

I hear about frequencies the most, when people talk about the "good" things the AMA has done.
The fact of the matter is that we are still merely secondary users of those frequencies, and if there is
any interference from a primary user, we have to accept it and "write the channel off" in that location.

Just putting things in perspective, because I get the feeling sometimes people think we own the freqs.

I often wonder if, instead of spending millions of our dollars on a fancy flying site/museum, we might
have been better served by attempting to buy frequencies on which we would be the "primary" users.
That's just thinking out loud, however. I may be spouting off about something I don't totally understand.

I do believe we weren't served well by having such a massive facility in one place most will never see.
I would've like it much better if there were smaller, less impressive facilities for each region, perhaps

Sport_Pilot

That is a huge missconception, that statement means that you must immediately turn off your transmitter if you are interferring with the comercial frequency, the comercial trasmitter may keep transmitting until they can fix it! That doesn't mean that they can continue interfering our frequencies forever. If you know who is interfering, then call them up and let them know! They may also be interfering with adjacent comercial frequencies. If there is no action call the FCC!

MajorTomski

The statement above about being secondary users on the RC frequencies is like kit gloves hiding a fist and brass knuckles. Several years ago a TV station here went digital. We lost ALL of the RC flying frequencies above Ch 26 for a 50 mile radius around OKC. The fact was confirmed by two pattern flyers who go hit on the same channel at the same time on opposite sides of town. A letter to the FCC stating that we had serious concerns about pollution of the radio spectrum received a rude "tough, your RC frequencies have no protection at all" My point, the FCC wont help either. We finally found a TV tech at another station who confirmed the broad band problems and got his union mate at the first station to get it fixed.

C_Watkins

My Feedback: (10)

Sorry Sport, but I believe you're wrong here. We are absolutely secondary users on the frequencies we fly on.
If a primary user wants to use the frequency corresponding to our #42, then he absolutely has that right.
That said, it might not be the smartest move, knowing that RC users are "regulars" on those channels.
Most anybody with any sense would pick a channel in between, instead. They don't want accidents either.
Still, we can do nothing, if a person hates RC enough to run their equipment on any of our channels.


What you've stated would only apply, if the primary user was on some channel in between ours, and happened
to have spurious emissions that were causing interference. In that case, yes, he'd have to fix his problem.
NObody is allowed to have a crappy transmitter on the air. (Well... someone still has to catch them, first)

yard-dart

My Feedback: (35)

So what is it guys? Has the AMA secured these frequencies/channels for us modelers or not? That's been a lot of comebacks from people who try to defend the AMA, they always bring up how the AMA has secured these channels for us to use. Well if they have, great! If they haven't, and all of the AMA worshipers have been giving out what some call "false information" about secured frequencies, then that's just another strike against the good ole AMA.

Look guys, not trying to stir up anything, and not pointing fingers at those of you who think of the AMA as the Mother Theresa of modeling orgs. That's how this thread got started, talking about how people here argue and call names. I'm trying to keep things civil, although I'm having withdrawals. Sit back and look at what is being said about the AMA on a regular basis. Not too many people like the AMA, and they think their a Monopoly. I'm one of those people. It's pretty much one of those "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situations. Is the AMA "REALLY" what it's made out to be? Are the channels we fly on secondary, just like the insurance we pay them for?

C_Watkins

My Feedback: (10)

Absolutely.
Here are the FCC rules on the matter: (BOLD and colored text are my own emphasis)

(Edited my post for formatting... the post was too w-i-d-e for some reason.)

##################################################

PART 95--PERSONAL RADIO SERVICES--Table of Contents

Subpart C--Radio Control (R/C) Radio Service

Sec. 95.207 (R/C Rule 7) On what channels may I operate?

(a) Your R/C station may transmit only on the following channels (frequencies):

(1) The following channels may be used to operate any kind of device
(any object or apparatus, except an R/C transmitter), including a model
aircraft device (any small imitation of an aircraft) or a model surface
craft device (any small imitation of a boat, car or vehicle for carrying
people or objects, except aircraft): 26.995, 27.045, 27.095, 27.145, 27.195 and 27.255 MHz.

(2) The following channels may only be used to operate a model aircraft device:

MHz

72.01
72.03
72.05
72.07
72.09
72.11
72.13
72.15
72.17
72.19
72.21
72.23
72.25
72.27
72.29
72.31
72.33
72.35
72.37
72.39
72.41
72.43
72.45
72.47
72.49
72.51
72.53
72.55
72.57
72.59
72.61
72.63
72.65
72.67
72.69
72.71
72.73
72.75
72.77
72.79
72.81
72.83
72.85
72.87
72.89
72.91
72.93
72.95
72.97
72.99

(3) The following channels may only be used to operate a model surface craft devices:

MHz

75.41
75.43
75.45
75.47
75.49
75.51
75.53
75.55
75.57
75.59
75.61
75.63
75.65
75.67
75.69
75.71
75.73
75.75
75.77
75.79
75.81
75.83
75.85
75.87
75.89
75.91
75.93
75.95
75.97
75.99

(b) You must share the channels with other R/C stations. You must
cooperate in the selection and use of the channels. You must share the
Channel 27.255 MHz with stations in other radio services. There is no
protection from interference on any of these channels.
(c) Your R/C station may not transmit simultaneously on more than
one channel in the 72-76 MHz band when your operation would cause
harmful interference to the operation of other R/C stations.

(d) Your R/C station must stop transmitting if it interferes with:
(1) Authorized radio operations in the 72-76 MHz band; or
(2) Television reception on TV Channels 4 or 5.
(e) [Reserved]
(f) Stations in the 26-27 MHz range are not afforded any protection
from interference caused by the operation of industrial, scientific of
medical devices. Such stations also operate on a shared basis with
other stations in the Personal Radio Services.
(g) Stations in the 72-76 MHz range are subject to the condition
that inteference will not be caused to the remote control of industrial
equipment operating on the same or adjacent frequencies or to the
reception of television transmissions on Channels 4 and 5. These
frequencies are not afforded any protection from interference due to the
operation of fixed and mobile stations in other services assigned to the
same or adjacent frequencies.

[48 FR 24890, June 3, 1983. Redesignated at 49 FR 6098, Feb. 17, 1984,
and amended at 50 FR 37857, Sept. 18, 1985; 52 FR 16263, May 4, 1987; 57
FR 40343, Sept. 3, 1992]

yard-dart

My Feedback: (35)

C_Watkins,

I admire all of the work you put into that response, but I really don't understand a word of it. Could you put it into plain English for me?

John

C_Watkins

My Feedback: (10)

Edit... because I didn't see your post, until I made this one.
On that really long post above, try reading just the bolded parts.
It basically says we have no recourse as secondary users of our channels, in a nutshell.


Don't feel bad though... even wireless medical telemetry has only recently achieved
"co-primary" status on their frequencies. (Still shared with radio astronomers)
In event of interference, or possible interference (before setting up) co-primary users have
the same rights, and therefore must come to an agreement on switching or sharing channels,
generally with the help of a frequency coordinator.


Here's the general gist of the FCC designations: (Or rather, my understanding of such)

Primary
Has all the rights to their channel(s). Shares with nobody; accepts no interference. Full protection.

CO-primary
Equal rights with other co-primary services on same freqs. Must share. Moderate protection.

Secondary
Right to use, if the channel is free. Must accept *interference from primary users. No real protection.


* - with exception of stations proven to be operating improperly, or with spurious emissions




Edit... nothing to admire, by the way. The info is available at the FCC's site, ARRL, QRZ, and others.
I just have to go dig it up whenever I see the need. I usually post the whole RC part like that, so
anybody who wants to, later, can find it on a google search, or a search here on RCU

It's all summed up quite nicely in that "g" subsection:
(g)
...These frequencies are not afforded any protection from interference due to the operation
of fixed and mobile stations in other services assigned to the same or adjacent frequencies.

yard-dart

My Feedback: (35)

So, there you have it folks! All of you AMA worshipers can stick that info in your little black bong and smoke it. The AMA has got the wool pulled so far over your eyes, it's pitiful. You think the AMA is hot shi# on a siver platter, when it's nothing but cold diarrhea on a paper plate. They've got that big ole nice new facility up there in Indiana, and some of you look up to it like fat women look up to Richard Simmons. Somebody else has got to step up and give us a few other alternatives.

John

J_R

What it means is that several years ago, we had 7 frequencies on 72 mHz. If any were subject to interference, we just used that many less channels. Now we have 50 narrow band channels. If any are constantly interfered with, we use others. Do we really need 50 channels for any other reason? I have seen 15-18 aircraft being flown at once. That still leaves over 30 frequencies not in use at any given time. Most clubs I know of limit the number of aircraft to substantially less than 18. We are, and have always been secondary users on the airwaves. There are other bands we can fly on that are subject to other issues, such as the requirement for a ham license or competition from CB stations. Still… when we go to fly, most of us have no problem finding a frequency we can use with a reasonable chance of success.

Anyone that thinks they have 100% control of an RC plane should be aware of these limitations, as well as others. When you take into account you may get glitched, hit, or plain interfered with, it should make you a little bit more hesitant to guide your aircraft in such a manner that it might strike someone or something.

Personally, I agree that obtaining the 50 frequencies is ancient history. They do not belong to the AMA, nor anyone in particular. What the AMA does now, in an effort to protect those frequencies, for AMA members and non-members, alike, is part of the value of the AMA today. The BPL issue is a good example. Whether the AMA will be successful is another matter. If the AMA is not successful, and the 50 frequencies all become unusable IS an important CURRENT issue. It won’t be just AMA members that lose, it will be all modelers. So… rag on the AMA if you will, but, you darn well better be rooting for the AMA at the same time

yard-dart

My Feedback: (35)

J_R,

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. It's a "damned of you do, damned if you don't" situation. The AMA has got us by the balls. Sure, there's another Association modelers can join, but if that doesn't get you through the door of a club, what good is it? I, personally, think that the AMA isn't all cut out to what it needs to be.

John

J_R

IMHO it's kinda like the US government. It ain't perfect, but, it is way ahead of whatever is in second place. Sure, there is room for change and improvement, at least, in my opinion. And, as Gordon said, I think the AMA does more right than wrong. It has changed, it can be changed and it will be changed. The question is how.

C_Watkins

My Feedback: (10)

I applaud the AMA for their stance on this matter... because we definitely need all the help we can get.
BPL in its current incarnation would be a horrible blow to the airwaves, across many radio services.

However, the AMA is not that big, relatively... and they're not alone. If sweeping changes are made to BPL,
we can all be happy in the knowledge that they "did their part", but they will certainly have accomplished
nothing on their own. The ARRL, and many other organizations, representing some 675,000-680,000 amateur
radio operators, are in on the deal, too. I'm glad for all of them... AMA included. It's going to take everybody.

I just don't want to be hearing, in ten years, how the AMA single-handedly defeated the BPL dragon.
That's all

(Hey, I must not hate them that much... I'm a member, after all)

J_R

C_Watkins

I absolutely agree. The AMA will be a VERY small voice. Hopefully, one of many, led by the ARRL. On the other hand, if the frequencies become unusable, it's likely the AMA will carry the blame among modelers.