AMA issues new guidelines for FPV
11-01-2012, 01:56 PM
#5
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: sheridan,
IN
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: AMA issues new guidelines for FPV
Maybe I just didn't see it,
but it appears there is no longer a requirement
for FPV to be done only on AMA chartered club grounds.
but it appears there is no longer a requirement
for FPV to be done only on AMA chartered club grounds.
11-01-2012, 05:08 PM
#6
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio,
TX
Posts: 6,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: AMA issues new guidelines for FPV
compare these two groups of words:
d) FPV SPOTTER is an experienced AMA RC pilot who has been briefed by the FPV pilot on
the tasks, responsibilities and procedures involved in being a spotter; is capable and mature
enough to perform the duties and is able to assume conventional VLOS control of the aircraft via buddy box.
d) FPV SPOTTER is an experienced AMA RC pilot who has been briefed by the FPV pilot on
the tasks, responsibilities and procedures involved in being a spotter; is capable and mature
enough to perform the duties and is able to assume conventional VLOS control of the aircraft.
See what I am getting at here?
I have passed the tx back and forth a lot over the years, first learning to fly and then helping others learn. Glad to see we are getting back to our Pass-The-TX roots.
sweet, I can determine orientation of a 15lb non-scale model REALLY high...
d) FPV SPOTTER is an experienced AMA RC pilot who has been briefed by the FPV pilot on
the tasks, responsibilities and procedures involved in being a spotter; is capable and mature
enough to perform the duties and is able to assume conventional VLOS control of the aircraft via buddy box.
d) FPV SPOTTER is an experienced AMA RC pilot who has been briefed by the FPV pilot on
the tasks, responsibilities and procedures involved in being a spotter; is capable and mature
enough to perform the duties and is able to assume conventional VLOS control of the aircraft.
See what I am getting at here?
I have passed the tx back and forth a lot over the years, first learning to fly and then helping others learn. Glad to see we are getting back to our Pass-The-TX roots.
c) VISUAL LINE OF SIGHT (VLOS) is the distance at which the pilot is able to
maintain visual contact with the aircraft and determine its orientation without
enhancements other than corrective lenses
maintain visual contact with the aircraft and determine its orientation without
enhancements other than corrective lenses
b) Model aircraft flown using FPV must remain at or below 400 feet AGL when within 3
miles of an airport as specified in the AMA Safety Code.
miles of an airport as specified in the AMA Safety Code.
11-02-2012, 07:16 PM
#7
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Aguanga,
CA
Posts: 1,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: AMA issues new guidelines for FPV
ORIGINAL: KidEpoxy
sweet, I can determine orientation of a 15lb non-scale model REALLY high...
sweet, I can determine orientation of a 15lb non-scale model REALLY high...
11-03-2012, 05:40 AM
#8
My Feedback: (58)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: AMA issues new guidelines for FPV
ORIGINAL: 804
Maybe I just didn't see it,
but it appears there is no longer a requirement
for FPV to be done only on AMA chartered club grounds.
Maybe I just didn't see it,
but it appears there is no longer a requirement
for FPV to be done only on AMA chartered club grounds.
11-04-2012, 03:07 PM
#9
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Kerrville,
TX
Posts: 2,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: AMA issues new guidelines for FPV
If you get on the FPV sites you'll see that there is a fine disregard for both AMA and FCC regulations. I infer that most FPV people are neither AMA members nor are they Hams. Their emphasis seems to be on how far they can fly the model out from their launch point without losing the video downlink; forget LOS. Moreover, lots of the FPV flyers think nothing of flying over populated areas at long ranges. I see that as a reckless disregard of the possibility of a bad accident. IOW, irresponsible.
The AMA is trying to respond to AMA members' input; IOW, those who believe in flying within the guidelines. As such, they are responding to the minority of FPV pilots but what else can they do? Another reason for the guidelines is to protect AMA from the inevitable large insurance claim when one of the reckless FPV flyer's airplane causes a terrible accident while being flown outside the guidelines.
I truly believe it's just a matter of time.......
CR
The AMA is trying to respond to AMA members' input; IOW, those who believe in flying within the guidelines. As such, they are responding to the minority of FPV pilots but what else can they do? Another reason for the guidelines is to protect AMA from the inevitable large insurance claim when one of the reckless FPV flyer's airplane causes a terrible accident while being flown outside the guidelines.
I truly believe it's just a matter of time.......
CR
11-04-2012, 06:23 PM
#10
My Feedback: (58)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: AMA issues new guidelines for FPV
ORIGINAL: Charley
If you get on the FPV sites you'll see that there is a fine disregard for both AMA and FCC regulations. I infer that most FPV people are neither AMA members nor are they Hams.
If you get on the FPV sites you'll see that there is a fine disregard for both AMA and FCC regulations. I infer that most FPV people are neither AMA members nor are they Hams.
ORIGINAL: Charley
Their emphasis seems to be on how far they can fly the model out from their launch point without losing the video downlink; forget LOS. Moreover, lots of the FPV flyers think nothing of flying over populated areas at long ranges. I see that as a reckless disregard of the possibility of a bad accident. IOW, irresponsible.
Their emphasis seems to be on how far they can fly the model out from their launch point without losing the video downlink; forget LOS. Moreover, lots of the FPV flyers think nothing of flying over populated areas at long ranges. I see that as a reckless disregard of the possibility of a bad accident. IOW, irresponsible.
ORIGINAL: Charley
The AMA is trying to respond to AMA members' input; IOW, those who believe in flying within the guidelines. As such, they are responding to the minority of FPV pilots but what else can they do? Another reason for the guidelines is to protect AMA from the inevitable large insurance claim when one of the reckless FPV flyer's airplane causes a terrible accident while being flown outside the guidelines.
The AMA is trying to respond to AMA members' input; IOW, those who believe in flying within the guidelines. As such, they are responding to the minority of FPV pilots but what else can they do? Another reason for the guidelines is to protect AMA from the inevitable large insurance claim when one of the reckless FPV flyer's airplane causes a terrible accident while being flown outside the guidelines.
ORIGINAL: Charley
I truly believe it's just a matter of time.......
CR
I truly believe it's just a matter of time.......
CR
I guess you got a point...given enough time I guess anything is possible.
11-04-2012, 06:49 PM
#11
RE: AMA issues new guidelines for FPV
[8D] I can answer the your first question ;
The frequencys used for the video downlink portion of FPV lie within the FCC's frequency allocation for the Ham radio hobby . Specifically , one needs a "No Code Technician" license from the FCC to operate the TV gear at those frequencys . No license = Illegal operation , and this applies regardless of the mode of operation . Illegal use of channels is taken SO seriously in the Ham world that there are "vigilante Hams" that will track illegal signals just for their own satisfaction of turning the illegal operators into the FCC for punishment !
If you think there is class warfare in the RC plane hobby , you oughta take a look into the Ham radio hobby , as I did a number of years ago with the intention of becoming a Ham . What I saw was enough to make me say "no thanks" , and I restarted my long dormant RC hobby back up instead . For example , because proficency in Morse code is not required for the "No Code Tech" FCC rating , and most Hams who are Hams became so before such license was available , they look down in complete disgust at the "pretender Hams" as they call them , and call the rating the "No Good Tech"
Anyway , that's my input into this . Happy Flyin .... [8D]
The frequencys used for the video downlink portion of FPV lie within the FCC's frequency allocation for the Ham radio hobby . Specifically , one needs a "No Code Technician" license from the FCC to operate the TV gear at those frequencys . No license = Illegal operation , and this applies regardless of the mode of operation . Illegal use of channels is taken SO seriously in the Ham world that there are "vigilante Hams" that will track illegal signals just for their own satisfaction of turning the illegal operators into the FCC for punishment !
If you think there is class warfare in the RC plane hobby , you oughta take a look into the Ham radio hobby , as I did a number of years ago with the intention of becoming a Ham . What I saw was enough to make me say "no thanks" , and I restarted my long dormant RC hobby back up instead . For example , because proficency in Morse code is not required for the "No Code Tech" FCC rating , and most Hams who are Hams became so before such license was available , they look down in complete disgust at the "pretender Hams" as they call them , and call the rating the "No Good Tech"
Anyway , that's my input into this . Happy Flyin .... [8D]
11-04-2012, 07:11 PM
#12
My Feedback: (58)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: AMA issues new guidelines for FPV
ORIGINAL: init4fun
[8D] I can answer the your first question ;
The frequencys used for the video downlink portion of FPV lie within the FCC's frequency allocation for the Ham radio hobby . Specifically , one needs a ''No Code Technician'' license from the FCC to operate the TV gear at those frequencys . No license = Illegal operation , and this applies regardless of the mode of operation . Illegal use of channels is taken SO seriously in the Ham world that there are ''vigilante Hams'' that will track illegal signals just for their own satisfaction of turning the illegal operators into the FCC for punishment !
If you think there is class warfare in the RC plane hobby , you oughta take a look into the Ham radio hobby , as I did a number of years ago with the intention of becoming a Ham . What I saw was enough to make me say ''no thanks'' , and I restarted my long dormant RC hobby back up instead . For example , because proficency in Morse code is not required for the ''No Code Tech'' FCC rating , and most Hams who are Hams became so before such license was available , they look down in complete disgust at the ''pretender Hams'' as they call them , and call the rating the ''No Good Tech''
Anyway , that's my input into this . Happy Flyin .... [8D]
[8D] I can answer the your first question ;
The frequencys used for the video downlink portion of FPV lie within the FCC's frequency allocation for the Ham radio hobby . Specifically , one needs a ''No Code Technician'' license from the FCC to operate the TV gear at those frequencys . No license = Illegal operation , and this applies regardless of the mode of operation . Illegal use of channels is taken SO seriously in the Ham world that there are ''vigilante Hams'' that will track illegal signals just for their own satisfaction of turning the illegal operators into the FCC for punishment !
If you think there is class warfare in the RC plane hobby , you oughta take a look into the Ham radio hobby , as I did a number of years ago with the intention of becoming a Ham . What I saw was enough to make me say ''no thanks'' , and I restarted my long dormant RC hobby back up instead . For example , because proficency in Morse code is not required for the ''No Code Tech'' FCC rating , and most Hams who are Hams became so before such license was available , they look down in complete disgust at the ''pretender Hams'' as they call them , and call the rating the ''No Good Tech''
Anyway , that's my input into this . Happy Flyin .... [8D]
I knew that was how it once was but I thought the advent of newer transmission frequencies like 2.4GHz and 900 MHz eliminated at least some of the issues... but I am open to learning ...
11-05-2012, 06:28 AM
#13
Moderator
RE: AMA issues new guidelines for FPV
The AMA provides insurance, but is not just an insurance company. That's a pretty simple concept to understand, IMO.
I just read through the new regulations last week and as I see it, most FPV pilots aren't going to comply. It sounds to me like the AMA is playing it conservatively on the safety front, and essentially publishing these regulations so that AMA insurance coverage isn't available for those who want to push the limits of what FPV can do. AMA has never covered pilots who fly over houses or people, and they aren't going to start now. Flying beyond LOS hasn't been possible before, but until the FPV links become rock solid reliable the AMA is being smart not to cover that either. What I can honestly see happening is a few incidences of FPV pilots damaging someone's property or scaring/hurting some bystanders and then the FAA gets involved again. AMA will be quick to point out that the pilots in question were not following AMA guidelines, which then will become a mandate for the AMA guidelines to become law for all RC pilots. Then the chances of these current regulations being relaxed become virtually nil. Whereas if we'll all fly responsibly now in a few more years a grassroots campaign to relax the regulations some more will probably be successful.
I just read through the new regulations last week and as I see it, most FPV pilots aren't going to comply. It sounds to me like the AMA is playing it conservatively on the safety front, and essentially publishing these regulations so that AMA insurance coverage isn't available for those who want to push the limits of what FPV can do. AMA has never covered pilots who fly over houses or people, and they aren't going to start now. Flying beyond LOS hasn't been possible before, but until the FPV links become rock solid reliable the AMA is being smart not to cover that either. What I can honestly see happening is a few incidences of FPV pilots damaging someone's property or scaring/hurting some bystanders and then the FAA gets involved again. AMA will be quick to point out that the pilots in question were not following AMA guidelines, which then will become a mandate for the AMA guidelines to become law for all RC pilots. Then the chances of these current regulations being relaxed become virtually nil. Whereas if we'll all fly responsibly now in a few more years a grassroots campaign to relax the regulations some more will probably be successful.
11-05-2012, 07:15 AM
#14
RE: AMA issues new guidelines for FPV
[8D] A quick note to LCS ,
Last nite after we talked , I got curious and did some reading about FPV frequencies . I hate to just parrot the commonly held beliefs without peekin "behind the curtain" in order to ensure my facts are straight . I discovered that there is not only the issue of frequency , but also of how much power a transmitter is allowed to emit on that frequency . It would appear that the FPV pilot needs two frequencies that work well together and do not cross/interfere with each other . These frequencies can and do encompass the "free" band in some instances , but with some fairly limiting power restrictions . A pilot flying FPV per AMA document 550 will be within LOS , so great transmitter power is not needed at such comparative close range . But , when these flights begin to span more than a mile or few away , the transmitter power allowed under the free bands becomes woefully inadequate . This is when RF (Radio Frequency) amplifiers are employed , and the use of them puts the FPV pilot into the power levels that do require the Ham license .
Now , as to the insurance angle for everyone else , I can understand the AMA not wanting to insure FPV beyond LOS due to the increased risk of model plane vs civilian interaction . FPV per doc. 550 presents no more risk than any other type of RC flying as the model is being flown within the confines of an established RC field (or parkflyer environment) and subject to the safety norms of such activity . Once the flying begins to happen over people's heads as happens with "unrestricted" FPV , the risk is , in my humble opinion , too great for an incident of plane vs people contact . Even if this FPV is being flown within AMA parkflyer protocol , the parkflyer rules also state no flying over folks heads . This just seems good common sense / the model plane that's not flown over someone's head is far less likely to end up hitting that particular noggin .
11-05-2012, 08:22 AM
#16
My Feedback: (2)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Kerrville,
TX
Posts: 2,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: AMA issues new guidelines for FPV
ORIGINAL: init4fun
If you think there is class warfare in the RC plane hobby , you oughta take a look into the Ham radio hobby , as I did a number of years ago with the intention of becoming a Ham . What I saw was enough to make me say ''no thanks'' , and I restarted my long dormant RC hobby back up instead . For example , because proficency in Morse code is not required for the ''No Code Tech'' FCC rating , and most Hams who are Hams became so before such license was available , they look down in complete disgust at the ''pretender Hams'' as they call them , and call the rating the ''No Good Tech''
Anyway , that's my input into this . Happy Flyin .... [8D]
If you think there is class warfare in the RC plane hobby , you oughta take a look into the Ham radio hobby , as I did a number of years ago with the intention of becoming a Ham . What I saw was enough to make me say ''no thanks'' , and I restarted my long dormant RC hobby back up instead . For example , because proficency in Morse code is not required for the ''No Code Tech'' FCC rating , and most Hams who are Hams became so before such license was available , they look down in complete disgust at the ''pretender Hams'' as they call them , and call the rating the ''No Good Tech''
Anyway , that's my input into this . Happy Flyin .... [8D]
73,
CR, af5ao
11-05-2012, 08:26 AM
#17
My Feedback: (58)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: AMA issues new guidelines for FPV
ORIGINAL: init4fun
[8D] A quick note to LCS ,
Last nite after we talked , I got curious and did some reading about FPV frequencies . I hate to just parrot the commonly held beliefs without peekin ''behind the curtain'' in order to ensure my facts are straight . I discovered that there is not only the issue of frequency , but also of how much power a transmitter is allowed to emit on that frequency . It would appear that the FPV pilot needs two frequencies that work well together and do not cross/interfere with each other . These frequencies can and do encompass the ''free'' band in some instances , but with some fairly limiting power restrictions . A pilot flying FPV per AMA document 550 will be within LOS , so great transmitter power is not needed at such comparative close range . But , when these flights begin to span more than a mile or few away , the transmitter power allowed under the free bands becomes woefully inadequate . This is when RF (Radio Frequency) amplifiers are employed , and the use of them puts the FPV pilot into the power levels that do require the Ham license .
Now , as to the insurance angle for everyone else , I can understand the AMA not wanting to insure FPV beyond LOS due to the increased risk of model plane vs civilian interaction . FPV per doc. 550 presents no more risk than any other type of RC flying as the model is being flown within the confines of an established RC field (or parkflyer environment) and subject to the safety norms of such activity . Once the flying begins to happen over people's heads as happens with ''unrestricted'' FPV , the risk is , in my humble opinion , too great for an incident of plane vs people contact . Even if this FPV is being flown within AMA parkflyer protocol , the parkflyer rules also state no flying over folks heads . This just seems good common sense / the model plane that's not flown over someone's head is far less likely to end up hitting that particular noggin .
[8D] A quick note to LCS ,
Last nite after we talked , I got curious and did some reading about FPV frequencies . I hate to just parrot the commonly held beliefs without peekin ''behind the curtain'' in order to ensure my facts are straight . I discovered that there is not only the issue of frequency , but also of how much power a transmitter is allowed to emit on that frequency . It would appear that the FPV pilot needs two frequencies that work well together and do not cross/interfere with each other . These frequencies can and do encompass the ''free'' band in some instances , but with some fairly limiting power restrictions . A pilot flying FPV per AMA document 550 will be within LOS , so great transmitter power is not needed at such comparative close range . But , when these flights begin to span more than a mile or few away , the transmitter power allowed under the free bands becomes woefully inadequate . This is when RF (Radio Frequency) amplifiers are employed , and the use of them puts the FPV pilot into the power levels that do require the Ham license .
Now , as to the insurance angle for everyone else , I can understand the AMA not wanting to insure FPV beyond LOS due to the increased risk of model plane vs civilian interaction . FPV per doc. 550 presents no more risk than any other type of RC flying as the model is being flown within the confines of an established RC field (or parkflyer environment) and subject to the safety norms of such activity . Once the flying begins to happen over people's heads as happens with ''unrestricted'' FPV , the risk is , in my humble opinion , too great for an incident of plane vs people contact . Even if this FPV is being flown within AMA parkflyer protocol , the parkflyer rules also state no flying over folks heads . This just seems good common sense / the model plane that's not flown over someone's head is far less likely to end up hitting that particular noggin .
11-05-2012, 09:00 AM
#18
RE: AMA issues new guidelines for FPV
[8D] Hi Gents ,
To Charley , Thank You for your post . I had considered getting into Ham at was a tense time in the hobby due to the no code tech having been established and the prospect of loosing frequencies to ever expanding commercial interests . A very good friend is an Extra (or is it advanced ? He is the top catagory of license , whichever that one is) class Ham and I wanted to get into the hobby as it looked interesting to me . I bought a few radios to listen with , a "Swan 500" , a Heathkit "HW-101" , and a Yaesu (spelling ?) something else and I listened . No transmitting , I would not do that even once without a license , so I bought a Cantenna to practice tuning em up without broadcasting . As I listened , I heard not only the negativity tword the no code , but also that for many , it wasn't the quality of the contact , but the quantity . those contests where they make as many contacts as possible didn;t really seem to be conversations at all , more like roll calls "Present !" , and then on to the next contact . I like that you came here and posted an urging to look into it again . I just may do that
To LCS ,
It wasn't easy to decipher , even after 2 hours of searching and reading , but it seemed that FPV with 72 MHZ rc control and 2.4 GHZ video IS legal within the power limits allowed for each frequency . The rub is , that the power limits (I thought I read 300MW for 2.4 video) imposed on "free use" are so restrictive that ya wouldn't get much further away than LOS anyway before you began to loose signal . So any flights like you hear of encompassing 5 or so miles are being done with Amplified gear , and that's what falls into the license realm .
Since the presented information from sources like wikki and other search programs seems rather confusing to the average Joe (Me
) , it would be really great if some Ham operator would lay out exactly what the regs and restrictions are , and aren't . We have all been told repeadly that a license is required for certain operations , and I want a specific chart as to what is what , frequency and power level wise .A Nice friendly Ham in the know could clear up a lot of confusion here by setting me straight on what's what . Hint , hint ...... Charley , maybe ?
11-05-2012, 09:58 AM
#20
My Feedback: (58)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: AMA issues new guidelines for FPV
ORIGINAL: mongo
'' Nice friendly Ham''
sounds like an oxymoron to me.
befor folks get bent, kilo baker 5 victor golf juliet
'' Nice friendly Ham''
sounds like an oxymoron to me.
befor folks get bent, kilo baker 5 victor golf juliet
FWIW Our club president is a HAM also and his stories are very much in line with the controlling mindset some or most HAMs have... They seem to have conformist attitude... many times. Maybe just an ugly side-effect of belonging to some "official" group
11-05-2012, 04:23 PM
#21
My Feedback: (3)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Port Charlotte, FL
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: AMA issues new guidelines for FPV
Nice friendly HAM here. Any and all radio tranmissions on an Amateur Radio Frequency (ham band) requires a Amateur Radio License regardless of power level. To transmit on a ham frequency you must have a ham license. Your class of license determines which frequencies and power levels you may use.
Although I passed a Morse code test to get my amateur license years ago, I will talk to any licensed operator regardless of how long they have been licensed or whether they passed a code test or not. Ham radio is just like any other hobby, there are idiots among us and eventually you run into one of them. Just ignore them and enjoy your hobby.
Eddie Dean, WA4DRM
Although I passed a Morse code test to get my amateur license years ago, I will talk to any licensed operator regardless of how long they have been licensed or whether they passed a code test or not. Ham radio is just like any other hobby, there are idiots among us and eventually you run into one of them. Just ignore them and enjoy your hobby.
Eddie Dean, WA4DRM
11-05-2012, 06:51 PM
#22
My Feedback: (58)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: here
Posts: 5,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: AMA issues new guidelines for FPV
Good post Eddie. Maybe you can tell us if one must be a Ham to legally do FPV modeling. Or IOW is there a way for modelers to FPV legally without being a Ham?
11-05-2012, 06:53 PM
#23
RE: AMA issues new guidelines for FPV
ORIGINAL: EddieDean
Nice friendly HAM here. Any and all radio tranmissions on an Amateur Radio Frequency (ham band) requires a Amateur Radio License regardless of power level. To transmit on a ham frequency you must have a ham license. Your class of license determines which frequencies and power levels you may use.
Although I passed a Morse code test to get my amateur license years ago, I will talk to any licensed operator regardless of how long they have been licensed or whether they passed a code test or not. Ham radio is just like any other hobby, there are idiots among us and eventually you run into one of them. Just ignore them and enjoy your hobby.
Eddie Dean, WA4DRM
Nice friendly HAM here. Any and all radio tranmissions on an Amateur Radio Frequency (ham band) requires a Amateur Radio License regardless of power level. To transmit on a ham frequency you must have a ham license. Your class of license determines which frequencies and power levels you may use.
Although I passed a Morse code test to get my amateur license years ago, I will talk to any licensed operator regardless of how long they have been licensed or whether they passed a code test or not. Ham radio is just like any other hobby, there are idiots among us and eventually you run into one of them. Just ignore them and enjoy your hobby.
Eddie Dean, WA4DRM
Yes , as I have been told by several Hams , I know that to operate on Ham frequencies unlicensed is Illegal .
OK , now , with that stated , what we really need to know is ; "Of the frequencies commonly employed in the flying of FPV , exactly which are legal for free use , and which are verboten without the Ham license ?"
The frequencies I've found mention of in my research of the flying of FPV are ;
433 and 869 MHZ
900 MHZ
1.2 and 1.3 GHZ
2.4 GHZ
5.8 GHZ
Now this list may not be complete , I compiled it from a couple of FPV forums and wikki . I would hope that 2.4 is allowed , since our modern RC systems are all on 2.4 , having moved from 72 MHZ a fistfull of years ago . Can you verify which of the others are which , and if there are any others you may know of ?
My interest lies in not wanting to keep repeating the same info I've been repeatedly told by other hams when asked , when not one of those asked has yet to say for certain which frequencies belong to which group , free or licensed .
11-06-2012, 12:23 AM
#24
My Feedback: (3)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Port Charlotte, FL
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: AMA issues new guidelines for FPV
I'm not an expert on any of the available FPV equipment. So I don't know what frequencies they use. You can find a nice Amateur Band Chart produced by the ARRL (Amateur Radio Relay League) at http://www.arrl.org/files/file/Hambands_color.pdf
If any manufacturer is using ham frequencies they should inform the purchaser that an amateur radio operators license is required to be legal.
In the 70's and 80's I competed in AMA pattern contests and I used 6 Meter Ham Radio R/C equipment. That required a Technician, General, Advanced or Extra Class license. Any ham operation above 50 MHz still requires one of those licenses.
Ham operators are very protective of their operating bands (because of government and commerical interest trying to taking them away) and will track down and report any illegal use.
Also be aware that Amateur Radio Operators cannot use the ham bands and equipment for any commercial purpose. For instance I could not fly my 6 Meter R/C airplane for money. Not that anyone ever offered.
Hope this helps.
If any manufacturer is using ham frequencies they should inform the purchaser that an amateur radio operators license is required to be legal.
In the 70's and 80's I competed in AMA pattern contests and I used 6 Meter Ham Radio R/C equipment. That required a Technician, General, Advanced or Extra Class license. Any ham operation above 50 MHz still requires one of those licenses.
Ham operators are very protective of their operating bands (because of government and commerical interest trying to taking them away) and will track down and report any illegal use.
Also be aware that Amateur Radio Operators cannot use the ham bands and equipment for any commercial purpose. For instance I could not fly my 6 Meter R/C airplane for money. Not that anyone ever offered.
Hope this helps.
11-06-2012, 02:51 AM
#25
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Posts: 893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: AMA issues new guidelines for FPV
Don’t mean to muddy the waters here but I believe most of the FPV equipment on the market today has FCC certifications that make them legal for normal consumer use. If it is some overseas ‘stuff’ that didn’t go through the FCC certification process it is illegal for use in the US and I’m willing to bet many FPV users either are not aware of that or ignored it. I think where there is really a problem is when certified equipment is modified by the user, especially when boosting power.
Regards
Frank
Regards
Frank