Resolving close fields interference issues  
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Tower Hobbies
Enter up to 4 keywords or Tower stock numbers
Logged in as Guest



Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
       

All Forums >> RC Airplanes >> M.A.A.C. >> Resolving close fields interference issues
Page: [1]

Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Resolving close fields interference issues - 5/2/2006 5:53:22 PM   
DSLarkin


 

Posts: 136
Joined: 8/31/2005
From: Picton, ON, CANADA
Status: offline 		Our club finds itself in the position of trying to resolve the problem of a group which has moved onto land very close to our field. Less than 2 km away. There have been cases in the past where conflict over this problem has dragged out for years.

It seems to me that a protocol for how to handle this problem should be developed by MAAC so that the concerned parties have clear guidelines as to how best to resolve the problem - looking at all approaches including the individual allocation of frequencies.

I'm going to have a go at a strawman for this and would appreciate any suggestions either by posts or private messages.

If I can get something workable together, I can then submit it to the MAAC Safety Chairman and the Board for consideration, through our Zone Director, of course.

Dave Larkin

Assistant Zone Director, Belleville Area, Ottawa Valley Zone

< Message edited by DSLarkin -- 5/2/2006 5:54:27 PM >
       Post #: 1

RE: Resolving close fields interference issues - 5/2/2006 6:17:00 PM   
mmattockx


 

Posts: 2105
Joined: 4/28/2005
From: Calgary, AB, CANADA
Status: offline 		Well, it seems to me that it SHOULD be simple. It never is when you have people involved, though...

My thoughts would be:

1) First come, first served. The existing club gets priority over a start up group. BTW, is this group a chartered MAAC club or not?

2) Allocate frequencies to each group and that is that. Kind of harsh and people will have to go buy new crystals, get radios re-tuned, etc. But at least everybody gets to fly.

3) Arbitration with MAAC sitting down with the two groups and hashing out a plan. But it must be FINAL, not a wishy washy thing.

Anything besides these will result in whining, fighting, complaining and on and on. And it needs to be an edict, not a request. If you depend on people to police themselves or sort it out on their own, it will degenerate into a kids on the playground level.

My $0.02 on this... Very black and white, I know. But my experience with people says that you can't do anything else if you expect to have it work. Leaving a gray area or options will lead to somebody abusing it and hurting everybody.


Mark

_____________________________

Waco Brotherhood #4

(in reply to DSLarkin)
       Post #: 2

RE: Resolving close fields interference issues - 5/2/2006 6:21:17 PM   
adaptabl


 

Posts: 82
Joined: 9/24/2003
From: tecumseh, ON,
Status: offline 		MAAC has no legal control of frequencies. That is one of the problems of unlicienced frequency use. I think you need to work something out between both groups, Move to a new site or hope new full range SS equipment hits the market very soon. Interesting that the new computer based recievers may not have a problem with this. I have a few new CC Berg 4 channel recievers(4Gram) and they seem to work amazingly well. I have turned on a second transmitter(same channel) only a few feet from by main transmitter and still have full control. They seem to have very good specs and are rated as full range. I doubt there would be any issue with a second transmitter over a KM away.

(in reply to DSLarkin)
       Post #: 3

RE: Resolving close fields interference issues - 5/2/2006 7:01:07 PM   
Propworn


 

Posts: 51
Joined: 7/24/2002
From: Canada
Status: offline 		I have been at Pete Waters when he was retuning radios from two clubs for the same reason. They had tried everything and the only solution was that one club used half of the frequencies and the other club used the second half. They took a pole of both clubs and allocated the frequencies that the majority at each club were using. Then my understanding was the club then paid to have the rest of the radios re-tuned. For about 60 members total I think he had a dozen or so that had to be re-tuned. Anyone purchasing a new radio was expected to confine their purchase to the agreed upon frequency allocations with no exceptions. Last I heard this was still working out with the two clubs.

Dennis

(in reply to adaptabl)
       Post #: 4

RE: Resolving close fields interference issues - 5/2/2006 7:05:24 PM   
Propworn


 

Posts: 51
Joined: 7/24/2002
From: Canada
Status: offline 		Perhaps MAAC in its attempt at opening and keeping fields might consider helping with legitimate costs in re-tuning these radios. This might indeed encourage any club that is not MAAC chartered to become so.

Dennis

(in reply to Propworn)
       Post #: 5

RE: Resolving close fields interference issues - 5/2/2006 8:53:04 PM   
bbbair


 

Posts: 805
Joined: 1/7/2003
From: Belleville, ON, CANADA
Status: offline 		I'm afraid that Dave has under stated the situation here.

Our club has been on this site for over 15 years, last fall two glider pilots discovered our area - specifically a hill some 2 kms to the north of us. They pulled into an access road and set up shop.

To compound this situation each of them arrives with some 4-6 AC.
All on different channels.

We have asked them to post their channels so that there wouldn't be any problems.

That was before we found out that they were going to occupy 12 channels for the day...

They have been asked to join the club - they don't seem to be interested...

We have a problem.

_____________________________

It's Time to Kick the Tires and Light the Fires!

(in reply to Propworn)
       Post #: 6

RE: Resolving close fields interference issues - 5/2/2006 11:55:01 PM   
reo


 

Posts: 227
Joined: 12/15/2003
From: Millet, AB, CANADA
Status: offline 		This is a tough situation and without the desire for a resolution on BOTH sides it becomes even tougher. The only input that MAAC can have in these situations is to keep REGISTERED fields minimum 4km apart, beyond that everything else is moot.

In short, the guys that are setting up unoffical flying sites within 'frequency conflict' distances from an established field can do so, no questions asked. This doesn't mean it is right but that is just the way it is.

This basically comes down to the actions of a few inconsiderate people infringing on the enjoyment of the hobby for an established group at an established field....a very unfortunate situation. I hope it can be resolved.

One question that i would like to see answered though, if 4 km is an acceptable spacing for MAAC fields, what is the ACTUAL range of our transmitters these days?

Ron




(in reply to bbbair)
       Post #: 7

RE: Resolving close fields interference issues - 5/3/2006 12:43:17 AM   
DSLarkin


 

Posts: 136
Joined: 8/31/2005
From: Picton, ON, CANADA
Status: offline 		Of course you are correct, but I was just trying to get general ideas for a protocol.

If we had a protocol it could develop into a situation where we could get MAAC to say "Follow our protocol or your insutance is void".

These things can best be resolved if there is a willingness on both sides to show some flexibility. Still, there is no doubt in my mind that any solution should be weighted towards the interests of the original club. Also I feel that cognizance should be taken of the relative numbers involved in each group. It wouldn't be fair to give up half the spectrum to two flyers. However a couple of channels should be workable.

Our problem is made more difficult by the fact we are not dealing with another club - just a couple of 'rogue' flyers.

In this case I hope we can get the interlopers to reduce the number of frequencies they use - for starters.

We do have a hammer as MAAC's insurance company is not likely to take kindly to someone starting a situation where one group is deliberately acting in a manner which could cause accidents.

(in reply to bbbair)
       Post #: 8

RE: Resolving close fields interference issues - 5/3/2006 12:59:11 AM   
bkind


 

Posts: 61
Joined: 8/3/2003
From: Napanee, ON, CANADA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: reo

This is a tough situation and without the desire for a resolution on BOTH sides it becomes even tougher. The only input that MAAC can have in these situations is to keep REGISTERED fields minimum 4km apart, beyond that everything else is moot.

In short, the guys that are setting up unoffical flying sites within 'frequency conflict' distances from an established field can do so, no questions asked. This doesn't mean it is right but that is just the way it is.

This basically comes down to the actions of a few inconsiderate people infringing on the enjoyment of the hobby for an established group at an established field....a very unfortunate situation. I hope it can be resolved.

One question that i would like to see answered though, if 4 km is an acceptable spacing for MAAC fields, what is the ACTUAL range of our transmitters these days?

Ron

I,m afraid you are right. I asked one of the MAAC execs last year about MAAC getting some sort of control over the 72 mhz freq. We were discussing the ability for someone to buy park fliers from hobby shop with radio on 72mhz and fly close to registered clubs. Thers just not anything we can do about it.

I have read somewhere in my Futaba literture that our radios are good for 2km.

Brian







_____________________________

Be Kind & Have Fun!
www.rcflyingtoys.com

(in reply to reo)
       Post #: 9

RE: Resolving close fields interference issues - 5/3/2006 3:44:22 AM   
bbbair


 

Posts: 805
Joined: 1/7/2003
From: Belleville, ON, CANADA
Status: offline 		This situation cuts to the heart of all fliers - we like to think that our "Home Field" is 'SAFE' and that MAAC can save us or control the situation... sadly this is not the case... ultimately MAAC gives us insurance and guide lines that are valuable IF everyone follows them.

However; ANYONE can buy a RC transmitter... and turn it on where ever they want - there is no law to stop them, even if there were - how would you control /monitor it?? Goodness knows there are more important things for the Police to be watching for...

IF a couple of 'Rogue' fliers wander into YOUR neighbourhood - ultimately, there is very little that you can do about it.

Polite conversation and a gentleman's agreement are both as far as you can go and the best solution.

BUT if one party does not wish to play nice - YOU have a PROBLEM!

_____________________________

It's Time to Kick the Tires and Light the Fires!

(in reply to bkind)
       Post #: 10

RE: Resolving close fields interference issues - 5/3/2006 4:47:09 AM   
Propworn


 

Posts: 51
Joined: 7/24/2002
From: Canada
Status: offline 		Its not really a solution but I know of one case where the interlopers were flying close at hand and were asked nicely to co-operate. A few choose not to and as a result a fairly expensive model at the club in question was destroyed. The modeler who lost the aircraft drove to the offending field and parked his vehicle on top of all the models there. He claimed it was no different than the disregard for his aircraft. I do not endorse or recommend confrontation but I can see it happening very easily.

Dennis

(in reply to bbbair)
       Post #: 11

RE: Resolving close fields interference issues - 5/3/2006 8:35:49 AM   
sfsjkid



Posts: 563
Joined: 12/12/2003
From: fremont, CA, USA
Status: offline 		Part of me wants to say gather as many transmitters as possible and turn them on. But that wouldn't be responsible.

I was wondering, is the land private property or managed by some goverment organization? They could be considered trespassers, using the land for purposes not allowed or hazard to motorists if near the road. Another weird suggestion comes from the fact that an endangered species of owl calls uses our field as home. The animal perservationalists visit sometimes and would have a fit if they knew we were harming them.

Our club has a similar situation but fortunately with another club, and the spacing fortunately is 3.2km away and doesn't cause problems. The AMA however wants us to do testing since the regs call for 4.8km between clubs.

Hope you get the problem solved!

The AMA has these documents but don't help if the other party is unco-operative.

http://www.modelaircraft.org/PDF-files/535-G.pdf

http://www.modelaircraft.org/PDF-files/535-F.pdf


< Message edited by sfsjkid -- 5/3/2006 8:44:00 AM >

(in reply to Propworn)
       Post #: 12

RE: Resolving close fields interference issues - 5/3/2006 2:31:54 PM   
DSLarkin


 

Posts: 136
Joined: 8/31/2005
From: Picton, ON, CANADA
Status: offline 		Thanks for the references.

The land is private property.

(in reply to sfsjkid)
       Post #: 13

RE: Resolving close fields interference issues - 5/3/2006 2:35:37 PM   
adaptabl


 

Posts: 82
Joined: 9/24/2003
From: tecumseh, ON,
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sfsjkid

Part of me wants to say gather as many transmitters as possible and turn them on. But that wouldn't be responsible.

I was wondering, is the land private property or managed by some goverment organization? They could be considered trespassers, using the land for purposes not allowed or hazard to motorists if near the road. Another weird suggestion comes from the fact that an endangered species of owl calls uses our field as home. The animal perservationalists visit sometimes and would have a fit if they knew we were harming them.

Our club has a similar situation but fortunately with another club, and the spacing fortunately is 3.2km away and doesn't cause problems. The AMA however wants us to do testing since the regs call for 4.8km between clubs.

Hope you get the problem solved!

The AMA has these documents but don't help if the other party is unco-operative.

http://www.modelaircraft.org/PDF-files/535-G.pdf

http://www.modelaircraft.org/PDF-files/535-F.pdf



Get a frequency scanner so you would know what transmitters to turn on.

Really there is nothing you can do. This is one of the reasons we need spread spectrum. Soon there will be more and more toy grade equipment on 72 MHZ. I could be a problem for many of us.

Driving over their airplanes would get you a visit to court.


< Message edited by adaptabl -- 5/3/2006 2:36:49 PM >

(in reply to sfsjkid)
       Post #: 14

RE: Resolving close fields interference issues - 5/3/2006 3:23:58 PM   
sfsjkid



Posts: 563
Joined: 12/12/2003
From: fremont, CA, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DSLarkin

Thanks for the references.

The land is private property.



The next thing I would like to hear is that the property owner is not one of the rogues, and they do not have permission to be there?

< Message edited by sfsjkid -- 5/3/2006 3:24:21 PM >

(in reply to DSLarkin)