Propworn

My Feedback: (3)

If this link is true then it looks like the producers of non compliant electronics are going to be served notice. Wonder how long its going to take them to round up the ones with the fake FCC certification numbers they use to trick people into thinking the stuff they are purchasing is approved.

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Rele...-16-1290A1.pdf

Dennis

TFF

Im sure the compliant companies brought this to attention.

Propworn

My Feedback: (3)

And why not every company should be compliant with the laws of the land. If they are not then they should be reported not let skirting the law all the other companies have spent time and money to get approval.

Dennis

2walla

My Feedback: (10)

so the way this works is Hobbyking LLC will disappear and a new Hobbyking 2 LLC will appear and they will keep on selling whatever they want... I believe that's how they cheated Washington state out of their taxes. Now with the feds they could get some import restrictions on hobbyking branded merchandise and maybe stop packages at customs.. Of course a simple rebranding will solve that too-- remember the moki/mark thing a few years ago...

Propworn

My Feedback: (3)

If the feds become serious enough it would be easy enough for them to control the entry of illegal equipment. Fining the importer as well would be a start. It has been suggested that insurance be declined for incidences involving use of non approved equipment. I just hope they come down hard enough to have an effect not some slap on the wrist where they laugh and just pay the fine.

Dennis

BarracudaHockey

My Feedback: (11)

I've heard a lot about what insurance should be denied for but it rarely is.

Blow a light doing 20 over the speed limit and cause a wreck your insurance will still cover you, they won't pay your civil fines or keep you out of jail but they cover your liablity

Propworn

My Feedback: (3)

I've heard a lot of armchair experts express opinions that are in the end absolutely worthless. After all one can only guess at the direction insurance companies will take. If you’re going to use auto insurance for an analogy try does your insurance cover you for an accident if you’re at fault and found guilty of DUI????

Some home owners insurance explicitly excludes remote or powered toys/hobby equipment that includes RC models. Forget the short form you get when you sign up for insurance and get the booklet of your complete policy and look carefully under exclusions. Sometimes they do not name model aircraft but there may be a speed limit for toys/hobbies that limit coverage. The way it may be worded it may be an inclusive denial of coverage including comprehensive (fire-theft etc.).

Think about this you are using non certified equipment and your home organization deems that by using such you are not operating inside the organizations safety guidelines and as such you are not covered. I know it’s at the discussion level in our organization MAAC. It would not surprise me to find it the same in the AMA.

That being said I could care less one way or the other. In fact I am leaning towards exclusion of non certified equipment. As you can guess all my equipment is certified so I won't be affected one way or the other.

Dennis

BarracudaHockey

My Feedback: (11)

Well actually I was going to use DUI and the answer is the same, yes.

They may drop you or triple your rates but they will still cover the liability of that accident.

I've not heard any talk within the AMA of that.

Propworn

My Feedback: (3)

In Canada there are few offences that invalidate your insurance coverage. You become an uninsured operator. Claims against you are paid from the uninsured motor vehicle fund. The fund is managed by the government and each insurance policy sold has a small portion submitted to this fund. As an uninsured motorist you must repay the amount of judgment against you. They will garnish your wages and remove your driver’s license until repayment. If your offence invalidates your insurance personal losses are not recoverable through insurance or uninsured motor vehicle fund. In Canada it is possible to become uninsurable.

I had heard there were discussions on this when the two presidents interacted a few years ago. In Canada we used to accept FCC approval now only IC approval for Canadian operators. Americans flying in Canada can use FCC approved equipment without any problem. If it comes to pass that only FCC and IC approved equipment is allowed at MAAC fields in Canada I can see the AMA follow suit if not beat us to the punch. Usually the AMA and MAAC are closely aligned with one following the lead of the other with any new technology or safety concerns. Many times they collaborate to find a workable middle ground that works on both sides of the border.

The only true test will be when there are large sums of money involved in a liability claim and we will see how it unfolds in the courts. Your opinion and mine or anyone else’s for that mater means squat at this time.

As a MAAC member I have 7.5 million in first party liability as part of my membership. With the reciprocal agreement I am covered both sides of the border. I fly with certified equipment I feel very comfortable and confident as I make sure I follow the rules of both modeling organizations when I fly in the US.

Yes I do have my FAA number and it is inside/visible on each and every one of my models.

Dennis

BarracudaHockey

My Feedback: (11)

Yea, I had a great chat with the MAAC folks last weekend at Muncie, great folks IMO

Fascinating about the insurance situation up there.

TFF

Not opposed to the FCC doing their job, but stuff like it will be always around. Government moves too slow, and the companies too small for them to really keep on them. In the end the government will spend more money trying to shut it down than spent making the equipment. Just like a thief selling stolen goods, as long as there are buyers willing to buy cut price stuff, it will be for sale.

Propworn

My Feedback: (3)

I know small claims are nuisance claims many paid from funds within the organization rather than submit an insurance claim. The one large claim I know of here in Canada (4 million) involved lengthy investigation by the police and the insurance company as well as a legion of lawyers on both sides. Radio equipment and model were seized and thoroughly gone over for compliance to our radio standards and MAAC safety code.

If the same thing were to happen with non compliant equipment I just bet the operator would be left holding the short end of the stick. Myself I would prefer to see the companies responsible held accountable.

Dennis

Flypaper 2

So, All the hobby shops and walmart should be sue and made to drop all of the RC planes, quads and cars, being unlicenced or unregistered.??

BarracudaHockey

My Feedback: (11)

Not sure what you mean.

HK is being held accountable for selling non-certified transmitters in the US, there's nothing about registration or anything else involved

Flypaper 2

That's what I meant. None of these radios are are certified either.

BarracudaHockey

My Feedback: (11)

Sorry, none of which radios?

If you're talking about Futaba and Spektrum etc they all have type acceptance by the FCC

Flypaper 2

Of course they do. But Walmart does't sell those. You know what I mean.

Propworn

My Feedback: (3)

Like has been said certification is not registration.

Your American, when someone sues its the shotgun method, both barrels in fact. The operator, landowner, municipality that didn't put a stop to flying there, retailer, manufacturer you name it. Liability law, sue everyone throw them all in a barrel stir briskly see if something good floats to the top. The operator assumed or was told the units were ok because they were for sale all over. The retailer assumed the manufacturer did due diligence and made sure they met certification nationally in fact they had an FCC number. Manufacturers have been known to fib about and actually print fake FCC numbers on the stuff they peddle this side of the pond. Lawyers don't really care they will go after the easiest payout and it won't be the offshore manufacturer. At least the municipality and the big box stores have legal assistance on retainer. That leaves the operator and the landowner doing the two toed shuffle trying not to get stung.

So far everyone's been lucky no major incidents involving this equipment. I wonder how tunes will change when something does happen.

Me on the other hand have no worries I fly with certified equipment and at MAAC or AMA fields under the rules and obligations of the governing organizations. My AZZ is covered is yours?

Dennis

Flypaper 2

Yep, I run quality Orange and Lemon rcvrs. The only ones I've had fail are a few Spektrums.

franklin_m

Sorry to see this happen. I've had nothing but good results with OrangeRX.

BarracudaHockey

My Feedback: (11)

This wouldn't have anything to do with receivers. FCC only gets involved in transmitters.

init4fun

Hi Andy , I'm not looking to be a contradictory know it all here , but the FCC most certainly does do "type acceptance" on receivers . Since all receivers , even to this day , operate on the "superhetrodyne" protocol , and since that method employs a "local oscillator" to mix with and convert the incoming signal to an "intermediate frequency" , the possibility exists (and was a HUGE problem in radio's early days) that the local oscillator can actually transmit it's own frequency* from the receiving antenna and disrupt neighboring reception . This is why you will see on the "part 15 compliance statement" words to the affect that "this device can not interfere with and must accept the interference of any other device" .

If you do a quick search of FCC part 15 and specifically target "Unintentional radiators" you will see that any device employing a local oscillator can indeed become a source of interference if not designed correctly and thus the FCC part 15 type acceptance . This covers receivers of all types , TV , Radio , Data , etc .

Believe it or not , part 15 is SO stringent that if a neighbor's vacuum cleaner is interfering with your TV reception , and a friendly talk doesn't produce results , a part 15 complaint to the FCC will result in the neighbor being told to either fix or replace the vacuum cleaner throwing the RFI or face fines for the (now) intentional disruption of a legal communication broadcast .

For years the established local oscillator frequency for broadcast band AM radio has been 455 KHZ and for FM radio it is 10.7 MHZ

BarracudaHockey

My Feedback: (11)

Fascinating. Learning something every day.

init4fun

Me too !

Radio has been a lifelong hobby and I still learn something new every time I research some operating principle or other , and believe me I was amazed when I first read part 15 as to just how strict it is . I guess the bottom line to the FCC is that they have say over anything that emits RF energy or could possibly emit RF , be it intentional or unintentional , and since electric motors (especially with brushes that bring power to the armature) can indeed emit RFI they too fall under part 15 . Do you know of today's so called "switching power supplies" , where a couple of transistor's duty cycle is used to regulate power rather than using a big (expensive) iron core copper winding transformer ? Since those transistors are pulsed many times per second they can become unintentional emitters of RF and indeed many cases of poor radio reception can be traced to the spurious RF being thrown off by poorly designed & built switching power supplies , which are now in everything from your laptop power cable to modern LED lightbulbs (The CFLs were especially bad for throwing RFI) .

PS , Happy Thanksgiving to you Andy and to all our fellow RCU posters

franklin_m

As a lifelong tactical EW guy, going after the LO is a very simple and effective jamming technique.