Go Back  RCU Forums > RC Airplanes > M.A.A.C.
Reload this Page >

Resolving close fields interference issues

Notices
M.A.A.C. Discuss Model Aeronautics Association of Canada policies, decisions & any other MAAC related topics here.

Resolving close fields interference issues

Old 05-02-2006, 11:53 AM
  #1  
DSLarkin
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Picton, ON, CANADA
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default Resolving close fields interference issues

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
Old 05-02-2006, 12:16 PM
  #2  
mmattockx
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Calgary, AB, CANADA
Posts: 2,428
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default RE: Resolving close fields interference issues

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
Old 05-02-2006, 12:21 PM
  #3  
adaptabl
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: tecumseh, ON,
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Resolving close fields interference issues

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.
Old 05-02-2006, 01:01 PM
  #4  
Propworn
My Feedback: (3)
 
Propworn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,325
Received 22 Likes on 19 Posts
Default RE: Resolving close fields interference issues

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
Old 05-02-2006, 01:05 PM
  #5  
Propworn
My Feedback: (3)
 
Propworn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,325
Received 22 Likes on 19 Posts
Default RE: Resolving close fields interference issues

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
Old 05-02-2006, 02:53 PM
  #6  
bbbair
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Sarnia, ON, CANADA
Posts: 966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Resolving close fields interference issues

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. [X(]
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... [&o]

We have a problem. []
Old 05-02-2006, 05:55 PM
  #7  
reo
My Feedback: (130)
 
reo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Millet, AB, CANADA
Posts: 398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Resolving close fields interference issues

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



Old 05-02-2006, 06:43 PM
  #8  
DSLarkin
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Picton, ON, CANADA
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Resolving close fields interference issues

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.
Old 05-02-2006, 06:59 PM
  #9  
bkind
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Napanee, ON, CANADA
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Resolving close fields interference issues


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



Old 05-02-2006, 09:44 PM
  #10  
bbbair
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Sarnia, ON, CANADA
Posts: 966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Resolving close fields interference issues

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... [&o]

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![:'(]
Old 05-02-2006, 10:47 PM
  #11  
Propworn
My Feedback: (3)
 
Propworn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,325
Received 22 Likes on 19 Posts
Default RE: Resolving close fields interference issues

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
Old 05-03-2006, 02:35 AM
  #12  
sfsjkid
 
sfsjkid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: fremont, CA
Posts: 592
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Resolving close fields interference issues

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
Old 05-03-2006, 08:31 AM
  #13  
DSLarkin
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Picton, ON, CANADA
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Resolving close fields interference issues

Thanks for the references.

The land is private property.
Old 05-03-2006, 08:35 AM
  #14  
adaptabl
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: tecumseh, ON,
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Resolving close fields interference issues

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.
Old 05-03-2006, 09:23 AM
  #15  
sfsjkid
 
sfsjkid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: fremont, CA
Posts: 592
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Resolving close fields interference issues

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?
Old 05-03-2006, 09:46 AM
  #16  
Propworn
My Feedback: (3)
 
Propworn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,325
Received 22 Likes on 19 Posts
Default RE: Resolving close fields interference issues

ORIGINAL: adaptabl

Driving over their airplanes would get you a visit to court.
Most likely it would. Not saying it was right or responsible just that things tend to get out of hand when the frustration level reaches a certain point. Remember they can do the same with the frequency checker as you have suggested. I wouldn't want someone sitting outside my club with one and using it to crash plane after plane.

It might be worth contacting the land owner and make him aware of MAAC being the governing body for model aviation. Bring with you our insurance policy showing where with registered fields the land owner is covered by insurance for claims against him where these guys do not provide him with the same coverage. In the event of an incident he could be named in any legal action. Show him a copy of the recommended distances between clubs to meet MAAC approval and explain the interference problem. Explain to him the increased risk of loss of control due to this interference. Also explain that you have tried to resolve this issue by offering to work out a solution with these fliers but to no avail. Explain that you are approaching him as a last resort first of all to make him aware of the insurance issues and second the lack of co-operation of those using his land with or without his permission. Explain to him that if this last measure fails to resolve the problem that your club has acted in a reasonable and prudent manner with the safety of the general public first and foremost in mind and are left with no choice but to inform MAAC head office by registered letter of which he will receive a copy outlining the problem and attempted solutions. In the case of an incident the courts may indeed look at the responsibilities of all parties involved and may take into consideration which party has the care and concern for the general public at the forefront of its base of operations.

Dennis
Old 05-03-2006, 10:28 AM
  #17  
Morison
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Calgary, AB, CANADA
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Resolving close fields interference issues

I would appeal to their interest in keeping their own planes in one piece.

Sailplanes tend to fly a bit further away from their transmitters than power pilots do (I've been over a KM away, with my glider but can't imagine being that far with a power plane), and if the winds are up for tight in slope flying, the power field is likely not operating. I do think the gliders are taking the bigger risk here.

That said, I would urge them to move towards a shared fewquency system that would see clear separation of chanels and notifications of 'abnormal' events that may involve shutting down the other field (fly-ins etc)

If cooperation is not forthcoming, a mention of wreckless endangerment might be worth while. Now that they are aware of the potential for radio interference, by or to them, to continue without making some arangement would be inviting disaster and they could bear some criminal responsibility. UNfortunately, this could apply to both clubs.

Clearly, by setting up a flying site so close to an existing club field, they are voiding their MAAC insurance - if they are MAAC members.
Old 05-03-2006, 10:34 AM
  #18  
reo
My Feedback: (130)
 
reo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Millet, AB, CANADA
Posts: 398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Resolving close fields interference issues

ORIGINAL: Morison

I would appeal to their interest in keeping their own planes in one piece.

Sailplanes tend to fly a bit further away from their transmitters than power pilots do (I've been over a KM away, with my glider but can't imagine being that far with a power plane), and if the winds are up for tight in slope flying, the power field is likely not operating. I do think the gliders are taking the bigger risk here.

That said, I would urge them to move towards a shared fewquency system that would see clear separation of chanels and notifications of 'abnormal' events that may involve shutting down the other field (fly-ins etc)

If cooperation is not forthcoming, a mention of wreckless endangerment might be worth while. Now that they are aware of the potential for radio interference, by or to them, to continue without making some arangement would be inviting disaster and they could bear some criminal responsibility. UNfortunately, this could apply to both clubs.

Clearly, by setting up a flying site so close to an existing club field, they are voiding their MAAC insurance - if they are MAAC members.
Good suggestions Keith, but as far as these guys being MAAC members.....FAT CHANCE!....Ron (I would think that these days MAAC members flying RC are in the minority in this country, but again, only my opinion.)
Old 05-23-2007, 12:10 PM
  #19  
perpetualrepair
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Victoria, BC, CANADA
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Resolving close fields interference issues

This situation will only get worst, more and more people are buying into the park flyer planes, typically they find a park and throw a plane, albeit mostly light foamies, without much thought as to where others are, then there are the clubs that restrict the membership to such a low number and high cost that the average joe on the street either cant afford it , or if they can and manage to join ,find they can hardly fly at all because of club restrictions or lack of instructors.and of course then you get the "Old Boys" clubs who just take one look at a prospective flier and put the cold shoulder on them for no more reason than they are young and fly electrics, or require some help to learn.
personally i think we are our own worst enemies in these cases, we have the ability in our clubs to be welcoming and helpful , but in all too many instances we don't , but then ***** and complain because someone who wants to fly does in "OUR SPACE"
Just my personal thoughts, i am a renegade i fly where ever i can find a piece of suitable ground, the only concession i make is a DX7 as a TX , that is my only option as i see given my location.
Old 04-03-2008, 08:58 AM
  #20  
byrocat
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aurora| Ontario, ON, CANADA
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Resolving close fields interference issues


ORIGINAL: DSLarkin

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.
Dave, did you get your problem with the4 rogue flyers solved?

FYI, check out the MAAC website for the insurance FAQ that might be of help when talking with the land-owner if the problem is still unresolved.


Old 04-03-2008, 09:27 AM
  #21  
bbbair
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Sarnia, ON, CANADA
Posts: 966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: Resolving close fields interference issues

I don't know if 'Resolved' is the right term, but the rogue flyers stopped showing up last summer and we didn't ask why...

Perhaps they found a better place to fly...? [sm=72_72.gif][sm=thumbs_up.gif]

So I guess it's Resolved...until they show up the next time.[&o]

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2022 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.