RCKen

My Feedback: (9)

There are laws covering this issue here in the US. Ihave provided you with the references to those laws. You can choose to ignore them if you wish, but that doesn't make them go away. The bare facts of the matter are that it is illegal in the US for the end user to change the crystals in their transmitter. Yes, many radios have the crystal easily accessable in the US. Many of these radios are sold worldwide and they aren't going to redesign the case simply for USsales. These companies found that if they put a spot of glue on the crystals they would comply with the portion of the law stating "user accessable". Yes, it is weak but that is the facts of the situation. But in the end it boils down to radios needing to be sent to a licensed repair facitily in order to have the crystal changed.

Ken

JIMF14D

Now you are a sea lawyer in addition to a tech genius on everything. Wonders never cease. Give it up.

dbcisco

With all due respect Ken, you posted nothing that I didn't already say.
You want to say it is law, go right ahead. You are misleading everyone.
BTW, there is no glue, have a few brand new Eflite FM TXes sitting in the basement to prove it. My brand new FM Futaba didn't have any glue either. Sounds like more rumors.
As an aside; since 2.4 Ghz isn't in part 95's list of frequencies allowed for R/C use I guess they are all illegal to.

Still waiting for that crystal change arrest documentation.
Never going to find it because it isn't a law.
Quit spreading rumors already.

Jim Schwagle

My Feedback: (1)

Any FCC reg has the force of law. That doesn't mean that if you ignore it they're going to come after you and arrest you. If, however it is ignored by enough people that it becomes a problem for licensed users, then, as the government usually does, it solves a small problem with a large sledge hammer approach.

RCKen

My Feedback: (9)

I'm not spreading any rumors. I gave you the applicable laws. You are more than welcome to look them up for yourself. US law is readily available online in many different locations. Nobody needs to point to where these laws have been enforced here in the US so that you can believe they are true. That's like telling the officer that just pulled you over that you don't believe in speed limits simply because you don' know of anybody that has gotten a ticket. The laws are in place and are valid here in the US.

Ken

dbcisco

Why are you repeating yourself? I already mentioned the FCC rules before you even posted. Yes, I have read them, several times. I think you have a different version of the English language as you seem to not grasp the definition of "should", let alone the legal standing of that term. Please prove your interpretation of part 95 by citing case law or quit calling me out on this.
Real easy, if you can find a single arrest or citation for someone changing their crystal then you are right. If you can't find one then you are wrong. End of story!
Please prove me wrong and not by repeating the same old quote from part 95.

BTW, you never did explain why 2.4Ghz isn't a part 95 listed R/C frequency. I know why but I bet you don't.

RCKen

My Feedback: (9)

DBCisco,
 No, this ends now. I have pointed out the regulations that cover this situation. You want to twist it so that you can continue to argue your point. However, I'm not going to play your games. You asked and the information has been provided. As I said, enforcement statistics or arrest records do not make the regulation in force or not in force. They are in place and we have to abide by them if we want to operate the radios that are covered by the regulations.

Ken

dbcisco

Yoou are a mod and yet you continue this flame war.
You are the one twisting the words of part 95 to fit your beliefs.
What is worse is that you are promulgating this rumor that has no backing.
I would be impressed if you could show one shred of evidence to back your reading of part 95 (which is your opinion not law).

coriolan

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_9843287/tm.htm

TLH101

My Feedback: (90)

This has been discussed in every R/C aircraft forum on the net, for years, and yes it is a "law". I cannot find it now, but FCC officials, (or those claiming to be), have stated so, on some boards.
I have seen it reported in the AMA magazine as "law", and since the AMA has privy to a lot of what happens with FCC concerning R/C radio operations, I would think they would know.
But since you been modeling for 3 years now, you would know more, than those, who have been around for many years, and been through some battles fought by AMA for dedicated R/C frequencies.

dbcisco

Yes, it has been done to death.
Never anything official ever posted except Part 95 and colorful interpretations thereof.
I would quit trying to debunk this myth if anyone ever had proof that my interpretation of the word "should" is wrong.
Show me on official document from the FCC that it is illegal to change crystals in an RC radio. I have contacted the FCC on this issue several times and got no response what-so-ever.

JIMF14D

Hopefully most RC guys have figured out it is more fun than to spend time flying than responding to your silly demands for "proof"!

dbcisco

It is always more fun to spread rumors than back them up, too.
All I see are rumors and nothing to back it up except an incompetent interpretation of the word "should".

"That depends on what the definition of "is" is." Ex-president and purgerer W. Clinton

dbcisco

According to the Idaho Supreme Court:
"The Idaho Supreme Court has held that the word “may� is a permissive term expressing a right of discretion, whereas, the words “must� or “shall� are mandatory. Rife v. Long, 127 Idaho 841, 848, 908 P.2d 143, 150 (1995). The Court has recently analyzed an Idaho Division of Highways regulation directing that single-approach driveways should intersect as closely as possible at right angles to the roadway. Neighbors for a Healthy Gold Fork v. Valley County, 145 Idaho 121, 134, 176 P.3d 126, 139 (2007). The Court held that, “although approaches should intersect as closely as possible to right angles, this language is not mandatory.� Neighbors, 145 Idaho at 134, 176 P.3d at 139. Likewise, we conclude that “should� is not a mandatory term. The word “should� is properly interpreted as an advisory term or strong recommendation."

Yup, I have no clue!

JIMF14D

And you never will.

dbcisco

Except that I can back my beliefs with case law!
So much for your crystal myth!
I guess being proved wrong makes you more clueless than me.

MetallicaJunkie

whats the big deal about this thread?

dbcisco

People like to make up their own laws and when someone calls them on it they get all huffy.
More people here seem to have stopped at the bar than "Passed the Bar".

andboy

My Feedback: (4)

At the risk of inflaming things.

If you have to take it apart to change the crystal, its a no no. (No user serviceable parts inside)

If it's a plug in module, containing the crystal, oscillator and other associated circuitry, it's OK.

I understand the issue regarding the word SHALL. I have the same problem at work. It's obvious to me dbcisco is an engineer who at some time has written procedures or test specs. Explaining SHALL vs SHOULD is simple but sometimes exasperating.

dbcisco

Thanks andboy! I always get flamed for brining it up, even when I back up my understanding of "should" with court decisions people still wan't to beleive the "RC experts". I am not saying that it is the best idea to mess with anything you know nothing about, but the "you will get arrested", "It's Illegal", "Life support systems use those frequencies too" ad naseum ad absurdinam gets tiresome.

Yes, I was an R&D Tech and Avionics inspector for Sikorsky Aircraft. I am certified to work on all kinds of equipment per the FCC "musts" and "shalls". The oft quoted Part 95 rule is a strong recommendation (from Supreme Court citation above) not a mandatory stipulation. It would be like the U.S. Dept. of Transportation saying "An ASE certified mechanic should check the fluids in your car." It would not make checking (or even changing) your own oil illegal.

Homebrewer

My Feedback: (8)

I worked for the government, the military, and have been a licensed Ham radio operator for 34 years and agree that "should' is not mandatory.

dbcisco

Thanks Homebrewer. Starting to think I was the only besides Supreme Court Justices who understood that.

dbcisco

Also found this tidbit on the FCC site:
"You do NOT need a commercial radio operator license to operate, repair, or maintain any of the following types of stations:

Two-way land mobile radio equipment, such as that used by police and fire departments, taxicabs and truckers, businesses and industries, ambulances and rescue squads, and local, state, and federal government agencies.
Personal radio equipment used in the Citizens Band (CB), Radio Control (R/C), and General Mobile Radio Services (GMRS).
Auxiliary broadcast stations, such as remote pickup stations.
Domestic public fixed and mobile radio systems, such as mobile telephone systems, cellular systems, rural radio systems, point-to-point microwave systems, multipoint distribution systems, etc.
Stations that operate in the Cable Television Relay Service.
Satellite stations, both uplink and downlink of all types. "

Backs up my statement that the "should" in Part 95 is not mandatory.

2boys

Oh God. Enter the uber-r/c twilight zone. I never said I was changing frequencies. I said I was buying/bought crystals. The exact match, as labeled on the gosh darn radio.

My point was that Hitec crystals were at one time rare as hens teeth when I bought the bloody transmitter. It came new, without crystals. At 10 bucks, it was a gift horse I was gonna look in the mouth. When I walked into my LHS (who is VERY reputable and well known) they all but laughed at me for having a Hitec. Selling crystals is not illegal. Buying crystals is not illegal. Replacing crystals is not illegal. Changing frequencies might be, but you show me the R/C transmitter frequency cop who's gonna enforce the obscure law governing it. They don't exist. Second and subsequent, show me the guy who's doing hard time, or paid a hefty fine to a federal court, for flying a remote control airplane on a changed frequency in the middle of nowhere Yuckersville USA. Another, doesn't exist situation.

As for federal law. Hey news flash. Every aspect of your life is governed by federal law. And everyone breaks one at least daily. All you walking egos waving your federal statutes better have you toilets tuned, and your A/C systems are properly charged and leak free. Hope you didn't tear that tag off your mattress either, or you're in BIG trouble. Yeah, many a hardened criminal are in the slammer now for that mattress job.

2.4 ghz radios? When they're $10, too. I'll buy one. Until then I'm not about to let someone else do the decision making for my money. JIMF14D, you have one of the worst attitude problems I've seen in a forum in a long time. You just keep stroking that ego of yours and being condescending. Keep playing the role of judge, jury, and executioner. Looks like you're making friends left and right.

Sport_Pilot

Not only that but this statement is also bluf,