Serious 2.4Ghz Problem arising.

[leccyflyer]

Posted by TWilson on 08/04/2011 09:07:52:

Tom, I think you are a classic example of why FPV has a bad name, have you not read anything in recent posts? I don't want to be rude but there are so many 2.4ghz devises transmitting on far greater power than any FPV flyer is able to, just have a look on google and you will find loads of equipment far more powerful. Most, if not all the FPV flyers I have met have a got their Amature Licence, including myself, which make them, I no longer fly FPV, a pretty responsible group of people, as it is very technical and very expensive you will only get very dedicated and skillful people participating, those not so switched on will never get far. The classic RC plane flyer will always have a problem with people that fly anything different, this is why so many helicopter pilots get such a hard time.

 

Unfortunately FPV is here to stay, the BMFA and CAA will need to workout some proper guidelines but the levels of output from a video transmitter is tiny. How could you be concerned by a modeler flying a half watt tx a couple of miles away when there could be a radio ham with a 20w transmitter on the same frequency much closer.

 

 

The reason that FPV flyers have got a bad name is entirely because of the activities of FPV flyers and the manner in which FPV flying is promoted.

 

All too often that consists of videos being posted of FPV flights at several thousand feet and several kilometers away from the pilot, which demonstrate, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the pilot is not capable of practising the "see and avoid" methods which are required by aircraft operating beyond visual range.

 

Reference to the Black Sheep "Trappy" and his antics seem to attempt to suggest that he is the only renegade FPV flyer out there, but there have been a number of videos posted which show activity that is foolhardy at best and downright dangerous to other users of the airspace at worst . These videos stay on the internet until someone points out that a video of an FPV model, looking down onto a passing light GA twin, carrying actual human beings on board, is probably not a good idea. At that point the videos are either taken down, or made"private view" only.

 

Other videos have shown long range lights, at high altitude, made well beyond visual range and which place the FPV flight firmly outside of the operation of a model aircraft and well into the territory of a UAV, with the much more stringent regulations required for that type of flight.

 

The BMFA and CAA have worked out proper guidelines for the practise of FPV. They've been published for at least 18 months now. The self-styled national body of FPV has railed against those guidelines since their inception. They remain, however, the guidelines that the CAA would undoubtedly use in the event of any prosecution should one of those FPV aircraft be in collision with another aircraft, carrying a person or persons or if it were involved in any sort of incident that was prosecutable under the ANO.

[Tom Wright 2]

Tom .

I have read the previous posts , and i am not quite as vintage as you may think , although i am over 65 that does not make me a closed minded dinosaur.

I have also spent many years in telecommunications so i understand the technical knowledge necessary to be a registered ham ,but most R/C modelers do not have a technical background so surly you can understand why they they might have concerns when they see posts from FPV pilots and accounts as posted by leccy .

What would happen if a group of vintage pilots started using 500mw tx and infringing airspace ? surly it would cause concern amongst the the mainstream,so its not necessarily question of the technicalities and who might shot who down, i am a private pilot so like many others who are also RC modelers some concern about aspects of FPV operations is bound to appear.

This is not FPV bashing its the mainstream looking for reassurance that fellow enthusiasts in the flying world are following the same rules and laws ,as them ,an the established part of the hobby maintains its generally good reputation.

The forgoing is just my take on the stuff that has apeared on this forum ,there is bound to be other opinions.

 

TW2.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Tom Wright 2]

So Eric can we now be utterly confident that 2.4 is totally immune to any sort of interference?.

 

TW2.

Edited By tom wright 2 on 10/04/2011 01:15:10

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Boots]

Well I was very surprised when R/C moved to 2.4Ghz because some 10 years ago when I worked in electronics, catalogues were full of ready built modules tx and rx for general purpose project development, they were very cheap too , seemed like a very busy band to use !!!

Also regarding legal !! from the little I know of the law it seems you can manufacture , sell , import and purchase without problem , it is only when the item is used or operated that a law is broken, this of course depends upon local laws and regulations which in this case I doubt have a GLOBAL standard.

Is there a EU standard for 2.4Ghz and fpv ?

I live in Cyprus now and I believe R/C frequenceies are only recomended and not regulated by law ,as a result shops will buy anything they can find cheap and flog it. I have seen on sale 26, 27,35,36,40,72 Mhz rtf planes. Having said that most R/C modellers in Cyprus seem to be Engish and we self regulate to the recommended frequencies , same as uk.

Dont forget manufacturers produce for a global market and not just the UK.

 

Interesting thing I have just noticed, I have a dynam 36 Mhz tx and it has a "CE" label,surely this means it is "E" marked and can be sold in the EU . To the best of my knowledge 36Mhz is only used in Australia .

PS I adjusted the rf stage to work on 35Mhz

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Don't (or didn't) France use 36 MHz?

[Pete B]

26-27, 35, 40, 41, 72Mhz in use in France for all types of models, some specific to aero - nothing in 36Mhz range, Martin.

 

Pete

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Erfolg]

I bought a Harmonica from Lidl, so that the grandchildren could annoy their parents. It had a CE mark, as did a packet of clothes pegs. It all seems a nonsense to me the CE mark.

 

If I need to know, just tell which bit of legislation the thing complies with.

 

As for 2.4, I will continue to use it, until I really know there is a problem.

[i12fly]

There's alot more to CE marking, it just depends on what it is. Simple toys may be 'test yourself' because the regulations they have to comply with are few, and I agree it does downgrade the value, but the more complex the beast and the more third party testing is involved. Bear in mind that adding a CE mark is a legal statement that says the 'thingy' complies with all relevant BS and EN standards that are relevant and can be a lifetimes work.

When the CE mark was introduced a religious sect objected (not sure which one) because with the curved E the CE it was very similar to the hoof mark used by ancient devil worshippers. Perhaps they had a point....

[John Major]

I saw this thread a few months ago and I want to clear up a few things about this myth.

1) Almost nobody flies on 2.4Ghz video ,because they use a 2.4 Ghz transmitter link and at very very close range this causes problems.

2) I have been to FPV meetings ( these do occur) and we have zero problems with people using video on 2.4ghz at the same time as people using it for control. So it doesn't cause problems anyway.

3) Most people who do FPV in the uk are now using 5.8Ghz for video as the antennas are small and the RF equipment is cheap.

I am happy to answer any questions, there are a lot of myths around FPV spouted on here.

We have had over 10 people flying FPV at the same time with zero inteference problems. The thing with FPV is that there are only so many channels you can use, we have 4 in 5.8 and maybe 2 or 3 in the other bands, 1.2ghz and 900mhz. All these frequencies are completly seperate from 2.4 control links and of course I advise anyone to use a frequency hopping transmiter.

Edited By John Major on 05/06/2012 17:45:14

[Daithi O Buitigh]

What's more likely to have FPV banned in the long run is the complete disregard for any regulations that are there by some people (I'm not including everyone in this - just the show offs). RFI is the least of the problems that are being faced

When you have videos posted of flying close to spectators in an area where model flying is banned, other videos flying round city buildings, people posting (on another forum) loking for suggestions as to how to 'break their personal record of 3055 metres altitude' then things are starting to get out of hand and the usual reaction when that happens is a blanket ban.

Try to point out that what they are doing is illegal and you get all sorts of abuse and comments like "we're trying to push the boundary so we can get clearance". That will never happen - CAA regs are being flouted and if people start flying in excess of 10,000 feet, it's only a matter of time before a model has a mid-air with a full size plane - and the resultant publicity will have very far reaching repercussions

[Aaron Stevens]

i took out a fpv plane, i was flying one of my old trainers and i was using 35mhz system and so was he and 2.4g for the video, he had taken off without checking anyone was on the field, 2 guys lost signal to there war birds in mid air and i had massive radio probs because he was was on 88 i was on 89, and my nice vintage irvine 40 on full song ate his plane and i got my full range of signal back and the 2 guys and there war birds got down safe, i lost chunks out of the prop and fuse and some wing damage i deemed it unworth fixing after the 2 guys flying the war birds came to my aid and landed the plane for me while the guy was screaming that it was my fault for the mid air and demanding i pay for the damages to his plane, to the point i was getting very angry as he almost cost 3 people to lose there planes over his stupidity, he collected what he could of his gear and got in his landy and drove off, i checked the field for anything he left behind as its private land and i told the owner i would always check it and clean up when i am there, i got a reciver that was mangled and some servo fragments that looked cheap and nasty.....

DO I LIKE FPV FLYERS......NO!

i now have 1 plane left to fly this year :/

[Barryorbik]

Unfortunately the CE mark is not policed well in Europe and I am not aware of a single prosecution having taken place as a result of its false application. In my job I have inspected all sorts of potentially lethal or very poor quality electronic products, normally originating from 'exotic' shores but they all have the CE marks applied. When the manufatcurers of these products are eventually found they usually cannot produce any evidence of compliance with the product standards that apply.

A phrase I often use is that CE now stands for 'Chinese Export' , so my advice is only to buy your electronics from reputable manufacturers, who will deal responsibly with any after sales problems or quality issues that arise.

Barry

[Barrie Dav 2]

Pete B,

Any news on the lifting of the French regs regarding the 2.4Ghz limits Pete? I understood that the restrictions were to be done away with by June.

[flytilbroke]

The range of frequencies now used and the much better electroniocs have increased the safety and safe use of models fitted with FPV. Some "myths" did have grounding in practical fact, and I for one am delighted that the use of FPV has really begun to come of age.

I am sorry that some, only a few, FPV users choose to flout the advice/law given for safe usage.

[Pete B]

Posted by Barrie Dav 2 on 06/06/2012 16:20:14:

Pete B,

Any news on the lifting of the French regs regarding the 2.4Ghz limits Pete? I understood that the restrictions were to be done away with by June

The FFAM site is still showing the limitation, Barrie. I thought it was going to be the end of June/early July - but this is France, of course......

Pete

[Daithi O Buitigh]

The problem is the gutter press doesn't distinguish between careful people and the couldn't care less brigade. One accident involving a model aircraft using FPV and they will scream for it to be shut down completely (there's always a knee-jerk reaction unfortunately and certain tabloids will sensationalise anything - their motto is 'never let the facts get in the way of a story'

ONE single reported incident of a model aircraft straying into controlled airspace will probably be enough to start the frenzy and unfortunately we're the ones who will suffer (the couldn't care less bunch will probably ignore any new restrictions anyway)