Club Bans 35 MHz

[Piper Cub]

Most causes of 'interference' on 27meg, 35meg and 2.4gig, are down to the pilot or pilots not following simple rules.

 

35meg made flying safer ompared to 27meg as there was not interference from CB radio. But, there were still problems with 35 meg when two people tried to fly on the same frequency at the same time or, interference from adjacent channels etc.

 

When 2.4gig came out, nearly every crash was put down to interf in reality, it was pilots not charging flight packs properly, not siting RX aerials properly or not positioning the TX aerial correctly.

 

One would think the banning of any activity in a club was democratic and a majority decision. But, having been active in both flight and car RC clubs, I know that one or two bully boys \ loudmouths frequently force their way on others.

 

[Delta Whiskey]

Agree with you all that this is a stupid decision and as mentioned there is still the human error, one of which happened only 2 days ago at my club with a brand new 2.4 ghz DX 8 system.

 

A brand new model too and setup by an experienced flyer, done all the checks (except one) checked and rechecked the aircraft controls, expo etc, COG all ok engine tuned and checked nose up........you get the idea - took off did half a circuit and then shouted out that he had lost control........aircraft heading directly over the pits when he got control back and managed to bring it round for a quick landing.

 

RX light flashing indicating loss of signal, guess what he forgot the check .....RANGE ! Around 10 steps away the TX lost the signal in reduced power mode, it should be 30 paces away ! After binding another TX to the same RX it worked fine, telling us it was the brand new 2.4 DX8 at fault !

at the end of the day it comes down to the pilot to do all safety checks no matter what system is being used........who said 2.4 was safe !  My feeling is that 2.4 has allowed complancy to creep in !

 

Edited By Delta Whiskey on 12/12/2011 19:57:40

[Andy Gates]

Agree with most of the posts before this one, especially with DW and complacencyor laziness.

 

I have only ever suffered 1 glitch with 35MHz which was due to poor placement of the reciever on my behalf.

Never had an issue with 27MHz, 35MHz or 2.4GHz.

 

However I have seen others blame radio issues for their own errors.

 

Such as?

Experienced flier running a fast downwind approach over trees prior to a downwind run over the runway. The plane did not make the runway, in fact it did not make it past the end of the trees. The down wind "pull" of the airflow managed to pull the plane through the last of the trees, destroying the plane. Radio to blame of course.

 

Same place, machines losing control on the approach run to the runway.

The radios blamed due to a barbed wire fence crossing the approach.

In truth it was more likely to be the airflow from the runway hitting the edge of sanding wheat crop causing the planes to lift in the changing airflow.

 

 

[Tim Mackey]

Posted by Delta Whiskey on 12/12/2011 19:49:24:

Agree with you all that this is a stupid decision and as mentioned there is still the human error, one of which happened only 2 days ago at my club with a brand new 2.4 ghz DX 8 system.

 

A brand new model too and setup by an experienced flyer, done all the checks (except one) checked and rechecked the aircraft controls, expo etc, COG all ok engine tuned and checked nose up........you get the idea - took off did half a circuit and then shouted out that he had lost control........aircraft heading directly over the pits when he got control back and managed to bring it round for a quick landing.

 

RX light flashing indicating loss of signal, guess what he forgot the check .....RANGE ! Around 10 steps away the TX lost the signal in reduced power mode, it should be 30 paces away ! After binding another TX to the same RX it worked fine, telling us it was the brand new 2.4 DX8 at fault !

at the end of the day it comes down to the pilot to do all safety checks no matter what system is being used........who said 2.4 was safe ! My feeling is that 2.4 has allowed complancy to creep in !

Edited By Delta Whiskey on 12/12/2011 19:57:40

I note you say "a flashing light indicating loss of signal"

Not on a Spektrum system it doesnt - that signifies brown out.

[Andy Symons]

The rights or wrongs of banning 35MHz are pretty irrelevent in this case. the only thing that matters is was this introduced in a constitutional way. If it was you have the choice of going 2.4GHz or leaving the club. If not you have to decide how much you want to fight it, no reason why you cannot carry on flying on 35MHz if it wasn't constitutional.

[Wingman]

35MHz is the only frequency band reserved exclusively for RC aircraft use - I don't see how any RC flying club can have the right to ban its use.

[Turbycat]

All I can say is that the only interference problems I've seen at my field are with 2.4 spektrum stuff. There is a patch (on long finals) from the east that seems to affect only spectrum 2.4. Futaba is fine! All the 35MHz stuff works fine. However, as everyone else says if this is a democratic decision then that will have to be abided by. I currently fly 2.4 but still have 35MHz that I would like to use as it is still a legal form of radio control!

 

[Erfolg]

Andy

 

Although I understand your position, I do feel that it would be better to press for a vote of club members, rather than a unilateral ratcheting up of emotions by flying 35.

 

If there was a vote by members, in a free vote, the result must be accepted. I too would then look for another club.

 

If this is an action by the so called executive, however done, I would press for a democratic vote. If the membership is accepting of an executive vote, again I would leave.

 

Although I could not do it, I do believe that good politics and a calm head is required to sweep away tin pot dictatorships.

 

I am seriously considering if I can stay in my club and the BMFA due to the unilateral increase in membership fees by £2 by the BMFA. No reference to the membership overall. I was once was told that the USSR communist party had elections of officials, yet it was still not a democracy.

 

Bring Democracy into Modelling.

 

 

 

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Posted by Wingman on 12/12/2011 22:38:11:

35MHz is the only frequency band reserved exclusively for RC aircraft use - I don't see how any RC flying club can have the right to ban its use.

 

I sympathise with your frustration Wingman - I think its daft as well. But as I - and now several others have pointed out - if this was a decision taken within the constitution of the club, and with proper proceedure, then I'm afraid they have every right! It is their club.

 

If some don't like the constitution and/or proceedures then change them via a vote at the AGM or an EGM.

 

However, if the decision was taken outside of the club's constitution then that, of course, is a horse of a different colour

 

BEB

 

[Andy Symons]

Posted by Erfolg on 12/12/2011 22:39:20:

Andy

 

Although I understand your position, I do feel that it would be better to press for a vote of club members, rather than a unilateral ratcheting up of emotions by flying 35.

 

If there was a vote by members, in a free vote, the result must be accepted. I too would then look for another club.

 

If this is an action by the so called executive, however done, I would press for a democratic vote. If the membership is accepting of an executive vote, again I would leave.

 

Although I could not do it, I do believe that good politics and a calm head is required to sweep away tin pot dictatorships.

 

I am seriously considering if I can stay in my club and the BMFA due to the unilateral increase in membership fees by £2 by the BMFA. No reference to the membership overall. I was once was told that the USSR communist party had elections of officials, yet it was still not a democracy.

 

Bring Democracy into Modelling.

 

I agree it would be better to get a vote of club members rather than carry on flying on 35MHz, it is however by no means clear whether there has already been a vote of the members or not. It is always better to try and find a "negotiated" way forward if possible.

 

I assume the club has a constitution and if it was followed theres little that can be done.

 

The £2 BMFA subs increase was hardly unilateral, the recommendation from the treasurer agreed by full council was for a £1 increase. The proposal for £2 came from the floor at the AGM and was accepted democratically. (According to the BMFA constitution.)

Edited By Andy Symons on 12/12/2011 23:05:35

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

I read the OP on the other thread and Phil's introduction as that the committee made this particular decision which he personally disagreed with and was out-voted at a committee meeting. As several people have said, this is a matter for Phil's club to resolve within its constitution but I feel that the implications of this type of rule becoming widely adopted do need discussing.

 

Phil, perhaps you could let us know whether there's any widespread feeling against this ruling within your membership or whether they've accepted it without many objections and/or voted to accept it?

 

 

Edited By Martin Harris on 12/12/2011 23:19:54

[Erfolg]

Andy

 

The process you describe can be related to many regimes that are far from democratic. Perhaps a better model would be the Swiss Canton system, after all we are a small organisation. We can find the resources to elect the autocracy, so maybe a system that gives all members a voice on matters which affect all.

[Andy Symons]

Posted by Erfolg on 13/12/2011 08:50:07:

Andy

 

The process you describe can be related to many regimes that are far from democratic. Perhaps a better model would be the Swiss Canton system, after all we are a small organisation. We can find the resources to elect the autocracy, so maybe a system that gives all members a voice on matters which affect all.

It is by no means a utopic democracy, but suggestions its an autocracy is just wrong. Subs going up £2 instead of £1 immediately dissproves this, don't forget your autocracy was suggesting £1, it was the membership that bothered to turn up to the AGM that suggested and voted for £2. I assume you ensured your club was represented at the AGM?

 

If you are finding the £2 raise in subs a concern I would suggest that finding the resources for a 1 member 1 vote on eveything may just be more of a concern.

 

Anyway back on topic, did Big Phil's club introduce this constitutionally or not??

[Ultymate]

Whatever the club's constitution I suspect it would be hard to reverse this as from what I've seen at most clubs that I've visited most members are by now flying 2.4 with a natural decline in 35Mhz. This in no way justifies this decision but I think even if you managed to force a vote /poll via AGM or EGM you might struggle to get enough votes onboard to reverse the decision.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Does the fact that someone uses 2.4 GHz stop them having an opinion on the matter? It rather depends on whether the membership has already been consulted and how the proposal is/was put.

 

Re. the BMFA subs. and democracy, I can confirm, via the report from our club representative, that the original proposal was revised from the floor after being presented with the facts and figures and it was adopted by a democratic vote from those clubs which were able to send representatives. This option was open to all clubs/members.

[Ultymate]

Martin I just think that the guys that have already switched to 2.4 are far less likely to be opinionated on this issue and likely to treat it with the indifference common amongst homosapians

[Ultymate]

This double posting on this forum is getting on my wick!

Edited By Ultymate on 13/12/2011 10:49:05

[kc]

I dont agree with banning 35 mhz as I fly on that too. However there are several disadvantages as already stated, forgetting to get the peg, forgetting to put the aerial up and maniacs deliberately causing interference etc. However the biggest justifcation would be that very few people have bought new 35 mhz gear in the last couple of years, so it's all older stuff now. When reliability is everything newer gear should be more reliable. Especially nicads, and its often so expensive to buy a Tx Nicad ( older different shape packs ) that people dont bother.

The trouble is that some people spend so much money on a fancy Tx that they wont dump it if it becomes unreliable. Thats why I advocate buying a basic Tx of a reliable make ( say a Futaba 6EX or similar ) and if it shows the least glitch dump it and buy new.

[Delta Whiskey]

Thanks Tim for correcting me earlier on that of a brown out on the DX8 system rather than a signal loss as I stated, though I still do not see the difference (sure I will be told here) in that the end result was the same with a dangerously large aircraft out of control flying over our heads!

Fubbie man myself.....so never experinced it....ssshh

[Tim Mackey]

Well I don't want to get off topic ( which we already are I fear ) but the difference is actually major.

A brown out ( which is where the receiver voltage dips below minimum required and has NOTHING to do with signal whatsoever ) is hardly likely to be even noticed by the pilot during normal flight - the regaining of control is pretty well instantaneous, and would, I dare to suggest, be VERY unlikley to cause a crash.The very reason Spektrum instigated the slow flashing LED to alert the pilot after he lands, is for exactly that reason...he wouldnt have even known about it otherwise!

Signal loss - a whole different animal, where loss of control is quite likely to las a significant time. I have tested reconnection times with spektrum sets on the slope - by flying a long way out, up high, and up wind of course. Switching off the transmitter, and then switching back on again instantly, results in regain of control in anything from around 3 seconds , up to 10 seconds. The delay depends upon, amongst other factors, how long it takes for the tx to rescan the airways and acquire and lock onto - two free channels.

Of course, in practice, signal loss - if it occurs - is more likely to be because of signal path blocking, or faulty equipment, in which case, re-control might not even happen at all.

Incidentally, being a fuby man does not exclude you from either of the above two potential problems - but now we are seriously off topic - and in dangerous waters

Edited By Tim Mackey on 13/12/2011 12:10:26

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Posted by kc on 13/12/2011 11:02:13:

However the biggest justifcation would be that very few people have bought new 35 mhz gear in the last couple of years, so it's all older stuff now. When reliability is everything newer gear should be more reliable.

Actually, it's an accepted fact that typically, failures are most likely on new equipment, followed by a period of stable operation and a gradual deterioration in reliability at an advanced age - usually more related to mechanical wear and age related material degredation so I'd suggest that reasonably recent 35 MHz gear (say 10 years old or less although quality gear can operate reliably for much longer than this) is likely to be in the stable period. So no real justification to abandon 35 MHz gear just yet!

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Posted by Martin Harris on 13/12/2011 12:13:17:

Actually, it's an accepted fact that typically, failures are most likely on new equipment, followed by a period of stable operation and a gradual deterioration in reliability at an advanced age - usually more related to mechanical wear and age related material degredation so I'd suggest that reasonably recent 35 MHz gear (say 10 years old or less although quality gear can operate reliably for much longer than this) is likely to be in the stable period. So no real justification to abandon 35 MHz gear just yet!

 

Yeap, the so-called "bathtub" curve - most failures either occur at the start or the end of a product's life.

 

And now we're even further off topic - mods not having a good day so far!

 

BEB

[Lee Smalley]

10 pounds that poor old tim is sick and tired of the brown out vs signal loss issue lol it seem that no one reads the instructions that comes with our stuff, ps just as guilty recently found my new spekky rx has a frame loss indicator as well, i thought it had suffered a brown out till i read the manual...ooops, back on thread, i have to be of the opinion that this was voted on at he AGM, as such a change as this to the constitution should require a majority vote of the members, i generally find that such poor decisions are made by people who lack the full knowledge or can't be bothered finding out the root cause, so the easy cop out is to just ban it (sound familiar tim) either way its just poor legislation

[Peter Beeney]

I seem to remember Phil’s other thread about this one but I don’t know where it is. If, as Martin says, this was a committee decision, decided by a majority vote, as per the club rule book, then this surely must be all legal and aboveboard? Then maybe the only discourse would be an EGM, but would this be on the grounds of how and why the rule was instigated, rather than the rule itself? It might become a bit clearer, perhaps, if the complete and exact circumstances of this rule change were posted here.

I’m personally not sure that this is ever going to become a big issue, though. I can’t think that overall there is a strong inclination for this type of rule, within clubs at least, and to agree with others I think eventually 35 will be in a small minority, if not already, and generally speaking is anyone going to have an issue with that? Having said that, I have heard recently a little rumour that another club might be talking about something thing like this, but for completely different reasons, and it would just be very much a mutual agreement amongst the members anyway.

With regard to rule changes taking place, I do know for certain fact that a type of absolute ‘one man band’ rule can exist, in some cases with total overriding control; if someone is in a position to be able to wipe out the flying field on a whim then that’s a very strong hand indeed; as I’ve mentioned before, the ‘Old Boy’s Network’ and other such hush hush societies can play a big part; and it also can happen to some extent in a larger size club, simply because of the complacency of the members, and I can well understand that. I’ve been there, too!

Clubs can have their strange idiosyncrasies, seen that more than once, as well. Seems like most of the time, in fact. There is a brief note from Manny Williamson in the BMFA News on this very subject, Club Problems (again), this is one area that I do entirely agree with him about; it’s certainly a good idea to have crystal clear rules, hopefully well thought out and sensible, also that everyone knows them; and in general, the fewer, the better.

Also in the News there is a briefing that the Insurance has been significantly updated, for anyone that’s not managed to read it yet. One of the most notable things for me is that the age related issues have been dropped. I’m now in that area! I wondered it this explains the £2 increase? Or partly, anyway. I would agree with Andy Symonds on this one, at the moment this has to be decided at the BMFA AGM by the members present at the time.

From kc’s post, the possibility of the forgotten peg, aerial down, etc. I quite agree, but you can get over this to some extent. By coincidence, wherever I’ve flown, I’ve always used a tombstone, that always in the box so it doesn’t get forgotten; I’ve very rarely used a peg! Forgotten to put the aerial up? I use a rubber duck type, I’ve never had the slightest problem with that. Shooting someone down? My Tx has Channel Check, when I switch on it sniffs the airwaves first and if anyone else is operating on my frequency the rf. won’t switch on. So I can’t shoot anyone down, even if I wanted to! It’s never worked in anger though, only for a few demonstrations in the early days. The tx is now about 17 years old, and I’m sure if I returned it it to MPX for service they would send it back as new, but I suspect I might change to 2.4 next year anyway. My take on the batteries is that some old Ni-MH’s can be very reliable, and on the odd occasion a new one can be unreliable.

To get right back on track, I do also agree that, on the face of it, this does seem an unusual ruling. There must be some significant underlying reason, I would have thought.

PB

Edited By Peter Beeney on 13/12/2011 16:31:25

[Phil May]

Wow, what a response.

 

I did not know what to expect from this, but one thing is for sure, no other member of this forum has said that they're club has banned 35MHz.

Our club announced the ban a couple of months ago and I am not aware of any one complaining, as strange as it may sound.

 

I would say 90% of our members are already on 2.4 (we have approx 90 members) so maybe the remanding 10% were about to change and this was the push they needed - who knows!!

 

We have had, as Steve Houghton 1 mentioned earlier, a couple of areas where there have been issues, but nothing in my opinion to totally put the blame on interference on 35.

 

I am waiting to see what happens after the new year, I personally will find it difficult, as a committee member, to tell a flyer that he is not able to fly on his 35MHz, but then again he will know this when he/she renews they're membership....

 

Phil