Jump to content

D8 mode reciever(s) V8FR-II and EU LBT Taranis X9D


Nigel Sharp
 Share

Recommended Posts

I have a number of old V8FR-II recievers installed in some pre 2014 slope soarers.

 

My question relates to the legalities of flying with those non-telemetry recievers using Taranis X9D (2014 build but firmware upgraded to EU-LBT) with OpenTX I can uncheck the "EU" mode and that lets me set a model memory to D8 mode which then enables me to bind the old reciever(s) but is that now still legal?

 

I also have a JR9XII equipped with a DJT FrSky module purchased around 2012/2013 which can set to D8 mode. It has also been flashed to EU-LBT mode same question will this still be legal?

 

I'm not sure of grandfather rules in the case of updated firmware in hardware manufactured pre "EU" non D8 Telemetry requirement.

 

Seeking advice from the collective members...

 

There is nothing wrong with my Radio it performs perfectly for my needs, and new Rx(s) are being purchase in EU-LBT mode so I've no requirement to upgrade the Transmitter etc.

But would like to resurect some of my slopers from storage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, this is from memory and going back a while, but IIRC: The new EU rules were implemented in January, 2015. Anything manufactured before that date has "grandfather" and can continue to use the old protocols quite legally. Since both your sets were manufactured before January 2015, you can legally operate on D8/V8.

 

The rules make no mention of firmware flashing, its just that manufacturing date that matters.

 

In fact, some sets sold post Jan 2015 are also legal, as those that had already entered the "supply chain" were allowed to be sold. Again, it is the manufacture date that is critical.

 

Note: I am not a lawyer and this is from memory, but I'm pretty certain it is correct. It is how I operate, anyway! ?

 

--

Pete

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Peter Christy said:

OK, this is from memory and going back a while, but IIRC: The new EU rules were implemented in January, 2015. Anything manufactured before that date has "grandfather" and can continue to use the old protocols quite legally. Since both your sets were manufactured before January 2015, you can legally operate on D8/V8.

 

The rules make no mention of firmware flashing, its just that manufacturing date that matters.

 

In fact, some sets sold post Jan 2015 are also legal, as those that had already entered the "supply chain" were allowed to be sold. Again, it is the manufacture date that is critical.

 

Note: I am not a lawyer and this is from memory, but I'm pretty certain it is correct. It is how I operate, anyway! ?

 

 

Yep, I agree with all that. The short summary is that you are perfectly ok if operating on kit that was legal at the point of sale, which all yours was. What I have never been able to udnerstand is how Frsky dealers get away with selling the DJT after all this time, especially as it no longer has a valid CE cert...  https://www.t9hobbysport.com/frsky-djt-2.4ghz-jr-telemetry-transmitter-module

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MattyB said:

What I have never been able to udnerstand is how Frsky dealers get away with selling the DJT after all this time, especially as it no longer has a valid CE cert...  https://www.t9hobbysport.com/frsky-djt-2.4ghz-jr-telemetry-transmitter-module

Again, I am not a lawyer, but I suspect there is an arguable case that if the transmitter into which it is inserted was made before Jan 2015, then the grand-father rights carry over.

 

Remember, its not only our kit that is affected by this, but all those 2.4GHz plug-in modules for computer wifi, etc. I never see any arguments about those, though I'm dubious as to whether some of them meet the current specs.

 

This whole mess started because the original 2.4 GHz regulations were drafted so badly. There was so much confusion over them that a senior EU Panjandrum was drafted in to sort them out. He basically told the original drafters to go back to the drawing board, without making anything then available illegal. Having had their noses put well and truly out of joint, they dutifully did exactly what he had told them NOT to do!

 

And here we are!

 

?

 

--

Pete

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Matt/Peter,

 

Thanks for those answers I can use D8 for my old Reveivers as both the TX and XJT module show manufacture date 2014 and 2012 respectfully.

 

But I'll ensure all new FrSky X or S series recievers are EU-LBT and bound in EU D16 etc.

 

I am only disappointed that JR were in a mess then went under my as my orginal 35Mhz 9XII is and remains a great set with XJT module.

 

Nigel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Nigel Sharp said:

I am only disappointed that JR were in a mess then went under my as my orginal 35Mhz 9XII is and remains a great set with XJT module.

 

Nigel

I'll second that! Still got my 9X (the original one) and a DSX-9 still both giving good service...

 

--

Pete

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Peter Christy said:

Again, I am not a lawyer, but I suspect there is an arguable case that if the transmitter into which it is inserted was made before Jan 2015, then the grand-father rights carry over.

 

Remember, its not only our kit that is affected by this, but all those 2.4GHz plug-in modules for computer wifi, etc. I never see any arguments about those, though I'm dubious as to whether some of them meet the current specs.

 

No, unfortunately there really isn't any argument to be had - all modules and TXs require a valid CE certificate to be sold, and the DJT no longer has one (it was removed in 2015 when the regs changed and Frsky did not get another one as they knew it could not legally pass, but despite that they have continued to sell it). The XJT has one but the DJT does not, and there is no way that this is "old stock" 7 years on. Your argument that illegal wifi kit is being sold today is undoubtedly true, but that doesn't really excuse Frsky IMO.

 

 

"Products that need CE marking
CE marking is mandatory, but only for those products which are covered by the scope of one or more of the New Approach Directives.

You can view the EC New Approach Directives guidance from the Europa website.

Even if your product is manufactured outside the EEA, you must ensure the product bears CE marking if your product comes under the scope of a directive requiring CE Marking. Not all products sold in the EU need to bear CE marking.

CE marking applies to products, ranging from electrical equipment to toys and from civil explosives to medical devices. The full list of these product categories is below:

 

  • ...radio and telecommunications terminal equipment..."

 

Only one conclusion can really be drawn; the thing I have never understood is why other manufacturers like HH have not pulled them up on it, they must be aware... ?

 

Edited by MattyB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, MattyB said:

...all modules and TXs require a valid CE certificate to be sold...

Again, I am not a lawyer, but I'm not sure that's true. They certainly need a valid CE cert to be USED, but that's not the same as being sold.

 

The seller could argue that they were for export to a country where they are legal - for example being bought by an American tourist. It would be very difficult to prove otherwise.

 

As an example, back in the days before 2.4 GHz came along, it was not uncommon for UK international competitors to have modules on 72/75 MHz for use in the USA, and some European countries. Totally illegal to use in the UK, but a valid reason for possession.

 

Cast your mind back to the days of CB radio. These were illegal to use, yet there were high street shops full of them. It was not illegal to buy or sell them, only to use them. I suspect that still holds today.

 

Whilst I don't condone lawbreaking, I also don't condone unenforceable laws and regulations. The changes made to the EU 2.4 GHz regulations were not only unenforceable in any meaningful way, but also pointless. If they were not pointless, "grandfather" rights would not exist, and pre-2015 equipment would have been banned.

 

--

Pete

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...