Hello Fellow Yuneec Pilot!
Join our free Yuneec community and remove this annoying banner!
Sign up

Is your Controller FCC compliant?

Joined
Dec 1, 2018
Messages
199
Likes
92
Age
63
#21
Basically correct. We are not on their radar as it were. BTW, for the antenna thing, FCC fines can run up to $10,000 for every single time you turned on your device with an illegal antenna. That is worse case of course, but the FCC has been known to come down hard to make an example.

The FAA needs to enforce the BLOS operations more strictly as well to discourage flying like that. But do far the FAA has not seemed to be very keen on coming after drone pilots. At least not yet.
 
Joined
Oct 16, 2018
Messages
78
Likes
12
Location
AnywhereButOverThere
#22
obviously there are implications of not just power but of the radiation pattern of antennas used, the less width (more directed pattern) the less interference to other users and also a longer distance of usefulness for user.

so for instance, is it the beginning mw power that FCC limits, OR is it the irradiated energy at some std distance and across a width field, ie power envelope ?

dji did not state actual mw power (not in mw).

from conversion tool, 26dbm = .39810717055 watts = 398mw (both 2.4 & 5.8)

how does this compare with yuneec power used ?

from USA p4 pro specs page (of course ALWAYS UP TO distances - to place a distance it should be an actual measured distance, not theoretical, unless bogus PR bs)

Max Transmission Distance
2.400 - 2.483 GHz (Unobstructed, free of interference)
FCC: 4.3 mi (7 km)

CE: 2.5 mi (4 km)
SRRC: 2.5 mi (4 km)

5.725 - 5.850 GHz (Unobstructed, free of interference)
FCC: 4.3 mi (7 km)

CE: 1.2 mi (2 km)
SRRC: 3.1 mi (5 km)

Operating Temperature Range 32° to 104°F (0° to 40°C)

Transmitter Power (EIRP)
2.400 - 2.483 GHz
FCC: 26 dBm

CE: 20 dBm
SRRC: 20 dBm


5.725 - 5.850 GHz
FCC: 26 dBm

CE: 14 dBm
SRRC: 20 dBm
 
Joined
Oct 16, 2018
Messages
78
Likes
12
Location
AnywhereButOverThere
#23
So explain why dji specs can be much further distances than for yuneec ?

example, p4pro 4.3miles, 398mw (both 2.4 & 5.8), and you know what the TH range is, so HOW ?

it is either diff antenna or more power, OR both, explain that ?

Just to remind, 2.4ghz is what wifi for home/biz use, and yet NO interference that i have seen in my actual use.
 
Joined
Dec 1, 2018
Messages
199
Likes
92
Age
63
#24
Just to remind, 2.4ghz is what wifi for home/biz use, and yet NO interference that i have seen in my actual use.
No idea on the range difference since I don't know the Yuneec specs. However, the reason for limited/no Wi-Fi interference is our stuff is all operating on a frequency hopping spread spectrum algorithm which provides nearly interference free communications.
 
Joined
Sep 4, 2018
Messages
51
Likes
21
Location
Lamesa Texas
#26
Meh, if the FCC, FAA, BATF, or any of the other alphabet agencies come after you, you're pretty much screwed. I figure as far as the FCC goes, I'll make a case for discrimination, and take them about one mile in either direction and show them a 5 watt radio with a 13db antenna on basically EVERY oilfield location (which can be seen 1/4 mile away.

How you gonna turn a blind eye to that while you're on the way to come get me?

I'd probably lose, but hey, at least I went down swinging...
 
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
723
Likes
239
#28
The topic of antennas and the FCC introduced by Phaedrus is one well worth creating a new thread for and moving the applicable posts to it for educational purposes. His understanding of FCC regulations, and who enforces them, is correct and apparently many don’t understand the distinctions between the FAA, FCC, and how advertising terminology would be used to separate fact from fiction in a court of law.
The one thing that is not being discussed is the fact that the FAA is not incorporating the FCC regs into their regs. In other words, why would we take the FCC regs seriously or refer to them if the FAA isn't making a big deal of it?

Does the FCC take precedence over the FAA or visa versa? I transport medical patients on stretchers and occasionally have to drive 22 hours. The DOT requires me to stop and take a 10 hour rest. Do I leave them to freeze to death on the stretcher as Medicaid isn't going to pay for a hotel?

Point once again is that there is no common sense and the gov't agencies typically don't coordinate with each other. Focusing on the FCC reg is pointless in my opinion if the FAA isn't going to incorporate it into their regs.

fixed point-to-point U-NII devices operating in this band may employ transmitting antennas with directional gain greater than 6 dBi without any corresponding reduction in transmitter conducted power. Fixed, point-to-point operations exclude the use of point-to-multipoint systems, omnidirectional applications, and multiple collocated transmitters transmitting the same information. The operator of the U-NII device, or if the equipment is professionally installed, the installer, is responsible for ensuring that systems employing high gain directional antennas are used exclusively for fixed, point-to-point operations.
 
Joined
Dec 1, 2018
Messages
199
Likes
92
Age
63
#29
The one thing that is not being discussed is the fact that the FAA is not incorporating the FCC regs into their regs. In other words, why would we take the FCC regs seriously or refer to them if the FAA isn't making a big deal of it?
Ummm... Because they are two separate regulatory agencies each responsible for separate issues. Saying it is ok to ignore the FCC regs because the FAA does not incorporate the FCC rules into the FARs is like saying it is OK to speed because the State did not incorporate EPA rules into the traffic laws.


Does the FCC take precedence over the FAA or visa versa?
Yes, and no.

The FCC has absolute authority over all of the radio spectrum, including aviation radios.
The FAA has absolute authority over airspace.
 
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
723
Likes
239
#30
Ummm... Because they are two separate regulatory agencies each responsible for separate issues. Saying it is ok to ignore the FCC regs because the FAA does not incorporate the FCC rules into the FARs is like saying it is OK to speed because the State did not incorporate EPA rules into the traffic laws.
Ummmm... each agency via common sense should coordinate with each other so that their aren't contradictions in the regulations or misunderstandings. Ummmmm...never said or implied that it is OK to ignore regs. Ummmm... the EPA and speeding have nothing in common, so that's a horrible analogy.

Before flying is everyone supposed to check the EPA, FCC, FAA, agency for toxic substances, bureau of safety and environment, chemical safety board, USDA, DOD etcetera?

I get the fact that many of us like debating the possibilities and the rules but the government always makes everything absurd. Because were complacent with fighting regulations like this the government will take a mile and Google, Amazon, Apple etcetera will convince the gov't to have us flying in our backyards at 20 feet. Apple/China has purchased Orion, Claris, Coral, NeXT, Siri etc. Apple is considering Netflix, Activision, Electronic Arts, Take 2 and Tesla. We are at the bottom of the food chain when it comes to the FCC and FAA!

Fixed point-to-point U-NII devices operating in this band(5.8) may employ transmitting antennas with directional gain greater than 6 dBi, which implies that it's not as simple as having to only use the original antenna.
 
Joined
Aug 12, 2018
Messages
638
Likes
316
Age
39
Location
NorCal
Website
www.rprsolution.com
#31
Let’s clarify this @Phaedrus have you worked for a, let’s just say, a construction company. I have and to date one of them is building the 2020 NFL stadium in Las Vegas, and prior to flying our missions, our drones was physically inspected, by FAA officials at McCarran International Airport. Las Vegas is restrict. If the antenna that I used deemed illegal under section 15, I had another waver that has been granted for the inspection of new Facebook build. (Snippets video soon)


Now with "Section 15.203 - Antenna Requirement
Changing the antenna on a transmitter can significantly increase, or decrease, the
strength of the signal that is ultimately transmitted. Except for cable locating
equipment, the standards in Part 15 are not based solely on output power but also take
into account the antenna characteristics. Thus, a low power transmitter that complies
with the technical standards in Part 15 with a particular antenna attached can exceed
the Part 15 standards if a different antenna is attached. Should this happen it could
pose a serious interference problem to authorized radio communications such as
emergency, broadcast and air-traffic control communications.
In order to prevent such interference problems, each Part 15 transmitter must be
designed to ensure that no type of antenna can be used with it other than the one used
to demonstrate compliance with the technical standards. This means that Part 15
transmitters must have permanently attached antennas, or detachable antennas with
unique connectors. A "unique connector" is one that is not of a standard type found in
electronic supply stores.

It is recognized that suppliers of Part 15 transmitters often want their customers to be
able to replace an antenna if it should break. With this in mind, Part 15 allows
transmitters to be designed so that the user can replace a broken antenna. When this
is done, the replacement antenna must be electrically identical to the antenna that was
used to obtain FCC authorization for the transmitter. The replacement antenna also
must include the unique connector described above to ensure it is used with the proper
transmitter."

So while there are no specific penalties for changing the antenna you can see that it may result in the equipment no longer being in compliance.

Thus it is illegal for where it is being used.

It is not out of the question that at sometime in the future folks who find themselves in trouble with the FAA may also come under scrutiny of the FCC..


We all use all sorts of antennas, on tripods, on roofs, amplified, 2.4ghz, 5.8ghz, 1.3ghz. At events in public, for shows etc etc etc. No one cares or checks or even knows to check. If you are that worried about it, just polish the quad up and set it on a shelf to look pretty.

Amazon floods the sale of boosted antennas, the FCC should be made aware of this, so the feds with their cool jackets can crack these folks down.

Now, question? Hobby King got fined by the FCC, how come the FCC has not been successful in cracking down let’s just say 4Hawks?

The regulation states that the replacement antenna must be the same type e.g. dipole for dipole, yagi for yagi, must exhibit the same in-band and out of band ERP and must be permanently connected or utilize a proprietary connector. If the FCC was actively pursuing "pirates", they would be monitoring buyers of household range extending antennas that attach to wifi routers, with standard connectors for external antennas.

A lot of questions... But no clear answer, due to textbook experts.
 
Likes: thoneter
Joined
Oct 1, 2016
Messages
1,454
Likes
598
Age
59
#32
So how are all the racers racing? My understanding is any transmitter above 25mw requires a HAM radio license? My question is who monitors this? Sure there is the rules and the law but is the FCC showing up at races with radio spectrum monitors?
What would you have to build to get their attention? Remember currently, radio bands for all wireless audio just got changed in the USA and it’s now narrowed even more. The “enterprise” companies that need true BLVOS to succeed need more reliable bandwidth and they got the lawyers and the lobbyists to achieve their goal of owning both the airspace and the radio frequencies. It’s pilots like RRR who are daily in the trenches doing the work that blaze the trail for the rest of us

I’m not advocating breaking the law but I own boosters and I got them for the better video reliability not longer range. You’d think those companies lawyers would make them put a disclaimer on them like FatShark puts on their above 25mw video transmitters.

So a question...these rules were written when radios could interfere based on frequency selected relative to power because it’s an all analog transmission. Higher power makes the signal crosstalk into the neighbor bands and causes lots of problems. So everyone needs to stay in their lane old school. RC antennae had colored flags on them as a quick frequency identification between pilots.

Digital radio works by my basic understanding through the bind process where the receiver is only looking for the signal it’s networked with and that frequency is shared by many devices and you can’t exceed your frequency and crosstalk no matter the transmitters power. I’m sure the smarter folk here will correct me and clarify and hopefully do it gently lol.

Now to be a devils wise...
So if my totally compliant UAS experiences a loss of control due to WiFi interference from an out of compliance modem or WiFi signal booster can I contact the FCC and go after the signal owner that blasted me out of connection?
 
Likes: thoneter

DoomMeister

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 25, 2017
Messages
2,317
Likes
820
#33
To digress only a moment to the mid seventies when CB radios were the craze. People would erect a garbage antenna, add a 1kw amplifier, use an overmodulated microphone and bleed garbled trash talk 5 channels either side of the one they were using. The FCC rarely did anything with these blatant violators.

I built a matched antenna with a full wave ground plane and could reach farther with my allowed two watts than they could transmitting at 500 times more energy.

Most of the antenna mods are more for maintaining a good video feed on Yuneec equipment, therefore centered more on gain at the receiving end than boosting transmission power. Also a more focused beam pattern therefore less stray wasted energy.
 
Joined
Oct 1, 2016
Messages
1,454
Likes
598
Age
59
#34
That makes sense as if you were to boost video it’d be at the camera Wi-Fi. Again, racing drones can’t have video drop out so your signal strength of the video transmission is critical so you have to break the law if you want true safety or you can’t really do anything.
 
Likes: thoneter

DoomMeister

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 25, 2017
Messages
2,317
Likes
820
#35
That makes sense as if you were to boost video it’d be at the camera Wi-Fi. Again, racing drones can’t have video drop out so your signal strength of the video transmission is critical so you have to break the law if you want true safety or you can’t really do anything.
My son is into that and is going to get his ham ticket to be compliant. He is a DIY racer enthusiast.
 
Joined
Aug 12, 2018
Messages
638
Likes
316
Age
39
Location
NorCal
Website
www.rprsolution.com
#36
So how are all the racers racing?
I was just thinking about that.. All of the racers that I’ve seen on ESPN, are using boosted antennas, and even promotes via shoutouts to the company.

DJI are selling a Patch boosted Antenna for Cendence Remote Controller. Looking at the specs it can put other aftermarket boosted antennas to shame.
 
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
723
Likes
239
#37
For those of us who are not antenna Einsteins, isn't the 16 antenna for video passive?
 

DoomMeister

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 25, 2017
Messages
2,317
Likes
820
#38
It is not totally passive as it sends control signals to the camera via WiFi. The patch antenna actually would cause less interference as it has a much narrower beam pattern (the mushroom is omnidirectional). The drawback is that the patch antenna has to be pointed to within a few degrees of the aircraft.
 
Joined
Dec 1, 2018
Messages
199
Likes
92
Age
63
#39
So how are all the racers racing? My understanding is any transmitter above 25mw requires a HAM radio license?
Those using amateur radio frequencies without a license are doing so in violation of FCC rules.

Interestingly enough, MultiGP, one of the largest drone racing groups, specifically addresses this point:

Legal Frequencies in Drone Racing - MultiGP Drone Racing League | FPV Racing League


My question is who monitors this?
So is this the "it's not illegal if I don't get caught" line of reasoning?


Now to be a devils wise...
So if my totally compliant UAS experiences a loss of control due to WiFi interference from an out of compliance modem or WiFi signal booster can I contact the FCC and go after the signal owner that blasted me out of connection?
Nope, because by operating a Part 15 compliant device you are explicitly accepting the possibility of outside interference.

Part 15.5:

(b) Operation of an intentional, unintentional, or incidental radiator is subject to the conditions that no harmful interference is caused and that interference must be accepted that may be caused by the operation of an authorized radio station, by another intentional or unintentional radiator, by industrial, scientific and medical (ISM) equipment, or by an incidental radiator.
 
Joined
Dec 1, 2018
Messages
199
Likes
92
Age
63
#40
It is not totally passive as it sends control signals to the camera via WiFi. The patch antenna actually would cause less interference as it has a much narrower beam pattern (the mushroom is omnidirectional). The drawback is that the patch antenna has to be pointed to within a few degrees of the aircraft.
Exactly.
 

New Threads

Forum statistics

Threads
14,258
Messages
162,473
Members
17,027
Latest member
yaz