Is your Controller FCC compliant?

[thoneter]

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.

Thanks! I use the Yuneec square directional and VAS 5.8Ghz Crosshair Antenna and I haven't had any issues with having to point it directly at the drone but then again I do have brain damage at times.

 

[Phaedrus]

For the record, I am not bringing this up in order to police anyone else or in any manner hinder people doing what they choose to do. I am doing so in order that people are making informed decisions and so people actually know what the rules are. This thread makes it clear that the fact that there are actually rules is news to many people.

 

[record.play.rewind]

@Phaedrus, how can major developers such as Inova (first to use UAV during the Tesla build) and Lennar be granted a waiver. Most of all their ground and aerial UAVs has boosted antennas? This is clearly a violation of section 15

 

[thoneter]

For the record, I am not bringing this up in order to police anyone else or in any manner hinder people doing what they choose to do. I am doing so in order that people are making informed decisions and so people actually know what the rules are. This thread makes it clear that the fact that there are actually rules is news to many people.

I appreciate the fact that you've made many aware of the FCC regs. My point is that the rules in their entirety are so many that completely understanding them and their interpretations is impossible. We don't get the luxury of interpreting them as they were intended and they are now outdated.

Take the airplane mode on your cell. It has nothing to do with messing with the radios on the airplane and everything to do with the ground towers of the cell. Handshakes/Handoffs between cell towers at 600 MPH is impossible and would cause issues with the towers.

The FCC passed laws that were actually common sense and the FAA turned them into a reason to not use your phone to play video games while on an airplane! That's why trying to figure out how many angelic antennas can fit on the head of a needle is intriguing but pointless in the end.

Don't amplify the signal to the point that you could bring down an airplane. I'm pretty sure my 10DB antenna isn't going to cause any issues. The wifi boosters at most of the hotels may be an issue but I'm sure the FCC isn't going to police those.

 

[thoneter]

@Phaedrus, how can major developers such as Inova (first to use UAV during the Tesla build) and Lennar be granted a waiver. Most of all their ground and aerial UAVs has boosted antennas? This is clearly a violation of section 15

Tell me if I'm wrong (no marriage contract implied) but isn't it hypocritical for the gov't to enforce these vague and confusing regs while allowing other manufacturers to violate them?

 

[thoneter]

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.

So with a more directional beam (increased DB) is there a stronger signal?

 

[Phaedrus]

So with a more directional beam (increased DB) is there a stronger signal?

Yes. It is increasing the gain by focusing the signal.

 

[thoneter]

Yes. It is increasing the gain by focusing the signal.

So I'm assuming the power is the same but the signal is carried farther because it is focused. On receiving the signal from the cgo3 I'm assuming the ? is moot.

 

[Phaedrus]

@Phaedrus, how can major developers such as Inova (first to use UAV during the Tesla build) and Lennar be granted a waiver. Most of all their ground and aerial UAVs has boosted antennas? This is clearly a violation of section 15

First, it is not "section 15". It is Part 15 like Part 107 of the FARs. Minor point, but worth being accurate.

I do not know the details of the two situations you cited. I don't know which "waivers" you are referring to either.

However, if they were using their own equipment that they certified then they can use any antenna they want to if that is the one the device was certified with.

I also have no idea why the FCC does not more rigorously enforce their rule. However, a lack of enforcement does not mean the rule no longer applies. The FAA certainly has not rigorously enforced Part 107 and prosecuted non-compliant pilots, but I don't see anyone saying that means Part 107 requirements can be ignored.

Again, you seem to be attempting to use the "they don't enforce it" or "other people do it" as reasons to justify not following the FCC rules. Why not simply say that you are choosing to ignore the FCC regulations and leave it at that?

Each of us is free to decide what we want to do with respect to any FAA, FCC, or any other regulations.

 

[thoneter]

First, it is not "section 15". It is Part 15 like Part 107 of the FARs. Minor point, but worth being accurate.

I do not know the details of the two situations you cited. I don't know which "waivers" you are referring to either.

However, if they were using their own equipment that they certified then they can use any antenna they want to if that is the one the device was certified with.

I also have no idea why the FCC does not more rigorously enforce their rule. However, a lack of enforcement does not mean the rule no longer applies. The FAA certainly has not rigorously enforced Part 107 and prosecuted non-compliant pilots, but I don't see anyone saying that means Part 107 requirements can be ignored.

Again, you seem to be attempting to use the "they don't enforce it" or "other people do it" as reasons to justify not following the FCC rules. Why not simply say that you are choosing to ignore the FCC regulations and leave it at that?

Each of us is free to decide what we want to do with respect to any FAA, FCC, or any other regulations.

Hoping I'm not putting words in his mouth, but I think he's saying that it's hypocritical to have different rules for x and y when they are using the same Parts (15).

None of us is using "they don't enforce it" or "other people do it" as reasons to justify not following the FCC rules. That's just putting words in our mouths. What you appear to be saying is shut up and follow the laws and it's nowhere that easy with any gov't reg.

The rule should say don't build a 1000 watt radio tower to fly your drone. The gov't gets involved and it's always a control issue with us paying $ to comply and fines for trying to comply or not comply. In the end it's just common sense to say don't bring down an airplane with your drone.

 

[Phaedrus]

Hoping I'm not putting words in his mouth, but I think he's saying that it's hypocritical to have different rules for x and y when they are using the same Parts (15).

As I said, I am not familiar with the 2 situations he mentioned, so I cannot comment beyond what I already said.

None of us is using "they don't enforce it" or "other people do it" as reasons to justify not following the FCC rules. That's just putting words in our mouths. What you appear to be saying is shut up and follow the laws and it's nowhere that easy with any gov't reg.

I am not saying that at all. But I cannot understand why several people seem to be trying so hard to argue that it is, in fact, an active rule. Lots of people doing it, people/companies selling items that allow you to do it, etc. has no bearing on what the law is. And I am not telling anyone what to do, as I have now said several times. All I am saying is "here is the rule", what you do after that is up to each of us. What anyone else does is immaterial to me. But I do think it is worth knowing what the actual rules are rather than being blissfully ignorant that there are any rules in the first place. As they say, ignorance of the law is no defense.

The rule should say don't build a 1000 watt radio tower to fly your drone. The gov't gets involved and it's always a control issue with us paying $ to comply and fines for trying to comply or not comply. In the end it's just common sense to say don't bring down an airplane with your drone.

The Part 15 rules apply to ALL Part 15 devices, not just drones, hobby RC equipment, etc. They have written a clear rule with specifically defined wording. Not sure why more is needed.

 

[PatR]

Look at the way immigration law is enforced, or not enforced as an example. The IRS could make for a similar example. Local LEA's go out of their way to aviod enforcement of immigration law while the federally controlled ICE targets illegal immigration with vigor. The FAA is not tasked with enforcing FCC or even local laws and regulations. Their charter is directed at developing and sustaining safe operation of aircraft and promoting commercial activity associated with the use of aircraft and airspace.

At local LEA levels, arrest warrants are often issued at a level that excludes neighboring states or counties from making an arrest when the targeted individual is encountered. An arrest for the charges that induced issuance of a warrant only occurs when the targeted individual makes contact with law enforcement personnel affiliated with the locality that issued the warrant.

I don't believe the FAA is practicing hypocrisy at all when they fail to enforce FCC regulations. To me it's more about jurisdiction. FCC regulations are not part of their bailiwick unless and until the FCC regulation has been incorporated with CFR's relative to FAA jurisdiction. Currently the FAA does not certify any drone as there are no drone certification standards to enforce. All certifications are performed by the builder/operator, a person that may or may not be telling the truth, but as there are no FAA inspection procedures in place, what part of the FAA is responsible to assure compliance? As things now stand an FAA rep can pick up your drone, glance at it briefly, and afterwards say "Yep, it's a drone." Unless something is obviously broken and falling off of it the inspection is done and it's good to go. It's a massive hole in the FAA's aircraft certification process, a condition I believe is soon to change.

 

[Phaedrus]

I don't believe the FAA is practicing hypocrisy at all when they fail to enforce FCC regulations. To me it's more about jurisdiction. FCC regulations are not part of their bailiwick unless and until the FCC regulation has been incorporated with CFR's relative to FAA jurisdiction. .

Exactly right!

The FCC does not care about what the FAA is doing and vice versa. Each has their own mandated area of jurisdiction.

 

[Hawkeye Alaska]

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
:

Sooooooo, if we all had Ham Radio Licenses that wanted to used something like a 4Hawks, it would be legal?

 

[thoneter]

Exactly right!

The FCC does not care about what the FAA is doing and vice versa. Each has their own mandated area of jurisdiction.

I don't think you or PatR are getting my point. So not to insult but I am going to dumb down my point. I get both of your points in that the law is there; learn it and live with it.

When the gov't gets involved common sense always flies out the door. The FCC should be enforcing the part 15 regs on the manufacturers and stop making it the fliers responsibility to research every aspect of every department of the government.

I know I'm probably beating a dead horse repeatedly but my situation speaks to this point in detail and is ridiculous in its complexity and severity.

I transport medical patients in stretchers and wheelchairs. I get paid to drive them (pay for hire) and go to multiple states. This makes it commercial, pay for hire in a Chrysler Town and Country. I'm between a taxi and long haul semi which is specifically a "small vehicle passenger service". I get to declare my base state. MN statutes 168.181, 187 and 221 allow me to have a commercial plate in SD and the corresponding reciprocity in all 48 contiguous states.

The state of MN knows this and still has DOT, DPS, Highway Patrol (crimes & commercial), DMV commercial, STS etcetera are attempting to exhort me into paying the state to register in MN when I clearly do not have to.

This is my point. The various agencies refuse to coordinate and joe citizen has to go to court to make the various agencies recognize their own statutes. Keep the gov't out of my life except to police and protect.

 

[Phaedrus]

Sooooooo, if we all had Ham Radio Licenses that wanted to used something like a 4Hawks, it would be legal?

Well, no. The FPV deal is they are using devices that are designed and transmitting on ham radio frequncies. The antenna has nothing to do with it.

 

[Phaedrus]

I don't think you or PatR are getting my point.

Well, thanks for not insulting us by dumbing down your point! I get your point. It is rage against the machine. Fine. DOesn't change anything, but if it makes you feel better, then by all means carry on!!

 

[Eagle's Eye Video]

← breaks out the bowl, in an effort to get the children to behave...

 

[record.play.rewind]

Well, thanks for not insulting us by dumbing down your point! I get your point. It is rage against the machine. Fine. DOesn't change anything, but if it makes you feel better, then by all means carry on!!

Be friends, more hugs in 2019

 

[thoneter]

← breaks out the bowl, in an effort to get the children to behave...

Now I'm going to expose my little brain but break out the bowl is that an idiom? and your a baby!