AMA rules re my DIY radio

The following is information relevant to the ongoing discussion as to whether and how I can build my own 2.4 Ghz radio system
and use it to fly remote controlled aircraft.
This post ONLY regards AMA rules. I will address FCC rules in another post at a later date.
Reference the AMA Membership Manual 2010 as found at, http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/memanual.pdf
Page 9 - Radio Control Operation Operation of Flying Sites Transmitter Requirements: Narrowband transmitters are required for use with all channel number frequencies (CH 00-09 and 11-90).
Identification of narrowband transmitters 3. AM transmitters that were verified by test to be narrowband prior to March 1998 are considered to be narrowband. A goldcolor sticker, marked R/CMA AMA - RF CHECK was formerly used to identify these tested transmitters. However, it is no longer required to display the R/CMA AMA Gold Sticker on these transmitters.
This clearly shows that the Gold Sticker only applied to 50, 72, and 75 Mhz bands, as those are the only ones which have channel numbers. 2.4 Ghz uses spread spectrum and therefore does not use channel numbers.
Further, it clearly sates that this in no longer required.
So that takes care of the Gold Sticker argument.
Page 10 - Frequencies for Radio Control 1.4. RC is permitted in the 2.4 GHz industrial, scientific, and medical (ISM) band using spread spectrum technology from 2.4 GHz to 2.485 GHz.
Self explanatory.
Page 11 - FCC Legal Requirements and Safety Recommendations 3.0. RC users shall comply with FCC regulations. RC users of the Low Power 2.4 GHz band are required to comply with CFR Part 15.
The AMA will not assume responsibility for enforcement of the CFR.
However, if the violation impacts safety, corrective action may be taken.
The last only applies if there is a safety issue. Even if there is an FCC violation, the AMA clearly states they don't enforce FCC rules, and clearly states they only care if there is a safety issue.
Since my radio will comply with necessary FCC rules there is nothing to worry about from the AMA. Besides, a safety issue could apply to ANY radio system.
Nowhere have I found any statement saying that any radio used must be certified by the AMA. The closest I've found to any kind of restriction is the following,
Page 11 - FCC Legal Requirements and Safety Recommendations 3.1. AMA RC event officials shall enforce FCC Amateur Radio Operator licensing requirements. Use of legal Amateur Radio Service frequencies other than those listed in paragraph 2.1.4. and 2.1.5. is permitted at sanctioned events at the discretion of the event officials.
This means that if you operate a radio on an amateur frequency the official is required to make sure you have any necessary amateur radio lcenses. The 2.4 Ghz band does not require a license, especially when operated under part 15 rules.
However, since 2.4Ghz use is outlined in 2.1.6 and not 2.1.4 or 2.1.5 as stated, it appears to be at the discrection of the event officials. In fact, this would appear to apply to ANY 2.4Ghz radio, whether it's my home made radio, or even a Spektrum, JR, or Futaba bought at your LHS!
Nowhere have I found any statement regarding home built radios.
As an intersting aside, I found a rule regarding channel frequency radios tuned with a crystal.
Page 9 - Radio Control Operation Operation of RC Flying Sites: Any user modification of a transmitter that might affect the transmitted signal is prohibited by law and safety concerns. This includes user replacement of frequency determining plug-in crystals and use of plug-in frequency modules from another manufacturer. Transmitter crystal replacement, with or without a change in frequency, requires transmitter emission realignment by the manufacturer.
So if you have one of these radios and change the crystal without sending it to the manufacturer to have the system checked, you are in violation of AMA rules if you use it at the flying field. This one takes me by surprise. But it's just a curiosity and not relevant to the current discussion.
Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

A club can borrow a frequency scanner from the AMA for the cost of shipping, I believe.
I had my TX checked at one (1) contest to make sure that it was on its proper frequency. I don't remember whether the scanner was set up to show that the signal was within the band limits or was just checking that the TX was transmitting on the channel that I claimed it was transmitting on.
                    Marty
--
Big-8 newsgroups: humanities.*, misc.*, news.*, rec.*, sci.*, soc.*, talk.*
See <http://www.big-8.org for info on how to add or remove newsgroups.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

So it's OK with you that someone brings along a jammer for your frequency. After all, that item can be made to conform to FCC rules.
Your argument almost fine except that there are numerous places where unequivocal rules apply that must be verified by someone. You seem so intent on finding a loophole that you are missing the real important bits. I'm not surprised. You are looking for a a blessing to proceed here and any attempt to warn you to be careful is going to get under your skin.
I mentioned that the rules had to be verified by someone. You know they do. You just hate that I might be right. Shame on you. -- Ray
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 07 Nov 2010 10:09:54 +0800, Ray Haddad wrote:

CHECK”
Again, Why don't you post the relevant rules from the AMA to prove your point?
--
To reply by email: vhoward1122 at gmail dot com


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 7 Nov 2010 02:16:10 +0000 (UTC), Vance Howard

You already did right here in this new thread. The first 10 paragraphs all have oversight by someone other than YOU. Deal with it. Find out who has oversight and you will have your answer.
You won't though. You might find the answer is no, you can't just build one and use it. Like I have said all along, the band is unlicensed but not unregulated. There are rules you have to obey to be allowed to use the unlicensed bands. Try a bit of study first. Come back in a few years and let me know what you find. -- Ray
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

US code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Section 333:
333. Willful or Malicious Interference
No person shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio communications of any station licensed or authorized by or under this chapter or operated by the United States Government.
Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

But in your case accidentally is all right? I'd call you a Bozo but that would insult clowns the world over. -- Ray
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You sure are grasping at straws, aren't you?
Accidental is accidental. For example, you're flying on a 72 Mhz radio on channel 11. Someone else fails to check the frequency board and fires up their 72 Mhz radio, also on channel 11.
Is that intentional? Willfull? Malicious?
Should they be fined by the FCC for violation of 47US333?
Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

No matter what you believe, you can only experiment in the band, not produce a working model to release on the world. Even one is too many. That's the point of my "accidental" comment.
Let's say you put this together and it works flawlessly within all FCC guidelines. No problem. How often do you think this happens? Take a guess. In my experience, 1 in 10 would be close to reality. And it might just be a minor flaw that goes unnoticed at the time you test it. You can't really tell sometimes.
The other side of the coin is that it fails, which is most of the time. Multiply that by a large factor as an unqualified technical person referring to himself as an amateur scientist. While I respect your ability to "suss" things out for yourself, even you must admit that your confidence level is not at 100% when you begin a project. I'm guessing you are one of the regulars on Instrucables and Make DIY.
Full telemetry in the 2.4ghz band is a cakewalk today compared to the way it was 10 years ago. Spread spectrum is not. It requires precise timing, code hopping algorithms and fast processors. No matter what, you should go ahead with your project. I would encourage it. What I did was caution you about using it in public around other devices on the same frequency. That should have been a common sense type of caution but the dog pack decided they needed another chew toy and I was it. -- Ray
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Then stop acting like a dog toy.
Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Perhaps I am just braver than most. The one person who is most qualified in this bunch has stopped commenting. I suggest it's because he knows I'm right and doesn't want to suffer any abuse.
By the way, to do it simply because I warned you about consequences is the dumbest reason on earth. Find a better reason. Seriously. -- Ray
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| Full telemetry in the 2.4ghz band is a cakewalk today compared to the | way it was 10 years ago. Spread spectrum is not. It requires precise | timing, code hopping algorithms and fast processors.
Of course, many full telemetry setups used today in 2.4 GHz do use spread spectrum.
And if somebody is going to make something that uses spread spectrum themselves nowadays, they'll probably just use an off-the-shelf module of some sort -- let somebody else worry about the "precise timing, code hopping algorithms and fast processors".
And spread spectrum isn't THAT difficult. At the simplest level, remember -- it was invented in the '40s. Modern stuff is better, of course.
--
Doug McLaren, snipped-for-privacy@frenzied.us

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Who says it conforms? Are you planning to answer that question when asked? Can you legitimately say that it is? You just stated that only for LEGAL purposes the AMA would be concerned and yet you simply state, without any proof whatever, that YOUR radio WILL 'comply' with the rules but you are not qualified to assert that.
Catch-22. Unlicensed band, but not unrestricted. Sorry, but that's the fact. -- Ray
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I can, and that is legit. I'll back that claim in my separate post on FCC regulations once I finish my research.

Yes.
Yes. (once it's built, that is)

Where did I say "legal purposes"? Cite please? Or is this going to be yet another claim that you refuse to back up.
Try reading what is actually written instead of what you think is written.

Yes. I will make sure that the radio complies with the necessary FCC regulations. That burden is upon me, just as it is for anyone who manufactures or sells a radio device.
Again, I'll detail this in my separate post on FCC regulations.

Who said it was unrestricted? I didn't. I didn't see anyone else say that either.
Try replying to what is actually written instead of what you think was written.
Do try to pay attention, Ray.
Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Well, I had no idea you were so qualified. Shame on you for asking permission here though. Sort of makes you look more like what you are. An amateur. In other words, you are clearly not qualified or you would never, ever have asked. When you got no for an answer, you argued.
You may think you have won but . . . -- Ray
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Dude, WTF is your problem? God I hope you aren't a member of AMA or a flying club. You're a disservice to the whole hobby with this kind of attitude. Unfortunately I've run into your type before at the flying field.
Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If I am deciphering the "Grasshopper" reference correctly, he thinks he is Master Po.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwai_Chang_Caine
            Marty
--
Big-8 newsgroups: humanities.*, misc.*, news.*, rec.*, sci.*, soc.*, talk.*
See <http://www.big-8.org for info on how to add or remove newsgroups.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload


Kwai Chang wouldn't act the way Ray is, ESPECIALLY when right. He would help the student learn.
Something else Ray should learn - a closed mouth gathers no foot.
Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Precisely. You should have learned. -- Ray
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Can you refute any of the regs I have posted that support my claim?
Have you supplied any regs that support your claim?
Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.