I fly on 6 meters does this mean that my instructor has to be a ham too?

I fly regularly on 50 mhz and have never had any problems other than acquiring reasonably priced micro rxs. Have never run into any kind of
interference probs here in So Cal.
--
Dan
AMA605992
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

During flying season, I leave my Yaesu FT-690R Mk.II six meter multimode amateur rig in my minivan along with a Larson magmount six meter 1/4 wavelength antenna.
Naturally, I listen on my flying frequencies before flying. I have never heard anyone else on the amateur frequencies other than ham R/C flyers and my little rig has a pretty good front end. I have considered picking up a brick amplifier with a preamp just to listen a little better. Maybe this year.
Ed Cregger
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 06:01:17 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@frenzy.com (Doug McLaren) wrote:

I am also a Ham, W4PFZ. Been active both as an R/C flier and as a Ham operator for several decades, but only tried flying on 6 meters a few years ago. Until then all I ever flew was on 72 MHz. I bought a 50 MHz FM rf module for my ACE mPro transmitter and a couple of receivers to match. After flying with this gear for nearly a year, I had several serious glitches, and 2 which caused me to crash. I never did find the source of the interference, even listening on a 6 m. ham band receiver. But to avoid further problems, I went back to 72 MHz and have never had any further glitches. All crashes so far are due to pilot error. Just my experience. And I don't live near any large cities, just a small town.
Olin McDaniel

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

I wouldn't feel too secure regardless of which band I was operating on that is below 500 MHz.
There is a new means of connecting folks to the internet without using a special cable, phone line or satellite link. It is called Broadband over Power Lines (BPL).
As radio folks know, the electric power lines are simple wire with no shielding. Any high frequency radiation that is introduced to the power line system is able to radiate freely. The frequencies that will be in use cover all of the HF/VHF amateur radio frequencies. While the power levels will be low, their close proximity to virtually any flying field will make them seem thunderously loud.
Don't believe me. Go to the ARRL's website, www.arrl.org, and read up on it for yourself.
Ed Cregger
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ed Cregger wrote:

Is the imminent operation of BPL real, or speculative? That is, are there any places where it's in production *and* causing interference?
For the record, I'm no fan of it, but I don't think it's going to fly for technical, not political, reasons, and it looks as though the concern about it is tending toward the alarmist side of things.
--
St. John
.... ..
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| I wouldn't feel too secure regardless of which band I was operating on that | is below 500 MHz.
500 MHz? Current implementations of BPL do 2-30 MHz or so, with future implementations *perhaps* going as high as 80 MHz.
| The frequencies that will be in use cover all of the HF/VHF amateur | radio frequencies.
By `all', I hope you mean `some'? For example, I know of no current BPL implementation that goes into VHF at all, and even future ones aren't planning on going over 80 MHz.
Now, there may be some issues with harmonics, but so far I don't think they've been a big problem in existing BPL installations.
The FCC will tolerate no interference with the aircraft bands -- 108 - 137 MHz, as they actually care about protecting that spectrum -- so if something does interfere with `all VHF amateur radio frequencies (50 MHz, 144 MHz, 222 MHz)', it'll probably also interfere with the aircraft band, and the FCC would smack them down.
| While the power levels will be low, their close proximity to | virtually any flying field will make them seem thunderously loud.
Yes, most flying fields have power lines in close proximity. However, what BPL is really a danger to is ham radio HF activity, where you're usually talking to somebody using skip, and so your signal is often millions of times weaker than even your 1/2 watt R/C transmitter 1/2 mile away.
(And don't forget -- not only does your house also have power lines in close proximity, but they're probably connected to your house and so the signal comes even closer to your gear and antenna.)
| Don't believe me. Go to the ARRL's website, www.arrl.org, and read up on it | for yourself.
Yes, BPL is real, but it's a *much* bigger problem for HF ham radio than it is for VHF R/C usage. That doesn't mean it's not a concern, but it's likely to be a much smaller concern. There are BPL installations scattered across the country, but generally they have not been terribly successful. One big problem is that they tend to interfer with licensed ham radio operations, and quite often this interference has gotten the things shut down.
The AMA has been (made) aware of BPL issues since the beginning, and they claim they've done some testing and not found any interference issues. My guess is that their testing consisted of finding a flying field near some power lines carrying BPL and flying a plane with 72 MHz radio gear -- which wouldn't be a very effective test if the BPL is only using 2-30 MHz, especailly if it might go up to 80 MHz in the future. (Of course, this is only a guess. I don't know what they really tested. If they also tried 27 MHz equipment, that would be a better test.)
In any event, I doubt any current BPL installations are a big risk to R/C on 50, 53, 72 or 75 MHz bands. 27 MHz might be a bigger concern, but even then it really shouldn't interfere too much (but I'd suggest testing it.)
If the BPL does ever go up to 80 MHz, then it could become a potential problem for all the standard R/C bands.
Now, if BPL does interfere with the R/C bands, the ham band users will have a *big* advantage in dealing with it. The rules are different for the ham bands -- basically, licensed users of a band have more rights to that band than unlicensed users do. If something interferes with the 72 MHz R/C band, we just have to accept it. If something interferes with the 50 MHz R/C ham band, the ham radio operator can complain to the FCC about it, and the ham radio operator's licensed use should outweigh the unlicensed BPL use. The FCC has made it clear that licensed amateur radio use isn't so important to them, but even so, it's going to be more important than unlicensed 72/75 MHz R/C use.
--
Doug McLaren, snipped-for-privacy@frenzy.com
`The lesser of two evils ... is still evil.'
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 00:13:53 -0500, "Ed Cregger"

Oh, don't fret. I've been following the struggle between ARRL and the FCC for well over a year now, re BPL. In fact I've been part of the team sending letters to the FCC re this.
But this is not a problem where I live, the biggest risk we have is these "gorilla" paging stations (over 100 watts ERP) mixed up in the 72 MHz band. We have to avoid 2 such here, meaning there are at least 4 channels we dare not use for flying. But the 6 meter interference is still a mystery, I've been unable to detect any such signals on the narrow portion of it that we are allowed to use for flying.
Olin McDaniel, W4PFZ, AMA 30932
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Olin and any others. I just read about you and the ACE MicroPro 8000. This is just to let you know about an online support group for the MicroPro on YAHOO. It can be joined at HTTP://groups.yahoo.com/group/MP8K Any one with an interest is welcome.
Dan Thompson
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Well, not only do I remember the galloping ghost method, I still have some of the old components - like the c.w. transmitter with the two axis stick controlling an on/off keyer driven by tube multivibrator. (All homebrew, including my 10m. transmitter.) Also still have a few of the Mighty Midget motors used in the model, to drive the tail surfaces via an oscillating shaft and crank out the rear, moving a pair of followers. Almost as functional as all the fancy stuff today, but minus throttle control - flew till tank empty and hoped to get it back to you if it died too far downwind.
Olin McDaniel, W4PFZ
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It sounds like you and Don were at this hobby long before I was. You guys were the real pioneers of R/C.
Ed Cregger, NM2K
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Maybe I am old fashioned..but as a Ham radio licensee, I understand that you or I (being licensed) may allow someone else to operate your station if you are right there "in control". I thought the same thing applies to your R/C equipment...that is..someone else can fly using your equipment, providing you are right there to be in control of the "station"...make sense? Frank Schwartz AMA123 W4KFK Licensed since 1946 (Golly! I'm getting old!!!)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 1/31/06 10:40 AM, in article snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com,

I agree with you. If I'm standing right next to the non-ham holding my 6M TX, I'm still definitely in control.
Don
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

You would be operating unlawfully. The control operator concept is not applied to telecommand operation - the one way transmission used to control a remote object.
The commissioner was quite clear and his comments carry the weight of law.
Ed Cregger
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The whole control op thing is okay for telephony, CW, RTTY, etc. In other words, as long as you are communicating with another licensed amateur radio operator.
In our case, the fly in the ointment is that we are operating in an uncovered mode known as telecommand. It is a one way signal meant to control a remote object. The control operator rule does not apply in this case.
Ed Cregger
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 1/31/06 5:23 PM, in article 01UDf.9630$ snipped-for-privacy@bignews8.bellsouth.net,

I beg to differ..... Someone is in control of whether that transmitter is ON or OFF. That person is the licensed ham.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'm quoting the FCC comissioner that made the statement, Don. Argue with him.
Ed Cregger
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| > In our case, the fly in the ointment is that we are operating in | > an uncovered mode known as telecommand. It is a one way signal | > meant to control a remote object. The control operator rule does | > not apply in this case. | | I beg to differ..... Someone is in control of whether that transmitter is | ON or OFF. That person is the licensed ham.
You can differ all you want, but the FCC has clarified the regulations, and the clarifications explicitly don't permit the use of a buddy box unless both people have ham radio licenses.
I agree, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but that was the ruling. It's unlikely that anything bad would happen if you went against it, but it's possible.
--
Doug McLaren, snipped-for-privacy@frenzy.com
"Do not look into Laser beam with remaining eye."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/1/06 1:38 PM, in article BT9Ef.18152$ snipped-for-privacy@tornado.texas.rr.com,

OK! I will ignore the FCC on this ridiculous point.
Don
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Erm, you might want to take a gander at the FCC's revised fine penalties list. I "think" the minimum is $11k now. (wink)
Ed Cregger
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Don Bowey wrote:

I agree-     1. Let me see the regs, or the verbatim quote- and even a quote from an administrator is only his interpretation- a judge may see it differently in the unlikely event that it ever comes up. The law is that which is written in civil code, penal code, FARs, FCC regs, etc- NOT the interpretation of some beareaucrat, even if he is the administrator. The FCC may write you up, but a judge, on review of the regs, may decide the law does permit the use of a buddy box. 2. This will probably NEVER come up as a real enforcement issue. I have never even seen an FCC inspector at a model field, ever.     Of course, I should never say never... -Paul
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.