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

Speaking of firsts and size, my first was a Bonner 8. The battery pack weighed twice as much as 3 modern, complete receiver pack installations. I was able to fly it in an H-Ray and a Royal Coachman with an OS-15. It was 1st class hardware, but awfully large. Well actually, my first was a 2-channel galloping ghost, but I doubt anyone remembers them.
Don
Reply to
Don Bowey
Loading thread data ...
I'm quoting the FCC comissioner that made the statement, Don. Argue with him.
Ed Cregger
Reply to
Ed Cregger
My first was a single channel F&M receiver with a compound escapement (1966). It was in an Ambroid Charger that was given to me by Ed Thompson, who was then the Technical Editor at RCM and a Master Sergent at the USAF base at which I was stationed. All I needed was a new wing and a Mule Tx. In those days, the Mule was $105. I earned a whopping $95 a month then in the USAF as an Airman Third Class.
My next one was a single channel, pulse proportional controlled Testor's Skyhawk. I went through two of these before getting the hang of it. Then I got the Micro Avionics 4-channel XLIC with miniature (for then) MPS-4 servos. That flew me well for a couple of years before I sold it so I could move up to 72 MHz.
I do remember the Galloping Ghost, but never owned one. I used to get a kick out of watching those and the single channel pulse proportional models waggle along as they flew. Good memories.
Ed Cregger
Reply to
Ed Cregger
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
Reply to
Olin K. McDaniel
| > 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.
Reply to
Doug McLaren
OK! I will ignore the FCC on this ridiculous point.
Don
Reply to
Don Bowey
Hello Doug and Ed,
Is there a web based reference of this ruling as it was not mentioned in the training I took for my technician license?
Thank You, Andrew Spencer AMA741512 KE7FIY
Reply to
AMS
Hello Doug and Ed,
Is there a web based reference of this ruling as it was not mentioned in the training I took for my technician license?
Thank You, Andrew Spencer AMA741512 KE7FIY
Reply to
AMS
transmitter
You can go back through the old threads on this topic via Google, or, according to some folks more in touch with the present day rulebook, you can look it up there.
I read the original interview and the following declarations years ago and know it to be true, so I have no reason to keep instant access to where the information lies at hand. I'm convinced already.
I'll bet Doug knows where to find the info. Doug?
Ed Cregger, NM2K
Reply to
Ed Cregger
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
Reply to
Ed Cregger
thanks to all who replied!!! Mnay time i thought of moving to 72mhz just for the ease of buying and stocking parts...but pack up everything get up nice n early in the morning head out to the field and WHAMMO!! the feild is filled with folk all trying to do the same thing.. and as luck would have it they are all on the same channel as me. But as a hammy i can pin the board, do my preflightif- i see any strange faces intro myself ask where they are flying tip my hat and get back to my station and wind her up....the only thing i have to do is worry about a fellow ham who.....dosent know i'm there and... well you know the rest... thanks to all who replied.. Gig
Reply to
Gig
| Is there a web based reference of this ruling as it was not | mentioned in the training I took for my technician license?
The training you took was probably keyed towards the technician test, and the test comes from a relatively small test bank, and only a small portion of the test actually covers the regulations. The training probably only covered the parts of the regulations that are on the test -- basically, just the highlights.
I recall seeing a thread on something like rcgroups where they'd gotten the offcial word on this from the FCC itself, but this post gives the gist of the regulation from the ARRL. Not that the ARRL is the FCC, but they generally have a pretty good idea of what the FCC regulations are ...
formatting link
Reply to
Doug McLaren
Hello Doug,
Thank you very much for the reference.
Andrew
Reply to
AMS
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
Reply to
<ecregger
Most of my stuff is on 72 MHz these days, but I still keep a six meter Tx module or two and several six meter receivers around - just in case.
Ed Cregger, NM2K
Reply to
<ecregger
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
Reply to
Paul Ryan
I am a Ham, KF4U and have been flying RC for about a year now. This may be a little off topic but you guys seem to be well versed in 6M R/C flying. Wen I first got into RC I thought I might go with 6M gear but was afraid because of possible interference from 6M experimenting and interference from foreign stations (anywhere in the world). Is this a valid concern? Or are the 6M freqs for RC safe for flying? Thanks - Ken kf4u at earthlink.net
Reply to
Ken Freeland
The six meter R/C freqs in most areas of the US are less likely to be compromised than the 72 MHz band. Hams don't "experiment" much these days, so I don't think you have anything to worry about in that regard. Other hams will be using the R/C frequencies. But non hams are using the 72 MHz band...
To be safe, I would contact a few R/C clubs in your area and ask about their experiences on the band.
Ed Cregger
Reply to
Ed Cregger
| I am a Ham, KF4U and have been flying RC for about a year now. This | may be a little off topic but you guys seem to be well versed in 6M | R/C flying. Wen I first got into RC I thought I might go with 6M gear | but was afraid because of possible interference from 6M experimenting | and interference from foreign stations (anywhere in the world). Is | this a valid concern? Or are the 6M freqs for RC safe for flying?
There is a slight danger from local 50 MHz operations. The band plans generally say that the 50 MHz frequencies are for R/C and most hams will respect that, but some can occasionally make mistakes, and may not even know that your signal is there, and crash your plane. Unlikely, but possible.
As for foriegn stations, not really a concern. Yes, under the right conditions 50 MHz signals can go thousands of miles, but they're really really weak after that, and your 0.5 watt transmitter 1/2 mile away will still be orders of magnitude stronger, so there's no danger there.
You're probably a good deal safer on 50 MHz than 72 MHz, unless you have other local hams who also fly R/C on the 50 MHz band on your chosen channel.
There are some 53 MHz frequencies also allocated for R/C, but they're also used for repeaters (or at least some really close frequencies are) so you might want to avoid that.
Reply to
Doug McLaren
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.
Reply to
Fubar of The HillPeople

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.