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

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

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,

and read up on it for yourself.

Ed Cregger

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

Any one with an interest is welcome.

Dan Thompson

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.

| 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,

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.

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