Re: [RCSE] Frequency Control / safety

2002-02-01 Thread jleigh

Funny, I just did the same thing ...

- John Leigh

Douglas, Brent wrote:

  that article demanded a reply - I sent a polite letter to the writer,
 asking that he amend his story to talk about the danger of a shoot
 down... why a parkflier is not really a toy...

RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News.  Send subscribe and 
unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [RCSE] Frequency Control / safety

2002-01-31 Thread Jason Werner

Matthew,
It is not illegal to use a transmitter to fly your plane.  There is no
restriction other than local ordinances that prevent you from flying and
operating your transmitter.  Does not matter where you fly, from a club
field to a local park.  As long as you are using legal channels you are
allowed.
The illegal act is when you intentionally destroy property or cause harm
by operating your equipment.  For example, if you knowingly shoot someone
down in order to destroy their plane.  A well known example of this occured
in California with some ginat scale racing.  The offender (sitting in his
car) was caught.  Anyway, as a user of the equipment you are responsible for
its proper use.  If while at your local slope your freq is used you cannot
turn on to clear your channel!  Nor can you operate your equipment
knowingly to prevent someone else from operating theirs.  Basiclly you
cannot tell someone else to go home as you were there first and on your
freq.  They have every right to operate as you do.
The most problematic situation is the rogue flier.  This includes
people flying HL in the backyard, IMAC at their local school, or even the
famous park flier.  If they have no knowledge of a freq conflict with
another person then they are not commiting a crime as they are not
intentionally causing damage or injury directly.  Though during a cival
trial they could be found responsible for any damage caused by their actions
even though legally they did not comit a crime.

Jason Werner

- Original Message -
From: Matthew Orme [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 3:19 PM
Subject: Re: [RCSE] Frequency Control / safety


 At 08:51 PM 1/30/02, Simon Van Leeuwen wrote:
 Those, who through persistant ignorance, or blantant disregard for the
 consequences (those chaps who tell you where to go - and how to get
 there for example) should be made aware that it is a criminal offence
 punishable with jail terms if they persist.


 totally wrong. Show me the law. you can't.


 Matthew Orme
 Aveox Electric Flight Systems Inc. http://www.aveox.com
 31324 Via Colinas, #104 Westlake Village, Ca 91362
 (818) 597-8915 x 102 Fax:(818)597-0617 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Mr. Town, A toy airplane, is a thing you wind up with a key, and it rolls
 along the floor

 RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News.  Send subscribe
and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News.  Send subscribe and 
unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]



RE: [RCSE] Frequency Control / safety

2002-01-31 Thread Douglas, Brent



that 
article demanded a reply - I sent a polite letter to the writer, asking that he 
amend his story to talk about the danger of a shoot down... why a parkflier is 
not really a toy...


it 
would be nice to see the AMA put out some literature on this in the magazines, 
something I see where these park fliers are getting warning stickers, 
but that seems sort of wimpy


just 
my thoughts.
Brent



Re: [RCSE] Frequency Control / safety

2002-01-31 Thread Matthew Orme


 The illegal act is when you intentionally destroy property or cause harm
by operating your equipment.

Knowingly doing it, is way different than negligently doing it. If I just 
fly on a frequency, there is no intent to cause damage (negligence maybe, 
but not criminal).

if you tell me that you are on a frequency, I have every right to say so, 
am I. If you fly, you fly your plane at your own risk. How much damage can 
it do? Negligence is proportionate. I fly my plane at my own risk. Once you 
are aware that I fly on a frequency, the onus is on YOU to prevent damage, 
not me.

Basiclly you
cannot tell someone else to go home as you were there first and on your
freq.  They have every right to operate as you do.

Sure you can. If I am flying on a frequency, I have no duty, legal or 
otherwise, to give you a turn. Your option, is to go away, or change 
frequencies. the politeness police can come talk to me, but neither the 
FCC, or the police give a rats a**. No laws are broken. As secondary users, 
you have to accept ALL forms of interference, including other legal users.

 The most problematic situation is the rogue flier.  This includes
people flying HL in the backyard, IMAC at their local school, or even the
famous park flier.

If i live across from a club field, and fly my parkflier in my front yard, 
all i have to do is to tell the club that i use XX frequency, and then they 
have the duty to see that none of their planes cause damage. the problem, 
is that if i am flying my park flyer a hundred feet from my your radio a 
block away won't affect my plane, but my radio will affect yours, because 
you fly at a greater distance. Once you put a plane into the air, knowing 
that there is a high probability of interference, you are negligent.

Plaintiff  were you aware that the gentleman a block away flies a plane on 
the same frequency as you?
Defendant yes
Plaintiff  but you decided to fly anyway
Defendant yes'

at this point, you have admitted liability. get out the checkbook. you 
might be able to pin some on the guy with the park flier, but nothing will 
get you off (which is the point). to pin any on the parkflier, you would 
have to be able to prove that he caused the shoot down, which would be 
really difficult to do.





RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News.  Send subscribe and 
unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [RCSE] Frequency Control / safety

2002-01-31 Thread Bob Pope

Matthew Orme wrote:

 Sure you can. If I am flying on a frequency, I have no duty, legal or  
 otherwise, to give you a turn. Your option, is to go away, or change  
 frequencies. the politeness police can come talk to me, but neither 
 the  FCC, or the police give a rats a**. No laws are broken. As 
 secondary users,  you have to accept ALL forms of interference, 
 including other legal users.

Wow Matthew

Donn't think I'll be flying in or around Westlake Village, CA from now 
on. Don't want to get into a freq fight with ya.

Bob Pope
Laguna Hills, CA

RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News.  Send subscribe and 
unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [RCSE] Frequency Control / safety

2002-01-30 Thread David A. Enete

Man, look at the technology our computer radios have, and they are 
so stupid about stomping all over each others frequencies.  I know 
the technology is available to keep this from happening.  I for one 
would pay for it even if it meant buying a new system.

Well, you could at least stack the odds in your favor by switching to 
ham bands.  You wouldn't have to lay out a big stack of money, but 
would again greatly reduce the number of pilots likely to be on your 
freq.

- David
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

USA

RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News.  Send subscribe and 
unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [RCSE] Frequency Control / safety

2002-01-30 Thread David A. Enete

  I think we should all have a unique ID in our tx and a way to set 
the ID in the rx with microswitches or programming.  The only way to 
escape all the newbies and throw away RTF's is to have this coded 
system on a separate freq. band, and priced in the league for the 
guys flying expensive toys, like helicopters, jets, IMAC, and our 
silly little molded gliders.  8-)


Packet radio perhaps?

Or, true digital radios with a signature at some point (just hope you 
don't need fast input after an unqualified signal).


- David
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

USA

RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News.  Send subscribe and 
unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [RCSE] Frequency Control / safety

2002-01-30 Thread James V. Bacus

I'm gonna cut this thread short, I was really just sympathizing with Tom 
loosing his second model to the same reason in such a short period of 
time.  Main point, like he even cares what I think too.

I should have never mentioned and frequency control issues on RCSE, that 
will never get solved here and not worth ruffling any feathers over.  I am 
sorry Dick, we have never met personally and I don't want this to go any 
further.


Jim
Downers Grove, IL
Member of the Chicago SOAR club,  AMA 592537LSF 7560 Level III
ICQ 6997780R/C Soaring Page at www.jimbacus.net

RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News.  Send subscribe and 
unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [RCSE] Frequency Control / safety

2002-01-30 Thread Wwing

In a message dated 01/30/2002 10:38:18 PM Central Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 Get off it Jim. This is an equal opportunity sport (or hobby,depending
  on who you listen to.) Flying an overpriced ARF does not give you any
  priority over those who build our own simple DLGs.
  
  The channel block is not available in the US..
  I think we should all have a unique ID in our tx and a way to set the ID 
in 
 the rx with microswitches or programming.  The only way to escape all the 
 newbies and throw away RTF's is to have this coded system on a separate 
freq. 
 band, and priced in the league for the guys flying expensive toys, like 
 helicopters, jets, IMAC, and our silly little molded gliders
  Jim

I think Jim's idea has merit. You pay a premium for the protection of your 
stuff. In an ideal scenario, the cost of it would not limit the newbie's 
access or force anybody to use it. It would simply be available at a price. I 
don't know the technical limitations, but they should be challenges, not 
obstacles. Just think, though. Removing the I've been hit! dodge from the 
arsenal of excuses might be kinda like wearing the emperor's (not you 
Karlton!) invisible robe.

Bill Wingstedt

RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News.  Send subscribe and 
unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [RCSE] Frequency Control / safety

2002-01-30 Thread Dick Barker

Dont get your feathers ruffled. All I said was that just because you
choose to fly overpriced, pre-build, moulded ARFS does not give you any
frequency advantage. Yes I would pay for your overpriced mouldy if:

1. I shot it down
2. you were on the frequency board when I started to fly.

If you choose to fly at a place without frequency control then you
do it at your own risk. Slope sites seem to be the worst offenders
in this respect. Model price has no priority for frequency.

The last time someone shot me down was a kid with a zagi that decided
to fly from the soccer field across the road from our county parks
department provided AMA club soaring and electric field (SASS). He didn't
want to bother the 'serious' glider fliers so he decided to teach
himself to fly in the soccer field across the street.

He is now a valuable member of our club.

-- 
Dick Barker
Seattle, WA
- Turning HLG Around - 



Get off what, I never said it did.  I hope your models never get shot down, I haven't 
been so lucky, and most people don't care.  Do you have that attitude too?  Would you 
reimburse me if you shot down my $1200 Icon and destroyed it with one of your little 
toys?  I don't want to find out.

I am just saying I would pay extra to have a regulated frequency so I can preserve my 
models, and fly in a more safe environment.  That is not an elitist attitude, sir
Jim
At 10:37 PM 1/30/2002, Dick Barker wrote:
Get off it Jim. This is an equal opportunity sport (or hobby,depending
on who you listen to.) Flying an overpriced ARF does not give you any
priority over those who build our own simple DLGs.
RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News.  Send subscribe and 
unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [RCSE] Frequency Control / safety

2002-01-30 Thread Dick Barker

I'm gonna cut this thread short, I was really just sympathizing with Tom loosing his 
second model to the same reason in such a short period of time.  Main point, like he 
even cares what I think too.

I should have never mentioned and frequency control issues on RCSE, that will never 
get solved here and not worth ruffling any feathers over.  I am sorry Dick, we have 
never met personally and I don't want this to go any further.
Jim
Downers Grove, IL

Jim,Sounds fine to me. How do we turn off that group of barking thread
chasers that want to turn it into a big deal?
-- 
Dick Barker
Seattle, WA
- Turning HLG Around - 
RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News.  Send subscribe and 
unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]



RE: [RCSE] Frequency Control / safety

2002-01-30 Thread glide

I switched to the ham band almost ten years ago just because I was tired of
sharing freqs when I was at the slopes.  At the moment, I'm the only one
on the slopes that is *legally* using the ham freqs.  But that doesn't stop
me from asking others what channels they are on and informing others of my
channel.  One drawback I can think of in having the ham band channels is
that rx's are a little more expensive than the 72 mhz counterparts.  But at
least hams have the legal exclusive rights to the 50  53 mhz r/c channels.

Until better frequency management technology is implemented in our hardware,
we will always be in danger of being shot down by others who are clueless or
don't give a rip.

In the meantime, fly at your own risk and hope that the AMA insurance kicks
in somewhere down the line. (sounds like quote of the week grin)

Aloha to all on RCSE,

Al Battad-WH6VE
AMA #506981



-Original Message-
From: David A. Enete [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 6:49 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [RCSE] Frequency Control / safety


Man, look at the technology our computer radios have, and they are
so stupid about stomping all over each others frequencies.  I know
the technology is available to keep this from happening.  I for one
would pay for it even if it meant buying a new system.

Well, you could at least stack the odds in your favor by switching to
ham bands.  You wouldn't have to lay out a big stack of money, but
would again greatly reduce the number of pilots likely to be on your
freq.

- David
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

USA



RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News.  Send subscribe and 
unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [RCSE] Frequency Control / safety

2002-01-30 Thread Monkey King

On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, David A. Enete wrote:

 Packet radio perhaps?
 
 Or, true digital radios with a signature at some point (just hope you 
 don't need fast input after an unqualified signal).

802.11 (usually known as AirPort) give 11 megabit/sec (about 100k).  I
have one in the laptop I'm using now.  The card itself is a PCMCIA and
weighs, oh, less than half an ounce.  And it speaks TCP/IP.  If we had
real packets, we could send/receive anything to and from the ship with
redundancy, frequency wouldn't especially matter, you could
encrypt/decrypt your signal, and you could have a web server that sent out
a webpage that told altitude, attitude, whatever (not that a web page
would be a good idea; something streaming would be way better).

And I bet it could be done for the same prace as radios now.  The card in
my computer cost $90.  If it was integrated into a whole radio, eh, maybe
it would cost a little more.  But you could use an embedded chip onboard
to decrypt and parse and talk to the servos.

But we don't do this because it's not where we're coming from.  We're
coming from free flight.  We want to control our models, so we attach
lines, then radios.  Then we want to mix the radio signal.

It's an evolutionary process, but every so often a revolution's a good
idea.

Naturally, though, *I* can't design this.  So I have to wait.  And so do
most of us.  So I'm willing to put up with if it ain't broke, don't fix
it since I can't really help the situation anyway.

-J

 
 
 - David
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
 USA
 
 RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News.  Send subscribe and 
unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 

RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News.  Send subscribe and 
unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [RCSE] Frequency Control / safety

2002-01-30 Thread Tom Watson

It would be a bit of effort, but would probably pay off to some extent in
the long run:

Make up some professional-looking (i.e. NOT handwritten) single-page Tip
Sheets.  We'll call them that for now, if for no other reason than I can't
think of anything fancier.  Briefly and simply explain the issue of
frequency conflict/control.  Include the concept of pin boards and stress
the importance of ASKING FOR HELP at fields, if one is uncertain of the
goings-on.

Print these on brightly-colored paper (the fluorescent reds or greens come
to mind).  Leave a stack of 100 or so at all the local shops...one could
enlist the help of a couple of the local clubs with the task.  Talk to the
manager at each of the stores and try to get them to agree to include one of
these sheets with EVERY radio and/or flying package sale.  Stress the
importance of the issue with him/her, that we're trying to be proactive with
a real problem.

Visit the shop(s) once a month or as necessary to keep the flyers stocked
and talk to the shop personnel.  This won't get everyone and maybe it's
already been tried to no avail.  You may also get a cold reception at some
places, but it could work.  You might also pick up some new talent in the
process.  Just thinking out in public here...opinions?

 Tom


 - Original Message -
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 6:40 PM
 Subject: [RCSE] Frequency Control / safety


  I'd like some constructive ideas about how I can work to improve the
  situation.



RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News.  Send subscribe and 
unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [RCSE] Frequency Control / safety

2002-01-30 Thread Martin Usher

802.11 (usually known as AirPort) give 11 megabit/sec (about 100k).  I
have one in the laptop I'm using now (Monkey King)

Your network is using 802.11b -- WiFi in today's parlance (its what Apple
uses in their AirPort products). Its not going to work too well to control a
model since the range is only about 150'. It works quite well despite having
to share the band with microwave ovens, cordless phones and other wireless
devices. I'm using a newer technology in this computer -- 802.11a -- which
uses a higher frequeny link and can theorectically deliver up to
54MBits/sec. Even if it did have the range -- and it could, because we can
transmit with significant power at the high end of the band -- its not
reactive enough to be safe for a flying model. If the link dropped it could
take several seconds to reaquire it, time enough to lose the plane.

The idea's good, though. We should be able to do something with the current
radio band using commonly available and very inexpensive processors. Our
requirements are very modest, in the tens of bits per second. I suppose
nothing's been done because of product inertia and regulatory
considerations. We should push manufacturers. They're flooding the market
with R/C toys -- park fliers -- which are a risk to us all. They need to
close the loop so we can all fly without fear.

RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News.  Send subscribe and 
unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [RCSE] Frequency Control / safety

2002-01-30 Thread Craig

Al,

I wasn't aware that 50MHz at least was exclusive. I could be
wrong but understood that ham operators stay clear of it by
understanding rather than legal requirement. It's a small detail
and your point stands, it is considerably safer in basically all
environments.

Craig.


- Original Message -
From: glide [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 10:09 PM
Subject: RE: [RCSE] Frequency Control / safety


 I switched to the ham band almost ten years ago just because I
was tired of
 sharing freqs when I was at the slopes.  At the moment, I'm
the only one
 on the slopes that is *legally* using the ham freqs.  But that
doesn't stop
 me from asking others what channels they are on and informing
others of my
 channel.  One drawback I can think of in having the ham band
channels is
 that rx's are a little more expensive than the 72 mhz
counterparts.  But at
 least hams have the legal exclusive rights to the 50  53 mhz
r/c channels.

 Until better frequency management technology is implemented in
our hardware,
 we will always be in danger of being shot down by others who
are clueless or
 don't give a rip.

 In the meantime, fly at your own risk and hope that the AMA
insurance kicks
 in somewhere down the line. (sounds like quote of the week
grin)

 Aloha to all on RCSE,

 Al Battad-WH6VE
 AMA #506981



 -Original Message-
 From: David A. Enete [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
 Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 6:49 PM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: Re: [RCSE] Frequency Control / safety


 Man, look at the technology our computer radios have, and they
are
 so stupid about stomping all over each others frequencies.  I
know
 the technology is available to keep this from happening.  I
for one
 would pay for it even if it meant buying a new system.

 Well, you could at least stack the odds in your favor by
switching to
 ham bands.  You wouldn't have to lay out a big stack of money,
but
 would again greatly reduce the number of pilots likely to be on
your
 freq.

 - David
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

 USA



 RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News.  Send
subscribe and unsubscribe requests to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News.  Send subscribe and 
unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]



RE: [RCSE] Frequency Control / safety

2002-01-30 Thread Brian Jarchow

I believe that hams  the government are the only authorized users of the
50-54 MHz band, and most hams will stick to the voluntary bandplans so I
think you are pretty safe if you are on those bands.

On another subject, something that will hopefully help eliminate getting
shot down, does anybody know if spread spectrum R/C gear is available?
That's something I would definitely pay for if it's available and if I can
afford it!

Brian


 I wasn't aware that 50MHz at least was exclusive. I could be
 wrong but understood that ham operators stay clear of it by
 understanding rather than legal requirement. It's a small detail
 and your point stands, it is considerably safer in basically all
 environments.


RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News.  Send subscribe and 
unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]