AMA and technology

[Coder]

Does anyone consider the current frequency allocation and its attending or inferred modulation schemes a little archaic.

Another way to approach this topic is to ask whether the "one transmitter one frequency rule" is causing accidents/insurance claims and hindering the growth of the hobby.

Is the AMA actively looking at this problem with manufactures and the FCC?

If not why not. I use a number of wireless devices during the course of a day which do not depend on waiting until someone else is finished with his task. Wouldn't it be nice to go to your local flying field or park and fire up your transmitter and not have to worry whether you just caused mayhem or destruction around the corner?

The technological solutions are rather simple and found in most everyday wireless devices. Wouldn't it behoove us to pursue those technologies for our hobby?

Seems to me that's what the AMA is for.

[Jim Branaum]

Yes, there does need to be a more direct effort to move us into Spread Spectrum. There seem to be several POLITICAL problems to that action rather than technical issues to resolve.

I have been talking Spread Spectrum for several years now and have seen the illuminati go the extra mile to prove it cannot happen. I have not given up.

[kdhanson]

Coder,

I absolutely agree with you. I think solutions to this issue have to come from the mfr's by way of customer feedback. The are not likely to sink much into R & D unless there is a big demand from the modeling public. If customers let them know what they would like to see in terms of new features then it's more likely they will start looking into new innovations like that.
I received a survey form from Futaba not too long ago regarding radio systems. I only wish I had thought of mentioning your idea in the "what would you like in a radio system" section. :(

Ken

BTW, where do you fly in the Nashua area?

[Coder]

Jim:
I'm glad you agree. Maybe we can get this issue moving. I see it taking a concerted effort, orchestrated by the AMA, including the manufacturers FCC and the AMA to produce a protocol/modulation scheme/frequency allocation that would satisfy the requirements of this next generation hardware.

I was trying hard not mention what technologies could be or should be used as I think there are several candidates but Spread Spectrum certainly looks promising. At least it works very well in my home phone.

I'd feel much better about paying my AMA dues if I knew that a portion was directed toward this goal instead of just supporting the notion that we can insure the members away from this problem.

Ken:
Granite State Quiet Flyers, Litchfield

[Coder]

Now where were we before we were rudely interrupted?

There is a couple of points in the preceding that I would take issue with. One is the notion that the RC market is "insignificant" and that we can't apply any pressure on the manufacturers or they will simply vanish. The last time I looked there were at least four major corporations involved in producing RC radio gear. They do so because it is profitable and the return on invest is significant. I don't think their stock holders would tolerate anything less. Of course they kick and scream if you force changes because if cuts into their profit margin; but, they will do so nonetheless because there are significant profits to be made going forward.

The second one is the fear that any new technology would inexorably raise the cost of our gear or could potentially price it out of our reach. We are not talking about technology which needs any inventing. The technology is already here. My home phone runs spread spectrum at 900MHz and sells for under $100 and it has pretty good range. Any change to our equipment should obviously exploit existing consumer technology.

I think this thread goes a long way to answering my original question of "why not."

[easytiger]

Question:
Has anybody ASKED AMA if they are working on this?

[easytiger]

Also, aren't there pagers and such transmitting in between our frequencies already anyway? Would kind of kill spread spectrum...

[Don Sims]

At one of the fields that I fly at, there are certain places where my single conversion planes take nasty hits. One of the other pilots went down using a dual conversion a week or so ago in the same spot that I get a lot of hits. I fly electric and he does the IC thing.

At another field channels in the 30's are not useable.

Is this a result of pager technology? Is there someone in the AMA that members of those two clubs should bring the problems too?
Don

[Jim Branaum]

Contact your local AMA Frequency Coordinator and borrow the district scanner. That will help you pin down the exact problem areas. Armed with that information and the scanner you can search out the 'offending' cell/pager tower. Most operators will gladly correct splatter problems if approached properly. Remember to tell them that energy splattering on your frequencies is energy that is not going out on theirs. That seems to attract corrective action as the implication is improved range and communications.

I know that we have a field that is 1/2 or less from a repeater tower and in the past we have had some problems on a few frequencies. However, the tower operator is reasonably good on maintenance and before it became an issue they seem to have done something.

Good luck

[Jim Ryan]

DISCLAIMER: I am not an RF techie. The following is based on my rudimentary understanding of spread spectrum:

1. Note that spread spectrum as used in phones and other consumer products does not have to be as robust and reliable as what we need for controlling a model airplane which may be doing in excess of 200 MPH. If your phone has a momentary drop-out, you hardly notice. If your radio has a "momentary drop-out", you might be picking up pieces. The much more advanced spread spectrum as used by the military is of course far more expensive.

2. As I understand it, spread spectrum would obsolete all existing narrow band RC hardware. While I'm certainly interested in the long-term promise of this technology, I'm not all that eager to trash a couple thousand dollars worth of transmitters and receivers. As I understand it, this would be a MUCH more drastic change than when we made the shift to narrow band in the 80s.

3. In the same vein, would spread spectrum for radio control also hit the other users (i.e. pagers and TV) that fall between our FCC-granted frequencies? If so, we're just about assured of losing that battle.

4. At the very least, we can reasonably expect spread spectrum radios to cost more, making it a good deal more expensive to fly multiple airplanes (at present I have about 20 flyable airplanes).

5. Bear in mind that the US is only a fraction of the worldwide RC market. If the rest of the world doesn't go along with this change (which would have to get each government's stamp of approval), radio mfrs would be faced with the prospect of developing a new and expensive technology solely for the US market.

I hope that someone with specific knowledge in this area can chime in and tell us whether these points are valid. I'd love to be proved wrong.

Jim

[easytiger]

Originally posted by Don Sims
At one of the fields that I fly at, there are certain places where my single conversion planes take nasty hits. One of the other pilots went down using a dual conversion a week or so ago in the same spot that I get a lot of hits. I fly electric and he does the IC thing.

At another field channels in the 30's are not useable.

Is this a result of pager technology? Is there someone in the AMA that members of those two clubs should bring the problems too?
Don

This is very, very common. You will find locals that say "don't fly on 52 at this field". Borrow a scanner from the AMA, and find the source of the interference. It could be something like a leaking transformer on a power line, a nearby radio tower that is off freqency...any number of things. You can also get an Icom scanner for under $200.
I have one. It is very handy, but somewhat deceptive, too, as it is not quite accurate enough to discern between pagers on the spaces between our freqs and something actually ON our freqs. But it would certainly help in tracking down the source of local interference.

[easytiger]

I'm not an expert, either...but I do remember it was only about ten years ago that we all had to upgrade our equipment. I remember how many complained. Not sure if a technology such as this would be that welcome at the moment.

[Coder]

I'm not really promoting a solution. That comes later. I was asking if the current scheme was perceived as problem and if so what can be done about it.

What I'm hearing is that it might be a problem but we will have to live with it because any solution is a) too expensive, b) is not technically feasible, c) our equipment manufacturers would disappear, d) unnecessary; we have insurance.

If so, how many years will this hold true and what do we do at the end of that period?

[Jim Ryan]

Originally posted by Coder
d) unnecessary; we have insurance.


It might be well to consider what spread spectrum CAN do, and what it CAN'T do.

Spread spectrum would eliminate the need for frequency pins, and with it, the risk of "shoot-downs" from someone switching on on your frequency (or from other concentrated interference).

It will not prevent problems with poorly maintained hardware, poor range checks or many of the other myriad problems that afflict RCers.

I've certainly seen some shoot-downs over the years, and I've also waited impatiently for someone to turn in the pin so that I could fly. So you have to ask yourself if these frustrations warrant a fundamental overall of our radio control standards which would ultimately make all our existing gear unusable.

Jim

[Coder]

So you have to ask yourself if these frustrations warrant a fundamental overall of our radio control standards which would ultimately make all our existing gear unusable.

When I start flying rc I built a single tube receiver and a single channel transmitter on 27MHz. I threw that away and bought a reed system. Then I threw that away and bought a proportional system. etc, etc ,etc. I still have some wide band tx/rx pairs. The point is that our equipment will always be rendered unusable at some point. Simple obsolescence.

I think the problem might be a little more than frustrating. with the proliferation of "sanctioned" field fliers, park flyers, corner flyers, street flyers, backyard flyers, etc. Under the current scheme the day is already here, I think, that you may turn on your transmitter and kill someone. What then?

[Don Sims]

Gents. FYI I split the tread so there is a bit of "Huhh, whats he talking about still left here. I didn't want to take the time to edit those small comments out of the on topic posts in this thread.
Don

Please keep district politics out of this thread.

[easytiger]

Good move.
Anyway...I suggest that someone call or email Steve Kaluf, the AMA technical director, and get the true gen on what AMA knows about Spread Spectrum Technology, and what they are planning to do, or not do, with it. Why not ask people who really know? All of us, including me, seem to be pretty inexpert in the subject, so why not ask?

[rsallen13]

Spread Specturm would be great for RC and for those who think that it would be hard to impliment, just think about it for a minute.

#1 The technology has already been invented, tested, and inpliment in a variaty of platforms. (cell phone, hand helds, wireless computing - I could go on)

#2 We select a portion of our band width we use now and use it for Spread Spectrum (say 10-20) the rest continue to fly as we do now.

#3 Each year 10 channels of frequency spacing is added until the last year which would last two years and then all older systems are phased out.

#4 We might actually make friends with the FCC as spread spectrum would actually require LESS frequencies to accomplish and we might be able to relenquish usage on some.

#5 This would make most "radio" relate incidents almost a thing of the past.

#6 Intial cost might be $500 set if massed produced but I think that companies like "Radio South" would find a way to retrofit older computer sets to comply. Price would drop dramaticaly as demand increased.

#7 If the US were to adopt this you can see Japan, Canada Europe and Aust/NZ following suit for the reason in 4 & 5.

[Hovertime]

Not much progress here, technology and politics don't mix well... :(

[Carl Petersen]

Not much progress here, technology and politics don't mix well... :(

There is some progress. Have a look a www.spektrumrc.com. As yet only for surface use, but a complete spread spectrum implementation running at 2.4ghz. Your right though, nothing to do with politics or the AMA :rolleyes:

Here is a brief summary of the technology:

• The Spektrum DSM System provides an impenetrable digital RF link between a racer and their car that is impervious to all types of interference including other radio systems, model generated interference or environmental interference from pagers, cell phones, etc.

• Collision Avoidance- The DSM system scans the 2.4Ghz band looking for an open channel. When an unused channel is found the system locks on that channel and transmits providing the following benefits:
 No more waiting for an open frequency
 No need to impound the radio
 Eliminates the need for a frequency board and frequency clips
 Interference for other radios is a thing of the past
 No crystals are needed

• 2.4ghz worldwide band is approved for international use. No need to change frequencies when traveling abroad

• Built-in failsafe drives the servos to a preset position (usually full brakes) in the unlikely event of radio interference

• The DSM system literally plugs into popular module based 3-channel transmitters allowing most racers to convert to DSM technology right away.

• Short 8" receiver antenna is easy to mount

• The soon-to-be-released DSM telemetry module will allow real time monitoring of head temperature, rpm, speed, battery voltage, lap time, etc.

• No maintenance or tuning required (always stays in tune)

• Up to 79 users can simultaneously operate DSM systems

[Carl Petersen]

Now.. go get one or shut up.
Gee, I don't see that that's appropriate. The reason that Futaba et al. have not implemented the Polk system is that it doesn't protect all the flight envelop that your model flies in rendering it a partial solution at best. I think the real solution would be a spread spectrum system or its derivative whcih makes it impossible to have the accident.

The AMA as I see it are quick to point out how diligent it is working to protect your freq allocation. While this is all well and good I would like to see the organization support or at least promote newer technology which will alleviate the current problem which, by the way, is not just a safety problem but endemic to the system we use today. How often do we read that someone looses a plane because someone turns on a transmitter. Almost daily just on ezone. It's an issue because the current technology allows it to happen.

I think systems brought to market, like the one I reference in my last post, will eventually solve the problem and the AMA will be left holding on to a set of frequencies that no one is using. What I don't want to see happen is to see five or more incompatible solutions appear on the market which is often the case when we leave the market to solve a problem and is why I would like the AMA to participate.

Please don't shut up.

Carl Petersen

[fhhuber506771]

Does it provide the most important stuff you asked for? Not limiting a TX to just one frequency, aiding in prevention of interference caused crashes...

My opinion is.. its a much better solution than the Futaba 9C's synth frequency module (as a $99 option) or the HiTech Spectra... or (whatever other synth without scan there its..) to have a decent computer radio, at an amazingly low price that has frequency synthization AND a scanner AND prevents itself from shooting someone else down.

Its 75% or more of the stuff you asked for.. at 40% of the price you wanted your idea marketed for.... DAMN...

No need for messing with changing the FCC rules to try to mess up the system. (they can make it worse.. the Cell phone companies WANT our frequencies..) No need for creating problems that don't already exist... just a pretty decent solution to MOST of the problems that do exist at a good price.

The Tracker III WILL be my next radio... WHY won't it be yours? (the only drawback to the tracker... he hasn't done a heli programming set... Yet.... but Mr Polk doesn't fly heli and doesn't want to do it wrong.)

Maybe if he had the market share that Futaba or JR or HiTech has.. he could hire the staff to get the Heli version programmed... Its the only Made in USA radio that I know of now too. (and he still is better than competitive on price... )
*********

And you want the AMA it ask for an improved safety regs on the Radios.. start by asking for that scanner that says "someone's already on this channel.. I ain't transmitting.. nope.. no way.. " just try to have the AMA require that.... (and watch the AMA members scream about having to buy new stuff.. again.. after 15 years since the last required equip upgrade rule... which was actually an FCC rule, not AMA....)

[fhhuber506771]

I looked up that spread spectrum thing.. and looking for range I found... 3000 ft (not bad... but our FM systems are now generally good to a minimum of 4000 ft for the full size recievers...)

and he hedges the question of how many channels per radio...

Can this TX be modified for more than three channels?
Our first release is designed for three channels only.

Can it or can't it? Ooo Ok.. lets all go back to flying Rudder-Elevator-Throttle.

You say its there... its only half there.

[50+AirYears]

When it's financially practical and approved by the FCC, the manufacturers will jump on the bandwagon. Money talks.

[Jim Branaum]

When it's financially practical and approved by the FCC, the manufacturers will jump on the bandwagon. Money talks.

Well, sort of.

The fastest growing segment of our hobby is the electric group that disdains AMA and its 'rules' and thereby looses its organizational power and structure. This means those guys are alone and have no voice in the way things get done. Read that as no impact on what is and what is not financially practical. As ones and twos reporting losses, there is no tail to wag the dog with.

As long as the greatest supply of dumb users is not organized into a group to scream for good equipment, there is no financially practical spread spectrum system that will ever be fielded in effective numbers. Better returns on the investment can be had from existing lines of equipment that has minimal changes needed to be branded as "new".