[keithupnorth]

lost my first plane in,many years today frsky system) was flying fine no prob whatsoever,straight and level over the patch then engine (petrol) stops plane goes into spin (no control whatsover  so I assume failsafe kicked in, and down she goes , watched a guy yesterday have just about the same scenario (spectrum) and about an hour after my plane goes in another member flying a world models ultimate does a low fast pass over the strip plane goes knife edge and bang in at full chat, he stands scratching his head saying what happened there? he was using spectrum also.

on testing my  planes remains reciever still showed a solid light indicating bound, elevator and rudder still functioned from range, battery (6 volt )still good? so what was it? cant get it out of my head tempted to put my 35 meg gear back in tx and planes? and I was well taken with 2.4 till now.

KW

[Thoughtful_Flyer]

lost my first plane in,many years today frsky system) was flying fine no prob whatsoever,straight and level over the patch then engine (petrol) stops plane goes into spin (no control whatsover  so I assume failsafe kicked in, and down she goes

Was your fail-safe deliberately set to create a spin in the event of no signal (e.g. up elevator, full rudder, engine idle) ?

Have you seen my thread about wild FrSky issues if you touch the trainer switch on a FF7? This can, sometimes, give full rudder and elevator.

[Patmac]

Have you seen this thread http://www.rcmf.co.uk/4um/index.php/topic,80272.0.html reply #3 might interest you. I believe the suspected problem lives in Redcar area.

[JohnB]

You beat me to it !

It would look highly likely if 2 different systems are both seemingly blocked.

J

[keithupnorth]

very interesting but how on earth could you prove it? anyone with this suggested frv set up flying off the cleveland hills overlooking teeside is only a few miles as the crow flys,from our site so what range could this guy have?

KW

[Pup Cam]

very interesting but how on earth could you prove it? anyone with this suggested frv set up flying off the cleveland hills overlooking teeside is only a few miles as the crow flys,from our site so what range could this guy have?

Using some very expensive RF monitoring equipment like the nice man from Ofcom would provide.     

The big problem would be getting the Ofcom man and his equipment in the right place at the right time  although that might be his problem rather than yours.   I believe that they are required to investigate such cases of misuse of the RF spectrum - you only have to ask although I'm not sure of the exact process.  A visit to the Ofcom website would be the place to start although, be prepared, it's not the easiest site to find what your looking for.

Other things to watch out for is the fact that there are legal high power users of parts of the band and the adjacent bands eg Radio Amateurs use parts of both the 1.2 and 2.4GHz bands for Amateur TV broadcasts amongst other things and can legitimately transmit very high power levels and use a lot of bandwidth (video remember) although airborne use is specifically excluded.  The fact is, as has been stated on numerous occasions before, the 2.4GHz band is not and never was a panacea.  Ironically in fact, it's one of the most highly congested bits of the spectrum. 

It's true, the new 2.4GHz R/C system technology has some exceptional features and facilities and in many cases and on many occasions exceeds the performance of trusty old 35MHz  BUT the beauty of 35MHz is that the pool of conflicting equipment is relatively small  (and getting smaller ) and the band is for our exclusive use which means that, in the case of problems, the situation is much more clear cut between right and wrong so resolution of problems should be simpler.

£0.02 supplied (cheaper than PDR these days )

Alan

[craiglines1970]

£0.02 supplied (cheaper than PDR these days )

Only by about £6.

Craig.

[PDR]

I just conclued that £6.66 was my "natural" price.

PDR

[leccyflyer]

lost my first plane in,many years today frsky system) was flying fine no prob whatsoever,straight and level over the patch then engine (petrol) stops plane goes into spin (no control whatsover  so I assume failsafe kicked in, and down she goes , watched a guy yesterday have just about the same scenario (spectrum) and about an hour after my plane goes in another member flying a world models ultimate does a low fast pass over the strip plane goes knife edge and bang in at full chat, he stands scratching his head saying what happened there? he was using spectrum also.

on testing my  planes remains reciever still showed a solid light indicating bound, elevator and rudder still functioned from range, battery (6 volt )still good? so what was it? cant get it out of my head tempted to put my 35 meg gear back in tx and planes? and I was well taken with 2.4 till now.

KW

You're not alone- there's a lot of it about.

We suffered a similar scenario on Sunday, having not had a glitch since starting off using 2.4ghz (chiefly on Spektrum) last year. Totalled the model, and pretty darn near totalled my confidence in the radio gear.

I'd even invested in a telemetry-equipped Frsky module to replace my early adopter module, with one eye on the reported Frsky ID problem. The uncertainty is the killer though..

[Thoughtful_Flyer]

Although the FPV cause is POSSIBLE (just as are other sources of outside interference) it is far, far more likely to be an internal issue.

The problem is it is very hard indeed to establish the cause of a crash. I repeat the question I asked earlier, what was your fail-safe programmed to do? If it went into fail-safe would the plane have done what it did?

I'm not suggesting for a moment that you accidentally pulled the trainer switch or, even if you did your setup would show the same issue as mine. My point is that this should not happen but it does. There may be other intermittent faults that can have the same savage results.

[bobt]

As Ian Fleming once wrote: once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, third time its enemy action....... maybe a lynch party should be out looking for this guy?

[Thoughtful_Flyer]

maybe a lynch party should be out looking for this guy?

How about getting some evidence rather than jumping to conclusions?

It is one possible cause amongst many, no more.

[leccyflyer]

It's not a question of jumping to conclusions. By his own postings the guy in question was/is operating illegally, so, whatever the technical issues as to the likelyhood that he is actually causing shoot-downs, the possibility that he is doing so needs to be removed ASAP. The club that osidered their members were being affected needs to get the feller grounded, at least.

[Thoughtful_Flyer]

It's not a question of jumping to conclusions. By his own postings the guy in question was/is operating illegally, so, whatever the technical issues as to the likelyhood that he is actually causing shoot-downs, the possibility that he is doing so needs to be removed ASAP. The club that osidered their members were being affected needs to get the feller grounded, at least.

If he is operating illegally then by all means get the proper authorities to take action.

However, if you think about it logically, the likelihood that this one individual caused any, let alone all, of these problems is fairly slim.

[aesmith]

Have you seen this on the FPV site ..."CAA Enforcement Branch Meeting".   Clearly some attention is being paid, although I don't think the CAA are involved with compliance of RC radio gear.

[leccyflyer]

That's an interesting link. It's inconceivable that CAA (and OFCOM) are not watching, given the high profile manner in which these various videos have been posted that boast of flying well beyond visual range, at high altitude and with airborne TX equipment transmitting at levels not permitted.

[markg]

Wow that's the first time I ever really looked at that forum.  What a bunch of mostly inconsiderate little plebs they are, with their oh so clever 'nudge nudge wink wink' attitude to using illegal 2.4GHz gear and blatant couldn't give a toss approach to whether or not they cause someone else to lose their model.  At least when it was CB morons shooting people down they weren't meant to be part of the same hobby. 

[Thoughtful_Flyer]

Wow that's the first time I ever really looked at that forum.  What a bunch of mostly inconsiderate little plebs they are, with their oh so clever 'nudge nudge wink wink' attitude to using illegal 2.4GHz gear and blatant couldn't give a toss approach to whether or not they cause someone else to lose their model.  At least when it was CB morons shooting people down they weren't meant to be part of the same hobby.

I fully agree and there are obviously all kinds of implications.

However, we must not get ourselves into the habit of blaming every crash on a convenient outside cause. Just as with 35 MHz the vast majority of faults are closer to home.

[keithupnorth]

Although the FPV cause is POSSIBLE (just as are other sources of outside interference) it is far, far more likely to be an internal issue.

The problem is it is very hard indeed to establish the cause of a crash. I repeat the question I asked earlier, what was your fail-safe programmed to do? If it went into fail-safe would the plane have done what it did?

I'm not suggesting for a moment that you accidentally pulled the trainer switch or, even if you did your setup would show the same issue as mine. My point is that this should not happen but it does. There may be other intermittent faults that can have the same savage results.

yes it was set to engine off all surfaces hard over as all mine are,  Ive seen a large model "fly away" landed next to a hollywood bowl and was trouser clips for the models owner for a while till he confirmed no one was hurt, another hundred yards and it would have been in a B&Q carpark
no I did not "accidently" switch anything on, my radio is a 9zap with a 2.4 module and has till yesterday been faultless ? the module is not moved IE no damage to pins, plane had flown many many times before, had no stall whatsoever (su26) was pussycat, it simply shut down the engine and controls put it into a nose down spin (from straight and level no input from me at the time flight?) now I admit to knowing little or nothing about this FPV malarkey, but if someone flying above me and in  line of site from the cleveland hills some 8 miles away can due to his illegal (it seems ) activities, bring down models,then the least he can expect should it be proven is a swift nadding

KW

I will use some less valuable planes to regain confidence in the 2.4 set up if one of those goes in its back to 35 meg, sad to say.

[leccyflyer]

Neither can we ignore blatent disregard for the regulations, which could potentially affect the safety of our models.

As mentioned elsewhere 2.4ghz is a bit of a junk band and contains all sorts of other legitimate users of the band.

The CE label on the Frsky modules state (albeit in tiny small print)
 "Operation is subject to the following two conditions.
1. this device may not cause harmful interference and
2. this device must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesired operation"

The exact meaning of that would be an interesting subject for discussion - it could be argue that it accepts that the radio link is embarked upon in the full knowledge that interference might occur, and te user accepts that risk. Conversely it could be argued that it implies that the equipment is capable of accepting such interference and not being materially affected. It's a somewhat ambiguous statement, open to interpretation.

[Thoughtful_Flyer]

yes it was set to engine off all surfaces hard over as all mine are,  Ive seen a large model "fly away" landed next to a hollywood bowl and was trouser clips for the models owner for a while till he confirmed no one was hurt, another hundred yards and it would have been in a B&Q carpark

Well, that is very commendable and arguably the correct thing to do. I say arguably as, obviously, it will cause a crash from any short lock out close to the ground as may have happened here.

There is no absolute answer on the fail-safe question other that reducing or cutting the throttle.

The trainer switch issue should not affect the high end transmitters as the switch is disabled by default.

What I would like to know is what other issues can cause as savage effect as the trainer switch problem I've found. Perhaps those with radio knowledge on here can help with this.

The FF8 was notorious for module pin problems but AFAIK this doesn't normally affect the ZAP.

[aesmith]

Wow that's the first time I ever really looked at that forum.  What a bunch of mostly inconsiderate little plebs they are, with their oh so clever 'nudge nudge wink wink' attitude to using illegal 2.4GHz gear and blatant couldn't give a toss approach to whether or not they cause someone else to lose their model.

I think that may be a bit harsh, although I've not looked through their forums in detail.   I did notice one post where the user was trying claim that he didn't need a spotter, and he was very firmly corrected by all who responded.

[FrankS]

So the guy who is flying on illegal 2.4 video gear is probably using 35 mhz for control, if he is flying over your site and hasn't claimed the peg, he could quite easilly be shot down by one of your members flying legally on 35 mhz. Maybe you should alert him that due to problems on 2.4 your club is going back to exclusivelly 35 mhz and its upto him to make sure he doesn't suffer any interference.

Its getting like the old days with 27 mhz illegal CB radios and fishermen using 35mhz for bait boats

[tekiM]

So the guy who is flying on illegal 2.4 video gear is probably using 35 mhz for control, if he is flying over your site and hasn't claimed the peg...

Wow!  Talk about proceeding straight to sentencing!  Give the guy a fair trial and then hang him, eh?

I'm much more intrigued by this:

...Ive seen a large model "fly away" landed next to a hollywood bowl and was trouser clips for the models owner for a while till he confirmed no one was hurt, another hundred yards and it would have been in a B&Q carpark.

Just how close to these facilities is your site?  In the spirit of this thread's "jumping to conclusions", I'm gonna suggest TOO CLOSE.

Mike

[JohnB]

Just how close to these facilities is your site?  In the spirit of this thread's "jumping to conclusions", I'm gonna suggest TOO CLOSE.

Mike

So using your theme of jumping to conclusions....

Anywhere within flying range of a model is too close? So a Magnum at 200 mph with 5 minutes duration that would be 16 miles away, on this basis a flying site would have to be in the centre of a 32 mile diameter exclusion zone.

Perhaps this isn't the point yourer making? and perhaps the circumstances of the post being discussed aren't quite so black and white?

J

[bobt]

The point, I believe, is that this guy (whoever he is) is using illegal high powered 2.4 and is swamping the area he is flying in. The whole FPV thing is reminiscent of the illegal CB radios of the 80s, with people just poo-pooing the regulations as 'spoiling their fun', and having a complete disregard for fellow fliers. We have to just sit back and take the flak, while keeping within the rules. I vote for a lynch mob.....

[Steve J]

I would have thought that a 2.4GHz video transmitter operating at an illegal (but easily obtainable) power would have to be quite close by (say, distance from video transmitter to model < 4 times the distance from you to the model) to cause a problem.

it was set to engine off all surfaces hard over as all mine are

That seems a little extreme to me. It more or less guarantees that a transient radio problem will end in tears.

Steve

[keithupnorth]

Wow!  Talk about proceeding straight to sentencing!  Give the guy a fair trial and then hang him, eh?

I'm much more intrigued by this:

Just how close to these facilities is your site?  In the spirit of this thread's "jumping to conclusions", I'm gonna suggest TOO CLOSE.

Mike

 I mainly fly at the teeside mfc site ( as good as it gets) used to fly at the the old slag banks   in hartlepool (so did many others) thats where the plane I watched flew for many minutes without,  control it kept looping getting farther away and closer to the ground till it eventually hit, so yes you ARE jumping to conclusions.

KW

[keithupnorth]

I would have thought that a 2.4GHz video transmitter operating at an illegal (but easily obtainable) power would have to be quite close by (say, distance from video transmitter to model < 4 times the distance from you to the model) to cause a problem.

That seems a little extreme to me. It more or less guarantees that a transient radio problem will end in tears.

Steve

thats how I do it, if I lose it I want it down sooner rather than later, I have fortunately never had the full test till yesterday!!

[bobt]

That seems a little extreme to me. It more or less guarantees that a transient radio problem will end in tears.

Steve

Totally agree. Failsafe should be set at all surfaces to neutral, engine to idle. I have friends up north who set failsafes to put the model into a spin- possibly the way to go if you are close to a road or property, but totally ending any possibility of retrieving control- is this a 'northern' thing?

[Steve J]

I have friends up north who set failsafes to put the model into a spin- possibly the way to go if you are close to a road or property, but totally ending any possibility of retrieving control- is this a 'northern' thing?

I do my flying not very far from Keith (but not quite as far north) and I am not aware of anybody that I fly with setting their models to spin in on a failsafe. Engine to idle or motor off (or a bit of spoiler if it's a glider) for me.

Steve

[SteveBB]

Failsafe in the context used here is a misnomer in my opinion. An out of control model aircraft is an out of control model aircraft, and not safe when it fails to be controlled unless it had a default preset that enables it to land without any chance whatsoever of contact with another person/car/building. And land with the touch of a butterfly if it did. 

[JohnB]

Failsafe in the context used here is a misnomer in my opinion. An out of control model aircraft is an out of control model aircraft, and not safe when it fails to be controlled unless it had a default preset that enables it to land without any chance whatsoever of contact with another person/car/building. And land with the touch of a butterfly if it did. 

But the emphasis should be damage limitation for people / property on the ground. I feel the best setup with this in mind is throttle closed and surfaces to hold in the hope that any interference is transient.

J

[Pup Cam]

but totally ending any possibility of retrieving control

Sorry to go offer topic, but the fundamental point of the failsafe is to prevent the aircraft flying away out of control and it has nothing whatsoever to do with preserving your investment Bob.   
However, I think that discussion has been on the forum a number of times before and this thread is about potential issues with 2.4GHz equipment not how to set up your failsafe.

Another £0.02p

Alan

[tekiM]

So using your theme of jumping to conclusions....

Anywhere within flying range of a model is too close? So a Magnum at 200 mph with 5 minutes duration that would be 16 miles away, on this basis a flying site would have to be in the centre of a 32 mile diameter exclusion zone.

Perhaps this isn't the point yourer making? and perhaps the circumstances of the post being discussed aren't quite so black and white?

J

Not quite - the impression I took from Keith's post was that the B&Q store was closer than he's subsequently made clear (more anon...)  It also occurred to me that this might be a more probable source of any interference than a mystery man on't moor.

Your scenario assumes the Magnum would be out of control from launch - surely any competent failsafe system will have brought matters to a conclusion long before then?

Which brings me to Keith's subsequent comment about watching the model gyrate for several minutes before grounding - this sounds more like a complete lockout due to radio or power system failure in the aircraft, rather than prolonged interference from an extraneous source.  I'm sure that even if the band was swamped, there would have been sporadic episodes of controllability and as others have observed, the likelihood of such swamping would be much diminished unless the source was in close proximity.

Mike

[JohnB]

Not quite - the impression I took from Keith's post was that the B&Q store was closer than he's subsequently made clear (more anon...)  It also occurred to me that this might be a more probable source of any interference than a mystery man on't moor.

Agreed

Your scenario assumes the Magnum would be out of control from launch - surely any competent failsafe system will have brought matters to a conclusion long before then?

You assume failsafe ! Not a mandatory requirement and I have seen Magnums launched when the switch has been knocked on the launch into the off position, it definately was not one to take your eyes off and the speed was incredible when it hit the deck.

J

[tekiM]

You don't think failsafe is a reasonable assumption on a 200mph (yeah, right) model?

If you don't, then perhaps your 32-mile exclusion zone is about right - ANO/CAP - you know, all that legal stuff knowingly endangering?

Mike

[JohnB]

I didn't say it wasn't a reasonable assumption BUT it is still an assumption and not mandatory.

J

[tomkfly]

Agreed
You assume failsafe ! Not a mandatory requirement and I have seen Magnums launched when the switch has been knocked on the launch into the off position, it definately was not one to take your eyes off and the speed was incredible when it hit the deck.

J

[
John, as far as I am aware setting fail-safe, on all models, to at least move the throttle to idle is mandatory when available.

  Tom

[JohnB]

[
John, as far as I am aware setting fail-safe, on all models, to at least move the throttle to idle is mandatory when available.

  Tom

Absolutely correct, teh point I was making is that it's not always available.

J