VK Logger Ham Radio Forum Archive

Noticed this:

http://www.rpastraining.com.au/wp-conte ... 3x1024.jpg

Note the bottom RH corner.

FPV means First Person View, i.e. the operator is using goggles or a screen to control the vehicle via an-on-board camera.

I'm interpreting their comment to mean that to run higher power than authorised for video links, you may be able to get around that with an advanced AR licence - till other users complain and the ACMA step in

It also has a mistake with the distance to remain clear of aerodromes. 3 Nautical Miles is 5.5km not 4.5km.

The site is here:

http://www.rpastraining.com.au/casr-101 ... or-illegal

VK3RX wrote:FPV means First Person View, i.e. the operator is using goggles or a screen to control the vehicle via an-on-board camera.

I'm interpreting their comment to mean that to run higher power than authorised for video links, you may be able to get around that with an advanced AR licence - till other users complain and the ACMA step in

My understanding is FPV is not legal in most situations. Having a AR license does not make it legal.

Thanks Damien for the links.

The info page does go a long way to explaining why a colleague has been asking me about obtaining an Amateur Licence and asking questions about bands and power levels. He is into RC models in a big way currently and has the money to spend on quality gear.

Regards
Bernard

So what is the definitive ruling on this? Does anyone (authority or otherwise) actually know where the line in the sand is?

One approach is for an operator to determine the legality of flight using FPV. If it isn't permitted, then an amateur licence becomes irrelevant.

The authority to ask if FPV is legal or not is CASA. Their explanatory material suggests that for model aircraft at least, it is not permitted.

However if the intention is to operate the vehicle in sight of the operator at all times and just run high power for the video downlink for some reason, then for personal AR use of the video it's probably no different from what we're already permitted to do, but not something you'd want to ask the ACMA for a determination on in case they give an answer you don't want

The situation is muddied by CASA dragging their heels over publishing explanatory material and operators putting their own interpretation on the CASA regs., and publishing material like this. It infers that FPV may be OK if the operator has an advanced AR licence. However an AR licence is for non-commercial activity of course, so a UAV operator could not use an AR licence to cover a high power video downlink if the video will be used for commercial purposes.

Where's that can of worm pix .....

VK2JDH wrote:My understanding is FPV is not legal in most situations. Having a AR license does not make it legal.

No it is not illegal.

Lets start from the beginning. RC planes which come under CAOs, CARs and CASA. (federal aviation law).
So there are rules that you should follow when flying RC planes. These rules are much the same for all aircraft, RC, hang gliders, ultra lights, General Aviation etc.

So flying your RC plane in a park next to an airport is kind of stupid. Laws are already in place if you can't exercise self control.

Now enter FPV, which as I have said isn't illegal since you're flying an RC plane just as you have before but now with a bit of extra pilot information.
FPV is illegal in the USA, and simply because Uncle Sam is paranoid. I would suggest that this is a violation of the second amendment because there is a perceived threat that an FPV platform is an excellent way to guide an RC missile.

Back to Australia. 5.8GHz is a LIPD "unlicensed" band which everybody knows is used for Wifi, cordless phones and video senders. A low power video sender applied to FPV is very practical and has been done for many years.
No laws being broken there. BUT, there are now a lot of higher power units >100mW which give the user a much better range and a much stronger signal locally for a clearer picture since they are just analogue FMTV.

So the sellers tell their customers who buy these FPV transmitters to make them legal they should obtain an Advanced amateur radio licence.
Of course most don't, not because they're not capable of passing an Advanced Amateur Radio exams, but because it's an expensive, long and painful process.

I ask this question, how many hams actually have 5.6GHz ATV gear to notice and receive pictures from other spectrum users? Makes me laugh. Not many !
Unlicenced users are making better use of the spectrum than hams ever did.

If you've not seen FPV before, this is a good example from one of my local pilots. I occasionally see signals from him on 5.8Ghz.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiP0gHh ... XS1d3YoAfQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iycfriz5HSY

Obviously off topic, which is a way over my head (not hard to do), but could a drone be used to drop a long wire over a very high tree for field day?

73

Wayne VK4WDM

Wayne... Yes!


73 Bruce VK2EM

VK2XSO wrote:

VK2JDH wrote:My understanding is FPV is not legal in most situations. Having a AR license does not make it legal.

No it is not illegal.

Lets start from the beginning. RC planes which come under CAOs, CARs and CASA. (federal aviation law).

If FPV involves the user having goggles on or does not have direct visual eye contact with the UAV if most certainly is.

ie you can not fly a UAV in FPV. ( except in some limited conditions ie indoors.)

VK2XSO wrote:

VK2JDH wrote:
I ask this question, how many hams actually have 5.6GHz ATV gear

I do and I regularly use it for framing video, stills and telemetry. But I do not do FPV. Why? Because it is illegal in OZ

Actually it's not illegal. There is a lot of confusion around MAAA Guidelines if you want to fly under their coverage you need to ensure you comply with those. If you want to fly outside is those guidelines then CASA rules apply for model aircraft - neither preclude the concept of FPV. If you want to do anything for money either directly or indirectly then you need to be licensed and operate under an operators certificate issued by CASA. Now to the spectrum use - that's entirely different. If the Tx complies to a LIPD class device and has c tick again it's fine to use for commercial and hobby use. If you operate under the amateur radio license for your Tx ( ie. Higher power levels, bands in use, etc) then you can't do anything commercial

The guidelines are only interpretations of CASA regulations and recommendations re compliance.

CASA is the airspace & aviation regulator, so it is their regulations that apply legally to all activity.

With respect to FPV the MAAA has recently issued the following, which provides a system for managing the risks with FPV operation, which I'm told CASA has accepted:

http://www.maaa.asn.au/images/pdfs/mops ... s-2015.pdf

Clearly if people don't hold an advanced AR licence and are using high power downlinks above the limits permitted by the LIPD class licence, then that is an issue for the ACMA.

Good luck to them, policing and enforcing that.

VK4WDM wrote:Obviously off topic, which is a way over my head (not hard to do), but could a drone be used to drop a long wire over a very high tree for field day?

73

Wayne VK4WDM

sure can... might have to use a fishing line first like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9hsOWiB-Rs

VK4ABD wrote:Actually it's not illegal. There is a lot of confusion around MAAA Guidelines if you want to fly under their coverage you need to ensure you comply with those. If you want to fly outside is those guidelines then CASA rules apply for model aircraft - neither preclude the concept of FPV.

OK please quote the relevant legislation which makes FPV for remote controlled drones legal in Australia. By quote I mean, Name of Act, section/sub sections and regulations pursuant thereto.

CASA regulations pursuant to Model aircraft state that;

You should only fly a model aircraft in visual line-of-sight, in day visual meteorological conditions (VMC). What does that mean?
- no night flying
- no flying in or through cloud or fog, and
- you should be able to see the aircraft with your own eyes (rather than through its point-of-view camera) at all times

You must not fly a model aircraft over populous areas such as beaches, other people's backyards, heavily populated parks, or sports ovals where there is a game in progress.
In controlled airspace, which covers most Australian cities, model aircraft must not be flown higher than 400 feet (120 metres)
You should not fly closer than 5.5km from an airfield.

What about the legislation that states that it is illegal?

VK4UQ wrote:What about the legislation that states that it is illegal?

Have I not just quoted the CASA regulations. Please read them.

Reference?

In respect to the MAAA, may I ask what relationship does their submission have to persons flying/racing drones at high speed with FPV as the only source of control at a local park?

VK4UQ wrote:Reference?

AC101 -3 (0) Civil Aviation Safety Authority

I take it that you can look that up, read, and understand.

Are we talking about the MAAA or CASA?
Sorry, but if you are going to keep editing your posts, then how are people suppose to keep up?