Just received this through in an e-mail from FPVUK.
http://www.fpvuk.org/files/CAP%201202%20UAV%20safety%20notice.%20X.pdf (http://www.fpvuk.org/files/CAP%201202%20UAV%20safety%20notice.%20X.pdf)
I think it looks like a fantastic start.
The only real problem I see is that it isn't specific with units. For instance, stating "stay well away from airports" ... some might consider that 500m away is far enough but of course it isn't, and they'd be flying illegally.
What do you think? Does it need specific distances and altitudes or as a guide (with, I note, a link to the caa UAS page which does have specifics) that comes in the box with say a Phantom, is it enough?
Either way - great start Simon Dale and everyone else involved in this type of thing...
It does look like a good start but will anyone actually read it?
Im like a kid at Christmas whenever I get anything and just want to play. Anything papery that may require the effort of reading is quickly shoved aside!
I agree with a minimum distance recommendation though.
Oh, and why use the word 'drone'? Its an awefull word that seems to have stuck (unfortunately), surely UAV would be more encompasing?
i agree that this is a good start
i think that that the guys are right about heights and distance and possible fines for breaching the rules nothing get peoples attention like "this could seriously affect my bank balance"
i went to silverstone over the weekend just gone for the british moto gp i was sitting on the grass inbetween two parts of the track and this guy just walkes past me with a phantom with gopro attached and its box in his other hand
i did not see him fly it while i was at this part of the track but there was 90000 people there and live tv coverage helicopters flying around i could picture the headlines in the papers drone downs one of the helicopters or drone crashes into the bikes racing
or drone hurts one of the spectators
this guy either knows what the rules are and just does not care or has never been informed about them either was it was sheer stupidity to even bring the phantom to an event like this
i am all for the leaflet being distributed with new multirotors!!
its people like this that will kill our hobby!!
It would be better if they said "you must not" rather than "don't" when it comes to congested areas and 50 metres. Also a link to the web page with the law should be included, it all looks a bit timid to me.
i replied to the email, i said that the numbers should be included, and that the retailers should have something telling them to make sure that the customer is fully aware of the leaflet and its contents.
Quote from: quadbod on September 03, 2014, 06:25:29 PM
i replied to the email, i said that the numbers should be included, and that the retailers should have something telling them to make sure that the customer is fully aware of the leaflet and its contents.
The only thing against numbers is - how does the pilot measure them ?
It's like the old joke:
"How high is 400 feet?", the spectator asked me, "one foot higher than my plane", I answered.
Looks good.
But if the phrasing is obeyed exactly, "you must keep your drone in your line of sight at all times".
Then fpv goggles are out.
And so is flying beyond what, 300m? Unless you have a massive craft.
Are these rules or guidelines?
may be a note should be added to look up the FPV regs (with link). as for distances, the rules say no further than the pilot (competent observer) can see the aircraft, no change. nav lights help extend my LOS range on my F330.
I think the general idea behind this information is that it will be in the box when a product is purchased... better than nothing at the moment.
Will it make a difference? Not measurable, but ignorance will no longer be an excuse.
I still like my idea.. Force the manufacturers to make all flight controllers require the user to register them before they can be armed and used.. Prior to registration the user must read some safety information or watch a video.
Quote from: Billy_boy_2010 on September 03, 2014, 08:20:30 PM
Looks good.
But if the phrasing is obeyed exactly, "you must keep your drone in your line of sight at all times".
Then fpv goggles are out.
And so is flying beyond what, 300m? Unless you have a massive craft.
Are these rules or guidelines?
The leaflet does not deal with FPV or even mention it - FPV is a separate issue for which there is exemption on condition of having a competent observer who maintains line of sight at all times.
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/ORS4%20No.%201011%20Small%20Unmanned%20Aircraft.pdf (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/ORS4%20No.%201011%20Small%20Unmanned%20Aircraft.pdf)
The rules are in the ANO and expanded by CAPs. Happy reading - most of what you need to know is in CAP 658.
https://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=226 (https://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=226)
http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=5631 (http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=5631)
https://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=415 (https://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=415)
Quote from: DaveyLC on September 04, 2014, 05:00:20 PM
I still like my idea.. Force the manufacturers to make all flight controllers require the user to register them before they can be armed and used.. Prior to registration the user must read some safety information or watch a video.
Hmm .. wouldn't they need an instruction sheet to tell them how to register? :laugh:
I wonder if they could tie it into a simulator .. i.e. unlock altitude/distance restrictions if they can score 32109 on "World 1-1 .. Flying Around A Field" :D
Quote from: Steve W on September 03, 2014, 09:46:25 PM
I think the general idea behind this information is that it will be in the box when a product is purchased... better than nothing at the moment.
Will it make a difference? Not measurable, but ignorance will no longer be an excuse.
Ignorance of the law has never been a valid defence in the UK eg not knowing the speed limit is not a defence.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: DaveyLC on September 04, 2014, 05:00:20 PM
I still like my idea.. Force the manufacturers to make all flight controllers require the user to register them before they can be armed and used.. Prior to registration the user must read some safety information or watch a video.
Surely you would then need to do this for every new RC Tx sold into the UK. Then how do you deal with the second hand market? I have always thought that this issue needs a multi agency solution. I may be wrong but I seem to remember that when I first started in RC in the late 60's on 27mhz you had to buy a radio telegraphy licence from the post office but no one bothered as it wasn't policed. Got dropped just like the dog licence.
My simple solution
1 Government make Retailers importers manufacturers put a warning on the outside of the box prior to shipping or handing over the item. Just like tobacco. Name and address along with proof of id taken at point of sale and then forwarded to CAA. If sold on as used then the original owners record is on file. This is similar to the existing rules regarding TV sales
2 Leaflet inside box with warning repeated plus list of fines including simple do's and do not's.
3 Get the press to keep repeating the message that these toys are dangerous and the use of them is covered by laws.
That should kill the market stone dead
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I agree it is a good idea to include this leaflet (Needs some modification though) in every box, and it should be mandatory for the purchaser to read and acknowledge it in some way.
As has been said FPV is a different ball game, but it still requires a spotter with LOS.
So how far is that. sight varies enormously as I can subscribe to. ''Her in doors'' is mine even within the 300 m range.
So what happens to those who want to and do do flights of over a kilometer. I defy anyone to be able to keep a UAV in sight at that distance. You just have to look at the videos of such flight on Youtube. Like some of over a mile away. And there are those on here and on other sites who are asking how to alter their antennae to get more and more range.
There are many RULES in place already that cover it all. so there is really no excuse for not understanding them. Besides which if a case does come to court.... In Law Ignorance Is No Excuse.. Or so I understand.
Ah yes... but sometimes rules are there to be broken :P
Actually the correct phrase as I learnt it years ago is "ignorance of the law or statute cannot be the basis for a legal defence against prosecution". Goes back to Magna Carta. In other words you cannot claim that you did not know the posted speed limit was 30 mph or armed robbery is an offence.
The definition of LOS distance is the that of the spotter not the pilot. It's how far the spotter can see the plane with his naked eye including sight correction optics. It's not the pilots vision. This is why a buddylead was needed in the early days with the spotter being "pilot in command".
The recent prosecutions by the CAA used that test exactly.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This talk of rules and laws is interesting to me, as a long time RC pilot (LOS) but relatively new to FPV. I'm frankly amazed that people regularly post videos on YouTube, sometimes linked to from this forum, which demonstrate themselves clearly breaking the law regarding keeping an FPV craft in sight. The one that springs to mind is the recent video taken above the clouds. How did you keep the craft in sight on that occasion - flying it from a hot-air balloon were you?!! If I intended to break the law I think I'd do it fairly low-profile and not broadcast it to the world!
Tim.
Quote from: g4wft on September 11, 2014, 02:07:31 PM
This talk of rules and laws is interesting to me, as a long time RC pilot (LOS) but relatively new to FPV. I'm frankly amazed that people regularly post videos on YouTube, sometimes linked to from this forum, which demonstrate themselves clearly breaking the law regarding keeping an FPV craft in sight. The one that springs to mind is the recent video taken above the clouds. How did you keep the craft in sight on that occasion - flying it from a hot-air balloon were you?!! If I intended to break the law I think I'd do it fairly low-profile and not broadcast it to the world!
Tim.
Totally agree, but vanity is a force too powerful for some to resist ;D
Don`t worry about it.................... All the force fed rule and regulation replies swamping all the threads scared nearly all of them away from this forum. That`s why the posts have dwindled to next to nothing and all the banter has gone.
It didn`t stop any of them, they just post every where else instead.
Quote from: Coyote on September 11, 2014, 10:36:29 PM
Don`t worry about it.................... All the force fed rule and regulation replies swamping all the threads scared nearly all of them away from this forum. That`s why the posts have dwindled to next to nothing and all the banter has gone.
It didn`t stop any of them, they just post every where else instead.
I'm sad you feel that way..
I prefer the forum without the nutters myself, not sure why they still feel the need to post their "heroic exploits" on here.. not getting enough attention elsewhere? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Anyway I appreciate the mods dont feel the same way.. Maybe its time I was on my way too :(
regards
Andy
Quote from: Coyote on September 11, 2014, 10:36:29 PM
Don`t worry about it.................... All the force fed rule and regulation replies swamping all the threads scared nearly all of them away from this forum. That`s why the posts have dwindled to next to nothing and all the banter has gone.
It didn`t stop any of them, they just post every where else instead.
I too am sad you feel that way.
I wasn't going to post any personal opinions (just straight factual info) on this thread for fear of provoking a negative response but I feel a measured opinion coming on.
I cannot agree that either the rule and regulation replies were
force fed or that they swamped
all the threads. Yes there were some very heated exchanges and I personally have been in the thick of it several times. Many of the times I responded was to question obviously wreckless flying (divebombing people, car chasing on public roads, flying above clouds, etc.) and to discourage others from emulating this. The reason for doing this was not wanting to see the hobby hammered by the authorities because of the actions of an irresponsible few. There was both support and resistance from both sides of the arguments. I stopped doing this after the attacks became personal and some members of the forum received warnings. Since then I only post responses on where the appropriate regulations can be found if the question is asked about the rules. The individual flyer is responsible for adhering to these regulations or not.
I also cannot agree that the posts have dwindled to next to nothing. Are we looking at the same forum? Fewer questionable videos and banter surrounding them but still plenty of posts as far as I can see.
Sorry, didn't mean to inflame any previous arguments on here! I'm fairly new to FPV, so I'm not qualified to do other than offer my opinion. My point was just that I'm staggered that people are willing to post public video evidence of themselves breaking the law. Whether you agree with that law or not is another matter. It seems to me it's a bit like posting video of yourself driving at 60mph in a 30mph limit zone - why would you do it?!!
The bit I don't like is if reckless or illegal flying comes to the notice of authority and results in tightening of the laws or banning of FPV altogether. Hopefully it won't happen, but why tempt fate?
Tim.
Quote from: skyscraper on September 12, 2014, 09:29:28 AM
I'm sad you feel that way..
I prefer the forum without the nutters myself, not sure why they still feel the need to post their "heroic exploits" on here.. not getting enough attention elsewhere? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Anyway I appreciate the mods dont feel the same way.. Maybe its time I was on my way too :(
regards
Andy
It's bit the way I feel Andy, that's what happened. I get told it enough times on Facebook, FPVLab, RCGroups to see that's what has driven a lot of people away. This is not a mod oppionion, it's my own.
QuoteI also cannot agree that the posts have dwindled to next to nothing. Are we looking at the same forum? Fewer questionable videos and banter surrounding them but still plenty of posts as far as I can see.
The stats don't lie. We are into month 9 now and we have only just got to the same new topics as month 6 of last year. 100 members less than the previous year online daily, that's a huge loss.
Quote from: g4wft on September 12, 2014, 10:59:40 AM
Sorry, didn't mean to inflame any previous arguments on here! I'm fairly new to FPV, so I'm not qualified to do other than offer my opinion. My point was just that I'm staggered that people are willing to post public video evidence of themselves breaking the law. Whether you agree with that law or not is another matter. It seems to me it's a bit like posting video of yourself driving at 60mph in a 30mph limit zone - why would you do it?!!
The bit I don't like is if reckless or illegal flying comes to the notice of authority and results in tightening of the laws or banning of FPV altogether. Hopefully it won't happen, but why tempt fate?
Tim.
That's OK, you are new here and couldn't have known. I suppose the best advice is to know the regulations and abide by them to the best of your ability and interpretation. As a result of previous spats and in an attempt to prevent all out war, postings concerning what may be regarded as reckless or illegal flying are now rather more subdued. However, often someone new comes along and either doesn't know the regulations or (as in your case) can't understand why people fly the way they do and then post the evidence. The good intention of this thread is to point newbies in the right direction without swamping them in regulation.
To the best of my knowledge none of the videos which have been posted on this forum have resulted in prosecutions directly as a result of being posted here. There have been however two prosecutions this year for model flying.
The first was as a result of an unfortunate fly-away near a nuclear submarine facility by a model which was not being flown FPV at the time. The video was posted here, or at least a link to it but that was only after proceedings had started against the modeller involved. The thread was taken down.
The second was an FPV flight at Alton Towers and again there my have been a link but only to an already uploaded YouTube video.
I know people want to get the legal side across, that's expected. People will post videos, they do it at their own risk. They also don't care either and will continue to do it regardless of reactions. Yes some conversations got heated, that all stopped, thankfully. Because of that though so many videos that could have been illegal / might not have been were no longer getting posted because people couldn't be bothered with the chew. Once they stop posting their videos, they stop posting in threads as well. People then get less help and experienced flyers leave.
Quote from: Coyote on September 12, 2014, 11:38:24 AM
QuoteI also cannot agree that the posts have dwindled to next to nothing. Are we looking at the same forum? Fewer questionable videos and banter surrounding them but still plenty of posts as far as I can see.
The stats don't lie. We are into month 9 now and we have only just got to the same new topics as month 6 of last year. 100 members less than the previous year online daily, that's a huge loss.
Surely the stats have to be put in perspective.
How many posts up to month 9? If 1000 that is hardly dwindling to nothing.
How many members online daily last year as compared to this year? If it was 101 last year and only 1 this year, yes there is a huge loss. But if 1000 last year and 900 this year, that is only 10% down.
Let us know the actual numbers.
Hi Eric, I will add more details no problem.
We are 2000 new topics down already this year, we normally post 8000 topics per year. That means so far a 25% drop in new topics alone.
We are 100 online daily members down, normally it is 230 so that's just shy of a 50% drop which means half the regular members have now gone.
I understand all your points of view by the way and find them all valid. I'm just trying to get across that the rule posts have had a detrimental affecton the forum.
To try and see where I am coming from, think about it like this :
A member gets blasted on their videos, they go elsewhere. The flying does not change, the member does not change. The responses had no effect on that person other than making them feel uncomfortable posting here.
The noob member comes on. They ask about a setup using an illegal transmitter. The response is "You can't use that" "You can't fly that far away " etc etc etc Does the member then go out and buy a 25mW transmitter, use a spotter and fly around a field in circles due to the advice ?
No, they log onto FPVLab / RCGroups, they get the answers and fly how they wanted to all along. Advice from here ignored, member no longer uses the forum.
Do you see what I mean ? People are trying to do the right thing. But it falls on deaf ears, gets completely ignored
That's you kindly made up the legality post for the noob section, so it's in one place as a great reference on the forum as the FPVUK site one often gets overlooked
Quote from: Coyote on September 12, 2014, 12:18:25 PM
Hi Eric, I will add more details no problem.
We are 2000 new topics down already this year, we normally post 8000 topics per year. That means so far a 25% drop in new topics alone.
We are 100 online daily members down, normally it is 230 so that's just shy of a 50% drop which means half the regular members have now gone.
I understand all your points of view by the way and find them all valid. I'm just trying to get across that the rule posts have had a detrimental affecton the forum.
To try and see where I am coming from, think about it like this :
A member gets blasted on their videos, they go elsewhere. The flying does not change, the member does not change. The responses had no effect on that person other than making them feel uncomfortable posting here.
The noob member comes on. They ask about a setup using an illegal transmitter. The response is "You can't use that" "You can't fly that far away " etc etc etc Does the member then go out and buy a 25mW transmitter, use a spotter and fly around a field in circles due to the advice ?
No, they log onto FPVLab / RCGroups, they get the answers and fly how they wanted to all along. Advice from here ignored, member no longer uses the forum.
hmm that sure Sounds like me :o .. I do recommend using a 25 mW 5.8GHz transmitter, but then Ive spent a lot of time trying to get so that I can use legal gear with good performance ( eg with my antenna tracker) So if I have taken the trouble to try doing it right, why should I put up with the lazy F#ers that cant be arsed ? (Who prob amount to 99.9 % TBH , but you have to start somewhere !)
Ive done it. Ive shown you how Ive done it so reckon Ive done enough to justify telling people to use legal Vtx!!!!
Anyway Coyote, It really sounds like you arent too happy with FPVHUB at the moment? I dunno what to say about that. I realise you put a lot into it, and its not good if you arent getting what you want out.
Maybe need to meet up with your people and sit down and thrash out what to do about it ?
regards
Andy
"Avoid success at all costs" Simon Peyton Jones
Hi Andy, that was not an example of anyone in particular mate, not aimed at anyone. It's what actually happens. Everyone tries to do what they think is right. But it will be ignored or only the answer someone wants to hear will be listened to. If they hear too many answers that they don't want the hear often enough they just move on to where they don't, the end result is nothing was gained.
That's why I was / am going to put all the legal bits on one section instead of thrown around everywhere and then people willing or wanting to learn of fly by the guidelines have them as a clear reference all in one place.
Thanks for posting the actual numbers Coyote.
Whilst not exactly dwindling to nothing I can now see the real drop you are referring to in perspective.
Mercifully the blasting and counter-blasting has now ceased and I think the forum is better for it, even if the numbers are down. And I take your point about flyers who do not want to act legally going elsewhere, but I for one could not be part of a forum that actively encouraged this kind of activity. If some flyers are determined to ignore what the advice given and even react badly to this being pointed out, then let them go elsewhere and get support for their kind of flying.
All of the above does not mean that FPVHUB is squeaky clean and that all the other forums are wildly irresponsible but surely it is better for the hobby to encourage responsible flying and discourage the type that could see FPV being stamped on by the authorities.
And finally (hopefully) thank you for all the work you put in as a moderator on this forum. More people appreciate it than you realise. :)
That sounds good to me. There is an important debate to be had about legality in UK especially as time goes on so I hope it can be managed on FPVHUB somehow, in a way that people can opt out etc. Maybe that section can be moderated differently. I think its possible to have different levels of moderation per section, so you know on that section bad language, insults etc wont be tolerated, so it doesnt decend into a slanging match or a free for all, and people can be ruled off topic more esaily etc)
I cant compare FPVHUB with the other sites since I dont go on them much, but its prob part the way it is since it started out as FPVUK which was trying to be voice of FPV in UK, so those members with that in mind are still around.
regards
Andy
I've definitely noticed that the forum just seems quieter lately, it's not something I can put a solid number on, it's just that feeling - especially when you see shoutbox looking the same as 2 hours ago when you last checked.
There's a balance somewhere isn't there. I think *almost* everyone is of the opinion that flying over people/houses/cars/London landmarks/blackpool tower could end up with really serious consequences and shouldn't be encouraged at all.
Then again, I also don't think we can encourage new flyers to buy a 25mw VTX and fly 100m circles around themselves under the scrutiny of an observer that might grab the controls off them at any point.
So I'm very much for the "hey, I'm not your Mum" policy, where as long as you are not being stupid, then post away. Of course, you need to be accountable for anything you do, so if the CAA/OfCom want to have a word with you, then that's down to you. I think that you can safely - Fly on your own/Out of LOS/Above the clouds - although all of these depend on the circumstances. Letting people post it without commenting some of the more obvious infractions of the rules doesn't condone it, but neither does it condemn. As Coyote said, people that do this (and I include myself in this) don't stop doing it just because someone points out it's not by-the-book.
I'd hate to see this forum fizzle out, when I stumbled across it a few years ago (although under it's original name) wondering how to finish my first build - I got loads of help and advice about what to do and things to try. It spurred me on and made me feel part of a community. That's the feeling all new members should get.
i've noticed that the forum is a little quieter than in the past, but having recently joined another one, i can tell you that this one is still very lively! as for myself, i fly as legaly as i can, 25mW, spotter, permision. i don't have the kit to record, nevermind the know how to post. but it will come, eventualy. i may have a little more VTX power should i FPV my newly aquired wing, but not much.
Talking of legality, this guy seems to have an interesting take on the law.
http://www.fansnetwork.co.uk/football/blackburnrovers/members/Dynamic3D/posts/ (http://www.fansnetwork.co.uk/football/blackburnrovers/members/Dynamic3D/posts/)
I need to chime in on this topic, I was the new kid on the block and didn't know my vtx from my vrx lol, one of the topics i started was "Lets Be Honest about Vtx Power" I had no idea what to do regarding buying a Vtx that would suit my requirements. With the help of the members on the hub i now have a lots of FPV flights under my belt.
Lots of people have made a very important point insomuch as its about how you enjoy the hobby/sport of FPV flying; it's down to each individual to be as sensible, professional and evaluate all the hazards and dangers.
Today i was flying at a beech and not many people there... i would loved to have done some low level fly-bys but i could see the dangers of trying it!
I watch YouTube clips on the hub and think to myself there is NO Way i would fly so close, that far or above in that way because i don't have that level of skill, It's for this reason i don't make comment either good or bad!
I came onto the Hub and continue using the hub because i get good advice and yes i get comments and advice that didn't fit into my view of what i want from flying FPV BUT it has been brilliant advice from people who care and love FPV Flying.
I can only speak for myself... If i fly in a safe and caring manner and within the guidelines set by the CAA regarding areas and location and heights and my only transgression is Vtx output then i am close to "Being as Correct as Possible" Hub members pointed out that it was better to retain a good solid Vtx-Vrx illegal link than to lose a legal vid link within LOS.
I would like to thank those who advised me to purchase a 200mw VTX And everyone else who has helped me reach where i am today
Regards
Ray
Seems to me that 200mw is just as outlaw as 600mw
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This is a very good article which I think is well worth reading before going out and buying a powerful Vtx. Buying a very powerful Vtx is very much an American way of doing things IMO! I would suggest getting a really good receiving station set up first with a 25mw Vtx then review the situation.
www.fpvuk.org/things-explained/vtx-power-and-range/ (http://www.fpvuk.org/things-explained/vtx-power-and-range/)
Quote from: BigT on September 14, 2014, 10:59:46 AM
Seems to me that 200mw is just as outlaw as 600mw
[...]
Though both technically illegal in (soon to shrink!) UK , there is an important difference. The intent of the law is to minimise interference to other users of the band. The lower power transmitter should cause interference over less geographical area, thus pissing off less other users of the band and meaning you are less likely to be getting reported to ofcom.
IOW the difference is practical rather than legal
regards
Andy
Transmission and rx on 5.8 is very limited. A few wifi (virgin offer it on the new broadband hub) and you would need to be almost on it to be a problem.
I changed my laptop to 5.8 and put the vtx in the middle of the 2 and it had no effect.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: BigT on September 14, 2014, 12:11:47 PM
Transmission and rx on 5.8 is very limited. A few wifi (virgin offer it on the new broadband hub) and you would need to be almost on it to be a problem.
I changed my laptop to 5.8 and put the vtx in the middle of the 2 and it had no effect.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Wifi is prob smart enough to work around interference.
Have you thought about the effect on legal FPV flyers? :laugh:
Sadly This discussion is so reminiscent of the old days of on MHz RC gear and getting d#ckheads turning on in the car park to see what channel everyone is on. They just couldnt see what was wrong since it was uch more convenient than walking to take of area and had no effect on them personally :laugh:
regards
Andy
I dont believe there is a case for that argument. If the skies get so crowded with little fpv models flying from different sites that we then we will have more FPV ers than MAMIL's (middle aged men in lycra), my personal nemesis. Or shotgun certificate holders. RC is not a mass have that issue sport or hobby in Europe or any where else I can think of. With 27 meg it was illegal CB radio that ballsed it up. With 35 meg it was immediate interference from other club members or badly installed brushed leccy motors or spark ignition motors not the club next door.