What are the penalties for operating an fpv system above 200mW?

[ueadian]

It's not like I want to "break the laww", I just don't see how me driving / flying around a field next to my house with a video transmitter is in any way harming anyone else or infringing upon anyone elses rights. Laws are supposed to protect individual freedom, as long as they don't interfere with others rights. I don't see how I am possibly infringing on others rights. I'm not flying over houses, I'm not next to private property, and there is no "license" or "certification" for doing any of those things. Just because you have a HAM license doesn't mean your just allowed to start flying over people's houses and using frequencies commonly used for communication for FPV. HAM license is to ensure proper and polite use of communication frequencies used by thousands around the world. I don't think the original intention was to make sure people with high powered video transmitters on higher frequencies didn't mess up their neighbors security cam. That all said I'm sure I'll eventually grab the HAM technicians license anyways, but I don't think it's the "morally right" thing to do. I'm more curious then interested in not breaking FCC rules.

 

[earthsciteach]

There are situations where technology and society progress beyond current law. I assert that fpv is one of those. So, is it better to follow a law you truly believe to be antiquated and not applicable or is it better from a self-actualization standpoint to violate that law because your personal knowledge of the situation clearly shows the lack of applicability of the law to the situation? The caveat being that the violation of that law harms no one in any way.

I'm inclined to ignore a law I know to be ridiculous. But, that's just me.

 

[robschonk]

The license is to insure that the operator has some technical competence and knowledge of what his transmissions might affect. For example, transmissions on 900mhz, except channel 1 may affect aircraft radio navigation (DME), etc. it will also affect your reception if you pick a frequency that the local hams use for voice transmissions or amateur tv.

Same reason they make you turn off electronic devices on an airplane during takeoff and landings. Your device may be emitting harmonics, birdies, etc that could cause a disaster.

 

[IamNabil]

It's not like I want to "break the laww", I just don't see how me driving / flying around a field next to my house with a video transmitter is in any way harming anyone else or infringing upon anyone elses rights. Laws are supposed to protect individual freedom, as long as they don't interfere with others rights. I don't see how I am possibly infringing on others rights. I'm not flying over houses, I'm not next to private property, and there is no "license" or "certification" for doing any of those things. Just because you have a HAM license doesn't mean your just allowed to start flying over people's houses and using frequencies commonly used for communication for FPV. HAM license is to ensure proper and polite use of communication frequencies used by thousands around the world.

I understand what you are saying. Everyone has a right to a hobby, but your right to your hobby is more important than others, because you aren't able to see outside of your tiny little world view. The "license" or "certification" is to prove that you have an idea of what you are doing, because RF is dangerous stuff. Have you seen an RF burn? Sure you have, you have a microwave. I'll tell you what, I'll take a prop strike over exposure to harmful RF any day. This has very little to do with your neighbors webcam, and everything to do with safety and responsibility. And you can drop that morality pretense, as well. Laws are absolutely NOT in place to protect individual liberties. They are designed to curtail liberties, such that we might coexist peacefully.

 

[ueadian]

Radio burns happen over 50 watts. Seriously I'm using 300mw, safety is not an issue. Laws strike a balance between allowing a person to do what they want while allowing people the right to live peacefully. I see your a glass half empty kind of guy.

My quad is much more dangerous then my vtx, and I don't need any certification for that. Heck, RC planes can get 25 pounds and have gas engines in them. No certs for that either.

 

[IamNabil]

Radio burns happen over 50 watts. Seriously I'm using 300mw, safety is not an issue. Laws strike a balance between allowing a person to do what they want while allowing people the right to live peacefully. I see your a glass half empty kind of guy.

I'm a combat vet. The glass should have whiskey, with two ice cubes, and should be used as a bludgeoning tool.

 

[Tritium]

The Law is the Law. It doesn't require a persons approval, understanding or necessarily explain it's existence. It only requires compliance. The choice is live by it or break it. Breaking it carries consequences. A law breaker should be prepared to live with the consequences if action is taken by the Law maker. A technicians license is VERY easy to obtain. The ARRL study guide has a picture of a second grade student who passed the test.
Actions taken by the FCC in the last 6 months:

http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/AmateurActions/Welcome.html

Thurmond

 

[IamNabil]

The letters to the grow light operators made me chuckle.

 

[earthsciteach]

Thurmond, you sure you live in West Texas? I expected a bit more of an obstinate view of the law from you. Ha ha

 

[robschonk]

I think we in the US need to tred softly, lest the nanny government start slapping restrictions on our hobby "for our own good".

Interestingly, Virginia has proposed legislation to make it a class 3 misdemeanor to use "drones" to track the activities of hunters.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/13/drones-hunting-virginia-_n_2465725.html?ir=DC

http://hamptonroads.com/2013/01/bill-targets-airborne-drones-spy-hunters

There has also been local outcry when a newspaper article revealed that the Navy was training drone operators in the area. I guess folks think they're going to get boinked in the head...

http://hamptonroads.com/2013/01/unmanned-military-planes-fly-over-hampton-roads

 

[lobstermash]

Haha, yeah, I love the paranoia of some people when you mention the 'd' word. They're all interested and amazed by this FPV stuff as long as you don't use that word. The Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority deliberately uses the wider umbrella of Unmanned Aerial System to avoid the 'scary' language.

 

[Tritium]

Thurmond, you sure you live in West Texas? I expected a bit more of an obstinate view of the law from you. Ha ha

Being absolutely serious. I was quite obstinate in my younger years and did not mind poking at sleeping dragons. I had one VERY costly run in with Big Brother (Total assets plus $1 was the cost to play that game and it nearly cost me my spouse as well). These days I am a bit more cautious and play things close to the chest because I don't really want them to have large sums of my money, property, belongings or time given that my assets are significantly more now than in my younger days.

Thurmond

 

[Cyberdactyl]

There are two noticeable techs that have become very inexpensive, and either dangerous or intrude on personal space, that are destined to be headed for a legislative resolution in the next couple years.

The first is what has been discussed here, the explosion of FPV multirotors and the second the quickly decreasing cost of powerful handheld lasers. And no, I'm not talking sci-fi with lasers 'cutting someone in half', I'm referring to lasers from ~200mw to ~2w that can be purchased from $30 to $200 that can blind someone permanently at 100 meters with a sweep across the eyes.

 

[lobstermash]

I don't see how multirotors are any different to hidden cameras in trees, buildings, bathrooms etc... In some countries there are some issues with the privacy laws and whether they cover the use of rc aircraft for photos, but that's a simple legislative amendment to the regulations rather than needing a big review and law change.

Another factor to consider is that there are big, powerful multinationals that are keen to tap into the multirotor market. They will fight excessive regulation tooth and nail and most likely influence policy makers to something favourable for us hobbyists.

The laser business is a scary one though. They've been banned from Australia, but somehow they keep getting in through customs...

 

[Cyberdactyl]

I don't see how multirotors are any different to hidden cameras in trees, buildings, bathrooms etc... In some countries there are some issues with the privacy laws and whether they cover the use of rc aircraft for photos, but that's a simple legislative amendment to the regulations rather than needing a big review and law change.

Another factor to consider is that there are big, powerful multinationals that are keen to tap into the multirotor market. They will fight excessive regulation tooth and nail and most likely influence policy makers to something favourable for us hobbyists.

I think the huge difference is multirotors can maneuver into areas the observed individual is unaware, or believe highly unlikely, they are being observed. The new electrics provide somewhat silent flight, allowing the craft to have a relatively close observation distance. I believe it's only a matter of a year or two before the 'paparazzi' have mastered the technical skill to fly and/or can program the flight path, to bring this tech to a head in the mainstream media.

Hehe, enjoy it while you can

 

[lobstermash]

I'm a fixed wing kind of guy anyway... But seriously, the only reason why the current privacy laws don't apply well to the use of multirotors is that they're counted as aircraft under the broad definition. Changing a couple of words in the regulations could include remote control aircraft in current privacy laws and hey presto, loophole fixed. Yes multirotors can be sneaky, but if you regulate the product (video or still images) rather than the instrument with which they're taken, it's much easier to police and more likely to be effective (in my humble opinion).

 

[Tritium]

I have said it before but I will say it again, with the current state of the art satellites in orbit and the sophistication of the sensors and cameras aboard I don't know why anyone would worry about their privacy from a multicopter being intruded upon, when, given my statement above that privacy is actually an ILLUSION and simply does not exist outdoors, indoors or even underground for quite a number of feet! Paranoia? No! Just the state of technology today in government hands. Your Tax dollars at work.

Thurmond

 

[lobstermash]

I was still sad when they turned down building the Death Star...

 

[PaulT]

I was still sad when they turned down building the Death Star...

That's their claim!

 

[liveyourdreamsRC]

I do not understand why people are so cavalier about breaking the law. It is a couple of weeks of study, and less than twenty bucks to get your license.

So, I'm still a little confused... You can operate a 200mw system in the U.S. legally without the HAM license? If not how old do you have to be to get one if there is an age restriction? I also checked that website from an earlier post and there are no operators at all in my area. I just started reading through all the posts as well and exactly, what is a ham frequency? Sorry if someone already asked this question. Also, I would only be operating under 200mw- do I need to somehow get a license? Thanks in advance!