Question about state/county parks and airspace control
- Thread starter merk
- Start date
R.Perry
Well-Known Member
Twelve years with UAV, wow, you must have been military, or were you working on development?
R.Perry
Well-Known Member
I see so many potentials for the predator type of aircraft for local government use. Police, Fire, search are rescue, they would be fantastic. Just don't give the cops hellfire missiles.
What is your opinion on the frequencies we are stuck using? Do you have any ideas how more reliable long range links could be established?
The reason I ask, is my current job at UC Merced has a large number of very powerful routers, and they wreak havoc with my video link at times.
What is your opinion on the frequencies we are stuck using? Do you have any ideas how more reliable long range links could be established?
The reason I ask, is my current job at UC Merced has a large number of very powerful routers, and they wreak havoc with my video link at times.
Predators and other systems have been used infrequently by LEA’s for some time. During the previous administration they were used by the feds for surveillance over areas the President was visiting. Knowing what I do about government and drone surveillance capabilities I am totally opposed to government agencies employing them at home. Our population should not be subjected to 24/7 surveillance.
Pentagon testing mass surveillance balloons across the US
www.foxnews.com
800 and 900mHz provide very long range, especially when directional tracking antennas are employed. Elevated Omni antennas can get you out 15 miles or so. 2.4gHz can deliver a solid video feed over 100 unobstructed miles but the power level has to be in Watts, not mWatts. 800mHz requires a license and both 800 and 900mHz need antennas dimensionally much larger than people want to tolerate.
Depending on where we operate and who is around what we’re doing there’s not a single frequency that can’t be jammed or swamped if the right people don’t want us operating. Another side of things has densely populated areas causing considerable frequency saturation, which can also be a problem for military operations. It’s one of the reasons they use much higher signal strength. Here at home there’s a lot of pressure being applied to government through business entities to open up more usable frequencies. It’s kind of like a new industrial revolution with radio frequencies instead of machines.
Pentagon testing mass surveillance balloons across the US
Pentagon testing mass surveillance balloons across the US
The U.S. military is conducting mass surveillance tests across six Midwest states using experimental high-altitude balloons, according to documents filed with the Federal Communications Commission.
www.foxnews.com
800 and 900mHz provide very long range, especially when directional tracking antennas are employed. Elevated Omni antennas can get you out 15 miles or so. 2.4gHz can deliver a solid video feed over 100 unobstructed miles but the power level has to be in Watts, not mWatts. 800mHz requires a license and both 800 and 900mHz need antennas dimensionally much larger than people want to tolerate.
Depending on where we operate and who is around what we’re doing there’s not a single frequency that can’t be jammed or swamped if the right people don’t want us operating. Another side of things has densely populated areas causing considerable frequency saturation, which can also be a problem for military operations. It’s one of the reasons they use much higher signal strength. Here at home there’s a lot of pressure being applied to government through business entities to open up more usable frequencies. It’s kind of like a new industrial revolution with radio frequencies instead of machines.
Last edited:
Phaedrus
Well-Known Member
And FWIW spectrum use is a huge deal. It is not like you can simply decide to operate, or manufacture, equipment on a different slice of the radio spectrum. FCC actually auctions off slices for bug bucks.
Beyond that, other long established uses are under threat. For instance, the 2-meter (144 MHz) band long used for amateur radio is under siege.
hackaday.com
This is the main reason most all consumer/prosumer/hobby sUAS stuff is crammed into the 2.4/5.8 GHz portions of the spectrum. Part 15 allows easy access but with considerable restrictions on power, etc.
Beyond that, other long established uses are under threat. For instance, the 2-meter (144 MHz) band long used for amateur radio is under siege.
The Backbone Of VHF Amateur Radio May Be Under Threat
A story that has been on the burner for a few weeks concerns a proposal that will be advanced to the ITU World Radiocommunication Conference 2023. It originates with French spectrum regulators and …
hackaday.com
This is the main reason most all consumer/prosumer/hobby sUAS stuff is crammed into the 2.4/5.8 GHz portions of the spectrum. Part 15 allows easy access but with considerable restrictions on power, etc.
R.Perry
Well-Known Member
Our population should not be subjected to 24/7 surveillance.
Pentagon testing mass surveillance balloons across the US
Pentagon testing mass surveillance balloons across the US
The U.S. military is conducting mass surveillance tests across six Midwest states using experimental high-altitude balloons, according to documents filed with the Federal Communications Commission.
Here at home there’s a lot of pressure being applied to government through business entities to open up more usable frequencies. It’s kind of like a new industrial revolution with radio frequencies instead of machines.
I know a lot of people have issues with privacy, but I seem to take the attitude if I'm not doing something wrong, why worry about someone watching me. We already have cameras everywhere in the cities, and major highways.
As for the ability to jam frequencies I do know a little bit about that, well should I say from many years ago, I'm sure today's abilities are much more sophisticated.
I think for drone operations to be reliable for long range, they are going to need their own frequencies, with higher power. Time will tell.
California State Parks is compiling a list of state parks with drone rules. Once that’s done, and if I can get backing, I intend to start a legal challenge to make sure it is cemented in precedent that the Park Service —at whatever level—only controls activities on the ground and not on the air.
I had already been thinking of a compromise where flight is allowed on certain days/times and/or parts of the park, and now that I see I’m not the only one, I will definitely try to do that.
Outta Control
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2018
- Messages
- 587
- Reaction score
- 332
- Age
- 57
- Location
- San Jose, CA
- Website
- www.hoveranalytics.com
Please, whatever you intend to propose to do not to destroy to what some of us has done to get the CA State Parks to allow the current rules for drone flights.
What a reasonable policy. Wish more states would follow that lead.Luis. The California State Parks has clear rules and conditions a drone can be operated.
Though I do not want to claim full credit for this but I, in a small part, helped get this accomplished.
Outta Control
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2018
- Messages
- 587
- Reaction score
- 332
- Age
- 57
- Location
- San Jose, CA
- Website
- www.hoveranalytics.com
It was a long, drawn process. Several emails and discussions with District supervisors.
JoeDimwit
Active Member
Which brings up the question of how much should we have to pay in order to participate in activities illegally restricted by municipal politicians?
As airspace use is the sole province of the FAA a single federal law and jurisdiction should be what municipal authorities comply with but our FAA does not assert their authority until challenged in legal actions. We should not have to file suit in every state, county, and city to obtain relief from what is essentially the same restriction intent over and over again.
By not having a national organization dedicated to promoting and protecting the rights of small drone users we place the burden of the fight on the backs of individuals, most of which cannot singularly afford to finance an expensive team of lawyers.
So it’s easy to sit in front of a keyboard and talk about going to court to preserve our rights but actually doing that without a few hundred thousand $ of disposable revenue is quite another. Most encountering illegal restrictive actions will do nothing and hope someone else will deal with it.
As airspace use is the sole province of the FAA a single federal law and jurisdiction should be what municipal authorities comply with but our FAA does not assert their authority until challenged in legal actions. We should not have to file suit in every state, county, and city to obtain relief from what is essentially the same restriction intent over and over again.
By not having a national organization dedicated to promoting and protecting the rights of small drone users we place the burden of the fight on the backs of individuals, most of which cannot singularly afford to finance an expensive team of lawyers.
So it’s easy to sit in front of a keyboard and talk about going to court to preserve our rights but actually doing that without a few hundred thousand $ of disposable revenue is quite another. Most encountering illegal restrictive actions will do nothing and hope someone else will deal with it.
Free2Fly
Well-Known Member
I think everyone loves a cop that tries to be a friend to the community. And everyone - um - we'll just say: "dislikes" - the ones that are impressed with their badge or gun or their authority.
That being said, I train my pilots to be courteous regardless, and end the mission and call it in if required to stop by law enforcement. In the public eye my pilots represent the company, so I aim to make sure that image remains untarnished. One thing I have learned is trying to "educate" a cop on the scene usually doesn't make any friends out of them. Going over their heads with a respectful approach of "we want to try and have everyone on the same page, can you tell me what the problem is?" usually gets a lot more traction. I will say in their defense they have a tough job, and are used to being argued with all day. You know, no one ever did it, or is guilty of a crime. So a respectful approach, even when they're in the wrong, will probably avoid you a trip to jail. Doesn't mean they're right. I just personally think there are better ways, at least for those of us that fly 107, to help make the drone community something that law enforcement will eventually come to have respect for.
That being said, I train my pilots to be courteous regardless, and end the mission and call it in if required to stop by law enforcement. In the public eye my pilots represent the company, so I aim to make sure that image remains untarnished. One thing I have learned is trying to "educate" a cop on the scene usually doesn't make any friends out of them. Going over their heads with a respectful approach of "we want to try and have everyone on the same page, can you tell me what the problem is?" usually gets a lot more traction. I will say in their defense they have a tough job, and are used to being argued with all day. You know, no one ever did it, or is guilty of a crime. So a respectful approach, even when they're in the wrong, will probably avoid you a trip to jail. Doesn't mean they're right. I just personally think there are better ways, at least for those of us that fly 107, to help make the drone community something that law enforcement will eventually come to have respect for.
