Garmin Astro: Legal?

Using the Garmin Astro as a tracker is a fairly common tracker. I hear people saying is not legal. Is this true?

After a lot of conflicting answers, I asked the question directly to the FCC and below is the answer I received:

Click to expand...

Ok guys I have an answer:

If your radio equipment is authorized to operate on the MURS channels, there would not be an FCC license necessary to utilize these channels. Please ensure you comply with FCC Rule 95.632. As long as your radio is authorized to operate on a MURS channel and you follow the above rule, there is no violation.

Click to expand...

Answers to my question:

1. Is there a restriction or violation on putting the device in a rocket and I quoted the 60' and 20' rule many have used?

This rule applies to ground based and building mounted antennas use and not rockets or aircraft. Aircraft and watercraft usage is allowed if permitted by the airline or captain.

Click to expand...

I think that ends the discussion by my part. My goal is to buy a BRB when I return. The Garmin was just a stepping stone for me. My stepfather suggested because he bear hunts with them They end up way higher than 60 feet or most of our rockets when you talk about feet above sea level. No one is worried about the hunters interrupting MURS or overriding their signals and there are 10-20s of them for everyone of us. I know it is apples and oranges, but you may have 50 radio collars on each hunt.

Click to expand...

cwbullet said:

Using the Garmin Astro as a tracker is a fairly common tracker. I hear people saying is not legal. Is this true?

Click to expand...

What radio band does it use? The main legal obstacle with unlicensed tracking devices is that certain radio bands have altitude limits above which you cannot transmit.

cwbullet said:

Using the Garmin Astro as a tracker is a fairly common tracker. I hear people saying is not legal. Is this true?

Click to expand...

Since they use the MURS band, per 95.1315 antenna height is limited to 20 feet above structure or 60 feet above ground, whichever is greater.

In reality I think you would be unlikely to interfere with use in a rocket.

mikec said:

Since they use the MURS band, per 95.1315 antenna height is limited to 20 feet above structure or 60 feet above ground, whichever is greater.

In reality I think you would be unlikely to interfere with use in a rocket.

Click to expand...

On the other hand, I don't think begging forgivness rather than asking for permission is a good way to deal with the FCC. Also, keep in mind that as the altitude from which you transmit increases, the distance your signal travels increases, which would tend to increase the liklihood of interference.

RadManCF said:

On the other hand, I don't think begging forgivness rather than asking for permission is a good way to deal with the FCC. Also, keep in mind that as the altitude from which you transmit increases, the distance your signal travels increases, which would tend to increase the liklihood of interference.

Click to expand...

Ok, got it - military mentality. Part of the three wize monkeys or mystic apes saying: "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil". I guess if you don't hear it, it is not evil and you have plausible deniability.

This seems to get debated a lot on here. I'm not calling anyone out by name but some folks in particular like to chime in every time the Garmin Astro is mentioned and point out that they're illegal to use in rockets. So, are they illegal? The nearest I can figure from reading every thread I could find here on this subject is: technically, probably, yes. Maybe.

Here are a couple of well-reasoned posts for the counter-argument:

https://www.rocketryforum.com/showthread.php?30888-Trackers&p=281838#post281838

https://www.rocketryforum.com/showthread.php?35261-Garmin-Astro&p=329984#post329984

Perhaps using the Garmin Astro in a rocket violates the letter of the law. But some further clarification would be helpful as it does not seem to violate the actual spirit/intent of the law. I have yet to see anyone argue that putting a dog-tracker in your rocket could actually cause some real-world harmful interference. So it's up to you I guess, if you are comfortable with a possible technical infraction, knowing that there is no plausible chance of causing actual harm or of being prosecuted. I sleep like a baby at night. Here in Washington state it's technically illegal to walk about in public if you are sick with any kind of contagious illness. Sure you get the point but you never see anyone being arrested for having a runny nose on the bus.

Beezwax,

Thanks. That is what i was looking for. I tough I remember a good explanation of the rules in the past. I will subscribe to this and make a note for the future.

I find it interesting (and somewhat entertaining) that on one section of the forum, we have people throwing a hissy fit about the Rocket City Rednecks crew, the rules they're violating, and how they're going to be the end of the hobby.....and on another section, we have people saying "it doesn't matter if it's only a 90 second rocket flight" to fly a MURS-based device at an altitude higher than the antennas are supposed to be.

Especially when there are options which you know are compliant.

-Kevin

troj said:

I find it interesting (and somewhat entertaining) that on one section of the forum, we have people throwing a hissy fit about the Rocket City Rednecks crew, the rules they're violating, and how they're going to be the end of the hobby.....and on another section, we have people saying "it doesn't matter if it's only a 90 second rocket flight" to fly a MURS-based device at an altitude higher than the antennas are supposed to be.

Especially when there are options which you know are compliant.

Click to expand...

That is true. Although, I suspect that the Garmin meets the intent of the ban. It really does not interfere since it is intermitent.

cwbullet said:

That is true. Although, I suspect that the Garmin meets the intent of the ban. It really does not interfere since it is intermitent.

Click to expand...

Intermittent or not, using a MURS transmitter in a rocket is a violation.

How do you rectify the fact that you stated the Rocket City crew is bad for the hobby, but knowingly violating FCC regs is somehow "okay"?

-Kevin

I was going to quote from the page Kevin linked, noting that the operation is legal as long as the antenna is no more than 20 feet above the structure on which is it mounted*, and that is it explicitly allowed in vehicles, therefore allowed in rockets, however there are conflicting regulations earlier in the reg:

From 1303 (a)(1) "MURS may be operated anywhere CB equipment is allowed", including (from 95.405) "An aircraft or ship, with the permission of the captain, within or over any area of the world where radio services are regulated by the FCC or upon or over international waters."

but from 1303(b) MURS "operation is not authorized aboard aircraft in flight."



*Note that the 60' maximum height restriction is not written as a logical AND as is the norm for regulation legalese. The AND form would be written as, "shall not exceed the lesser of 60 feet above the ground or 20' above the highest point of the structure." Otherwise it would be illegal to operate MURS from, say, a cruise ship, or in a building of more than 5 stories.

The aircraft statement is likely there because it appears the legal definition of a "vessel" includes float planes. So, you can use MURS in the float plane while its on the water, but not in the air

But a conventional aircraft is not a "vessel" -- www.lectlaw.com

troj said:

How do you rectify the fact that you stated the Rocket City crew is bad for the hobby, but knowingly violating FCC regs is somehow "okay"?

-Kevin

Click to expand...

Well, to state the obvious - when one of those things goes terribly wrong it's gonna make the news in a way that's damaging to our hobby. The other? Not so much.

troj said:

Intermittent or not, using a MURS transmitter in a rocket is a violation.

How do you rectify the fact that you stated the Rocket City crew is bad for the hobby, but knowingly violating FCC regs is somehow "okay"?

-Kevin

Click to expand...

I see your point. I think we are meeting the intent of a policy and regulation but violating it as written. A Garmin does not hurt anyone. Rocket City Rednecks violating multiple safety codes and could hurt someone.

I actually like the show. I think they sensationalize things. I have a Garmin but have only used it a few times. I use a comspec tracker. The garmin is too bulky for my needs most of the time.

cwbullet said:

I see your point. I think we are meeting the intent of a policy and regulation but violating it as written. A Garmin does not hurt anyone.

Click to expand...

I disagree. As I have said before, when you transmit from a higher altitude, your signals will propagate farther. If your MURS signals propagate farther than the regulations had in mind, the probability of interfering with someone else using the same frequencies rises. True, you aren't running the risk of causing physical injury to someone, but you are interfering with their ability to use a device that they were told would work properly. With regards to your earlier post about plausible deniability, I would argue that since our range safety practices expect the flier to show that their rocket is compliant with the safety codes, the flier should be expected to show that any RF device transmitting from their rocket is legal.

Actually this is not a problem for Kevin. His rockets seldom exceed 6o'. When they do, the recovery is spectacular enough to eliminate any evidence of the dog tracker...

H_Rocket said:

Actually this is not a problem for Kevin. His rockets seldom exceed 6o'. When they do, the recovery is spectacular enough to eliminate any evidence of the dog tracker...

Click to expand...

Go talk to an amateur radio club, and tell them it doesn't matter that you're misusing frequencies and transmitters, and see what they say

I suspect their reaction will be as protective of their hobby as we are of ours

It's not like there aren't compliant products readily available, and this is your only option

troj said:

Go talk to an amateur radio club, and tell them it doesn't matter that you're misusing frequencies and transmitters, and see what they say

I suspect their reaction will be as protective of their hobby as we are of ours

It's not like there aren't compliant products readily available, and this is your only option

Click to expand...

Realize also that they tend to be very good at Radio Direction Finding (RDF), which they use to track down and report sources of interference. Furthermore, they are much more cosy with the regulators than us, so that adds to the odds against you.

I really do not care either way. I use RF trackers. There are plenty of people that ware still going to use Garmins and I might do so also. I do not need GPS to track a rocket any more.

One thing is for certain, they have publish articles on how to do it in both rocket magazines and I don't see a follow on article about it being illegal.

If you can have your altimeter turn it on only after landing, you're in full compliance with the regs. If you're FINDING your rocket with it, you'll be fine. If you're trying to do TRACKING while in-flight, you will proabably need to look elsewhere... Altus Telemetrum is probably the best place to start.

JordanT said:

From 1303 (a)(1) "MURS may be operated anywhere CB equipment is allowed", including (from 95.405) "An aircraft or ship, with the permission of the captain, within or over any area of the world where radio services are regulated by the FCC or upon or over international waters."

but from 1303(b) MURS "operation is not authorized aboard aircraft in flight."



*Note that the 60' maximum height restriction is not written as a logical AND as is the norm for regulation legalese. The AND form would be written as, "shall not exceed the lesser of 60 feet above the ground or 20' above the highest point of the structure." Otherwise it would be illegal to operate MURS from, say, a cruise ship, or in a building of more than 5 stories.

Click to expand...

I think this type of discussion reveals a lot about people, and I am not trying to be antagonistic here. For one, it is a completely natural to rationalize or justify a decision (or purchase) that you've made because people don't like having buyer's remorse. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that most of the folks who wag their finger at Garmin users have bought into an RF tracking system. Everyone is a fan of whatever they've just spent $500 on.

Then there are folks who raise an objection because the law says this period. I am not advocating any criminal behavior. But I would argue that the legality here is not as clearly defined as the one camp would have you believe. If the use of dog-trackers in sport rocketry was clearly illegal and prohibited by FCC regulations then there is no way they would be allowed at sanctioned launches. As it is, they are being used at launches all across the country and thus far there has been no legal action or negative consequence that I am aware of.

In a case of muddled regulations, I think you need to use your brain. If someone can point to an instance when putting an Astro up in the air caused some kind of harm I would be very interested to learn of it. There is no obvious path to harm. I don't think the argument that increasing the altitude increases the range makes any difference. Yes okay, I can also increase the range by putting the collar on my dog, my dog in the car, and driving across the state. How exactly is this harmful? This is also exactly why the comparison to the Rocket City Rednecks is a false analogy, because as other have pointed out in that case there have been some clear safety violations and real-world risk of harm.

So are all the Astro-nauts breaking the law? Maybe, but not in any meaningful way. I enjoy trivia, and one thing I like to learn about are crazy laws that for whatever reason are true and somehow continue to exist on the books. Go ahead and google stupid laws in your state, it's a guaranteed chuckle. Apparently in Washington state it is illegal to buy a mattress or meat of any kind on Sunday. Hamburger on the Lord's Day??? Take him away! You're breaking laws all the time without ever knowing it. It's almost certain you've broken some of the laws pertaining to sexual intercourse in your state, unless you're abstinent. Folks just need to use their heads. If something you're doing could be damaging, then stop.

Full disclosure: yes, I have a Garmin Astro. I am also currently studying for the Ham Technichian license and hope to pass the exam later this month. Not because I feel concerned in any way about using the Garmin, I just want to have more tracking options available to me. The preceding is all merely my opinion. Your opinion will vary.

beezwax said:

If the use of dog-trackers in sport rocketry was clearly illegal and prohibited by FCC regulations then there is no way they would be allowed at sanctioned launches. As it is, they are being used at launches all across the country and thus far there has been no legal action or negative consequence that I am aware of.

Click to expand...

...except that law enforcement is not the job of the clubs, or national organizations. Tripoli and NAR have been told, quite directly, that they are not to try to enforce regulations; that came from the ATF, during the time of the ATF lawsuit. Under your logic, I should have to present my amateur radio license before I'm allowed to operate my radio at a launch. The waiver for the launch should be posted for public review. Every legal document should have to be presented at the time of RSO check, and RSO checks would take at least an hour, per rocket. Plus, we'd need a lawyer standing by.

In a case of muddled regulations, I think you need to use your brain. If someone can point to an instance when putting an Astro up in the air caused some kind of harm I would be very interested to learn of it. There is no obvious path to harm. I don't think the argument that increasing the altitude increases the range makes any difference. Yes okay, I can also increase the range by putting the collar on my dog, my dog in the car, and driving across the state. How exactly is this harmful? This is also exactly why the comparison to the Rocket City Rednecks is a false analogy, because as other have pointed out in that case there have been some clear safety violations and real-world risk of harm.

Click to expand...

You dismiss it, because it means that your current investment is invalid, from a legal standpoint.

cwbullet asked the question; information given was contradictory. It took all of five minutes to research what the regulations say, and it's not a case of legal mumbo-jumbo. They're pretty darned explicit.

The point you're glossing right over, or ignoring entirely, is that we, as a hobby, tell the authorities to "Trust Us, We can self-regulate" and we scream every time there's something we view as a risk to that, and a potential source of new regulation. Yet, at the same time, you (and many others) seem to want to take the attitude that you can ignore FCC regulations because you somehow think that's okay.

What kind of message does that send to the authorities? You Can Trust Us! (while we knowingly ignore other regulations that are inconvenient)

-Kevin

troj said:

...except that law enforcement is not the job of the clubs, or national organizations. Tripoli and NAR have been told, quite directly, that they are not to try to enforce regulations; that came from the ATF, during the time of the ATF lawsuit. Under your logic, I should have to present my amateur radio license before I'm allowed to operate my radio at a launch. The waiver for the launch should be posted for public review. Every legal document should have to be presented at the time of RSO check, and RSO checks would take at least an hour, per rocket. Plus, we'd need a lawyer standing by.

Click to expand...

Um...no, that is not what I was suggesting. If Tripoli and NAR are not in the business of regulation and enforcement then there wouldn't actually be any RSOs, folks could fly whatever motors they want, stick an EX homebrew in it, modify the hardware, throw an obviously unstable bird up on the pad, wahoo who cares! but please let me see your radio license first. Hyperbole doesn't actually contribute anything to a discussion.

troj said:

You dismiss it, because it means that your current investment is invalid, from a legal standpoint.

cwbullet asked the question; information given was contradictory. It took all of five minutes to research what the regulations say, and it's not a case of legal mumbo-jumbo. They're pretty darned explicit.

The point you're glossing right over, or ignoring entirely, is that we, as a hobby, tell the authorities to "Trust Us, We can self-regulate" and we scream every time there's something we view as a risk to that, and a potential source of new regulation. Yet, at the same time, you (and many others) seem to want to take the attitude that you can ignore FCC regulations because you somehow think that's okay.

What kind of message does that send to the authorities? You Can Trust Us! (while we knowingly ignore other regulations that are inconvenient)

Click to expand...

Look I'm not going to start repeating my points, with all due respect Kevin this will just devolve into a feedback loop as arguments of this nature are prone to do. There's a reason why this topic has come up again and again on the board here, the same folks make the same points on both sides and no one is convincing the other. But (my opinion) I think claiming that the federal regulations are perfectly clear and explicit on this point is over-reaching. I am not a lawyer, but I did spend several years working as a court-appointed advocate at the state level in every type of court case you can imagine (civil, criminal, family, juvenile) so I have a lot more time in a courtroom than the average person and I do know this: "the law" is a living, malleable thing that is not static and needs interpretation. Those whose job it is to interpret are called judges. You cannot always point to a single line of federal code and say it is explicitly clear, especially when there are other areas of the code that confuse or contradict, and when you are dealing with a situation that is in fact tangential to the one being regulated, and which uses the technology in question in a way "outside of the box" or otherwise unanticipated. That line of code was not handed to Moses on a golden tablet. There is a reason why federal codes and regulations are published on a yearly basis, as they are tweaked, amended, clarified, updated, etc. But people tend to look at something as given and latch on to whatever seems to support their own position.

troj said:

cwbullet asked the question; information given was contradictory. It took all of five minutes to research what the regulations say, and it's not a case of legal mumbo-jumbo. They're pretty darned explicit.

Click to expand...

I would add that an administrative law judge likely won't care about the "spirit" of the regulations.

The point you're glossing right over, or ignoring entirely, is that we, as a hobby, tell the authorities to "Trust Us, We can self-regulate" and we scream every time there's something we view as a risk to that, and a potential source of new regulation. Yet, at the same time, you (and many others) seem to want to take the attitude that you can ignore FCC regulations because you somehow think that's okay.

What kind of message does that send to the authorities? You Can Trust Us! (while we knowingly ignore other regulations that are inconvenient)

-Kevin

Click to expand...

This is perhaps the main reason I am so adamant in opposing the use of devices such as the Garmin Astro for rocketry purposes. There are plenty of devices that are legal for rocketry use, some of which can be used without a HAM license, such as the Big Red Bee 900Mhz gps beacon. I see using devices such as the Astro as cutting corners.

The RSO, or at least the check-in desk, SHOULD have your HAM license on file. It only makes sense. It's in the best interest of the club, and by extension the rest of us too, for any radio equipment to be properly licensed. At the very least it absolves the club itself from liability if you make a conscious decision to do something you shouldn't be doing. It's no different than checking your cert level if you are presenting them with a stratobuster on a K. As card-carrying rocket hobbyists we have the responsibility to follow whatever rules govern our activities, extending into the realm of the FCC if we choose to do radio-carrying projects. Not doing so may not get you in trouble now, but eventually it's going to catch up with somebody and eventually make it harder on all of us.

It would be nice if somebody actually went to the FCC/FAA and asked about this. Maybe somebody has. The regulations have so much boilerplate verbage in them that they pretty much put it on the user to interpret the intent of the language, and that's where the confusion lies.

As far as I can tell from the many threads on this subject, the only 100% legal in-flight trackers are those using either HAM or ISM frequencies, however just about any unlicensed band can be used if it's activated only after the rocket is on the ground.

beezwax said:

I don't think the argument that increasing the altitude increases the range makes any difference. Yes okay, I can also increase the range by putting the collar on my dog, my dog in the car, and driving across the state. How exactly is this harmful?

Click to expand...

I'll give a more in depth explanation. First, according to the FCC site's description of MURS, one can expect a useable range of about 25 miles on the ground. By putting the tracker on your dog, the dog in the car, and driving accross the state, you are not increasing the transmit range, you are merely moving while transmitting. This is legal. Everywhere you go, your transmit distance is in the neighborhood of 25 miles. You only tie up the channel you're transmitting on for a radius of 25 miles. At an altitude of 2000-4000ft I would guess that your transmissions could easilly travel 150 miles, at least. So, you would be tieing up the channel for a radius of 150 miles. True, it's not in the same category as causing physical harm to someone, but it certainly isn't playing fair with other users of the service.

RadManCF said:

I'll give a more in depth explanation. First, according to the FCC site's description of MURS, one can expect a useable range of about 25 miles on the ground. By putting the tracker on your dog, the dog in the car, and driving accross the state, you are not increasing the transmit range, you are merely moving while transmitting. This is legal. Everywhere you go, your transmit distance is in the neighborhood of 25 miles. You only tie up the channel you're transmitting on for a radius of 25 miles. At an altitude of 2000-4000ft I would guess that your transmissions could easilly travel 150 miles, at least. So, you would be tieing up the channel for a radius of 150 miles. True, it's not in the same category as causing physical harm to someone, but it certainly isn't playing fair with other users of the service.

Click to expand...

That is a very reasonable explanation. I thought the limiting factor with RF was line-of-sight while GPS/MURS was more about signal strength (which wouldn't change based on altitude), but I freely admit that I do not know enough about RF, GPS/MURS or other type of transmissions to comment.

cerving said:

It would be nice if somebody actually went to the FCC/FAA and asked about this. Maybe somebody has. The regulations have so much boilerplate verbage in them that they pretty much put it on the user to interpret the intent of the language, and that's where the confusion lies.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

beezwax said:

That is a very reasonable explanation. I thought the limiting factor with RF was line-of-sight while GPS/MURS was more about signal strength (which wouldn't change based on altitude), but I freely admit that I do not know enough about RF, GPS/MURS or other type of transmissions to comment.

Click to expand...

RF stands for Radio Frequency, and just refers to radio waves in general. MURS refers to specific range of frequencies allocated by the FCC in the Ultra High Frequency (UHF) band. All of the GPS and Radio Direction Finding trackers made for rocketry use the VHF and UHF bands, both of which have very similar propagation characteristics. The fact that one tracker uses GPS won't change the propagation of the signal. It only means that you may be able to get away without a directional antenna.

cerving said:

The RSO, or at least the check-in desk, SHOULD have your HAM license on file. It only makes sense. It's in the best interest of the club, and by extension the rest of us too, for any radio equipment to be properly licensed. At the very least it absolves the club itself from liability if you make a conscious decision to do something you shouldn't be doing. It's no different than checking your cert level if you are presenting them with a stratobuster on a K. As card-carrying rocket hobbyists we have the responsibility to follow whatever rules govern our activities, extending into the realm of the FCC if we choose to do radio-carrying projects. Not doing so may not get you in trouble now, but eventually it's going to catch up with somebody and eventually make it harder on all of us.

Click to expand...

Except that we've already had a government agency tell us that we're to enforce our own rules, only, and leave the enforcement of regulations to them. That was the ATF, during the lawsuit -- they specifically told "us" we were not to attempt to enforce the regulations, as we have no authority to do so.

Our own rules, however, we should be enforcing.

That said, FCC licenses are readily reviewable online. I know Greg at Big Red Bee won't sell to you, unless you provide him with your callsign, or at least that's the way it was in the past. He already has mine, so he hasn't asked for it, since.

It would be nice if somebody actually went to the FCC/FAA and asked about this. Maybe somebody has. The regulations have so much boilerplate verbage in them that they pretty much put it on the user to interpret the intent of the language, and that's where the confusion lies.

Click to expand...

In a way, I agree with you.

However, someone did that with the California State Fire Marshall, and caused months of grief for the entire rocketry community.

If it's possible to do so without any fallout, beyond getting clarification on specific issues, then it would make sense. Unfortunately, it doesn't necessarily work that way, and there can be other side effects.

FWIW, it's already highly documented that the balloon folks put transmitters on on the amateur bands in balloons. The amateur radio crowd is involved in that, as well, and they're highly protective of the regulations that govern their hobby. The CFR specifically states that telemetry from craft within 50km of the Earth's surface are not in violation of sections regarding codes and ciphers.

-Kevin