El Cheapo Cell Phone GPS Tracker

[CarVac]

Also, if you fly in somewhere like Black Rock, you might get only one tower's signal (unless you do a 50k+ flight or something).

 

[cerving]

An interesting thought, can a cell phone OUTSIDE of the plane cause any issues with the instruments? After all, the plane's antennae are outside the airplane and that's where the signals are supposed to be coming from, so it makes sense that a stray signal coming from the outside in clear air would be more likely to cause issues than one originating from inside the metal fuselage. If that's the case, then why don't they ban them in the terminals?

It's all a bunch of hooey, the signal is such relatively low power and is so RF "clean" (i.e., no vestigal sidebands) that unless the aircraft frequencies are close to the cell frequencies (which they are not) then there is almost no chance of interference. Radar is at a much higher frequency, so that's out too. If that wasn't the case, you wouldn't see cell towers all around the perimeter of LAX. I guarantee you that the aggregate stray RF eminating from those towers is way more than you'd ever get out of one (or even a bunch) of cell phones inside the plane, they're a lot higher powered.

I did some searching, and it seems like private pilots use their cell phones while flying quite a bit. I haven't found someone posting that they got in trouble with fcc for doing so.

I'd say that given the altitudes most of us fly at and the extremely short duration of the flight, the fcc will never know or care.

look at it this way: a 1000' flight isn't any different than being at the top of a 100 story sky scraper. how many cell towers do you think your phone can reach at the top of the stratosphere in vegas? is there a sign telling you to shut your phone off while up there? There wasn't one when I was up there a few years ago.

 

[bigredbee]

I agree with you, but none of these arguments changes the fact that it's illegal.

 

[BEAR]

As Theodore Roosevelt is supposedly to have said once:"Why spoil the beauty of idea with legality?"

 

[troj]

Something to remember is that we, as a hobby, complain about regulation of our activities, and say we can be trusted to self regulate.

Flaunting various laws just demonstrates to the authorities that we cannot be trusted.

Even if you find the law stupid or asinine, follow it. Otherwise, you're just providing the powers that be ammo to be used to put further regulation on our rocketry activities.

-Kevin

 

[Sully]

Here's the relevant FCC regulation (not law).

I couldn't find anyplace where the FCC defines "aircraft" but it's pretty clear that they are concerned about the effects of cell phone signal interference on an airplane's navigation, communication, and other internal systems. Reasonable concern, but so far there has not been a single case of this happening. The FAA supports the FCC ban, but appears not to have any relevant regulation of its own, that I could find.

How likely is it that the FCC will ever become aware of or care if one of us launches a cell phone? Very unliklely. How annoyed would all of us be at a fellow rocketeer who somehow manages to draw the attention of the FCC to our hobby, leading to even more oversight and regulation? Very annoyed.

It might be best if you keep your civil disobedience to private launches. (but please do let us know how it works!!)

 

[troj]

It might be best if you keep your civil disobedience to private launches. (but please do let us know how it works!!)

Even that's not good -- talking about it publicly just makes it more likely that someone will find out.

It's best if we, as a hobby, just don't even talk about it. All we're doing is putting ourselves at risk of more oversight.

-Kevin

 

[BEAR]

Reading Kevin's last two remarks, and Sully's comment, I regret making a poorly placed attempt at humor. I am in no way advocating that anyone should do anything illegal, whether through accident or intentional. I would think that maybe someone who has the time should politely inquire with the appropriate authorities if they could get a written clarification, if we should want to pursue this in our hobby. It could be the people who are launching balloons for a hobby may already have this written clarification, since they may have tried the same thing and possilby there is an exemption that we are unaware of.

Regardless, I hope everyone will try to be forward thinking before they take actions because the consequences can be far reaching and impact a lot more than oneself. Try to always think of the others that will be involved in your decisions whether they desire to be or not.

Pardon me for being so sober.

 

[zipstrip]

Even that's not good -- talking about it publicly just makes it more likely that someone will find out.

It's best if we, as a hobby, just don't even talk about it. All we're doing is putting ourselves at risk of more oversight.

-Kevin

Kevin, I agree. There is no sense in drawing attention to something that may create questions down the line and ultimately put our hobby in a spotlight (or more pointedly, headlights), particularly when there are some great products out there like BigRedBee, et. al. The intention of the thread was to gain a better understanding of other options (to experiment), not to circumvent regs or the law nor to compete with other existing solutions. The option that I suggested was a cell phone solution. This assumes that there is cell coverage at the launch site that serves 2G, 3G or 4G (usually not). The cell radio on the phone to be launched with the rocket would not be active until after the flight and on the ground at which point a "job scheduler" or timer would deactivate "airplane mode" i.e. allow cell communcations, thereby allowing transmission of GPS coordinates to a primary phone. I am not a lawyer; however this does seem like it should work and not break existing laws or regs.

 

[user 8716]

The FAA supports the FCC ban, but appears not to have any relevant regulation of its own, that I could find.

The FAA's ban is a bit more general but can be found in 14 CFR 91.21

 

[BEAR]

14 CFR 91.21: § 91.21 Portable electronic devices.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may operate, nor may any operator or pilot in command of an aircraft allow the operation of, any portable electronic device on any of the following U.S.-registered civil aircraft:

(1) Aircraft operated by a holder of an air carrier operating certificate or an operating certificate; or

(2) Any other aircraft while it is operated under IFR.

(b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to—

(1) Portable voice recorders;

(2) Hearing aids;

(3) Heart pacemakers;

(4) Electric shavers; or

(5) Any other portable electronic device that the operator of the aircraft has determined will not cause interference with the navigation or communication system of the aircraft on which it is to be used.

(c) In the case of an aircraft operated by a holder of an air carrier operating certificate or an operating certificate, the determination required by paragraph (b)(5) of this section shall be made by that operator of the aircraft on which the particular device is to be used. In the case of other aircraft, the determination may be made by the pilot in command or other operator of the aircraft.


Let me be the first to admit that I am not an attorney. In my humble opinion from reading this regulation is; 1.we are not an aircraft operated by a holder of an air carrier operating certificate or an operating certificate; or (2) Any other aircraft while it is operated under Instrument Flight Regulations, and when including part (5) Any other portable electronic device that the operator of the aircraft has determined will not cause interference with the navigation or communication system of the aircraft on which it is to be used, we do not qualify or appear to be regulated by those statements, so it is concluded that this regulation does not apply to us. I also freely admit I am not familiar with the FCC regulations in regards to using cell phones in aircraft, so the final answer still escapes me. There, you have my two cents, and you will not have to put up with me again till after Thanksgiving, which I hope all of you have a blessed one.

 

[bigredbee]

IMHO, the intent of the regulations seems pretty clear, and is to prevent airborne operation of cellular devices.

But that is for a jury to decide.

Greg

 

[cerving]

Well, there it is right from the horse's (FAA's) mouth. The regulation applies only to civil aircraft, and it doesn't even apply to aircraft running under VFR. If you're cruising your Cessna 152 at 5000' on a beautiful clear day under VFR, you are free to pull out your cell phone and call your mother. Model rockets, RC aircraft, and for that matter, weather balloons, are not covered by this regulation and are therefore exempt from it. No court interpretation is necessary, the wording and purpose of the regulation are very clear. It's to prevent interference with aircraft instrumentation by personal electronic devices.

Thare are already published articles about people launching cell phones for various purposes, I doubt that the publishers would publish something that might get them in trouble.

14 CFR 91.21: § 91.21 Portable electronic devices.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may operate, nor may any operator or pilot in command of an aircraft allow the operation of, any portable electronic device on any of the following U.S.-registered civil aircraft:

(1) Aircraft operated by a holder of an air carrier operating certificate or an operating certificate; or

(2) Any other aircraft while it is operated under IFR.

(b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to—

(1) Portable voice recorders;

(2) Hearing aids;

(3) Heart pacemakers;

(4) Electric shavers; or

(5) Any other portable electronic device that the operator of the aircraft has determined will not cause interference with the navigation or communication system of the aircraft on which it is to be used.

(c) In the case of an aircraft operated by a holder of an air carrier operating certificate or an operating certificate, the determination required by paragraph (b)(5) of this section shall be made by that operator of the aircraft on which the particular device is to be used. In the case of other aircraft, the determination may be made by the pilot in command or other operator of the aircraft.


Let me be the first to admit that I am not an attorney. In my humble opinion from reading this regulation is; 1.we are not an aircraft operated by a holder of an air carrier operating certificate or an operating certificate; or (2) Any other aircraft while it is operated under Instrument Flight Regulations, and when including part (5) Any other portable electronic device that the operator of the aircraft has determined will not cause interference with the navigation or communication system of the aircraft on which it is to be used, we do not qualify or appear to be regulated by those statements, so it is concluded that this regulation does not apply to us. I also freely admit I am not familiar with the FCC regulations in regards to using cell phones in aircraft, so the final answer still escapes me. There, you have my two cents, and you will not have to put up with me again till after Thanksgiving, which I hope all of you have a blessed one.

 

[bigredbee]

This doesn't mean that you can ignore Title 47 PART 22 Subpart H 925.

And you think that the magazine publishers understand (or care about) any of this?

 

[bobkrech]

Well, there it is right from the horse's (FAA's) mouth. The regulation applies only to civil aircraft, and it doesn't even apply to aircraft running under VFR. If you're cruising your Cessna 152 at 5000' on a beautiful clear day under VFR, you are free to pull out your cell phone and call your mother. Model rockets, RC aircraft, and for that matter, weather balloons, are not covered by this regulation and are therefore exempt from it. No court interpretation is necessary, the wording and purpose of the regulation are very clear. It's to prevent interference with aircraft instrumentation by personal electronic devices.

Thare are already published articles about people launching cell phones for various purposes, I doubt that the publishers would publish something that might get them in trouble.

Title 47: Telecommunication
PART 22—PUBLIC MOBILE SERVICES
Subpart H—Cellular Radiotelephone Service

---

§ 22.925 Prohibition on airborne operation of cellular telephones.

Cellular telephones installed in or carried aboard airplanes, balloons or any other type of aircraft must not be operated while such aircraft are airborne (not touching the ground). When any aircraft leaves the ground, all cellular telephones on board that aircraft must be turned off. The following notice must be posted on or near each cellular telephone installed in any aircraft:
“The use of cellular telephones while this aircraft is airborne is prohibited by FCC rules, and the violation of this rule could result in suspension of service and/or a fine. The use of cellular telephones while this aircraft is on the ground is subject to FAA regulations.”

This is one of the clearest Federal regulations that you will find. You do not have to be a lawyer to interpret it as it is written in plain English.

1. By definition a rocket is an aircraft because it operates above the ground.

2. The is a FCC regulation, not a FAA regulation.

3. It is a civil offense, not a criminal offense. The regulation stated you can have your cell phone service suspended and you can be fined for violating this requlation, but you will not be sent to jail for violating this regualtion.

4. Unless you caused a big problem, the FCC is unlikely to enforce the regulation for hobby baloon or rocket flights as the cost of the enforcement process is likely to exceed the revenue derived from the collection of the fine.

Your last comment is irrelevant. What do the publishers have to do with it? They are simply dropping the dime and reporting the violation. They are not liable for anything.

Bob

 

[Sully]

Title 47: Telecommunication
PART 22—PUBLIC MOBILE SERVICES
Subpart H—Cellular Radiotelephone Service

---

§ 22.925 Prohibition on airborne operation of cellular telephones.

Cellular telephones installed in or carried aboard airplanes, balloons or any other type of aircraft must not be operated while such aircraft are airborne (not touching the ground). When any aircraft leaves the ground, all cellular telephones on board that aircraft must be turned off. The following notice must be posted on or near each cellular telephone installed in any aircraft:
“The use of cellular telephones while this aircraft is airborne is prohibited by FCC rules, and the violation of this rule could result in suspension of service and/or a fine. The use of cellular telephones while this aircraft is on the ground is subject to FAA regulations.”

This is one of the clearest Federal regulations that you will find. You do not have to be a lawyer to interpret it as it is written in plain English.

1. By definition a rocket is an aircraft because it operates above the ground.

2. The is a FCC regulation, not a FAA regulation.

3. It is a civil offense, not a criminal offense. The regulation stated you can have your cell phone service suspended and you can be fined for violating this requlation, but you will not be sent to jail for violating this regualtion.

4. Unless you caused a big problem, the FCC is unlikely to enforce the regulation for hobby baloon or rocket flights as the cost of the enforcement process is likely to exceed the revenue derived from the collection of the fine.

Your last comment is irrelevant. What do the publishers have to do with it? They are simply dropping the dime and reporting the violation. They are not liable for anything.

Bob

Bob... I would disagree that it is clear how to apply this regulation to our hobby. While it is written relatively clearly for a federal regulation, ambiguity remains. One issue is how the FCC defines "aircraft," which they do not do explicitly in this regulation. If you have seen it defined by the FCC elsewhere, please share, because that will clarify this immensely. It seems obvious to me that this regulation is intended to apply to cell phones on passenger flights. Applying it to rockets would introduce some absurdity (but this wouldn't be the first time a regulation did so). If I were to fly my smartphone with the radio disabled, for the purpose of other data collection, this regulation suggests that I must install this notice on my rocket:

“The use of cellular telephones while this aircraft is airborne is prohibited by FCC rules, and the violation of this rule could result in suspension of service and/or a fine. The use of cellular telephones while this aircraft is on the ground is subject to FAA regulations.”

Does the FCC really intend that I put this notice on my rocket? Why? Who would read it? And it is clearly false that the FAA regulates what I do with my cell phone at a rocket launch. (again, presence of absurdity does not mean that the regulation doesn't call for this, but it raises doubt)

While that argument may require some "lawyering," and arguing over definitions, this does not:

It is indisputable that this regulation applies only to "cellular telephones" which are described elsewhere by the FCC as two-way communication devices. It is not clear to me yet that this would apply to one-way devices that use the same spectrum, such as the pet trackers that use a combination of GPS and the cell network. (yes, I agree that the supposed safety concerns re: in-air use are identical between cell phones and pet trackers, but that is irrelevant to what the regulation actually says)

Although I believe that launching a phone is safe, and that there is virtually nil chance of the FCC noticing or caring, I would say that the regulation is not clear one way or the other. Until by some chance we get some further clarification or official word, the most conservative thing to do would be not to launch these devices.

I see no harm, however, in people reporting whether these tracking devices work effectively on the ground, and there are ways to use them to track rockets that have landed (without activating the radio in the air). Nobody has suggested that this is problematic.

 

[bobkrech]

§ 22.925 Prohibition on airborne operation of cellular telephones.

Cellular telephones installed in or carried aboard airplanes, balloons or any other type of aircraft must not be operated while such aircraft are airborne (not touching the ground).

What is ambigious about this sentence?

Also below are some talking points from the FCC. They are based on the requirement of non-interference with other communication networks.

https://www.fcc.gov/guides/wireless-devices-airplanes

https://www.fcc.gov/topic/wireless

https://www.fcc.gov/topic/3g-4g-wireless

https://www.fcc.gov/topic/interference

https://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/interference

https://www.fcc.gov/guides/interference-defining-source

It's clear where the FCC stands on this issue. We can agree to disagree. This is my last post on this subject in this thread.

Bob

 

[Sully]

§ 22.925 Prohibition on airborne operation of cellular telephones.

Cellular telephones installed in or carried aboard airplanes, balloons or any other type of aircraft must not be operated while such aircraft are airborne (not touching the ground).

What is ambigious about this sentence?

Also below are some talking points from the FCC. They are based on the requirement of non-interference with other communication networks.

https://www.fcc.gov/guides/wireless-devices-airplanes

https://www.fcc.gov/topic/wireless

https://www.fcc.gov/topic/3g-4g-wireless

https://www.fcc.gov/topic/interference

https://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/interference

https://www.fcc.gov/guides/interference-defining-source

It's clear where the FCC stands on this issue. We can agree to disagree. This is my last post on this subject in this thread.

Bob

Hi Bob... I don't mean to antagonize you, but I honestly think that this regulation is not intended to apply to smartphones placed in rockets (although I agree that it can and very well might inadvertently do so).

Here's what's ambigious about the above: is a "pet-tracker" a "cellular telephone"? This thread, and others, have been discussing use of these type of devices, in addition to phones, for this purpose. If a dog tracker that uses the cellular network is not a telephone, then this regulation does not apply to the pet trackers and we are free to use them. I understand that in the links you provide above the FCC refers to "other devices" in a very broad sense, but the regulation itself refers only to telephones.

 

[JordanT]

We can argue until we're blue in the face on this, but it won't settle anything. As someone who deals with thousands of pages of government regulations on a daily basis (and the building code is easily as obtuse as the CFR in places), the case of a smart phone in an unmanned amateur rocket flight was almost certainly never mentioned in any review meeting, much less considered in the regulation. There really are conditions for which the law has not been written.

The chance of having an issue with the FCC is practically zero, based on the highly publicized use of cellular telephones for photography and telemetry by high school and college unmanned balloon flights which were all the rage a year or two ago and made headlines in the geek and popular press. That said, if you get caught, the legal bill will probably cost you into 5 figures if you're lucky. Just as would be the case if you put a 3 lb rocket into a house, car, or person and you missed any one of the numerous regulations which many of us "don't quite comply with" every time we go launch by ourselves. And, by rule, flying a cell phone could invalidate your NAR insurance, as you might not be following all (local, state and) federal regulations.

Still, if I thought I could do this in the size rockets I fly, I'd probably do it. The stuff I fly that I'm afraid I'm going to lose is too small, so I'm going to fly a purpose built GPS/beacon - but not for any moral or legal reason.

 

[Coop]

For the cost of an iPhone, you could have a dedicated piece of hardware for rocket flight (and if you look around, will control your parachutes, too) AND your HAM call sign to make everything unambiguously legal. I mean, Steve Jobs was cool and all, but there ain't no app for that.

Later!

--Coop

 

[JordanT]

For the cost of an iPhone, you could have a dedicated piece of hardware for rocket flight (and if you look around, will control your parachutes, too) AND your HAM call sign to make everything unambiguously legal. I mean, Steve Jobs was cool and all, but there ain't no app for that.

Later!

--Coop

That's because it's an iPhone. You can get last month's top Android phone for $50 on ebay. (just kidding!) It is, however, easy to pick up a cheap android phone that does what you need it to, along with the simplest prepaid sim and put the whole thing together for less than $100 out of pocket, including a season's worth of service for flying. That's the draw - $600-1000 worth of GPS equipment and related gear for less than a fiberglass kit. Even cheaper if you already have an older phone.

Then again, you could always just order one of these: https://dx.com/p/mini-gsm-gps-personal-position-tracker-black-117188 for $65 or this one https://www.tmart.com/TK118-High-Quality-Car-GSM-GPRS-GPS-Tracker-Black_p136419.html for $60 and avoid the whole mess (as always, privided you have coverage). It might even fit in a rocket BT as small as an Arreaux (1.9" BT).