Garmin Astro: Legal?

[cwbullet]

In the end, I think the FCC review led to an answer based on what the intent of policy was. I really think they have bigger fish to fry anyway.

 

[JordanT]

Chuck - since there's been a lot of chatter in this thread, and we've spilled over onto another page, would it be possible for you to edit the first post and place the text of the inquiry and response there for future searchers?

 

[cwbullet]

Done - the answer is now in the text of the first post.

 

[user 8716]

Sure, I could, as could anyone else in a matter of seconds. But I'm not a member of Tripoli-MN and in fact I'm not a Tripoli member at all, so I figured there would probably be a more logical contact than me. Maybe someone who is on a private messaging board with this group, such as yourself?

I'm not a member of Tripoli-MN either, but some of their BOD are members of the club I am part of and occasionally participate in that club's messaging board. I could mention it on that board but there is no guarantee that TR-MN would see it.

 

[Derek]

That is a surprising answer, and it came rather quickly, too. Although I'm sure an unofficial email will not satisfy some people. It seems some logic was behind the response, and not just a simple "no rule says no, so no" answer.

You may want to update the title and post your entire email conversation with the responder's name and contact info as well.

Thanks for your effort.

Derek

 

[threelapfancy]

To TRF-er’s,

Tripoli Minnesota leadership is aware of this thread.

Tripoli Minnesota contacted the FCC Wireless Telecommunications Bureau in Washington, D.C. in December 2012 regarding the legality of the Garmin Astro system use in model rockets.

Our contact at the FCC Wireless Telecommunications Bureau was familiar with the Garmin Astro system; we were told that use of the system onboard model rockets in flight is against FCC regulations.

Specifically CFR 95.1303(2)(b) states “MURS operation is not authorized aboard aircraft in flight.”

The Tripoli Minnesota Board of Directors stands behind their decision.

With regards to the letter sent to Tripoli Minnesota members, and posted on the Tripoli Minnesota website, TRF user “jamesr” interpretation is correct.

Officially, Tripoli Minnesota will no longer participate in this thread.

Cordially,

Steve Anderson
Tripoli Minnesota President/Prefect
On behalf of the Tripoli Minnesota Board of Directors

 

[cwbullet]

That is a surprising answer, and it came rather quickly, too. Although I'm sure an unofficial email will not satisfy some people. It seems some logic was behind the response, and not just a simple "no rule says no, so no" answer.

You may want to update the title and post your entire email conversation with the responder's name and contact info as well.

Thanks for your effort.

Derek

I agree with you, but it has seemed to stop the banter back and forth.

I do have a Garmin with 2 DC20 and 2 DC30 collars that I inherited (a family member upgraded to the DC40).

As I said before, I do not know if I will use them any more and If I do it will be on only large rockets. They are pretty heavy compared to RF and other smaller trackers. In SC, the waiver is not as generous as Kansas so I can get away with the extra weight but as I go to sites with higher waivers, I want to maximize altitude so I will switch to RF or BRB. I really prefer to maximize my results form each motor.

CJ referred to one my first several rockets as a boat anchor. I am trying to avoid extra weight in the future and that includes the trackers.

 

[cwbullet]

Well, it is obvious that even in the FCC, they have differing opinions. My contact obviously did not feel that a rocket was an aircraft. If you go by your definition then a kite is an Aircraft.
You need to read the whole policy and it says unless allowed by the captain.

The definition of an aircraft is "any machine capable of flying by means of buoyancy or aerodynamic forces, such as a glider, helicopter, or aeroplane". They have a navigation system which our rockets do not. Then again the FAA describe an aircraft as an object intended on flight.

I personally agree with my contact if that is were they were going.

 

[beezwax]

Well if nothing else this thread has been a fun ride. So now we have two conflicting hearsay positions from the FCC. I guess folks can still pick the answer that best supports their own preconceptions, which places us basically back where we started. Unless there is an actual change to the FCC regs with language specific to MURS and rocketry (which I doubt will ever happen) about all we can safely conclude is that the legality of such usage is still not clearly defined and people should simply exercise common sense and RF courtesy if they go that route.

 

[cwbullet]

To muddy the water more, just consider, does the FAA consider a rocket an aircraft. It is not perfectly clear either.

I have my answer and email to back it up if the FCC comes a knocking. I prefer an answer in writing.

 

[Obelisk]

If you have the collars and an email approving I'd say "you/chuck" might be in the clear. Everyone else without confirmation I guess is still in murky water unless there's an influx of emails to the FCC. Personally I'd say if you don't already own one go with a known approved technology still... But then again I'm in MN so I've already been given my options which I'm fine with... Heck I got to pick up a new hobby becoming a HAM.

 

[cwbullet]

If you have the collars and an email approving I'd say "you/chuck" might be in the clear. Everyone else without confirmation I guess is still in murky water unless there's an influx of emails to the FCC. Personally I'd say if you don't already own one go with a known approved technology still... But then again I'm in MN so I've already been given my options which I'm fine with... Heck I got to pick up a new hobby becoming a HAM.

I think that is a wise choice. I will stress one point that I learned from our G6 and S6 (signal at the Division and Bridgade level). They reviewed the specs on the device with me, the band width, frequency, and power. I trust my specialists and said it is highly unlikely that anyone will be prosecuded or that it will even be noticed that you are using one.

Even with the MN position, my contension is it is not as clear as they presented and it is clear they have an agenda of some sort. I still wonder why they waited for the response from the FCC to me to reveal they had already asked. I am glad they did not, because I may have not requested clarification.

 

[jamesr]

People need to remember that what Chuck has posted is just an opinion and not an official ruling. You should still remember that someone else will have a different opinion, not unlike here. You still should remember that you use them at your on risk and as with any radio freq use you can not cause any interference.

 

[cwbullet]

It is an official view from the FCC. I have the emails to back it up. I asked for clarification and that is what I received in the form of emails. I agree that the FCC has not directly addressed rocketry in their policies.

I do agree that the signal guys saying we are unlikely to cause harm or evenly be noticed using MURS is an opinion. I trust them. They are pretty knowledgable about tracking objects with communications signals.

If it is the wrong interpretation, maybe the FCC needs to make a formal statement or adjust their policies.

There is another section that specifically states MURS can be used for telemetry. I know people use MURS with avian tracking. They have posts on their forums arguing the same points.

If you want to muddy the water more, try to define "aircraft".

 

[cwbullet]

I think this is a topic that we should just agree to disagree. I really appreciate the lively discussion. It has proven there are lot of ways to read a regulation and each agency has its own definitions.

Enjoy your rockets and fly one for me.

 

[bobkrech]

It is an official view from the FCC. I have the emails to back it up. I asked for clarification and that is what I received in the form of emails. I agree that the FCC has not directly addressed rocketry in their policies.

I do agree that the signal guys saying we are unlikely to cause harm or evenly be noticed using MURS is an opinion. I trust them. They are pretty knowledgable about tracking objects with communications signals.

If it is the wrong interpretation, maybe the FCC needs to make a formal statement or adjust their policies.

There is another section that specifically states MURS can be used for telemetry. I know people use MURS with avian tracking. They have posts on their forums arguing the same points.

If you want to muddy the water more, try to define "aircraft".

Chuck

Could you forward your e-mail chain between the FCC any yoursefl to me.

I would like to review it and if it appears to be a legal opinion, I would like to sticky it.

Thanks.

Bob Krech, TRF Moderator [email protected]

 

[cwbullet]

I am not sure if it is a legal opinion or not. It was a request for clarification.

I just asked for clarification on what the FCC considers an aircraft. I will not post on this topic again. I respect everyone's opinion and as I said before, I am moving away from Garmins in rockets and will stick to tracking dogs like was intended. This has become too heated.

 

[luke strawwalker]

I think that is a wise choice. I will stress one point that I learned from our G6 and S6 (signal at the Division and Bridgade level). They reviewed the specs on the device with me, the band width, frequency, and power. I trust my specialists and said it is highly unlikely that anyone will be prosecuded or that it will even be noticed that you are using one.

Even with the MN position, my contension is it is not as clear as they presented and it is clear they have an agenda of some sort. I still wonder why they waited for the response from the FCC to me to reveal they had already asked. I am glad they did not, because I may have not requested clarification.

Believe nothing you hear and only half of what you read...

Later! OL JR

 

[cwbullet]

True and funny. Thank. Humor is a good thing.

 

[luke strawwalker]

True and funny. Thank. Humor is a good thing.

You're welcome...

Ya know, I don't say this much... but thanks for doing what you do... I appreciate it!

Have a good one and stay safe.
Later! OL JR

 

[mkadams001]

The FAA does have a definition of aircraft and rocket. It would depend on what the FCC thinks if a model rocket is an aircraft.

Since it seems that most of the complaints to the FCC about radio interference originates from amateur radio operators. The interference can come from a variety of sources including pellet stoves, signs, and computer related equipment. The typical response from the FCC is to send a form letter to the offender and ask them to resolve the issue.

Based on the response you received and the unlikely event that an Astro would cause interference that would be reported I would feel comfortable with using one for rocket tracking until I was asked not to from the FCC. Then again, I don't have any fears from federal agencies.

This is one of the better threads that I have seen in this forum. Nicely done.

 

[cwbullet]

I am glad to be of service. If nothing more, I made people think about this before buying a Garmin and hopefully, the power to be will review this thread and make an official statement.

 

[jamesr]

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:
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by cwbullet; 8th January 2013 at 12:18 PM.:

You all need to keep in mind that the information posted here is just an opinion and not a ruling. A copy of this thread or an email with the same information on it does not make it legal. If you have dealt with the ATFE at all you will understand this.

 

[cwbullet]

You all need to keep in mind that the information posted here is just an opinion and not a ruling. A copy of this thread or an email with the same information on it does not make it legal. If you have dealt with the ATFE at all you will understand this.

You don't need to keep posting the same comment. You posted this already. Although I value your view, you are being redundant. I recommend we all wait for TRA or NAR to make an office statement and stop the discussion.

 

[beezwax]

You all need to keep in mind that the information posted here is just an opinion and not a ruling. A copy of this thread or an email with the same information on it does not make it legal. If you have dealt with the ATFE at all you will understand this.

Funny how that works....apparently the only actual "ruling" in this whole debate thus far has been the unilateral action of Tripoli-MN on the basis of the "opinion" they received in response to their own request for clarification

 

[cwbullet]

Funny how that works....apparently the only actual "ruling" in this whole debate thus far has been the unilateral action of Tripoli-MN on the basis of the "opinion" they received in response to their own request for clarification

Stop poking the bear.

 

[RadManCF]

Hey chuck, out of curiosity, what exactly did you ask in your email to FCC? Were you asking if the antenna height restrictions would prevent the use of MURS devices in rockets, or did you ask something like "is there anything in the FCC regs that prevent the use of MURS devices in rockets?". I think the differences between the opinion that were given, and the opinion given to Tripoli MN, could be a result of how the question was asked.

 

[cwbullet]

I asked a bunch of questions. Below is a general idea of what I asked but not in the form I asked.

1) I asked for clarification on the antenna issue. They did not indicated this was an issue, but did not directly comment. Then again it is used on birds (legality is argued).

2) I asked about using MURS in a flying high power or hobby rocket while in flight.

3) Most recently, I asked again what they define as an aircraft. Even the FAA contradicts itself so I asked the source of the policy.

The answer I got back to those question was that as long as the device is allowed to used with MURS, then it was ok.

I really do not care what response is given. I just want it from the horses mouth or email or even a policy from FCC, TRA, or NAR. I am personally tired of the posts says it is legal or illegal. Yes I have one, but I can hunt with it to get my use.

 

[cerving]

+1 on not poking the bear. We have our answers, no point asking again, unless NAR/TRA wants to formally take up the matter. Given the protracted and expensive bout with the BATF, I kinda think they're inclined to let sleeping dogs lie.

The responses that Chuck got were based on common sense. Believe it or not, most regs that the "government" have are. The FAA's job is to regulate the safe use of airspace. In the context of hobby rocketry, ceiling restrictions and ensuring that we don't invade a TCA make sense. They could care less about what kind of radios we use, that's not their job. The rules relating to the use of portable devices (laptops, cellular, MURS, FRS, etc.) aboard passenger aircraft are designed to prevent interference with the instruments, and thus promote flight safety. If there are no instruments (i.e. VFR rules on GA, or hobby rocketry) then there is no issue, which is why they allow the use of cell phones on GA aircraft under VFR with the pilot's permission. It's prohibited on commercial flights because you can't have 400 passengers asking the flight crew for permission to use their cell phones, that would be nuts. Interference with the aircraft's nav system has apparently never been proven, but the FAA is erring on the side of caution, which is a good thing, because you wouldn't be able to tell which of the 400 passengers' devices was causing a problem. On a Cessna, the pilot can just turn around and tell the passengers to turn the damn things off.

The FCC's job is to regulate the use of the radio spectrum. As long as whatever we're doing has no adverse effect on anybody else, and we are using products for their intended purpose as defined by the FCC (i.e. not putting 60' towers on a portable device to boost its range) then they don't care if we put in in a rocket, on a dog, on a falcon, or anything else. As long as you're not violating the spectrum rules (frequency, power, type of antenna, type of modulation, type of transmission, etc.) then it's legal as far as they're concerned. THEIR rule prohibiting cell phones on aircraft [hijack apology...] was to prevent cell towers from being overloaded by 400 cell phones simultaneously switching from one tower to another as the plane moves, and thus interfering with the communication infrastructure. Since hobby rockets basically go straight up, and there is only one device, this is not gonna happen; in fact, you probably would never switch towers unless you drifted a few miles under chute.

 

[dixontj93060]

Refreshingly practical comment above by Cerving as we always seem to get wrapped around the axle on this one.