You must Sign-in or Register to post messages in the Hobby Squawk community
Registration is FREE and only takes a few moments

Register now

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

5G Cell Towers = Caution = Loss of Control

Collapse
X
Collapse
First Prev Next Last
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 5G Cell Towers = Caution = Loss of Control

    Based upon a recent experience flying within 1,000 ft (confirmed via Google Earth) of a cell tower (no-doubt 5G), a bit of caution is offered.

    I had a complete loss of control event...twice..in about the same location. The plane eventually responded after flying farther away from the tower and getting down to about 100 ft AGL.

    From feedback I have received from other posts I made on this, it seems that it is quite possible the significantly higher-power RF from 5G towers may swamp our unshielded receivers. If you have a cell tower in your flying area and have not had problems in the past....with 5G now activated...BEWARE! You may now have a problem.

    My suggestion is....before flying anywhere / take a visual survey of the area and look for cell towers. If you see them, STAY AWAY from them.

    Comments?

    -GG

  • #2
    If a particular cell tower is affecting 2.4 RC signals, that tower is probably not operating as designed and should.be inspected. The difference in frequency from 5G and our radios should not have interference


    When evaluating loss of control events, it is important to check the radio telemetry. On spektrum radios a loss of signal would.be represented as a Hold event.

    If there are no Holds, then there was no loss of signal and any loss of control must be attributed to something else than a loss of signal.
    ​​​​​​

    Comment


    • #3
      Good points, but this is rather old-ish 2015/2016 FHSS gear (and inexpensive), so it does not have any bells and whistles. Possibly that could be the root cause(inexpensive gear). But, I am not going to fly my MiG-29 anywhere near this tower to find out.

      The bird that experienced the LOC event was totally unresponsive over by the tower (same location, too, for both events). I flew many more flights with this same bird (and another) this same afternoon...purposefully staying AWAY from the tower, and had no other LOC event.

      Others have proposed that the high-power RF from the 5G (greater radiated RF power than non-5G) might be swamping the receiver. Note that prior to 5G, I flew at this location without having any issues.

      For safety sake, I am going to fly N and S and NW and NE and E of my location at this place from now on....not going to fly W toward the tower at all. LOC events are NOT fun.

      -GG

      Comment


      • #4
        In my younger years I was fortunate to have been educated in my electrical engineering background within the disciplines of the microwave radio frequency (RF) spectrum.
        I was involved as an electrical engineer in the late 70's with the F-4 Wild Weasel receiver program at IBM Federal Systems Division.
        I share this personal history only to lend credence for the info I share below about microwave technology.
        I'd like to submit to the RC enthusiast that has no general idea about the tech science of Radio Frequency (RF) propagation and dispel some of the general misinformation regarding cellphone frequency bands interfering with the RC hobby bands. ​​What Gilatrout said earlier is very true.
        Our 2.4GHz radios are not affected by the cell tower frequencies because of the regulated separation of bands.
        The cellphone bands have wide ranging frequency throughout the various generations from 2G through the now emerging 5G (5th generation).
        In the present 4G LTE system, LTE denotes Long Term Evolution, and is a term that was deployed with early 4G networks that presented a substantial improvement on 3G, but did not fully qualify as 4G, meaning 4G LTE is essentially first-generation 4G. The frequency used by 4G is in the 2 - 8 GHz range. If anything was going to be problematic to us it would have been the 3G operating system in the 1.8 - 2.5 GHZ range but wasn't because of what is known as IF (Intermediate Frequency) band that all Rx/Tx use for bandwidth separation and processing.
        All this bandwidth is what keeps the FCC very busy in designating operation compliance for assignment of frequency.
        With this new 5G rollout it is absolutely not even close to interfering in our playground being that its operation frequency is within the 30 - 300GHz range.
        Radiated power and operational frequencies in the sense of "swamping" our receivers are exactly why there are specified bandwidths in order to provide noninterference.
        The higher the frequency the smaller the wavelength becomes. The smaller the wavelength, the more power it takes to travel the same distance.
        A higher frequency on a higher power to travel the same distance as a lower frequency on a lower power will coexist in the same range without interference.
        A " swamped " receiver could occur only if the bands are not separated sufficiently.
        Remember the early years of our sport with frequency flags in the FM bands and the pin boards that required isolation of colors??
        This was because if two radios that had say a white/brown ribbon were activated, whereas the one guy already happy in the air wouldn't be that way when he got "swamped" by the other guy on the ground who fired up his unit. This "swamping" was because of the same frequency interference and not from the same power.

        So............ I hope this somewhat brief explanation about perceived loss of control (LOC) events near 5G cell towers will put different things into perspective.
        A more realist approach would be examination of Rx antenna placement especially regarding redundant antenna reception via satellite receivers to help eliminate any dead zones caused by something as simple as a carbon fiber rod or lithium polymer battery.

        Best regards,
        Warbird Charlie
        HSD Skyraider FlightLine OV-10 FMS 1400: P-40B, P-51, F4U, F6F, T-28, P-40E, Pitts, 1700 F4U & F7F, FOX glider Freewing A-6, T-33, P-51 Dynam ME-262, Waco TF Giant P-47; ESM F7F-3 LX PBJ-1 EFL CZ T-28, C-150, 1500 P-51 & FW-190

        Comment


        • #5
          Thanks OV10. Good stuff and thanks for taking the time to educate your reader.

          -GG

          Comment


          • #6
            I actually read ALL of OV's reply, not that I understand all of it but it certainly is something that I can assign high belief to based on the source of the information. He should have been a consultant on that Mythbusters episode regarding the interference of passenger cellphones in airplanes on the plane's avionics. Although it was "BUSTED", we are still told to put our cellphones in airplane mode when flying.

            This reminds me of something that happened a few years ago at one of my fields. Over a couple months during the late spring, a few guys lost their planes in the gas plant right next to our field. Whenever that happens, many phone calls result and many people get involved with each incident. (The field we fly from is an unused piece of land that belongs to the gas plant and they allow us to use it for free.) The guy in the guard house got extremely worked up and that got the people in the head office all worked up. The club had to find out why these planes got downed in sensitive areas. None of the pilots could come up with anything that would point the finger at them or their equipment. As a result, someone came up with the explanation that is was our cellphones that caused the interference. This came from one of the governing members of the club who thought he knew what he was talking about but was later to discover he was just coming up with something that the gas plant people could accept and believe. To appease our hosts, a rule came down that ALL cellphones were to be turned off upon entering the flying area. After this was done, people were still crashing in the gas plant property. Red faces and big OOOPS ensued. As time quickly passed, those who were crashing flew less and less for whatever reasons (fear of crashing, getting too old to fly, bad eyesight, poor reflexes, inability to fully check their planes over when setting up and before flying). The crashes into the gas plant stopped. Then along came someone like OV who had the background and the knowledge to know what they were talking about and after a thorough explanation and investigation, the no cellphone rule got lifted. Nobody turns off their cellphones anymore and there hasn't been a single crash into the gas plant in the following years. (Our power line "dead zone" is in the opposite direction over pasture land where no livestock graze anymore. However, even this reason isn't proven, but it's still better than "I don't know what happened. It just stopped responding in that same place.")

            Comment


            • #7
              Same guy made the rule about cell phones on planes that made the rule for signs on gasoline pumps cautioning against cell phone usage….the need for which was disproven by MythBusters.

              Time to consider moving to an isolated island. LOL

              -GG

              Comment


              • #8
                We have a cell tower somewhat close to one end of our field, you kind of have to be out there for it to worry about hitting, but it does interfere with my planes. There is one area that will cause me to lose all control of my plane until it flies out of it. The throttle cuts out and I have no control of the control surfaces. If I have enough height I can glide out of the dead zone and regain control. One thing I've noticed, it only affects Horizon Hobby receivers. I first found it with a 70mm Viper turning base to land and it later caused a 70mm F-16 to crash. I thought I had cut my approach to land short enough to not be affected, but I was wrong and didn't have the height to glide out of the Dead Zone. It's funny though, that no other receivers are affected, on HH ones. I will not fly those receivers of the winds dictate I have to land from the direction of the cell tower. When I have to come from that direction, it's Motion RC or Lemon receiver planes that I fly.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Bellke View Post
                  We have a cell tower somewhat close to one end of our field, you kind of have to be out there for it to worry about hitting, but it does interfere with my planes. There is one area that will cause me to lose all control of my plane until it flies out of it. The throttle cuts out and I have no control of the control surfaces. If I have enough height I can glide out of the dead zone and regain control. One thing I've noticed, it only affects Horizon Hobby receivers. I first found it with a 70mm Viper turning base to land and it later caused a 70mm F-16 to crash. I thought I had cut my approach to land short enough to not be affected, but I was wrong and didn't have the height to glide out of the Dead Zone. It's funny though, that no other receivers are affected, on HH ones. I will not fly those receivers of the winds dictate I have to land from the direction of the cell tower. When I have to come from that direction, it's Motion RC or Lemon receiver planes that I fly.
                  Thanks for the feedback. The receiver/xmitter which I had issues with when flying near the cell tower was Tactic (was flying my older planes while my Futaba xmitter was in the shop). I haven't experienced issues with the Futaba when flying near the cell tower in the past, but I am NOW giving it a wide birth with all the planes I fly. No sense in taking chances.

                  -GG

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Bellke View Post
                    We have a cell tower somewhat close to one end of our field, you kind of have to be out there for it to worry about hitting, but it does interfere with my planes. There is one area that will cause me to lose all control of my plane until it flies out of it. The throttle cuts out and I have no control of the control surfaces. If I have enough height I can glide out of the dead zone and regain control. One thing I've noticed, it only affects Horizon Hobby receivers. I first found it with a 70mm Viper turning base to land and it later caused a 70mm F-16 to crash. I thought I had cut my approach to land short enough to not be affected, but I was wrong and didn't have the height to glide out of the Dead Zone. It's funny though, that no other receivers are affected, on HH ones. I will not fly those receivers of the winds dictate I have to land from the direction of the cell tower. When I have to come from that direction, it's Motion RC or Lemon receiver planes that I fly.
                    It's interesting that you mention Spektrum RXs. I have also seen this in my planes with Speks, but not all of them, just a few of them and also with the old DSM2 RXs, which I no longer use. Additionally, I've gone back to those planes with the "troublesome" Speks and shoved the antenna (or at least one of them if they have two) to the outside of the plane. If I can't push the antenna out a seem where a hatch or canopy is, I'll punch a small hole right through the foam and run it out that way. I also do that with my Lemon DSMX(P) RXs as well and have not seen this interference as severely as before.
                    On those Spektrums that give my this problem, it seems it depends on how the antenna is run from the factory and how much other electronic "stuff" is close by. As I stated before, I've only run into this problem with proximity to a high power electrical lines. Some guys have discovered a new dead zone where a new cellphone tower just went up but I haven't found this myself as I've run all my antennas to the outside of the plane.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Loss of control

                      I have seen many people have loss of control of their aircraft and the majority of the time it was the bec. This is with aircraft with multiple servos. Not too much of a problem for quads often not having servos.

                      So if you have servos make damn sure that you're a BEC or ESC has enough power to supply to the receiver WITH ENOUGH POWER otherwise you will have a brown out or loss of control even if it's 50 ft away. That was my first experience on takeoff with a inadequate power supply coming from the ESC. Within 2 seconds of takeoff it crashed. Switch from futaba to spektrum. The futaba receiver didn't care but the spektrum receiver did. I later had a brown out with the futaba which acted differently but the end result was a crash. All receivers can Brown out. Some more than others but the end result is if you put a inadequate power source on your receiver then you most likely eventually will lose control. I learned and others did too from me and some didn't.

                      Interference
                      I am referring to line of sight only in a reasonable amount of distance which you should have control at least 1,000 ft distance from aircraft but not at ground level. I fly in the Miami fort Lauderdale area, heavy populated and industrialized locations next to eight Lane highways. Interference is always there but with a good installation it's not a problem.

                      Radio interference which does not require being on the same frequency but rather a strong enough signal in close proximity location wise and the closer the frequency the worse it gets to desense or block the receiver causing loss of control. This is a lot rarer than the problem with the BEC but still exists. Coupled with poor installation of antenna location where the antenna signal is blocked by other components in the aircraft this interference is more common whereas you have both the blocking signal and the radio interference on a different frequency almost guaranteeing loss of signal and control.

                      A cell tower that causes loss of control is usually coming from the 2.3 GHz that is usually a microwave signal beamed in a particular location and is a 24/7 data transmission. This does not mean that you'll be interferred 24/7 and may not even interfere with some aircraft with a good installation. It just means that some aircraft will be more acceptable to it whether it's the receiver or the antenna location or too close approximately to cell tower or building that is transmitting this continuous data transmission usually linking a cell tower to another location. This is not 5G. This is simply a microwave link being beamed in a particular direction.

                      How do I know this?
                      I flown at many fields, some with cell towers next to them. Some have this 2.3 GHz microwave data signal and some don't.
                      At my field it has Been there for at least a decade maybe longer.
                      The main Tower that gives me a problem is also my main field that I fly at which does not give me a problem so long as I don't get too close to the cell tower and I'm using good equipment with a good installation. I can still fly through the microwave beam with no effect so long as I keep my distance from the cell tower where the signal is at its strongest.
                      I know where the microwave beam is going and where it is and others have found it the hard way also. The easiest way to detect this microwave signal is using a drone with return to home capabilities. A receiver that is most susceptible to this interference can actually help in detecting this interference.
                      I actually built a drone with a long range system plus a second receiver just for detecting the interference only.
                      Ironically my older 72 MHz dual conversion receivers do not get interfered with this signal whatsoever. Because of the large frequency spread between them.
                      I originally started with fasst and then I switched over to dsmx and dsm2 because people were getting rid of the spektrum equipment and I received it for free. That's how I learned about brownouts where the Bec voltage drops too low while in flight causing a crash. I solved all those problems and they all are reliable even the dsm2. I do have an orange receiver too and it flies with no problems there. So when people tell you that something is fake or is low quality or came from China which most of my stuff came from China, and all of it works 100% you don't have to listen to that. I wouldn't use dsm2 around a lot of RC pilots flying at the same time but it works. Even at the main field where the microwave signal is going across the field. Why is that? simply because of good antenna placement and not getting too close to the cell tower especially when you have a great distance between the RC transmitter and the aircrafts receiver. I keep aircraft approximately 500 ft away minimum from the cell Tower. And all my planes fly through the microwave signal with no problems except for one receiver that was susceptible to it. Don't know if it's a defect or something but that's the receiver I use as my interference detector on my drone.

                      I heard all the myths about radio equipment and been attacked by the spektrum and the horizon hobby people even though I use their equipment. Knowledge is everything. Without it you're just guessing. Most of my stuff is old and only one of my receivers is like 3 years old and the rest are much older.

                      If you're wondering about me I have worked in radio communications for many years and I've worked on radio Towers as high as 2000 ft. I often repair the equipment down to the component level.
                      And one of my jobs was solving interference problems. One thing I'm good at.

                      I agree with the comments from Evan d.
                      I also have experience with these. Most BNF aircraft components are rated to not brown out but I did have a problem with loss of control with a bind and fly aircraft that came with a DXEA transmitter which puts out considerably less power than my normal radio which is a DX6. I would lose control every time I flew into the microwave when using the dxea transmitter. Switch to the dx6 and problem was eliminated. I have two dxea transmitters that put out considerably less power than the other radios. I measured and compared power.
                      Of the complaint I have of the bind and fly aircraft is there very fragile and the tail section especially don't last. Become un laminated and fall apart. Hopefully not in flight. Linkage also prone to break sometimes in flight which happened to me.

                      Somebody made the comment about tactic radio equipment. I have a mini Mustang that has a tactic receiver and I plug in the tactic module into my transmitter. I fly at the same field with the microwave interference and have yet to lose control. And this is not a full range system. It is a small plane so I don't fly that much distance..

                      Toy grade aircraft
                      I have flown toy drones and I've seen others also fly toy grade aircraft at my field. These are not long-range systems although these pilots do push the limits a distance and yes sometimes they do get interfered with but what do you expect. It's a toy flying in an area next to a cell tower with known interference. At other locations I've never been interfered with flying these toys. Although I have the least amount of time flying those.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I still have a lot of airplanes on DSM2. Also, most of my receivers are Orange. No issues. I agree with knowing what components are in your aircraft like the BEC and when you should think of upgrading or using a battery instead. That said most PNP, BNF and RTF planes have a decent package of components. BUT change something, like swapping out servos to higher powered ones, and you need to reevaluate the whole system.

                        Most common issues I see are improper receiver/ antennae placement and people using park flyer receivers for longer range flying.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          What tipped me off a long time ago with the loss of control problems that many had at my field was the guys that were using receiver batteries on gas and nitro planes and were using the same transmitters and receivers as the electric pilots, the electric pilots were the only ones losing control for unknown reasons at that time. These were aircraft built by the pilot. Turned out it was the BEC or ESC which has its own Bec.
                          The receiver batteries were more reliable so long as the receiver battery was fully charged when they started assuming the battery was good enough to begin with. Not underrated or defective.

                          I have given up the nitro and gas but I still use receiver batteries and becs together in my larger electric planes using diodes to isolate each power source. Has saved me a couple times when ESC or battery connection failed still having power to the receiver to land safely. I know one other person has done the same and he landed safely after his battery connection came undone. He thought the new battery he bought with the connectors that were easy to plug in unlike his old batteries connectors was a good thing. Not.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I recall reading an article once about BLUE TOOTH ear buds might be interfering....when active to close to a given transmitter.....just my 2cts worth

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Alan 3D View Post

                              Radio interference which does not require being on the same frequency but rather a strong enough signal in close proximity location wise and the closer the frequency the worse it gets to desense or block the receiver causing loss of control. This is a lot rarer than the problem with the BEC but still exists. Coupled with poor installation of antenna location where the antenna signal is blocked by other components in the aircraft this interference is more common whereas you have both the blocking signal and the radio interference on a different frequency almost guaranteeing loss of signal and control.
                              A powerful enough signal will interfere with almost anything.

                              When I was a kid we lived about 3 miles from the BBC's most powerful TV transmitter at that time, at Crystal Palace in SE London.
                              I could connect a pair of war surplus high impedance headphones via a germanium diode (probably an OA70) to my bedframe and hear the BBC sound - no other circuitry needed. Just the phones, the diode, and the bedframe. Yes, I was that geeky kid.

                              Comment


                              • #16
                                It's time for shielded speed controllers and receivers.....

                                Comment


                                • #17
                                  Originally posted by Jeanes View Post
                                  I recall reading an article once about BLUE TOOTH ear buds might be interfering....when active to close to a given transmitter.....just my 2cts worth
                                  Giving inaccurate 2 cents worth from your recollection of an unvalidated source is what propagates the internets huge base of misinformation.
                                  A bluetooth devices power output is limited to 2.5 milliwatts, giving it a very short range of up to 10 metres.
                                  A RC transmitter operating on 2.4Ghz fall under part 15 FCC rules and the max RF output is 1000 milliwatts
                                  Most RC transmitters output 100 milliwatts or less to ensure compliance with the 1 watt output limit because when frequency hopping, the RF power output can vary at each frequency it hops to.
                                  This output is still 50X stronger than a​n earbud so no they(buds) aren't interfering with your model.
                                  Regards,
                                  Warbird Charlie
                                  HSD Skyraider FlightLine OV-10 FMS 1400: P-40B, P-51, F4U, F6F, T-28, P-40E, Pitts, 1700 F4U & F7F, FOX glider Freewing A-6, T-33, P-51 Dynam ME-262, Waco TF Giant P-47; ESM F7F-3 LX PBJ-1 EFL CZ T-28, C-150, 1500 P-51 & FW-190

                                  Comment


                                  • #18
                                    Might be inaccurate.....but I said I read it. Sorry for not being so educated as you !

                                    Comment


                                    • #19
                                      Originally posted by Jeanes View Post
                                      Might be inaccurate.....but I said I read it. Sorry for not being so educated as you !
                                      i read "A Midsummer Night's Dream" but I wouldn't claim it to be a true story without first checking.

                                      Comment


                                      • #20
                                        There's a lot of myths out there. Hearsay and guessing doesn't solve problems. Knowing solves problems.

                                        That's why
                                        I know the power to my aircraft is 100% reliable even if one servo gets jammed. And let's say if my flight back batteries connections get fouled or break, I at least have a backup that will still give me control of aircraft although no thrust which at least gives me a chance to land.

                                        I know my installation is a good one with the antennas mounted as far away from all the components that will block signals.

                                        I know what the conditions are at my multiple flying fields and where I can fly safely and where I risk losing control. Getting close to cell Tower is not a good place to be unless you're particular cell tower doesn't have that type of interference. (2.3 and 2.5 gigahertz band and others). Obviously really really tall radio communications Towers like the ones I used to work on have different bands with different kinds of interference. Not everyone does. Unfortunately my main flying field has that type of interference in many of people have found it too. My flying field actually has two cell towers one behind the other. And oh yeah 10 lane interstate highway (which really does not contribute to interference) because I've flown next to many reliably. To add to that industrial parks and many other sources of interference. Not a problem if you know what you're doing. A drone is a good tool to find these problem areas. The interference is up in the air mainly. Until you fly into it and with the aircraft in the right position we're pour antenna installation or defect does it become a problem at my field unless again you like to fly really close to the cell tower and the more distance between you and the aircraft just makes it worse.

                                        Comment

                                        Working...
                                        X