[slash60]

There are always two sides in any debate, questions and suggestions/facts. In the end its the person asking the question who will make their decision. Fact gathering will help somewhat to arrive at that decision.
In the beginning of the 2.4 introduction to our hobby, I decided to use assan. I have since used them for 5 years without incident. If am lucky so far, I hope it still holds out. I have been contemplating on switching to corona, frysky and now the orange fasst compatible system(in that orders when they started coming out with their own claim of reliability/compatibility, the most obvious consideration is price)as I am using a futaba 9CHP compatible module and receivers, but why change something that works?.
I have modeler/flyer buddy who is an electronic techie.So far he is confident using them on all of his equipment. He has no issues using them. I also have members in our club who uses brand name rx for the same reasons others have stated here.
I agree with one observation/opinion here about using it on smaller aircraft first.I say buy one system you feel you would like to use (compatible/clone,call them what you wish, module/recvr. combo) try it out on a test airframe, wring it, bring it to the extreme of your flying skill and when you are satisfied with its performance, then make that choice. You have to start with something you use yourself to feel comfortable with.
That is what I did. I wish I have the means to buy the name brands but for now I will use what works and within my budget. Hopefully this helps in your quest to decide what to use.

[paulbipe]

let me give you a point to consider.

From the MAAC Radio Spectrum Committee documents I found the following statement.
" All Radio systems shall be approved by Federal Communications Commission
(F.C.C.) or Industry Canada (I.C.) regulations and shall have an FCC or IC sticker
attached. "

The Spektrum and Futaba receivers I have all have an FCC sticker. My Orange receivers do not.

If a system does not meet the requirements and carry the appropriate sticker then I would conclude that is is not legal for use in Canada. If it is not legal for use, then if a non approved receiver is used and it is involved in an accident/claim I would be worried that my insurance may be invalid.

something to think about.

[fsone]

Thanks Paul for bringing this out.

[wilf]

I did not think that the FCC had jurisdiction over Canadian sovereignty.

wilf

[Arceenut]

Originally Posted by wilf

I did not think that the FCC had jurisdiction over Canadian sovereignty.

wilf

I don't think they do yet but probably the same thing applies to the use of non type-approved equipment in regards to the insurance obtained for us by MAAC.

On the other hand type approval just means the samples provided to the approval testing labs met their specs.

[davidmc36]

Originally Posted by wilf

I did not think that the FCC had jurisdiction over Canadian sovereignty.

wilf

It's not a question of whether FCC has any jurisdiction in Canada, it's a matter of MAAC accepts FCC approved equipment equally with IC approved equipment. Which makes perfect sense since the standards are virtually identical. This allows US based guests to fly at our events without needing to purchase different radios. Chances are if you look at 99% of new, approved radio gear it has both approval numbers on it anyway.

[davidmc36]

Interesting how the MAAA actually lists all approved radio systems and includes DSM and FASST compatibles. They do testing themselves.

They seem to take on a lot more active roles including the recent change to cover up to 150kg models under their umbrella.

Too bad we couldn't get MAAC to engage in some similar testing. It as been attested to over and over that many people find the Orange etc. to perform just as well as branded items.

[Arceenut]

Originally Posted by davidmc36

Interesting how the MAAA actually lists all approved radio systems and includes DSM and FASST compatibles. They do testing themselves.

They seem to take on a lot more active roles including the recent change to cover up to 150kg models under their umbrella.

Too bad we couldn't get MAAC to engage in some similar testing. It as been attested to over and over that many people find the Orange etc. to perform just as well as branded items.

If MAAA have tested them and approved, can MAAC not agree to go along with MAAA's testing and adopt with their lists? Testing requires expensive test gear if the results are to be accurate and therefore very expensive. It boils down to confidence of MAAA's testing. Are MAAA's tests certifiable?

[davidmc36]

Originally Posted by Arceenut

If MAAA have tested them and approved, can MAAC not agree to go along with MAAA's testing and adopt with their lists? Testing requires expensive test gear if the results are to be accurate and therefore very expensive. It boils down to confidence of MAAA's testing. Are MAAA's tests certifiable?

That's a good question. Why not "borrow their data"?

I'm guessing their testing is fairly reliable, they appear to utilize communications and electronics firms.

http://www.maaa.asn.au/maaa/pdf/Radi...20Stations.pdf

[rcpilotnb]

Wow, it is amazing how a question can generate so much debating (alot not even being relevent to the topic). Not to put anyone down, but other than a couple of responses from fact, and I thank you, most comments have been purely opinion.
As far as bringing in the FCC and MAAC with the suggestion of defense, I would never...., that is hypocritical. Like you never ran a yellow light before.
Like I said before, I ran lots of FM knock offs and never had one issue. I have been doing some more research and talking with some locals about the 2.4 FASST clones, and I am convinced that just because you pay less for something, doesn't always make it less of a product. So I say if it does the same job without incident, (and I will let everyone know if they do) and save some green backs at the same time,why not.

Happy flying,
Tim