Hello, I have a pretty fair understanding of electronics but I lack experience and knowledge about radio signals, wifi systems, etc. I've done some research on the subject but I know that some of you have experience and knowledge that is far superior to mine. I'm trying to understand how the radio control system and the video feed works with the Lightbridge systems found on Inspires and Phantoms, I don't own a Phantom but I assume they use the same system. I'm trying to figure out what makes it possible for these aircraft to fly so far with a such a high degree of reliability. I use a Wi-Spy 2.4x Spectrum Analyzer receiver (USB type) and I'm using the older Chanalyzer 4 software made by MetaGeek. I've been using this setup for about three years and have found it to be very reliable and useful. Just a quick example: I used my SA (Spectrum Analyzer) at a location that looked very congested with not only high amplitude signals but most were reddish orange in color indicating that those signals were very dense or strong. I was convinced it wasn't safe to fly my S800 (No Lightbridge). A friend was with me that also had an S800 but he decided that it was safe, he lost control of his bird and crashed it beyond repair. He lost a $2K camera too, it was a total loss all the way round! :-( He now has his own spectrum analyzer and takes the warnings seriously. Lesson learned I guess. The setup for my test: I placed the I1 and the controller 400 ft. apart in an open field with no houses within 600 ft. I noticed that the signal was only 10 MHz wide (I should have set the SA for frequency instead of channels). I also noticed that the closer I got to the I1, the stronger the signal, the reason I say this is because the signal got higher in amplitude when I got closer to the I1. The amplitude of the signal got much weaker as I approached the controller 400 ft. away from the I1. In addition, the farther I walked away from the line between the I1 and the controller, the weaker the signal. This makes me believe that the signal between the I1 and the controller is more like a direct beam rather than radiating equally in all directions. It seems that the width of the beam (where the signal is strongest) is about 100 feet in diameter. This was done with no obstructions. I'm not sure if this was the right way to conduct the test or not. Is multipathing an issue with the I1 and the controller being only 5 ft. off of the ground? The field was covered by 8 inch tall grass so I'm thinking that the signals wouldn't be too likely to bounce off of the ground. If I have this right, if it was a hard dirt field, the signals may bounce off of that surface and cause multipathing? I can't help but to think that a direct beam between the I1 and the controller is what makes long range flights possible (not being high in amplitude but dense and in a direct path). I also feel that flying at close range in heavily congested wifi areas is possible because of this beam. Am I wrong about this? Most UAVs without Lightbridge simply can't fly through and over cities without losing control, it's at least very rare that those UAVs have successful flights in those conditions. To me, if I can better understand how this system works, it would help me to make better "Go" or "No Go" decisions. I realize that the app will (or at least should) warm me of potential signal strength issues in congested areas but I'd rather use my SA to catch what the app may miss. I have been a licensed private pilot since 1987 with nearly 2,000 hours in a manned aircraft (SEL) and have been flying 3D RC helicopters and photography UAVs for the last six years. (Photography UAVs for the last four years). When I first started with aerial UAV photography, I didn't have GPS receivers or self leveling gyros. It was all seat of the pants flying back then but I did have an A/V transmitter with a monitor for FPV. No telemetry though. I mention this because I'm in this commercially. I still film for fun but I don't want to take risks simply because of ignorance on my part. In other words, I don't want to think everything is Ok when it really isn't. Off topic. I've noticed in some threads (don't remember what forum) where people thought that AMA insurance covers commercial operations. FWIW, it doesn't. AMA only covers recreational. Hill & Usher is the only broker I'm aware of that will provide commercial liability and accidental coverage for your UAV. They can provide complete cover for your UAV for 7 to 10% of the total cost of your rig as long as you follow the rules and regs. The deductible is 10%, if your rig is worth $5.000, you pay $500 for a total replacement. Usually you wouldn't lose the controllers or the iPads so it would only be for the cost of UAV itself unless someone stole the whole thing. Yep, they cover theft as well. They also cover submersion in water even if you can't recover it, you just have to show the flight recorded in the iPad as proof that it decided to try becoming an illusive submarine. Just trying to help those who need the right insurance to cover your *** (UAV).........what do you think I meant by ***? Dirty minds.......Mmmm Mmmmm One of my 3D helis has "WTF" on the canopy, most people think it means What the F*** ? , It clearly means "Without The Flybar" since it's FBL. Ok, that was WAY off topic. Please have a look at the video below that was sped up by 600% at some points. I'd really appreciate any information, clarification and/or advice I can get! Sorry for the long writeup!! I tried to find information already covered on this subject but couldn't find anything specific. Maybe I didn't look hard enough? Sorry if this is a repeat.