<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body style="font-size: 10pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Arial;"
bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Well, John and I flew there just yesterday, for most of the day. I've
flown on 14,15,16,17,18,24,32, 44, plus 6 meters. Never been hit;
never seen anybody get hit with a VERIFIABLE spurious signal. I have,
however, seen wind conditions that looked as if they might be
interference. Got a lot of stories about that; it's about the
trickiest field I've flown on for wind conditions. (John did have a
radio problem yesterday, however; his transmitter battery alarm went
off because his transmitter battery was going dead. Is that what they
mean about a dead spot?)<br>
I remember well Mark Spicer yelling "interference" just as I happened
to be observing his airplane. He claimed aileron interference; I could
plainly see the airplane; I had been watching it. The ailerons weren't
deployed. He was, however, in a "gust" area. People fly there day
after day with no problems. Could it be that the same radio, when
installed in a pattern airplane, automatically receives some "ghost"
interference that it doesn't receive when that same receiver is in an
IMAC airplane? Or a sport plane? (IMAC contests held with complete
security.) These next 2 happened when I was new on the scene: Another
top flyer claimed that his radio quit. A bystander said he was
watching him when he just plain stalled it on a landing approach.
Another top flyer also claimed he was "blocked." Later examination
showed a dead receiver battery. This, of course, wasn't broadcast to
the folks. Funny about these pattern airplanes, ain't it? And, of
course, Peter Collinson flew with us all day; never got a hit. As I
say, John's monitor showed more interference from another field that
gets flown at all the time, than it did at this one. Why don't I get
hit? Why don't others get hit? Sorry; even bad luck luck doesn't
stretch that far.<br>
But, still and all, my guess is that if the large transmitting antenna
wasn't visible, there would be nothing said. As far as handing out
transmitters, there is no excuse for ineptness; I almost lost one of
mine at the Joe Nall, (when I used to attend) because of an Impound
mistake. As I say, having flown there for some 6 or more years now, I
would like to be shown, just once, a verifiable problem.<br>
<br>
Bill Glaze<br>
Bob Richards wrote:<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid20050322163519.19156.qmail@web30301.mail.mud.yahoo.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Bill,
I am one of the people that will not fly at that
field. I went to two contests there, at the first,
lots of people crashed from interference (five or
six?). At the second, same situation, and I almost
crashed from interference. Both times all I heard from
club memebers were "we've never had a problem here". I
could buy that at the first contest, but not the next,
since I SAW the problems at the first contest.
I did a check with a spectrum analyzer there at the
second contest, but it was not conclusive. However,
while I was there under the shelter, a flyer asked for
a pin on one of the ham freqs. The club member who was
handling the impound gave it to him. A few minutes
later the flyer came back, said he almost crashed, and
asked if I saw anything on his freq. Before I could
dial in that freq, the impound person, the one that
gave him the pin, said "oh, we have a problem on that
freq". I was appalled.
I would like to know why I was getting hits there.
I've not had a problem anywhere else that I have
flown. I had talked with someone after the fact about
what I should be looking for based on the particular
radios that seemed to be getting hits. I suspect there
is a logical explanation for why the hits were
happening, too lengthy to go into online. I believe
there is a problem there. I'm sorry, but I will not
fly there until it can be explained, and I don't think
that is going to happen as long as the club members
want to believe there is no problem.
Bob R.
--- Bill Glaze <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:billglaze@triad.rr.com"><billglaze@triad.rr.com></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Ed:
Do you not think that we will always be subject to
interference as long
as we are "secondary" users? Admittedly, more could
be done.
As an aside: I fly frequently at a field that has a
huge (2000 ft. tall)
antenna directly behind us. It is no more than 300
yds. away at the
flyers 6 o'clock position. Yet, even though pattern
flyers won't come
and fly there, (probably because of the frightening
specter of that
powerful antenna) folks fly there literally every
day of the year with
no interference. I'm one of the frequent flyers.
Unfortunately, it
seems that most of the pattern folks have just
enough information to be
dangerous when they shun this field.. BTW: a check
for interference
shows that there is less interference literally in
the shadow of this
antenna, than there is at another local field, yet
the other field,
which shows a higher level of "hash" is quite
popular. Ignorance is bliss.
Bill Glaze
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
=================================================
To access the email archives for this list, go to
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/">http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/</a>
To be removed from this list, go to <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm">http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm</a>
and follow the instructions.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>