Qantas and WA again

terryc wrote:
On Sat, 03 Jan 2009 22:37:22 +0900, Davo wrote:


The Exmouth base transmits at Very Low Frequencies. Only an uneducated
or uninformed person would believe it could interfere with a planes
controls.

Ad an experienced person would be having a quiet chuckle at your
post. Could you tell me the location of the big hangar where they test all
aircraft for exposure to various EMF? We should be able to see it on
google earth.
Click to expand...

The Americans did have such a facility years ago, it was a very
large timber lined hole in the ground out in the desert with massive
coils slung on cables above the aircraft. Mostly used for EMP simulation
on bomber aircraft.
 
rebel wrote:
On Sat, 03 Jan 2009 22:37:22 +0900, Davo <Dave@gmail.com> wrote:

rebel wrote:
On Sat, 03 Jan 2009 04:20:45 +0000, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

rebel wrote:

"David L. Jones" <altzone@gmail.com> wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote:
rebel wrote:
"David L. Jones" <altz...@gmail.com> wrote:
As mentioned a few months back, something strange is going on with
Qantas planes and WA, and it's happening again:
http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,27574,24864822-2761,00.html
This is getting spooky.
If the HEH base is the cause, then them thar Airbussen must be particularly
sensitive. All sorts of aircraft use Learmonth on a regular (and irregular)
basis without having these hiccups.
What's the HEH base ?
US NavComSta Harold E Holt.

A Yanky submarine comms base:
http://www.alternatezone.com/images/P7220512.JPG
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/exmouth.htm

And have these incidents been in its vicinity ?
200km, near enough for the Authorities to at least consider it:
http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,24650057-948,00.html
The latest incident was cited by ATSB's release
http://www.atsb.gov.au/newsroom/2009/release/2009_01.aspx
as 350NM S of Learmonth. From memory that is about 40k south of HEH, so that's
about 690km as the crow flies from the plane to the antenna array.
You mean the antenna's nowhere near the base ?
The antenna array is adjacent the base (at Exmouth), which is ~40km from
Learmonth.
The Exmouth base transmits at Very Low Frequencies. Only an uneducated
or uninformed person would believe it could interfere with a planes
controls.

Not necessarily the case. Shielding of the electronics by the aircraft skin and
frame will be less effective at VLF frequencies, so while I am rather sceptical
that HEH is the trigger (more on the basis of distance and power levels) I would
never say never.

Besides, we also have to look at the "French factor". Remember the air show
crash (different Airbus model) where the software decided to land when the pilot
clearly had other plans for his day? Some say French logic is an oxymoron.
Click to expand...
Radio waves have trouble getting through small gaps. A rule of thumb is
about a quarter of a wave length. That's why you can see into a
microwave oven, the mesh on the window is too small to allow the
microwaves out. It follows that shielding will work better at low
frequencies than high frequencies. I'm afraid I can't see the connection
between a air show and VLF radio waves.
 
terryc wrote:
On Sat, 03 Jan 2009 22:37:22 +0900, Davo wrote:


The Exmouth base transmits at Very Low Frequencies. Only an uneducated
or uninformed person would believe it could interfere with a planes
controls.

Ad an experienced person would be having a quiet chuckle at your
post. Could you tell me the location of the big hangar where they test all
aircraft for exposure to various EMF? We should be able to see it on
google earth.
Click to expand...
Why would you need a hanger to test for exposure to EMF?
 
terryc wrote:
On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 10:55:14 +1100, MoiInAust wrote:

It beggars belief that even the most poorly trained designer would leave an
aircraft's controls susceptible to radio fields when we have so many of
them, natural (eg lightning) and unnatural (such as the various facilities
discussed).

Does it? Modern management technique is to regard any employee as "hire
tools" and take the lowest price. It is exactly the scenario that can lead
to susceptible equipment.
Click to expand...
Aircraft regularly get struck by lightning but very few fall out of the
sky because of it. Not a plausible argument.
 
On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 22:23:36 +0900, Davo wrote:

terryc wrote:
On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 10:55:14 +1100, MoiInAust wrote:

It beggars belief that even the most poorly trained designer would leave an
aircraft's controls susceptible to radio fields when we have so many of
them, natural (eg lightning) and unnatural (such as the various facilities
discussed).

Does it? Modern management technique is to regard any employee as "hire
tools" and take the lowest price. It is exactly the scenario that can lead
to susceptible equipment.

Aircraft regularly get struck by lightning but very few fall out of the
sky because of it. Not a plausible argument.
Click to expand...
1. How many fell out before they learnt to protect them?

2. Was this the usenet group that posted the link of the guy being flown
by helicopter to be deposited on hign tension power lines to bruh the cob
webs off or something? Applying your logic, people should be electrocuted
ether.
 
On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 22:20:02 +0900, Davo wrote:

terryc wrote:
On Sat, 03 Jan 2009 22:37:22 +0900, Davo wrote:


The Exmouth base transmits at Very Low Frequencies. Only an uneducated
or uninformed person would believe it could interfere with a planes
controls.

Ad an experienced person would be having a quiet chuckle at your
post. Could you tell me the location of the big hangar where they test all
aircraft for exposure to various EMF? We should be able to see it on
google earth.

Why would you need a hanger to test for exposure to EMF?
Click to expand...
Can you point us to another facility that does it?
 
On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 22:16:52 +0900, Davo <Dave@gmail.com> wrote:

rebel wrote:
On Sat, 03 Jan 2009 22:37:22 +0900, Davo <Dave@gmail.com> wrote:

rebel wrote:
On Sat, 03 Jan 2009 04:20:45 +0000, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

rebel wrote:

"David L. Jones" <altzone@gmail.com> wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote:
rebel wrote:
"David L. Jones" <altz...@gmail.com> wrote:
As mentioned a few months back, something strange is going on with
Qantas planes and WA, and it's happening again:
http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,27574,24864822-2761,00.html
This is getting spooky.
If the HEH base is the cause, then them thar Airbussen must be particularly
sensitive. All sorts of aircraft use Learmonth on a regular (and irregular)
basis without having these hiccups.
What's the HEH base ?
US NavComSta Harold E Holt.

A Yanky submarine comms base:
http://www.alternatezone.com/images/P7220512.JPG
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/exmouth.htm

And have these incidents been in its vicinity ?
200km, near enough for the Authorities to at least consider it:
http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,24650057-948,00.html
The latest incident was cited by ATSB's release
http://www.atsb.gov.au/newsroom/2009/release/2009_01.aspx
as 350NM S of Learmonth. From memory that is about 40k south of HEH, so that's
about 690km as the crow flies from the plane to the antenna array.
You mean the antenna's nowhere near the base ?
The antenna array is adjacent the base (at Exmouth), which is ~40km from
Learmonth.
The Exmouth base transmits at Very Low Frequencies. Only an uneducated
or uninformed person would believe it could interfere with a planes
controls.

Not necessarily the case. Shielding of the electronics by the aircraft skin and
frame will be less effective at VLF frequencies, so while I am rather sceptical
that HEH is the trigger (more on the basis of distance and power levels) I would
never say never.

Besides, we also have to look at the "French factor". Remember the air show
crash (different Airbus model) where the software decided to land when the pilot
clearly had other plans for his day? Some say French logic is an oxymoron.

Radio waves have trouble getting through small gaps. A rule of thumb is
about a quarter of a wave length. That's why you can see into a
microwave oven, the mesh on the window is too small to allow the
microwaves out. It follows that shielding will work better at low
frequencies than high frequencies.
Click to expand...
Not that I was referring to apertures, but ...

Apertures in an EM field act as antennae, and re-radiate energy from incident
fields accordingly. So as their dimension in wavelengths diminishes so does
their re-radiating efficiency. The "shielding effect" of apertures relates to
their size in wavelengths and this determines the extent of re-radiation vs
reflection.

But the 'skin depth' is proprtional to wavelength. Longer wavelengths are less
screened by thin conductive sheet. At VLF (like the 15kHz HEH used to use -
don't know what they are up to nowadays) the skin depth is likely a lot greater
than the actual airframe cladding thickness.

I'm afraid I can't see the connection
between a air show and VLF radio waves.
Click to expand...
It was a reference to Airbus software and French logic. Whether the ADIRU
disconnect was caused by an equipment hiccup or by the software's imaginative
response to a sensor's signal remains to be determined.
 
"Davo" <Dave@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4960b859_4@news.peopletelecom.com.au...
Aircraft regularly get struck by lightning but very few fall out of the
sky because of it.
Click to expand...
Just a shame about the ones that do though. It's happened :-(

MrT.
 
terryc wrote:
On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 22:20:02 +0900, Davo wrote:

terryc wrote:
On Sat, 03 Jan 2009 22:37:22 +0900, Davo wrote:


The Exmouth base transmits at Very Low Frequencies. Only an uneducated
or uninformed person would believe it could interfere with a planes
controls.
Ad an experienced person would be having a quiet chuckle at your
post. Could you tell me the location of the big hangar where they test all
aircraft for exposure to various EMF? We should be able to see it on
google earth.
Why would you need a hanger to test for exposure to EMF?

Can you point us to another facility that does it?
Click to expand...
What's wrong with an open field?
 
rebel wrote:
On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 22:16:52 +0900, Davo <Dave@gmail.com> wrote:

rebel wrote:
On Sat, 03 Jan 2009 22:37:22 +0900, Davo <Dave@gmail.com> wrote:

rebel wrote:
On Sat, 03 Jan 2009 04:20:45 +0000, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

rebel wrote:

"David L. Jones" <altzone@gmail.com> wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote:
rebel wrote:
"David L. Jones" <altz...@gmail.com> wrote:
As mentioned a few months back, something strange is going on with
Qantas planes and WA, and it's happening again:
http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,27574,24864822-2761,00.html
This is getting spooky.
If the HEH base is the cause, then them thar Airbussen must be particularly
sensitive. All sorts of aircraft use Learmonth on a regular (and irregular)
basis without having these hiccups.
What's the HEH base ?
US NavComSta Harold E Holt.

A Yanky submarine comms base:
http://www.alternatezone.com/images/P7220512.JPG
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/exmouth.htm

And have these incidents been in its vicinity ?
200km, near enough for the Authorities to at least consider it:
http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,24650057-948,00.html
The latest incident was cited by ATSB's release
http://www.atsb.gov.au/newsroom/2009/release/2009_01.aspx
as 350NM S of Learmonth. From memory that is about 40k south of HEH, so that's
about 690km as the crow flies from the plane to the antenna array.
You mean the antenna's nowhere near the base ?
The antenna array is adjacent the base (at Exmouth), which is ~40km from
Learmonth.
The Exmouth base transmits at Very Low Frequencies. Only an uneducated
or uninformed person would believe it could interfere with a planes
controls.
Not necessarily the case. Shielding of the electronics by the aircraft skin and
frame will be less effective at VLF frequencies, so while I am rather sceptical
that HEH is the trigger (more on the basis of distance and power levels) I would
never say never.

Besides, we also have to look at the "French factor". Remember the air show
crash (different Airbus model) where the software decided to land when the pilot
clearly had other plans for his day? Some say French logic is an oxymoron.
Radio waves have trouble getting through small gaps. A rule of thumb is
about a quarter of a wave length. That's why you can see into a
microwave oven, the mesh on the window is too small to allow the
microwaves out. It follows that shielding will work better at low
frequencies than high frequencies.

Not that I was referring to apertures, but ...

Apertures in an EM field act as antennae, and re-radiate energy from incident
fields accordingly. So as their dimension in wavelengths diminishes so does
their re-radiating efficiency. The "shielding effect" of apertures relates to
their size in wavelengths and this determines the extent of re-radiation vs
reflection.

But the 'skin depth' is proprtional to wavelength. Longer wavelengths are less
screened by thin conductive sheet. At VLF (like the 15kHz HEH used to use -
don't know what they are up to nowadays) the skin depth is likely a lot greater
than the actual airframe cladding thickness.

I'm afraid I can't see the connection
between a air show and VLF radio waves.

It was a reference to Airbus software and French logic. Whether the ADIRU
disconnect was caused by an equipment hiccup or by the software's imaginative
response to a sensor's signal remains to be determined.
Click to expand...
So you're saying VLF radio energy from the base snuck through a hole in
the fuselage somewhere and still had enough power to interfere with the
controls, and only has done it on one or two occasions despite the fact
that hundreds, if not thousands of planes, pass by that area each year?
 
terryc wrote:
On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 22:23:36 +0900, Davo wrote:

terryc wrote:
On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 10:55:14 +1100, MoiInAust wrote:

It beggars belief that even the most poorly trained designer would leave an
aircraft's controls susceptible to radio fields when we have so many of
them, natural (eg lightning) and unnatural (such as the various facilities
discussed).
Does it? Modern management technique is to regard any employee as "hire
tools" and take the lowest price. It is exactly the scenario that can lead
to susceptible equipment.
Aircraft regularly get struck by lightning but very few fall out of the
sky because of it. Not a plausible argument.

1. How many fell out before they learnt to protect them?
Click to expand...
So are modern aircraft protected or not?
2. Was this the usenet group that posted the link of the guy being flown
by helicopter to be deposited on hign tension power lines to bruh the cob
webs off or something? Applying your logic, people should be electrocuted
ether.
Click to expand...
?
 
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 13:08:00 +0900, Davo wrote:


Can you point us to another facility that does it?

What's wrong with an open field?
Click to expand...
So you do not know of a facility?
 
terryc wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 13:08:00 +0900, Davo wrote:


Can you point us to another facility that does it?
What's wrong with an open field?

So you do not know of a facility?
Click to expand...

What does it matter?
You put a transmitter at one end of a field and the plane at the other
end of the field. Slowly turn the plane around so you test all
directions to the plane and that's it. What more of a facility do you need?
 
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 13:12:21 +0900, Davo wrote:


So you're saying VLF radio energy from the base snuck through a hole in
the fuselage somewhere and still had enough power to interfere with the
controls,
Click to expand...
If there is digital logic involved, it may only have to change 1 bit.

and only has done it on one or two occasions despite the fact
that hundreds, if not thousands of planes, pass by that area each year?
Click to expand...
Correcto. The totally unknown factor is when the antenna array is actually
transmitting and at what power and, maybe, in what direction. We also do
not know the fault log on the installation. Some of their gear might be
EOLing with undesireable effects.

Also, can you assure me that Quantas recalled all those aircraft that
their fake engineer worked on and did all the work again? Or did they take
a business risk on it?

The problem is that, now matter how unlikely anyone thinks it is, it will
never be proven impossible.
 
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 13:31:41 +0900, Davo wrote:

terryc wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 13:08:00 +0900, Davo wrote:


Can you point us to another facility that does it?
What's wrong with an open field?

So you do not know of a facility?


What does it matter?
You put a transmitter at one end of a field and the plane at the other
end of the field. Slowly turn the plane around so you test all
directions to the plane and that's it. What more of a facility do you
need?
Click to expand...
Over the top and underneath.

The question is "is it being done?".
 
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 13:12:21 +0900, Davo <Dave@gmail.com> wrote:

rebel wrote:
On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 22:16:52 +0900, Davo <Dave@gmail.com> wrote:

rebel wrote:
On Sat, 03 Jan 2009 22:37:22 +0900, Davo <Dave@gmail.com> wrote:

rebel wrote:
On Sat, 03 Jan 2009 04:20:45 +0000, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

rebel wrote:

"David L. Jones" <altzone@gmail.com> wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote:
rebel wrote:
"David L. Jones" <altz...@gmail.com> wrote:
As mentioned a few months back, something strange is going on with
Qantas planes and WA, and it's happening again:
http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,27574,24864822-2761,00.html
This is getting spooky.
If the HEH base is the cause, then them thar Airbussen must be particularly
sensitive. All sorts of aircraft use Learmonth on a regular (and irregular)
basis without having these hiccups.
What's the HEH base ?
US NavComSta Harold E Holt.

A Yanky submarine comms base:
http://www.alternatezone.com/images/P7220512.JPG
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/exmouth.htm

And have these incidents been in its vicinity ?
200km, near enough for the Authorities to at least consider it:
http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,24650057-948,00.html
The latest incident was cited by ATSB's release
http://www.atsb.gov.au/newsroom/2009/release/2009_01.aspx
as 350NM S of Learmonth. From memory that is about 40k south of HEH, so that's
about 690km as the crow flies from the plane to the antenna array.
You mean the antenna's nowhere near the base ?
The antenna array is adjacent the base (at Exmouth), which is ~40km from
Learmonth.
The Exmouth base transmits at Very Low Frequencies. Only an uneducated
or uninformed person would believe it could interfere with a planes
controls.
Not necessarily the case. Shielding of the electronics by the aircraft skin and
frame will be less effective at VLF frequencies, so while I am rather sceptical
that HEH is the trigger (more on the basis of distance and power levels) I would
never say never.

Besides, we also have to look at the "French factor". Remember the air show
crash (different Airbus model) where the software decided to land when the pilot
clearly had other plans for his day? Some say French logic is an oxymoron.
Radio waves have trouble getting through small gaps. A rule of thumb is
about a quarter of a wave length. That's why you can see into a
microwave oven, the mesh on the window is too small to allow the
microwaves out. It follows that shielding will work better at low
frequencies than high frequencies.

Not that I was referring to apertures, but ...

Apertures in an EM field act as antennae, and re-radiate energy from incident
fields accordingly. So as their dimension in wavelengths diminishes so does
their re-radiating efficiency. The "shielding effect" of apertures relates to
their size in wavelengths and this determines the extent of re-radiation vs
reflection.

But the 'skin depth' is proprtional to wavelength. Longer wavelengths are less
screened by thin conductive sheet. At VLF (like the 15kHz HEH used to use -
don't know what they are up to nowadays) the skin depth is likely a lot greater
than the actual airframe cladding thickness.

I'm afraid I can't see the connection
between a air show and VLF radio waves.

It was a reference to Airbus software and French logic. Whether the ADIRU
disconnect was caused by an equipment hiccup or by the software's imaginative
response to a sensor's signal remains to be determined.

So you're saying VLF radio energy from the base snuck through a hole in
the fuselage somewhere and still had enough power to interfere with the
controls, and only has done it on one or two occasions despite the fact
that hundreds, if not thousands of planes, pass by that area each year?
Click to expand...
No, it didn't sneak "through a hole". Get that hole idea out of your nut.

Yes if the electronics inside is susceptible to VLF energy, then who knows
whether enough could penetrate the skin (NOT holes) to cause an undesirable
result.

Thousands indeed do pass that way each year. But as others have mentioned, who
knows when the Tx is actually transmitting?

And if you had bothered keeping up, you will notice where I indicated my view of
this:

while I am rather sceptical
that HEH is the trigger (more on the basis of distance and power levels) I would
never say never."
Click to expand...
I remain of that view. You can take whatever position you like.
 
rebel wrote:
I'm afraid I can't see the connection
between a air show and VLF radio waves.
It was a reference to Airbus software and French logic. Whether the ADIRU
disconnect was caused by an equipment hiccup or by the software's imaginative
response to a sensor's signal remains to be determined.
So you're saying VLF radio energy from the base snuck through a hole in
the fuselage somewhere and still had enough power to interfere with the
controls, and only has done it on one or two occasions despite the fact
that hundreds, if not thousands of planes, pass by that area each year?

No, it didn't sneak "through a hole". Get that hole idea out of your nut.

Yes if the electronics inside is susceptible to VLF energy, then who knows
whether enough could penetrate the skin (NOT holes) to cause an undesirable
result.

Thousands indeed do pass that way each year. But as others have mentioned, who
knows when the Tx is actually transmitting?

And if you had bothered keeping up, you will notice where I indicated my view of
this:

while I am rather sceptical
that HEH is the trigger (more on the basis of distance and power levels) I would
never say never."

I remain of that view. You can take whatever position you like.
Click to expand...
Vertical array antennas have fairly predictable transmission directions,
and it's not particularly hard to detect the transmissions. Also the
power generators limit the transmittable power. Although kooks will try
and make it seem mysterious the base isn't particularly secretive. I
know someone who has climbed to the top of one of the transmission
towers and even had lunch up there and filmed the surrounding area.

VK6ABC
 
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:22:13 +0900, Davo wrote:

rebel wrote:

I'm afraid I can't see the connection
between a air show and VLF radio waves.
It was a reference to Airbus software and French logic. Whether the ADIRU
disconnect was caused by an equipment hiccup or by the software's imaginative
response to a sensor's signal remains to be determined.
So you're saying VLF radio energy from the base snuck through a hole in
the fuselage somewhere and still had enough power to interfere with the
controls, and only has done it on one or two occasions despite the fact
that hundreds, if not thousands of planes, pass by that area each year?

No, it didn't sneak "through a hole". Get that hole idea out of your nut.

Yes if the electronics inside is susceptible to VLF energy, then who knows
whether enough could penetrate the skin (NOT holes) to cause an undesirable
result.

Thousands indeed do pass that way each year. But as others have mentioned, who
knows when the Tx is actually transmitting?

And if you had bothered keeping up, you will notice where I indicated my view of
this:

while I am rather sceptical
that HEH is the trigger (more on the basis of distance and power levels) I would
never say never."

I remain of that view. You can take whatever position you like.

Vertical array antennas have fairly predictable transmission directions,
and it's not particularly hard to detect the transmissions.
Click to expand...
Yep, that is high on the list of airline activities.


Although kooks
will try and make it seem mysterious the base isn't particularly
secretive. I know someone who has climbed to the top of one of the
transmission towers and even had lunch up there and filmed the
surrounding area.
Click to expand...
Lol, so you are saying that anyone can do that?
Or is that post indicative of your honesty?
 
terryc wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 13:31:41 +0900, Davo wrote:

terryc wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 13:08:00 +0900, Davo wrote:


Can you point us to another facility that does it?
What's wrong with an open field?

So you do not know of a facility?


What does it matter?
You put a transmitter at one end of a field and the plane at the other
end of the field. Slowly turn the plane around so you test all
directions to the plane and that's it. What more of a facility do you
need?

Over the top and underneath.

The question is "is it being done?".
Click to expand...

Do you know ANYTHING about antennas and wavelength?


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white
listed, or I will not see your messages.

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm


There are two kinds of people on this earth:
The crazy, and the insane.
The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.
 
"Davo" <Dave@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:495f6a14$1_6@news.peopletelecom.com.au...
rebel wrote:
On Sat, 03 Jan 2009 04:20:45 +0000, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:


rebel wrote:

"David L. Jones" <altzone@gmail.com> wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote:
rebel wrote:
"David L. Jones" <altz...@gmail.com> wrote:
As mentioned a few months back, something strange is going on with
Qantas planes and WA, and it's happening again:
http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,27574,24864822-2761,00.html
This is getting spooky.
If the HEH base is the cause, then them thar Airbussen must be
particularly
sensitive. All sorts of aircraft use Learmonth on a regular (and
irregular)
basis without having these hiccups.
What's the HEH base ?
US NavComSta Harold E Holt.

A Yanky submarine comms base:
http://www.alternatezone.com/images/P7220512.JPG
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/exmouth.htm

And have these incidents been in its vicinity ?
200km, near enough for the Authorities to at least consider it:
http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,24650057-948,00.html
The latest incident was cited by ATSB's release
http://www.atsb.gov.au/newsroom/2009/release/2009_01.aspx
as 350NM S of Learmonth. From memory that is about 40k south of HEH,
so that's
about 690km as the crow flies from the plane to the antenna array.
You mean the antenna's nowhere near the base ?

The antenna array is adjacent the base (at Exmouth), which is ~40km from
Learmonth.

The Exmouth base transmits at Very Low Frequencies. Only an uneducated or
uninformed person would believe it could interfere with a planes controls.

Sure pisses off the whales...
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top