Originally Posted by
John Eacott
First, the military HF in our helicopters had significantly more than half a watt in the 1960s and 1970s. It was an essential part of our comms package for world wide contact.
I know, but the post I was responding to explicitly stated that the HF was used to give a burst at 100mW. I'm afraid that 100mW is less than 500mW, even for some very large values of 100mW.
Second, what ANO in the 1960-70s do you imagine related to operations of remote controlled models, and how do you suggest anything was in violation by a military helicopter?
The ANO has always applied to model aeroplanes - back in the 60s and 70s there were exemptions from the certification parts for models of less than 11lbs (later expressed as "5kg", then increased to 7kg) AUW, but the operation parts still applied. People who interfered with model aeroplanes in flight were still prosecuted under the parts of the ANO which are now in articles 240/241 of CAP658 - this was the part used in prosecuting illegal CB users because for the purpose of "...recklessly or negligently act in a manner likely to endanger an aircraft" a radio controlled counts as an aeroplane.
And of course deliberately making an illegal radio transmission to interfere with the operation of a model aeroplane is (a) criminal damage, and (b) a violation of what is now article 240 in "...recklessly or negligently causing or permitting an aircraft to endanger any person or property".
But the most important part is that if you look at the map and see the respective locations of the two airfields, and then consider that in the 60s and 70s the typical RC aeroplane was between 4 and 6 feet in wingspan, needing to be flown within about 300 yards of the operator and under 600 feet in order to maintain visual control, you will clearly see than anyone flying that low, that close to the Nutts Corner airfield was clearly recklessly endangering their own aeroplane. That's why I simply don't believe the story. If there was a standard visual approach route that went anywhere near the Nutts Corner runways the operation of RC models there would never have been allowed.
For a model plane driver you do seem to come here with some ill informed and unwarranted nonsense.
Other opinions are available. But any basic consideration of the facts as claimed show the story lacks credibility and should be in the running for the booker prize.
PDR