Another **** Whinge Mk 2
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Living next door to Alan
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Creampuff, I'm dead certain about what I've heard in the past.
Sure, I get your drift. However, if the human ear is so notoriously unreliable, why then is there a regular exchange of "mornin' Sam"...."mornin' George" on the radio between pilots/pilots/ATC etc. Perhaps they aren't so bad after all. <img src="wink.gif" border="0">
XXXX ample: I operate to YSCB quite regularly. R.H.S's strip at Gundaroo lies under CB's airspace. He uses CB App and ML centre, often when we are on the frequency. I know it's him, and others on the frequency do also, from comments I have heard.
Sure, I get your drift. However, if the human ear is so notoriously unreliable, why then is there a regular exchange of "mornin' Sam"...."mornin' George" on the radio between pilots/pilots/ATC etc. Perhaps they aren't so bad after all. <img src="wink.gif" border="0">
XXXX ample: I operate to YSCB quite regularly. R.H.S's strip at Gundaroo lies under CB's airspace. He uses CB App and ML centre, often when we are on the frequency. I know it's him, and others on the frequency do also, from comments I have heard.
It looks like you and DS will have to agree to disagree then.
I recall in a past life being told by a chap that he was "dead certain" his property was being 'buzzed' by his girlfriend's ex-husband. The 'ex' was allegedly a pilot who flew out of a local airfield. We explained to the chap that it would be much easier to identify the culprit if he could tell us the aircraft rego. The chap eagerly undertook to take the rego down the next time the problem occurred. The chap subsequently and eagerly reported the rego of the aircraft that was buzzing him. He was "dead certain" about the rego. Problem was that the rego he reported was all numbers ......
My recollection of DS's domestic flights is that he always takes someone along to do the radio calls and witness what happens, because somebody's always alleging he's said or done something that he didn't do or say .....
I recall in a past life being told by a chap that he was "dead certain" his property was being 'buzzed' by his girlfriend's ex-husband. The 'ex' was allegedly a pilot who flew out of a local airfield. We explained to the chap that it would be much easier to identify the culprit if he could tell us the aircraft rego. The chap eagerly undertook to take the rego down the next time the problem occurred. The chap subsequently and eagerly reported the rego of the aircraft that was buzzing him. He was "dead certain" about the rego. Problem was that the rego he reported was all numbers ......
My recollection of DS's domestic flights is that he always takes someone along to do the radio calls and witness what happens, because somebody's always alleging he's said or done something that he didn't do or say .....
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hugh and Creampuff
On the subject of voice recognition, I have to go along with Hugh.
People with what's called "a good musical ear" are also invariably good at picking up other languages, because you see, the same listening and reproduction processing structures are used.
Some people have what is called "perfect pitch", the ability to listen to a note and either reproduce it exactly vocally or, play it on an instrument.
Whilst there have been some teething problems with the computerised "voice recognition" computer systems, they have been largely the problem of limited processing speed in the resolution of a hugely complex amount of information in a reasonable space of time rather than the principle involved. This increasingly is no longer so. The human brain has little if any problem with this.
One only has to watch a lamb go to its mother in the middle of a large flock to see that, or watch a new born babies eyes when he hears his mother.. .Why someone who I hadn't spoken to for over ten years, rang me after hearing my voice on a radio programme without the benefit of the intro and end, to see if it was me and compare notes.
In any event, the expert means to identify the voice absolutely, certainly to a very high level of confidence are available, if any one could be bothered.
Having resolved that part of the problem, the remainder of the question that Creampuff raises, in that having treeed (?) the cat, what are you able to do about it, other than run around the bottom barking a lot, remains unresolved?
Good intentions??? didn't stop the local Gestapo from taking me down to the local Gulag for a little chat after they observed me standing on the kerbside indicating to the motorists to slow down because there was a Constable Kodak around the corner at the bottom of a steep hill. They couldn't produce the goods either, though we did have an "interesting though fairly robust and vigorous chat". I graciously declined their generous offer of a ride home in the Blue and White.. .I suspect they are now drafting yet another regulation.
As for having someone ride shotgun with you, really. For someone who professes to to have no fear for what other people say or do about his path through life isn't that a little paranoid or . .is it really a little fear. Either way it's a bit sad.. .As the man says just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.
On the subject of voice recognition, I have to go along with Hugh.
People with what's called "a good musical ear" are also invariably good at picking up other languages, because you see, the same listening and reproduction processing structures are used.
Some people have what is called "perfect pitch", the ability to listen to a note and either reproduce it exactly vocally or, play it on an instrument.
Whilst there have been some teething problems with the computerised "voice recognition" computer systems, they have been largely the problem of limited processing speed in the resolution of a hugely complex amount of information in a reasonable space of time rather than the principle involved. This increasingly is no longer so. The human brain has little if any problem with this.
One only has to watch a lamb go to its mother in the middle of a large flock to see that, or watch a new born babies eyes when he hears his mother.. .Why someone who I hadn't spoken to for over ten years, rang me after hearing my voice on a radio programme without the benefit of the intro and end, to see if it was me and compare notes.
In any event, the expert means to identify the voice absolutely, certainly to a very high level of confidence are available, if any one could be bothered.
Having resolved that part of the problem, the remainder of the question that Creampuff raises, in that having treeed (?) the cat, what are you able to do about it, other than run around the bottom barking a lot, remains unresolved?
Good intentions??? didn't stop the local Gestapo from taking me down to the local Gulag for a little chat after they observed me standing on the kerbside indicating to the motorists to slow down because there was a Constable Kodak around the corner at the bottom of a steep hill. They couldn't produce the goods either, though we did have an "interesting though fairly robust and vigorous chat". I graciously declined their generous offer of a ride home in the Blue and White.. .I suspect they are now drafting yet another regulation.
As for having someone ride shotgun with you, really. For someone who professes to to have no fear for what other people say or do about his path through life isn't that a little paranoid or . .is it really a little fear. Either way it's a bit sad.. .As the man says just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.
I don't want to be the best pilot in the world - Just the oldest
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Here and there
Posts: 1,013
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Gaunty,. .It's a good thing you live in the area you do and I am assuming it is there that you obstructed a public officer in the execution of his duty <img src="wink.gif" border="0"> . A much nicer class of policeman/policewoman there.
Now if you lived in the cheaper suburbs like moi you would have been bundled into the back of the van NQA
Now back to the issue in question. Regardless of whether it is or it is not any particular individual. Does anyone else have any ideas on what, if any offence/s have been committed?
Now if you lived in the cheaper suburbs like moi you would have been bundled into the back of the van NQA
Now back to the issue in question. Regardless of whether it is or it is not any particular individual. Does anyone else have any ideas on what, if any offence/s have been committed?
So, Hugh’s going to provide first hand evidence as to the identity of the caller, and Gaunty’s going to establish his own expertise and then provide evidence as to the reliability of Hugh’s MK1 ear in the circumstances.
We still don’t have anyone to tell us what rule the caller’s allegedly broken.
Beuller....Beuller...Beuller...Beuller....anyone...anyone... .anyone....
Gaunty: I think it’s a bit sad that supposed professionals make it their business to scrutinise and analyse every flight and call made by any aircraft connected with DS, with a view to supporting their a priori conclusion that he’s a witch and should be burnt.
We still don’t have anyone to tell us what rule the caller’s allegedly broken.
Beuller....Beuller...Beuller...Beuller....anyone...anyone... .anyone....
Gaunty: I think it’s a bit sad that supposed professionals make it their business to scrutinise and analyse every flight and call made by any aircraft connected with DS, with a view to supporting their a priori conclusion that he’s a witch and should be burnt.
Creampuff
Gundaroo... You certainly travel a lot for someone from Salt Lake City Utah. BTW, how many wives have you got, I'm in the US later next month and will need some laundry done on my travels. Can I borrow one?
Gundaroo... You certainly travel a lot for someone from Salt Lake City Utah. BTW, how many wives have you got, I'm in the US later next month and will need some laundry done on my travels. Can I borrow one?
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dunnunda & Godzone
Age: 74
Posts: 4,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Coastal Route
While we sort out Mr Smiths registration so that he may post as the real Dick Smith, he has asked me to pass this on to you.
. . [quote] 'Coastal Route might be interested to know that I have contacted Airservices. .to see if they can provide a transcript or any information on the alleged. .calls. They have stated that they have not been able to find any. .information on this. Coastal Route, could you provide the date and. .approximate time of the incident where "they clogged up the radio for over a. .minute"?
I look forward to your reply.'
<hr></blockquote>
He can be reached via the following email address.
[email protected]
While we sort out Mr Smiths registration so that he may post as the real Dick Smith, he has asked me to pass this on to you.
. . [quote] 'Coastal Route might be interested to know that I have contacted Airservices. .to see if they can provide a transcript or any information on the alleged. .calls. They have stated that they have not been able to find any. .information on this. Coastal Route, could you provide the date and. .approximate time of the incident where "they clogged up the radio for over a. .minute"?
I look forward to your reply.'
<hr></blockquote>
He can be reached via the following email address.
[email protected]
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Three Tors
Posts: 405
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Creampuff, perhaps a perusal of this <a href="http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/0/300/0/PA000740.htm" target="_blank">"light reading"</a> may illuminate some more of the subject of interference of radio traffic.
For the whole story <a href="http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/0/300/top.htm" target="_blank">RADIOCOMMUNICATIONS ACT 1992. </a> I hope this will help.
I would believe that whilst Airservices or Casa may not be in a position to prosecute under their own respective Acts, legislation etc, I would think that they would be more than able to use the relevant Act to their own means.
Heaps of snow for the games?
Regards,. .CJ.
[ 23 January 2002: Message edited by: 429 CJ ]</p>
For the whole story <a href="http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/0/300/top.htm" target="_blank">RADIOCOMMUNICATIONS ACT 1992. </a> I hope this will help.
I would believe that whilst Airservices or Casa may not be in a position to prosecute under their own respective Acts, legislation etc, I would think that they would be more than able to use the relevant Act to their own means.
Heaps of snow for the games?
Regards,. .CJ.
[ 23 January 2002: Message edited by: 429 CJ ]</p>
CJ: From my penthouse here at Snowbird, it's as white as far as the eye can see. I'm about to hit the piste.
Exactly whom do you say is the "spectrum licence" holder with standing to apply for relief under section 50 of the RCA in the circumstances alleged in this thread?
Did you mean section 192? If so, are you saying that anyone who makes a radio call questioning the necessity of another radio call thereby commits an offence? Or are you saying that anyone who makes an unnecessary radio call, thereby clogging up the airways and preventing someone from making necessary radio calls, thereby commits an offence?
Exactly whom do you say is the "spectrum licence" holder with standing to apply for relief under section 50 of the RCA in the circumstances alleged in this thread?
Did you mean section 192? If so, are you saying that anyone who makes a radio call questioning the necessity of another radio call thereby commits an offence? Or are you saying that anyone who makes an unnecessary radio call, thereby clogging up the airways and preventing someone from making necessary radio calls, thereby commits an offence?
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: A pothole on the information superhighway
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe Dick Smith Electronics are selling a wind-up doll, one of those where you pull the string and it says
"AAAGH! That was a totally useless broadcast! And I never used the term Affordable Safety! AAAGH!"
Anyway, maybe the publicity might eliminate the problem.
As far as the regs go, it is a complicated business. Licensing of all communications devices is the domain of the Australian Communications Authority, and the Radiocommunications Act of 1992 is one of the prime pieces of legislation. Transceivers operating on the aeronautical band are covered under a couple of licensing methods, a Class licence and an Apparatus licence. If you want some light reading, wade through the following available on the ACA website:
Radiocommunications (Aircraft Station) Class Licence 2001. .Aeronautical Licence Information Paper. .Aircraft Licence Information Paper
<a href="http://www.aca.gov.au/legal/licence/class/aircraftstation.htm" target="_blank">[/URL. .<a href="http://http://www.aca.gov.au/publications/info/aero.htm" target="_blank"></a>. .[URL=http://www.aca.gov.au/publications/info/aircraft.htm]</a>
The different licences cover equipment installed or used in aircraft and ground stations. A couple of key points 1) the operator of equipment not installed or used on board an aircraft must hold an Aeronautical Licence and 2) under all the regulations, all transmissions must be identified, either by registration markings, the registration assigned by a sport aviation body or other assigned callsign. Also, it is my understanding that under the Radiocommunications Act you cannot have in your possession equipment capable of transmitting, unless either you hold a licence applicable to that equipment, or it is covered under a particular regulation that does not require a licence eg. garage door openers, baby room monitors etc. In a nutshell (if I've got it right!), you can't use a handheld away from an aircraft unless you hold (or belong to an organisation that holds) an Aeronautical Licence, and all transmissions must be identified. Offences are covered under the Radiocommunications Act.
This is my understanding of it all, but to get the good oil ring the ACA's Central Office and ask to speak to someone in the Standards and Compliance group.
P_B a.k.a. Bush Lawyer <img src="wink.gif" border="0">
"AAAGH! That was a totally useless broadcast! And I never used the term Affordable Safety! AAAGH!"
Anyway, maybe the publicity might eliminate the problem.
As far as the regs go, it is a complicated business. Licensing of all communications devices is the domain of the Australian Communications Authority, and the Radiocommunications Act of 1992 is one of the prime pieces of legislation. Transceivers operating on the aeronautical band are covered under a couple of licensing methods, a Class licence and an Apparatus licence. If you want some light reading, wade through the following available on the ACA website:
Radiocommunications (Aircraft Station) Class Licence 2001. .Aeronautical Licence Information Paper. .Aircraft Licence Information Paper
<a href="http://www.aca.gov.au/legal/licence/class/aircraftstation.htm" target="_blank">[/URL. .<a href="http://http://www.aca.gov.au/publications/info/aero.htm" target="_blank"></a>. .[URL=http://www.aca.gov.au/publications/info/aircraft.htm]</a>
The different licences cover equipment installed or used in aircraft and ground stations. A couple of key points 1) the operator of equipment not installed or used on board an aircraft must hold an Aeronautical Licence and 2) under all the regulations, all transmissions must be identified, either by registration markings, the registration assigned by a sport aviation body or other assigned callsign. Also, it is my understanding that under the Radiocommunications Act you cannot have in your possession equipment capable of transmitting, unless either you hold a licence applicable to that equipment, or it is covered under a particular regulation that does not require a licence eg. garage door openers, baby room monitors etc. In a nutshell (if I've got it right!), you can't use a handheld away from an aircraft unless you hold (or belong to an organisation that holds) an Aeronautical Licence, and all transmissions must be identified. Offences are covered under the Radiocommunications Act.
This is my understanding of it all, but to get the good oil ring the ACA's Central Office and ask to speak to someone in the Standards and Compliance group.
P_B a.k.a. Bush Lawyer <img src="wink.gif" border="0">
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: A pothole on the information superhighway
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry - the URLs did not come out properly in the above, so here they are in plain text:
<a href="http://www.aca.gov.au/legal/licence/class/aircraftstation.htm" target="_blank">http://www.aca.gov.au/legal/licence/class/aircraftstation.htm</a>. . . .<a href="http://www.aca.gov.au/publications/info/aero.htm" target="_blank">http://www.aca.gov.au/publications/info/aero.htm</a>. . . .<a href="http://www.aca.gov.au/publications/info/aircraft.htm" target="_blank">http://www.aca.gov.au/publications/info/aircraft.htm</a>
<a href="http://www.aca.gov.au/legal/licence/class/aircraftstation.htm" target="_blank">http://www.aca.gov.au/legal/licence/class/aircraftstation.htm</a>. . . .<a href="http://www.aca.gov.au/publications/info/aero.htm" target="_blank">http://www.aca.gov.au/publications/info/aero.htm</a>. . . .<a href="http://www.aca.gov.au/publications/info/aircraft.htm" target="_blank">http://www.aca.gov.au/publications/info/aircraft.htm</a>
At last! The identity allegation! I admit it. I’m Dick Smith.
You observe that: [quote]The idea of lambasting somebody on the radio, particularly somebody under training (who is usually under a fairly high workload) is a pretty low act.<hr></blockquote>
Indeed.
Lynching someone is also a pretty low act. However, that doesn’t seem to bother some of the donnunda mob, does it Hugh.
You observe that: [quote]The idea of lambasting somebody on the radio, particularly somebody under training (who is usually under a fairly high workload) is a pretty low act.<hr></blockquote>
Indeed.
Lynching someone is also a pretty low act. However, that doesn’t seem to bother some of the donnunda mob, does it Hugh.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Three Tors
Posts: 405
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Creampuff, I feel that section 197 of the act would be the most applicable to an interference of this nature.
By your last pragraph to me I can see where you are leading, however (my interpretation) of this second radio call to lambast the originator of the first for such a long-winded tx in itself is self-defeating (had such an incident happened or not is not really important here), and effectively serves no real purpose but to satisfy the ego of the agitator and perhaps compromise the actual safety of the pilot and his/her pax (due to his/her being disturbed from normal ops).
That situation I would then be led to believe would then be punishable under the CAR's and the Act as an act of unlawful interference to a flight, would it not
[ 23 January 2002: Message edited by: 429 CJ ]</p>
By your last pragraph to me I can see where you are leading, however (my interpretation) of this second radio call to lambast the originator of the first for such a long-winded tx in itself is self-defeating (had such an incident happened or not is not really important here), and effectively serves no real purpose but to satisfy the ego of the agitator and perhaps compromise the actual safety of the pilot and his/her pax (due to his/her being disturbed from normal ops).
That situation I would then be led to believe would then be punishable under the CAR's and the Act as an act of unlawful interference to a flight, would it not
[ 23 January 2002: Message edited by: 429 CJ ]</p>
429 CJ: you said: "That situation I would then be led to believe would then be punishable under the CAR's and the Act as an act of unlawful interference to a flight, would it not??"
"unlawful interference...." This is the key. HOW is it unlawful? Could a counter opinion be that it is not unlawful becuase the intention of the call was to clear the radio waves from other interference?
If, as I said on my previous post, the crime is an anoying, crap and irrelevant radio call, then the dock would be crowded
Put me in for some crownies against any offence being committed other than making "unidentified" radio calls. And if they are "unidentified" then how do we catch the guilty barstage anyway?
"unlawful interference...." This is the key. HOW is it unlawful? Could a counter opinion be that it is not unlawful becuase the intention of the call was to clear the radio waves from other interference?
If, as I said on my previous post, the crime is an anoying, crap and irrelevant radio call, then the dock would be crowded
Put me in for some crownies against any offence being committed other than making "unidentified" radio calls. And if they are "unidentified" then how do we catch the guilty barstage anyway?
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Three Tors
Posts: 405
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't shoot me! . . . .It's only (as I said earlier) *My Interpretation* of the rules as they stand. It would sometimes seem that only the relevent authorities are the ones that are allowed to make determinations based on *interpretations* of legislation, and not us mere mortals...... <img src="eek.gif" border="0"> <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">
However..... would it not be fair to say, that to cause undue and irrevalent nuisance to the pilot (and therefore possibly the safety of his/her flight), in that manner should be able to be prosecuted, and that by making the nuisance call in the first place only clutters-up the airwaves further, therefore making the perpetrator just as guilty of his own advice as the pilot for his/her long call?
Are perhaps you saying that it may have originated from another a/c on frq? <img src="wink.gif" border="0">
Do save me a beer though, won't you?
. . . .It's only (as I said earlier) *My Interpretation* of the rules as they stand. It would sometimes seem that only the relevent authorities are the ones that are allowed to make determinations based on *interpretations* of legislation, and not us mere mortals...... <img src="eek.gif" border="0"> <img src="tongue.gif" border="0"> However..... would it not be fair to say, that to cause undue and irrevalent nuisance to the pilot (and therefore possibly the safety of his/her flight), in that manner should be able to be prosecuted, and that by making the nuisance call in the first place only clutters-up the airwaves further, therefore making the perpetrator just as guilty of his own advice as the pilot for his/her long call?
Are perhaps you saying that it may have originated from another a/c on frq? <img src="wink.gif" border="0">
Do save me a beer though, won't you?
429CJ: I am armed only with enough beer to lose my wagers, so I can only shoot with bottle tops popping off!
I agree with you about the person making the call to get off the radio is as guilty as the person clogging up the radio - probably even more so by the rules of hypocracy (I am making it up as I go along)! But - if they really were guilty of an offence by making irrelevant, crap, waffling, verbose radio calls (like this explanation) - CASA would be doing nothing but prosecutions!!
In answert to your question: yes!. .A possibility was raised earlier in the thread that the rogue radio bandit was using an unlicenced radio, etc, so I asked what if the person was using a radio in an aircraft, and was licenced to use it - such as a pilot on the ground in a helicopter that was shut down?
Back to my Crownies....
I agree with you about the person making the call to get off the radio is as guilty as the person clogging up the radio - probably even more so by the rules of hypocracy (I am making it up as I go along)!
But - if they really were guilty of an offence by making irrelevant, crap, waffling, verbose radio calls (like this explanation) - CASA would be doing nothing but prosecutions!! In answert to your question: yes!. .A possibility was raised earlier in the thread that the rogue radio bandit was using an unlicenced radio, etc, so I asked what if the person was using a radio in an aircraft, and was licenced to use it - such as a pilot on the ground in a helicopter that was shut down?
Back to my Crownies....
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dunnunda & Godzone
Age: 74
Posts: 4,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Woomera,
As I am not a registered user of pprune and would like to have. .the following posted I would ask that as the moderator of this. .subject you place the information on my behalf.
"I note the discussion in relation to transmissions in the. .Bankstown lane of entry.
Whilst Airservices understands there may be some frustration with. .what are regarded as unnecessary calls, we take a very dim view. .of calls such as these are discussed on your site and attributed. .to Dick Smith.. . . .I can advise that I have listened to the transmissions and they. .are definitely not from Dick Smith.
We will continue to monitor these calls, and would suggest that. .those who are making them should explore a more appropriate and. .professional manner in which to make their point.
Ken McLean. .Manager Sydney Operations. .Airservices Australia"
. .Thank you for your assistance.
As I am not a registered user of pprune and would like to have. .the following posted I would ask that as the moderator of this. .subject you place the information on my behalf.
"I note the discussion in relation to transmissions in the. .Bankstown lane of entry.
Whilst Airservices understands there may be some frustration with. .what are regarded as unnecessary calls, we take a very dim view. .of calls such as these are discussed on your site and attributed. .to Dick Smith.. . . .I can advise that I have listened to the transmissions and they. .are definitely not from Dick Smith.
We will continue to monitor these calls, and would suggest that. .those who are making them should explore a more appropriate and. .professional manner in which to make their point.
Ken McLean. .Manager Sydney Operations. .Airservices Australia"
. .Thank you for your assistance.
Looks like the evidence of our ear-witness, Hugh Jarse, and of our expert on the reliability of Hugh's aural identification skills, Gaunty, might not be sufficient to send Mr Smith to the gallows.
Even setting that to one side, no one identified with any precision any rule that had been broken in the circumstances alleged. Not even our friends from Airservices say a rule's been broken.
Let’s all bear this lesson in mind before we are next tempted to join a Dick Smith lynch mob.
Even setting that to one side, no one identified with any precision any rule that had been broken in the circumstances alleged. Not even our friends from Airservices say a rule's been broken.
Let’s all bear this lesson in mind before we are next tempted to join a Dick Smith lynch mob.