Subj: Re: aerosol 31
Date: 1/18/00 7:03:51 PM Pacific Standard Time

Subj:
Date: 1/18/00 4:07:06 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: dx1450@go.com (DX)
To: bardsquill@aol.com
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 19100 16:6:45 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Aerosol31

Hi, Glad to see you put my recording on your site. Understandably, there are a
few questions about it that I do need
to answer. In response to the questions posted on your feedback page, here are
the answers:

1. Where did you record this, what city and state?
Grand Island, Nebraska.
This area is located directly under USAF Tanker racetrack area.

2. When did you record it, exactly what time of day or night?
Approximately 0917 CST.
Being a daylight operation....therefore less chance of sporadic E layer skip.
Additionally aircraft may have been operating above the skip threshold. Sporadic
E skip cannot be eliminated however.

3. What kind of radio did you receive this on, exact make and model please?
Radio Shack PRO2006.
I am looking at one right now. This would have been a nominal radio to receive
this signal on. Most scanner enthusiasts purchased this radio because it could
receive military traffic by receiving AM MODE in UHF. Additionally its cell
capability was not blocked..wink wink nudge nudge.

4. What did you record it with, exact make and model please?
Radio Shack tape recorder, the recording was made with the patch cord going
directly from the scanner to the mic input of the tape recorder. The attenuating patch cord had to be used to keep the audio from being too hot.
This would indicate a less expensive model as it does not have a "line input".
The operator however made the correct adjustment by using an attenuated cord to
lower the level of input and avoid over driving the input circuits thus avoiding
massive distortion.

5. What was the mode of transmission, WFM, NFM or AM, SSB, USB, LSB?
AM.
THis is the only correct answer. I threw this in to see if we were dealing with a
less than knowledgeable person who might be trying to put one over on us.

6. Why are there gaps of no static in the recording, was it edited?
No, it wasn't edited, the gaps of no static was the squelch of the scanner
closing.
And here is the reason why the tape sounds edited. The PRO 2006 has a sound
squelch circuit. When the modulated carrier drops out the sound squelch,
squelches the squelch and you get no audio. The idea was to eliminate annoying
static between transmissions... since the tape recorder was dead rolled and not
voice activated it continued to roll during periods of silence.

7. Was there anyone else there at the time that also heard this transmission?
No, I was alone.

I hope these answers hope clear up some of the debate regarding my recording. I
hope others will tune in and get their own recordings of the spray planes so they can have their own evidence.
E-mail address seems to indicate this is an experienced DXer. The above in no way
proves this was a true recording, but adds more credibility.

New question: What is your receive antenna, how high is it, what was your
attenuation setting on the PRO 2006.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Subj: Aerosol recording
Date: 1/19/00 12:05:27 AM Pacific Standard Time


Hi,

Just listened to the recording of Aerosol 31 on your
website and can honestly say that it sounds authentic.
I was radio operator in the Air Force about 10 years
ago, although I never worked any aircraft with the
Aerosol callsign. It wasn't unusual to hear good
audio quality with some of our radio equipment.
Granted, this was the exception, not the rule. The
traffic sounds just like the radio chatter we used to
hear. The person on the recording was most likely the
aircraft commander, who depending on the mission is
not necessarily the pilot. The aircraft commander
would be in charge of the aircraft's mission, which in
this case appears to be spraying. The term "pounds"
was related to fuel, and referred to pounds of
pressure in the tank. Not sure whether or not a spray
tank would use "gallons" or "pounds," but it's not
unreasonable to think that they would use the word
"gallons." The aircraft commander is not the pilot,
remember, and pilots are the ones that commonly refer
to fuel in "pounds."

Having left the Air Force some time ago, I still
listen in on a scanner (mine's a Uniden Bearcat 9000)
to military aircraft communications, and this
recording sounds just like what I hear. However, I
haven't heard any sprayplane comms, but now I'm going
to pay even closer attention to what I hear there.