HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bill@uofs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: music over the radio
Date: 30 Jul 92 17:28:34 GMT
Organization: University of Scranton, Scranton, PA



Define "music".   How (and where) does the FCC define "music"??

I suppose I could transmit RAP all day long, cause (by my definition) it
ain't "music".

It seems to me that there are a lot of sections of Part 97 that need
updating.  A re-write is in order and not just a patch job.


bill   KB3YV


-- 
     Bill Gunshannon          |        If this statement wasn't here,
     bill@platypus.uofs.edu   |  This space would be left intentionally blank
     bill@tuatara.uofs.edu    |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>   
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
From: whs70@dancer.uucp (22501-sohl)
Subject: Re: Is it ""business"" if I use and autopatch to...
Reply-To: whs70@dancer.UUCP ()
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 16:58:28 GMT

In article <1992Jul26.050008.14580@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>In article <24JUL92.16015366@nauvax.ucc.nau.edu> cvm@nauvax.ucc.nau.edu writes:
>>In a previous article, gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) wrote:
>>
>>>If it's a life threatening emergency, call 911. That's what it's for
>>>and no one will question the call. If it doesn't justify a call to 911,
>>>it isn't an emergency. Frankly, cell phones are cheaper than ham rigs
>>>and are ideal for this kind of roadside repair business.
>>> 
>>>Gary KE4ZV
>>
>>What if you don't have celluar coverage in your area?  In Flagstaff our celluar
>>coverage only encompasses an area slightly larger than the city.  Most of the
>>roadside emergencies that I have heard on the local repeater occur farther out
>>of town.  Cars stranded on the side of the road, especially at night, can be a
>>big danger.  My first attempt would be to get another ham to call a tow truck
>>for me, but if that didn't work, I would not hesitate to use the autopatch to
>>make the call myself.
>
>If you break down 70 miles into the desert, there's no cellular service,
>no passing vehicles for the last two days that you can flag down, and
>the buzzards have started to circle, you still shouldn't call a commercial
>towing service. You should call the Sheriff's Rescue Unit. It's not an
>emergency unless you need emergency services personnel.
>
>Gary KE4ZV

I'd suggest that your definition of an emergency is very limited and
not in sync with what most hams would apply in a common sense view.
As many others have mentioned, vehicles on the side of any road (especially
interstates) are always a potentially dangerous situation.  If the
"breakdown" does not require medical attention then why call 911
and place greater time and resource burdens on those folks.  Call
the tow service, AAA or whatever. 

 Anyway, I understand and respect your opinion,
but it is not what I would do in a strictly mechanical breakdown 
case.

Standard Disclaimer- Any opinions, etc. are mine and NOT my employer's.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Sohl (K2UNK) BELLCORE (Bell Communications Research, Inc.)
Morristown, NJ             email via UUCP      bcr!dancer!whs70
201-829-2879 Weekdays      email via Internet  whs70@dancer.cc.bellcore.com
From: cjackso@nv6 (Clay Jackson)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: Deed restriction bans all ham antennas
Date: 21 Jul 92 23:58:38 GMT
Distribution: usa
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

res@colnet.cmhnet.org (Rob Stampfli) writes:
: one banning any "ham antenna".........
: although external TV antennas are also prohibited.
: 
: Taken literally, this deed restriction would prohibit
: mobile antennas on owner's cars, and even the possession of a rubber
: duck on the premises.  (It is unclear how it would apply to visitors.)
Yup - sounds like our deed restrictions.  

: This could become a problem if a neighbor of a ham ever has a case of
: RFI and decides to enforce the deed restriction.  Note that PRB-I
: addresses legislation, but not deed restrictions.
Well, yes and no...(see below)

: Is anyone else aware of a deed restriction that is so restrictive as to
: flat out ban all ham antennas from a neighborhood?  Anyone care to
: speculate as to what would be the best way to fight such a deed
: restriction?
Yup - our restrictions (called "CC&R"s around here) are even MORE 
restrictive.  Theoretically, I CANT'T EVEN HAVE A TRANSMITTER OF ANY KIND
ON MY PREMISES.  My lawyer has already pointed out the obvious; cordless
phones, cell phones, IMTS (old style) car phones, business band radios,
CB radios, baby monitors, etc....  Anyway, my strategy (in consultation
with my lawyer, who is NOT a ham) has been to keep a (sorta) low profile
but basically ignore those parts of the CC&Rs.  Here's why:

1)  (see the list of "prohibited" transmitters above) - If someone wanted
to "prosecute" (or is that persecute) me, I could claim "selective
enforcement" and insist that ALL of the above be banned.

2)  My HOA, like most, has no budget for drawn out legal pursuits 
(neither do I, but THEY don't know that).

3)  A recent ruling in this state has held that a HOA CANNOT regulate
what it can't see - the specific case was a guy who put up a satellite
dish that was NOT visible from anywhere but on his property (right
up next to a fence).  The court ruled that the guy was within his
rights, since it (the dish) was not visible to his neighbors.

4)  When someone did ask me what my (callsign) license plate meant,
I told 'em.  She then asked about antennas and RFI, and I told her
about the one in my car (but forgot to mention the ISOLOOP in my
attic, the 2M "flagpole" in our backyard and the 40M loop "guy wires"
on the mast that holds up my weather station (I got SPECIFIC,
WRITTEN permission for the weather station when the house was
being built) ).  When she then asked about the CC&Rs, I pointed out
to her that ham radio could be used in times of emergency, and was
a FEDERAL license (which seemed to impress her).  I also managed to 
mention PRB-1 (again, I forgot to mention that it applied only to
local govt) and after some amicable discussion she agreed that maybe
it was OK.

Anyway, I get out just fine, and I'm having a ball on 2M packet.  Granted,
a tower with a beam would be nice, but.....

--
Clay Jackson - N7QNM
US WEST NewVector Group Inc
Bellevue, WA
uunet!uswnvg!cjackso
From: William=E.=Newkirk%Pubs%GenAv.Mlb@ns14.cca.CR.rockwell.COM
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Reciprocal Licences in the U.K
Date: 25 Jul 1992 13:21:00 -0700
Organization: UCSD Usenet Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucsd.edu

Julian Macassey writes:
 
>        Really? In fact the difference between a U.S. no-code
>Technician and a U.S. General is 13 wpm Morris. There is no futher test
>for General, but there is another test for Advanced.

Tech requires Element 2 and 3A
Tech Plus requires Element 1A, 2, and 3A
General requires Element 1B, 2, 3A, and 3B.

difference between a General and a Tech is 13 WPM and a written test.

before March 21, 1987 there was just 1 test for technician and general, but 
that's history now.  Of course anyone upgrading to general from the pre-1987 
tech license gets credit for 3B if they can show they held the license before 
that date.

Definitely 2 tests.  25 Q for Tech, 25 Q for General.

73, bill wb9ivr
From: David_Havens.wbst129@xerox.COM
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: 108-118 is aircraft navigation stuff
Date: 28 Jul 1992 06:49:47 -0700
Organization: UCSD Usenet Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucsd.edu






>108-118 is aircraft navigation stuff.  No voice.  Does anyone want to
>listen to that?  You aren't trying to land you plan with your scanner
>are you?


My local airport has ATIS on 110MHz.  This is a low power *voice* signal with
up-to-date information about various conditions at and around the airport,
including approach and departure frequencies, etc.  How hard can it be to add
108-118 coverage anyway?

Dave
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: Is it "business" if I use and autopatch to...
Date: 24 Jul 92 02:21:51 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <14kmgdINNee3@network.ucsd.edu> brian@ucsd.edu (Brian Kantor) writes:
[munch]
>The California Highway Patrol and many other such agencies consider a
>car broken down on the freeway (even if it is out of the main traffic
>lanes) to be an immediate threat to life or safety of property, which
>is the definition of an emergency.  If you don't feel safe, make the
>call.
>
>Use the autopatch and call the towtruck to get you out of there.  If
>(one chance in a thousand) you get a letter from the FCC asking about
>it, just tell them you feared for your life.  In my experience, the
>FCC, unlike most armchair ham lawyers, are reasonable people.
[munch]

If it's a life threatening emergency, call 911. That's what it's for
and no one will question the call. If it doesn't justify a call to 911,
it isn't an emergency. Frankly, cell phones are cheaper than ham rigs
and are ideal for this kind of roadside repair business.

Gary KE4ZV
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
From: hawk@oakhill.sps.mot.com (George Hawkins)
Subject: Re: R7 Owners question
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin Tx.
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 17:12:06 GMT

My R5 & R7's both are VERY sensitive to close trees!
My trees are 4 meters away and it effects resonance
just as reported by the others!

I still like the antenna however!

regards 

George Hawkins

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
GEORGE HAWKINS      KKK     KK  IIIIIIII   5555555  XXX   XXX
                     K     K       II      55         X   X    DXCC &
                     K   K         II      55555       X X     MOBILE
                     K K K         II           55      X      160 <> 10
                     K    K        II            5     X X     SEE YOU ON
                     K     K       II           55    X   X    BANDS FROM
                    KKK     KK  IIIIIIII   555555   XXX   XXX  MY TRUCK!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
George Hawkins                    Internet: hawk@hawk.sps.mot.com
Motorola Inc.                     UUCP: cs.utexas.edu!oakhill!otis!hawk
6501 William Cannon Drive West    Phone (512) 891-4543 
Austin Texas 78735-8598           FAX   (512) 891-2947 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: music over the radio 
From: jangus@skyld.UUCP (Jeff Angus)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 15:05:17 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Grendel's Lair


In article <76595@ut-emx.uucp> oo7@ut-emx.uucp writes:

  > So is it OK to play the bagpipes over the air?

I would think so. I checked my copy of part 97 and there wasn't anything in
it regarding the mutilation of small animals.

xenon!skyld!jangus   < This space left blank intentionally. >
J Angus, PO Box 4425, Carson CA 90749-4425 voice (310) 324-6080
From: johns@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (John Shalamskas)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: R7 Owners question
Date: 24 Jul 92 04:05:41 GMT
Organization: University of Hawaii

I have put up an R7 in several locations.  On the roof of a 9-story
building it tuned up "as advertised", the dimensions in the manual
were right on the money.  At Field Day we needed a tuner on 20-40 meters.
Objects in the near field of any antenna will detune it.

Aloha de kj9u/kh6
From: wejones@crdec7.apgea.army.mil (Bill Jones)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re:  GPS Systems
Date: 27 Jul 92 18:08:46 GMT
Organization: UCSD Usenet Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucsd.edu

> 
> > >The thing is very
> > >accurate, the 50-100 feet seems to be correct, although altitude is less
> > 
> > "Selective Availability" (SA) has been turned on almost continuously since
> > the Gulf War (when they had to turn it off, because they were using so 
> > many "civilian" units!).  SA "degrades GPS accuracy to only 100 meters
> > 95 percent of the time and 300 meters the other five percent of the time.
> > Despite claims of considerably better accuracy by GPS manufacturers, that
> > is the best accuracy you will be able to realize on a consistent basis"
> > (Practical Sailor, March 1, 1992).
> > 
> As you say, the manufacturers claims I have seen are better than this.  I
> haven't done any exhaustive study of the thing, but I took the GPS50 on
> vacation, and passed a few roadside markers marking latittude, and the
> thing was accurate at least within 100 feet.  I passed one marker three times,
> and it was right on every time.  Also, I have programmed in the location of
> my home, work, and a few other places, and have been watching the thing for
> a couple of months now, and it gives me the same reading every day.  I don't
> know if the absolute positions are correct, but it has never shown any
> variation in position of more than a couple hundred feet, if that much.
> Anyway, I am impressed with the thing.  It may not be quite as good as
> the claims, but I have never seen it off by 300 meters.
> Of course I don't use it for anything important (like sailing through
> channels), so if I had to depend on it I might be more critical of its
> performance.
>
I think I was wrong in what I said above.  After reading the previous posters
comments about 100-300 Meter accuracy, and sticking my foot in mouth claiming
much better results, I decided to watch the thing for about an hour while
eating lunch.  Sure enough, although most of the time the readings were
within 1 or 2 100ths of a minute of latitude (each 1/100 is about 60 feet), it
would occasionally "drift up or down from the "fix" by consideraable amounts.
The total span during the hour I monitored was about 10/100 of a minute, or
about 200 meters.  If I had watched longer I might have seen the 300 meters
claimed.  A lot of this variance is due to the position of the sats not 
being ideal (the GPS50 estimates the amount of error due to this, which was
about 180' at the time of the 200 meter drifts, ie not enough to account
for the observation), ie if the visible sats are not spread out in different
directions, it can't triangulate your position as well.  Anyway, I must
have been extremely lucky to get my previous observations.  The thing just
isn't quite as accurate as I first thought.  It is still a great toy, however.
I love it.
From: michael@vk2bea.UUCP (Michael G. Katzmann)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: tough life?
Keywords: never
Date: 27 Jul 92 21:25:51 GMT
Reply-To: michael@vk2bea.UUCP (Michael G. Katzmann)
Organization: Broadcast Sports Technology, Crofton. Maryland.

In article <76540@ut-emx.uucp> oo7@ut-emx.uucp (Derek Wills) whinges:
 >tonyp@convex.com (honey bunny) complains:
 >
 >>You say you've got it tough?
 >
 >>When I was a novice, we didn't have telegraph keys;
 >
 >Light switches?  Looxury, lad, looxury!   We had to get up at 6 a.m. 
 >and carve cats' whiskers out of blocks of galena.  

Galena? You had galena ?!?  We had to use real cats!

-- 
Michael Katzmann	  >	Broadcast Sports Technology Inc.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~	 <	Crofton, Maryland. U.S.A
Amateur Radio Stations:   >
NV3Z / VK2BEA / G4NYV	 <	opel!vk2bea!michael@uunet.uu.net
From: MAGUIRE@SPPVM1.UCSD.EDU (Jon Maguire maguire@sppvm1.vnet.ibm.com)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: LL Grace
Date: 30 Jul 1992 06:47:46 -0700
Organization: UCSD Usenet Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucsd.edu


What is the address of LL Grace or a distributor that carries their
product? Thanks in advance.
-----------
Jon Maguire  N1CQE/4  |    ibm-vm: maguire@sppvm1 usib2tfc@ibmmail
IIN Customer Assist.  |    Packet: N1CQE@KB4GBS.#TPA.FL.USA.NA
Dept 7EF / Bldg PAV   |    voice: t/l:438-3038 external:(813)-878-3038
3105 W. M.L.King Blvd.|    fax  : t/l:438-3922 external:(813)-878-3922
Tampa, FL 33607       |    AMSAT #21847  TAPR #2916 TPALAN
                      |    Internet: maguire@sppvm1.vnet.ibm.com
From: martin@datacomm.ucc.okstate.edu (Martin McCormick)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: New Radio Shack Scanner (BOGUS!
Date: 22 Jul 92 15:27:28 GMT
Organization: Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK

In article <1787700012@trsvax> rpo@trsvax.tandy.com writes:
>
>As far as the cellular lockout...at least three times in the
>last 5 years there have been serious efforts in Congress
>to make any scanner that can monitor cellular illegal. A
>couple of the bills came quite close to passing. Now, we have
>over 7000 stores, and each store usually gets at least 2
>of every new item. If such a bill passed, how would you like
>to be stuck with over 14,000 pieces of merchandise that
>you could not sell? Perhaps ACE or other companies that only
>have to deal in stock numbering in the tens or hundreds can

That is the sort of cowardly logic that infects American business.  Another
way to look at it would be to sell as many general coverage receivers as 
possible.  One of the reasons why those stupid bills never got all the way
through was the fact that there are literally tens of thousands of receivers
in the field that have no trouble tuning the cellular frequencies.  All the
ECPA and the lobotomised equipment has done is to underscore a range of
frequencies that many people probably wouldn't give a second thought to
if there wasn't so much fuss about them.  What we have is bad law trying to
patch bad technology.  The cellular phone network is a very useful adjunct
to society, but nothing will stop people from listening in except good
digital encription and that will probably only stop the casual listener.

Martin McCormick WB5AGZ   Stillwater, OK
O.S.U. Computer Center Data Communications Group
From: ffjal@alaska.edu (John Lehman)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: Help- QRP Xcvr Choices
Date: 27 Jul 92 21:29:25 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

In article <23860010@mtmtl8.sr.hp.com> bsplaine@mtmtl8.sr.hp.com (Bill Splaine)
writes:
>I am interested in becoming initiated into the ranks of QRP. ... The
MFJ...sounds like
it has promise.... I would like to hear your comments...
>
My MFJ 9020 finally arrived last week (I ordered it in early June). The
receiver
is very good; you WILL want the extra audio filter.  My tent-pole vertical with
only three radials did not get out well enough for anyone to hear me, so I have
no
signal reports from this weekend's operation.  Overall, the receiver
sensitivity
about matches my Yaesu 767 without the extra RF filter.

One problem is the sidetone volume, which varies with the AF gain setting.  At
high
gain values (normal for dx) the sidetone is deafening.  There are also very
loud
TR clicks at high gain settings.

Stability is OK -- there was some drift during outdoor operation (over a
temperature
range of about 30 degrees), but never enough to lose a signal. 

On my unit, as delivered the speaker wiring interefered with the tuning
capaciter,
so that you could not tune the entire band.  About 2 seconds with the cover off
fixed
the problem, but it may indicate some QC problems.

John al7jj
From: hpb@hpb.cis.pitt.edu (Harry Bloomberg)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: AARL vs ARRL
Date: 30 Jul 92 17:44:57 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <7037@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>In article <Bs7H3y.3JE@wpi.WPI.EDU> gkd@wpi.WPI.EDU (Gregory K Doerschler) writes:
>>In the true spirit of compromise:
>>                    AARRL  (American Amateur Radio Relay League)
>
>Gack. To import a term from news.groups: That name is a screaming horror from
>the sewers of hell! :-)

   Well, some of us don't like the name ARRL, most don't like AARL, and
AARRL has provoked Jay to cough up a fur-ball. :-)

   So let me call upon the Collected Wisdom of the Net.  What would be
YOUR new name for ARRL?

Harry Bloomberg WA3TBL
hpb@vms.cis.pitt.edu
From: brian@ucsd.edu (Brian Kantor)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: music over the radio
Date: 31 Jul 92 02:47:22 GMT
Organization: The Avant-Garde of the Now, Ltd.
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucsd.edu

bill@uofs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
>It seems to me that there are a lot of sections of Part 97 that need
>updating.  A re-write is in order and not just a patch job.

Gawd, no!  Deleting of sections no longer applicable, perhaps, but
rewriting?  Be careful what you ask for - you may get it!
	- Brian
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
From: cfkfb@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Karl Bridges)
Subject: indoor antennas
Summary: Suggestions for good indoor antennas
Organization: Educational Computing Network
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 22:01:45 GMT

 Can someone suggest a good antenna for use indoors e.g. a mobile
antenna that could be attached to a table.  present QTH doesn't allow
outside antennas.  I'll be running mostly 40meter SSB.
Second question:  Having been out of things for a long time what are the
bands allowed General class.  i used to know the frequency allocations
but I've forgotten.  Thanks.
From: frankb@hpsad.sad.hp.com (Frank Ball)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 00:29:40 GMT
Subject: Re: Re: New Radio Shack Scanner (BOGUS!).  What we really want. . .!
Organization: HP Signal Analysis Division - Rohnert Park, CA
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc

*/ hpsad:rec.radio.amateur.misc / ron@pilot.njin.net (Ron Natalie) / 10:04 am  Jul 27, 1992 /
*> How about the Ham 6m band 50-54MHz?
*> How hard is it to defeat the cellular phone frequency lockout?
*
*Or 108-118...
*----------

108-118 is aircraft navigation stuff.  No voice.  Does anyone want to
listen to that?  You aren't trying to land you plan with your scanner
are you?

Frank Ball   1UR-M          frankb@hpsad.sad.hp.com
Hewlett Packard             pyramid!hplabs!hpsad!frankb
1212 Valley House Drive     (707) 794-4168 work  (707) 538-3693 home
Rohnert Park CA 94928-4999  KC6WUG Seca 750 XT350 IT175 DoD#7566 I'm the NRA.
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.misc
From: dls@genrad.com (Diana L. Syriac)
Subject: Re: navigational beacons
Organization: GenRad, Inc.
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 12:15:23 GMT

In article <540@bongo.UUCP> julian@bongo.info.com (Julian Macassey) writes:
>In article <1992Jul13.053242.11947@athena.cs.uga.edu> mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) writes:
>>In article <75708@ut-emx.uucp> oo7@ut-emx.uucp (Derek Wills) writes:
>>>gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) says, inter alia:
>>I think slow Morse is used to make them easier to hear.  One is often
>>dealing with a very weak signal and a lot of atmospheric noise (crashes
>>of lightning, etc.).
>	Well, I know it can be done. It is possible to put voice on a
>VOR beacon and have the beacon work as intended. I remember there used
>to be a VOR beacon just North of Copenhagen Denmark (OZ) that carried
>voice weather.
>
>	But think of the opportunities. Advertising. "This is VOR Beacon
>PDZ brought to you by Flamo AvGas. Next time you're on the ground, fill
>up with Flamo".

Hmmmm, obviously, Julian is not a pilot, otherwise I doubt he would have
made this suggestion.  Airplane frequencies (ALL OF THEM) are very congested.
A pilot has to listen (sometimes) to three different frequencies all at the
same time.  Not easy, especially when you only have two radios :-).  However,
VOR IDing is one of the things ya gotta do, and ya gotta do it sometimes
WHILE you are talking to Approach and plus, you can't miss anything they're
saying cuz it might be for you.  Listening for a Morse code ID underneath
the existing Approach banter (which is nearly constant in the New England
area) is fairly easy and trivial.  Listening to a VOR that talks instead
is more difficult.  Listening to a VOR that has weather information going
almost constantly is virtually impossible (at the same time as talking to 
Approach).  With both radios going at the same time, you can't hear either,
so you miss the VOR ID, plus you miss the Approach calling you at the same
time.

.....Me, I'll take the Morse code ID any day over a voice ID.

Just my opinion.

Diana

->Diana L. Syriac (Carlson) dls@genrad.com	Ham: KC1SP (Sweet Pea)      <-
->I'D RATHER BE FLYING!	P-ASEL, INST		CAP: 1LT, Freedom 690 Mobile<-
->AD ASTRA, PER ASPERA				Airplane: C-172 N6513E	    <-
->GenRad, MS/6, 300 Baker Ave, Concord, Mass.  01742  (508)369-4400 x2459   <-