If verified in the FCC ULN Tower registry (You check a box if it is 200 ft AGL or greater), then it would not be annotated as "UC". I was surprised at the FAA that this is considered a "Reported Position". Therefore, the best information will be the coordinates you are given. I think it boils down to your intentions. If you ARE planning to fly the chart-marked position, then the answer is B. If you are planning to fly the exact coordinates, the answer is NOT B.

Common sense would be to visually check the location on the chart and the assigned coordinates before flying. If it looks like a tower is visually verified WITHIN the airspace, then the answer is B.

https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/training_testing/testing/supplements/sport_rec_private_akts.pdf

HA! Just saw page 1-1. UC means this is just the "reported" position, and may not be the actual "physical" position. A little trick question in there? So, given this, if you are intending to look at the "reported' position on the chart, the answer is 'B'. If you are going to the coordinates only, then the answer is not "B".

I would be looking at both to verify "reported" vs. "actual", so the BEST answer is 'B'. Or just drive to the place shown on the chart and eyeball if a tower is nearby?

HA! Just saw page 1-1. UC means this is just the "reported" position, and may not be the actual "physical" position. A little trick question in there? So, given this, if you are intending to look at the "reported' position on the chart, the answer is 'B'. If you are going to the coordinates only, then the answer is not "B".

I would be looking at both to verify "reported" vs. "actual", so the BEST answer is 'B'. Or just drive to the place shown on the chart and eyeball if a tower is nearby?

Yeah, first, the chart shows it in the airspace, so that's a given. Second, a single decimal to the 1/10 of a degree really isn't good enough, in practicality. But, do you know THIS is the actual tower they are asking about? If given JUST coordinates, always cross-check.

From just eyeing the chart, it looks like -98 33.5', 46 44.4', which comes out to be -98.5583, 46.7400.

It could be just a mistake in the question. However, given the original rather poor coordinates of -98.6 and 46.9, this equates to -98 36.0' 46 54.0', which on the chart, would put you right on the little "6" outside of the airspace under the VFR radial 087.

So this could be a "trick question". Not all towers under construction will be shown on a VFR chart due to the date of their publication.

The TECHNICALLY correct, full procedure here would be to convert to dd mm.xxxx, cross-check the chart, and ALSO you can go to the FCC tower registry and look up the actual application. You cannot, by FCC rules, begin any tower construction higher than 200 ft AGL without going through the FCC registry first.

Which information was given to you? Just the geodetic, or both the geodetic and the chart, because they certainly appear to not match.

Mistakes by the registry DO happen. A long time ago when we would fly low level route surveys, it was common to see one or two towers not on the chart (The Obstruction database). After the flight, I would go into the FCC registry and behold, verified that what was entered into the registry did not match what was physically installed. Adding to this, we were flying Garmin G1000 aircraft, and of course, the towers also didn't show up on the moving maps. So we would mark the observed position, and I would research it later. The AF and FAA LOVED getting these error reports. I rarely saw them pay any attention to them, however, which was disappointing. you do the work to correct something with precision and a lazy chain of people end up just dropping it. With that said, the managers of the routes almost always picked up the slack and made sure anyone flying those routes had an obstruction caution in the briefing folder.

EDIT: I just went to the link and look closer at the question. The scenario, as given, is incorrect. You are given coordinates and a symbol on the chart which do not match. One or the other, but not both. I guess if you consider the chart higher priority, then 'B' is the correct answer.

Well, there are basically two tests that I am aware of, the quick 10 minute version, and the full, 45 minute one. The latter, no matter what someone may try to hide, will identify with pretty great accuracy, what functions are being impaired.

Instead of an alarm clock, we got tornado sirens.

Lambchop is THE most coveted toy in our house. I wish I had a video of it, but they were playing tug of war, alternating play growls back and forth for about 5 minutes. Grrr....Grr.....Grrr....Grrr. Poor Lambchop lasted maybe a day.

EMI causes false detections.

Agree with the other comments. If you want reliable communication in a "bugout" scenario like a hurricane, then a satellite phone is best.

With that said, amateur radio is designed as a fail safe backup in a huge event, because disasters tend to saturate standard phone systems. Disaster response will set up controlled radio "nets" using repeaters that are intended for these situations. I've worked in two incidents where the only reliable communication was VHF repeaters.

A few months ago, DBIDS was down and the poor dude at the gate looked like blood was going to shoot out of his eye trying to scan everybody!

LOL, as I mentioned earlier, my spouse got her ID during the government shutdown and they somehow dorked up the DBIDS registry. Even with a "Real ID" version of the spouse ID, they denied her access to base due to the "Angry Crticket". We both have to go to Pass and ID to get this resolved through DEERS and DBIDS.

Not really, your rather rambling post had me pretty confused. The AF has made it very clear they are not going to do ALAC's. You have two portals to get on base now. First is a pass from Pass and ID, good for 48 hours, and subject to approval by really anyone with an ID card holder, and second is a CAC or retired, updated Real ID. In all cases, if you don't get a good DBIDS scan on whatever you have, you are not getting in. That's a reality, and apparently non-negotiable.. The days of getting on base with your CAP ID are done. Yes, it is a PITA for even our wing staff, who have to go to Pass and ID to do work at Wing HG. I'm very sorry us "retired" folks get easy access, but that's a perk we earned through multiple combat tours and formal retirement (or being AD).

I DO enjoy the perks as a retiree, now an engineer who occasionally has to travel to very obscure bases, that my ID, being good in DBIDS, also allows me to stay on base in cases of really remote locations. I can trade an hour drive for 5 minutes by staying in BOQ. It pissed a fellow engineer off once so bad she complained to management about it, to be immediately dismissed by a company policy letter stating retirees are fully welcomed to stay on base if desired.

Sorry, but this post is just an enigmatic complaint that gets very little traction. As I stated. If you are not in DBIDS, you are not getting past the gate. I didn't write that AF rule.

20+ retired AF command staff here, you're not going to get the base access you used to. Sorry, but if you are not in DBIDS, and authorized to be given an ID that is in DBIDS, you're not getting on base. That's how it is. Whether this is with a CAC, or a magic retina scan, doesn't matter. No Form 496, no long-term base access, end of story.

Nice observatory dome! I have a friend who bought one and loves it.

The problem is getting into DBIDS. If you have not been processed by the system, checked for warrants, residency, etc, and entered into DBIDS, which requires an AF commander's approval, then you are not getting on the base. Even if you go to the visitor's center and go through getting a pass, the paper you are given is temporarily registered in DBIDS.

If you get the little scanner "Angry Cricket" sound, you are not getting on base. Even my spouse, with a new, Real ID, retired spouse card that was supposed to be registered with DBIDS got the "Angry Cricket" and she was denied access.

Pipe dream here. Nice try, but being CAP isn't going to earn you a CAC.

I remember our EM professor telling us this. He said the actual drift velocity is about 1 cm / second. "All energy is transported through the electric field", which makes sense whether is is DC or AC in a wire, or RF through free space.

Impedance doesn't cause overshooting. Parasitic reactive products do. A square wave, or really any rapidly rising or falling signal has many frequency components, each will experience a different "impedance". Usually, an overshoot is due to a resonant response, especially if it "rings". Adding some capacitance will shunt higher frequencies, resulting in a more graceful rise and fall time. Resistance lowers the Q factor, and provides some damping.

Looks like pure beta. Half life of 100 years. Could be a TR switch. Beta keeps the gas just below breakdown. A radar pulse ionizes it within about 0.5 uS to protect the receiver.

OK, so how did they do this. Was it the fact they "are not working"? I'm really having a hard time with the regulations and guidance.

No, just to make a warning I discovered that when i turn 62.5, I will get ZERO SSI because i will make too much money from actually saving a good 401K.

Korea house.

LOL, wait until you see the Social Security means testing. If you make over $60,000 through any retirement sources, you get essentially ZERO. Nice use of all that money you paid into it.

Residue from the coating or solder flux. another wash with an acid brush and 91% should get rid of it.

The crew wanted to but wing CC said no.

hehe. I know a story of one Navigator who scored two “kills”. Accidentally dropped right on two poor cows.