Idea... boat radar + laserscope + sky
et...@757.org
I had an idea, but I'm not sure how well it would work. Would it be
possible to use something along the lines of a surplus Raytheon boat
radar system to "scan" the sky on a single axis for airplanes? This
way, you could do sky show, and have a monitoring system that shuts
down in the event of any planes in the sky?
I realize the unit would have to be modified somehow to kill the
power output when it sweeps, so it only does a 90 degree angle or some
such.
Not sure how feasable it is, especially given how fast planes can fly
and how slow it might be at scanning. Perhaps it could be setup to scan
in a conical formation, around the show area.
Pat B.
most ideas have been explored. Tracking aircraft with TCAS and
redirecting output or extinguishing output if detected.
STEVE ROBERTS
how feasable it is, especially given how fast planes can fly
> > and how slow it might be at scanning. Perhaps it could be setup to scan
> > in a conical formation, around the show area.
>
> most ideas have been explored. Tracking aircraft with TCAS and
> redirecting output or extinguishing output if detected.
I asked FCC about that during the middle of the crisis, NOPE, NO
private air search radar allowed.They refered me back to CDRH. TV
stations are "in the public good",and allowed radars, laserists , are
not. A few big scientific sites that were DOD oriented experimented
with "scrubbed" FAA radar feeds via modem. Hacking into the "amber"
light on a transponder won a ILDA award, but not to practical , as it
doesnt give range or bearing, just tells you a bird is close.
Accoustic is a possibility, but probably not reliable enough, as you
need 15 foot or bigger "ears", hard to haul around.
Pat B.
Steve, not to disagree...but...
Hacking into the transponder worked, practical is debatable ($), range
is data that might be useful (huge discussion could be started here,
too many variables), however not required, sampling data will provide
bearing. The goal was to re direct propagation direction...not
tracking perse. IMHO
I was personally on the roof of the hilton install when all that went
down it did function and was reliable (to a point). Our companies rep.
was riding on it (to a point).
In Conclusion - NOTHING can beat a qualified human spotter dedicated
to his duties to scan skies, and terminate emmission. Most aircraft
fly with navigation lights...if yuo can see the lights, move exposure
or terminate exposure
Skywise
news:1155681938.6...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
<Snipola>
> Hacking into the transponder worked, practical is debatable ($), range
<Snipola>
Even if you could reliable detect the transponder and use it
to locate an aircraft, what about those which do not have a
transponder? Not all aircraft are required to use a transponder.
This typically would happen with a small plane on VFR outside
of controlled airspace.
Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?
Lostgallifreyan
news:12e51l6...@corp.supernews.com:
> "Pat B." <lase...@bendcable.com> wrote in
> news:1155681938.6...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>
> <Snipola>
>> Hacking into the transponder worked, practical is debatable ($), range
> <Snipola>
>
> Even if you could reliable detect the transponder and use it
> to locate an aircraft, what about those which do not have a
> transponder? Not all aircraft are required to use a transponder.
> This typically would happen with a small plane on VFR outside
> of controlled airspace.
>
> Brian
Does the laser operator bear the sole responsibility for making sure the
laser doesn't shine at the aircraft? I ask because this discueesion leads
me to thing that the beam is more visible to the pilot, that the plane is
to the laser operator. If this is the case, isn't there some negotiation
made standard here? WHile it can't be left up to me (and my ignorance), I'd
suggest that the pilot had some duty to obserbe the conditions he was
flying into, and watching for (visible) laser beams should be part of their
obligation, just as watching for birds that might wreck an engine is, if
there is any chance of meeting them. Conversely, to receive notification
and be able to act on it, might the laser operator best be expected to keep
an open channel that the pilot would know to speak on if he say a beam,
knowing that the laser operator can hear directly and immediately, so they
can co-operate? If the laser operator is watching carefully where the beam
is, the moment they hear a meaningful message on that channel, they
probably know where the plane is. If not, they can ask the pilot. :)
Sometimes a bit of human co-operation is even better than trusting your
instruments, no matter how good they are.
DougD
>Does the laser operator bear the sole responsibility for making sure the
>laser doesn't shine at the aircraft? I ask because this discueesion leads
>me to thing that the beam is more visible to the pilot, that the plane is
>to the laser operator. If this is the case, isn't there some negotiation
>made standard here? WHile it can't be left up to me (and my ignorance), I'd
>suggest that the pilot had some duty to obserbe the conditions he was
>flying into, and watching for (visible) laser beams should be part of their
>obligation, just as watching for birds that might wreck an engine is, if
>there is any chance of meeting them. Conversely, to receive notification
>and be able to act on it, might the laser operator best be expected to keep
>an open channel that the pilot would know to speak on if he say a beam,
>knowing that the laser operator can hear directly and immediately, so they
>can co-operate? If the laser operator is watching carefully where the beam
>is, the moment they hear a meaningful message on that channel, they
>probably know where the plane is. If not, they can ask the pilot. :)
>
>Sometimes a bit of human co-operation is even better than trusting your
>instruments, no matter how good they are.
We did a system in the late 80's in SD that was fully automated on top of a
bank buiding, right down the road from Miramar. Being that it ran every night
unattended, we had to provide a means for any tower within the area to be able
to directly kill the system. Joe F. came up with a very elegant hack of ZAP,
along with a black box interface that I rigged up that allowed anyone with the
phone number to dial in and either shutter or terminate the system with a
3 key DTMF sequence. I think in the first two years of nightly operation, it
was only ever shut down twice, at the request of small private planes and not
any of the thousands of military flights that crossed within a 1/4 mile of the
display as they headed out for night op's to aircraft carriers. In fact, the
biggest complaint came when the tube went out and the pilots lost the use
of the beams that they had gotten used to using to return back to base.
How's about providing a radio keyed shutdown with the frequency, etc.
being part of the NOTAM? This is basically what we had done, in this
case the NOTAM directed any pilots to contact lindberg tower to request
a shutdown. These days it would be nothing to automate a system to do
that, and we had the full blessings of the FAA, CDRH, and USM for our
somewhat clunky, but dependable system.. Then again, it's not 1989..
But 25 watts of green is still 25 watts..
D.
Lostgallifreyan
> How's about providing a radio keyed shutdown with the
> frequency, etc. being part of the NOTAM? This is basically what we had
> done, in this case the NOTAM directed any pilots to contact lindberg
> tower to request a shutdown. These days it would be nothing to
> automate a system to do that, and we had the full blessings of the
> FAA, CDRH, and USM for our somewhat clunky, but dependable system..
> Then again, it's not 1989.. But 25 watts of green is still 25 watts..
> D.
>
I like that story of pilots finding a laser useful and not an annoyance.
Even now, with larger numbers of lasers, pilots might be forgiving. The one
thing a pilot always hates most is a lack of control, so you could win them
over putting immediate laser shutdown in their control.
If all show gear had this capability as a legal requirement for outdoor
use, plus a voice channel as I mentioned, then both pilot and laser
operator might be happier. A pilot could be expected to attempt voice
contact and only shut down if they were endangered or could not raise a
response (and be held answerable to abuse of the control they are given).
The main weakness might be prank calls, but line traceability could
eliminate most of those. If formal permission is always required for any
outdoor show, I guess that passing two phone numbers (redundancy) for the
shutdown switch at the time of the request could establish a reliable link
at short notice. If that is feasible, it could allow the advance notice
time given for an outdoor show to be reduced to a day or two, instead of
the weeks or months I've seen mentioned in some posts in this newgroup.
A backup method might be to look at standard signalling in aircraft and
adapt something to a radio transmission for remote shutdown as well as a
voice channel, or even to use an FSK coded signal on that same channel. The
FSK signal could be a single standard to which all outdoor laser devices
must respond to by immediate blanking or shutdown. If multiple shows are
operating close to each other that could be safer, as the phone line method
might be difficult if the pilot can't be sure which laser operator to talk
to.
STEVE ROBERTS
>
> I like that story of pilots finding a laser useful and not an annoyance.
> Even now, with larger numbers of lasers, pilots might be forgiving. The one
> thing a pilot always hates most is a lack of control, so you could win them
> over putting immediate laser shutdown in their control.
Ask the folks at a big Theme park in Florida, who gave a story about
charter helo companies in the area that use the beams to provide
revenue while not quite busting the disney restricted airspace.
According to the park guy at that ILDA, doing a liability and safety
presentation, the pilots had the guts to call up and ask for a audio
feed. Hover chopper with lights off down beam, and bill for it.
FAA's alleged responce, if you can provide us with a N number, we'll
act.
Read 6" tall N number off bird at 2K in dark without illuminating
bird, now thats a challange. I asked him why not use a company aircraft
and follow them home, response, "we're a very conservative and safety
oriented company and would not even consider such a thing"
---
Its not a good idea to provide pilots with direct control, or somebody
30 miles away can key his mike in morse like they do for the airfield
lighting and say to a buddy, watch this, I'm like God. The third party
at the tower was a good thing and makes it sane.
Most big companies can set up multiple sites 120' apart and keep lit.
My last show, I offered to monitor airband, nobody took me up on it.
And search for my past post about the tower and center not getting the
notam till I told em, its rather long! .
also, pilots can legally turn their lights off under the "its a
distraction and blocking my vision rule." Airliners usually wont, but
a PPL flying a tin can .....
I Thank the Lord I now have a day job.
BTW, I looked up the boat radar typical perameters, horizontal
beamwidth, 1-3 degrees, vertical beamwidth, +/- 25 degrees, so no
conical scan needed, just tilt it!, power consuption: 60 watts, typical
peak power per pulse, 2 Kw, rep rate. 1000 hz, pulse width: .7
microsecond.
somebody go look up that compared to a ASR4, ASR6 or ASR9.
Steve
Steve Roberts
STEVE ROBERTS
steve
Pat B.
The laser operator is ultimately responsible for terminating laser
emmission in the even of an unsafe condition (condition of
variance...if you use one) be it aircraft or some dad with his daughter
on his shoulders. Remember all of this work was done by professional
companies early on, now any kid with $50.00 can buy a green laser and
track vehicles or aircraft. It makes no sense to me to remove the
human element from the picture because ultimately it will be a human
that will be sued in the event of an incident. Moving beams are
effectively "safe" (variables will extend this debatable topic) it is
when a statonairy beam is pointing and some yahoo with a plane or helo
decides to fly down the path...sooner or later it is gonna get real
bright. When we introduced Q-switched lasers into entertainment, we
knew the issue would be raised. Im with steve, I am glad i have a day
job now.
Buffo
> BTW, I looked up the boat radar typical perameters, horizontal
> beamwidth, 1-3 degrees, vertical beamwidth, +/- 25 degrees, so no
> conical scan needed, just tilt it!, power consuption: 60 watts, typical
> peak power per pulse, 2 Kw, rep rate. 1000 hz, pulse width: .7
> microsecond.
Hey Steve;
I know that you posted previously that private air search radar is not
allowed, but could they (the FAA, or the CDRH) expressly forbid you
from using a *marine* radar set in the maner you describe? (IE: Mount
it on a tilted base and you'd have coverage for nearly 1/2 the sky...
With three of them overlapping you could cover an entire 360 degree
area.)
Is the prohibition on using ANY radar at all, or only for sets
specifically designed to search for aircraft? (As opposed to boats and
landmarks?)
I understand about needing a human present, but surely you could argue
that having the marine radar there to assist the human spotter would be
a benifit, no?
Or are they concerned about the marine radar interferring with the
aircraft avionics and communications systems?
Just curious...
Adam
STEVE ROBERTS
> I know that you posted previously that private air search radar is not
> allowed, but could they (the FAA, or the CDRH) expressly forbid you
> from using a *marine* radar set in the maner you describe? (IE: Mount
> it on a tilted base and you'd have coverage for nearly 1/2 the sky...
> With three of them overlapping you could cover an entire 360 degree
> area.)
>
> Is the prohibition on using ANY radar at all, or only for sets
> specifically designed to search for aircraft? (As opposed to boats and
> landmarks?)
yes, its being used outside of the conditions of its FCC license which
is marine safety of navigation. The unspoken concern was not the laser
safety, it was that a unknown untrusted individual had a accurate posit
fix on a bird.
FCC STRONGLY SAID NO in their reply. kinda Moot point now, a spotters
eyes are still winners when dealing with a composite airframe vs a very
weak low power radar.
With a AWACS with ECM probably stationed over the US 24/7 now, I would
not want to try it.A HARM heading your way at mach 1+ would not be
fun.
Steve
STEVE ROBERTS
http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/1999/da991029.txt
Steve
Pat B.
Steve
ROFLMAO
Lostgallifreyan
news:1155755095.0...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
Agreed, passive detection is far safer. Human co-operation even more so.
Like Pat said, detctors aren;t going to stpo the head of a young child on a
paren't shoulders. ONLY the laser operator can see easily at any moment
where the beam is pointing, and see light reflected back of an object on
the path. Likewise, a pilot alone has a really good view of the area below
an aircraft. If they're playing brinksmanship trying to fly along a fixed
beam path too close to axis, that's verging on criminal insanity, NO way
should a laser operator be held liable for this behaviour. If the pilot has
that much time, vision and control, it must be up to the pilot to take
control of the flight to prevent harm. I can understand that pilots have
their asses on the line in mid air, and have reason to take precendence in
many things, but there is such a thing as stupidity. Playing god with the
lights on the ground is something that a laser operator can log and report.
Even if just wastes time, that should prevent a stupid pilot from doing it.
And I still think the open channel on airband idea is sound. If pilots or
their controllers are disdainful of it, that's just obdurate stupidity.
Fortunately that same obdurate stupidity is largely lacking on water, so
there should be no excuse for it in the air. If the laser show people make
sure that operators are issued tests of proficiency like ham radio people
are, or even pilots are, then pilots might be more willing to talk to them.
Judging by the cost and difficulty of managing a large laser show, the
extra burden could be slight, and if no agreement is found beyond
discussion of possible tech solutions, then the DoD and other air service
controllers will always take a dim view. Maybe this is something ILDA can
address?
STEVE ROBERTS
pat said : roflmao:
yes that was ment for comic effect.
------
ILDA has worked on it, especially one or two guys who spent their own
megabucks to be on the SAE G10 committee. Its been covered.
SAE G10 is the group charged with writing the draft rules.
Steve
DougD
>BTW, I looked up the boat radar typical perameters, horizontal
>beamwidth, 1-3 degrees, vertical beamwidth, +/- 25 degrees, so no
>conical scan needed, just tilt it!, power consuption: 60 watts, typical
>peak power per pulse, 2 Kw, rep rate. 1000 hz, pulse width: .7
>microsecond.
>
>somebody go look up that compared to a ASR4, ASR6 or ASR9.
Not that I know anything about radar sets, but up here in B.C., you can
usually pick up one or two working surplus Raytheon marine radars for
<$100 CDN. I took a neighbor over to the surplus shop and he won his
bid of $35 for one complete unit along with a unused spare display box.
Also, and this would probably be a long shot, but how about looking for
IR sig's from aircraft? I know it could be tough against a high background
say in Vegas, but we also get lots of surplus marine nightvision systems.
Fairly low res, but still enough to be able to spot another ship at 10 miles.
Yeah, that setup we had in SD worked out real well for the Miramar
pilots who were going out to sea to practice carrier night landings and
takeoff's. We had one, 4x5watt 4beam that followed the 5 right up north
and then in a direct line out of Cordoba? point. These guys at night would
pick up that 4 beam about 5 miles on their inbound and it would take them
to within a 1/4 mile off the end of the approach, so they loved it. And were
very sad when the system went down, we didn't even know until their tower
called to ask what was wrong.. They also requested at one point for us to
shift that 4 beam 10 degree's west, and as that was within the "map" that
we had submitted to the FAA, it was just a matter of nudging a few MM4's..
Kinda wonder why they build their own systems for doing this..
D.
Pat B.
Doug said:
Yeah, that setup we had in SD worked out real well for the Miramar
pilots who were going out to sea to practice carrier night landings and
takeoff's. We had one, 4x5watt 4beam that followed the 5 right up north
and then in a direct line out of Cordoba? point. These guys at night
would
pick up that 4 beam about 5 miles on their inbound and it would take
them
to within a 1/4 mile off the end of the approach, so they loved it. And
were
very sad when the system went down, we didn't even know until their
tower
called to ask what was wrong.
With all due respect, i have now finally lost all faith in our military
when they use a friggin laser light show for navigation purpose. : )
HHHmmmm Lets see, they can land on a moving ship at night but cant find
an airport without those wacky laser lightshow dudes??? Just kidding
ofcourse...
Skywise
news:Xns98213137195...@140.99.99.130:
> Skywise <in...@oblivion.nothing.com> wrote in
> news:12e51l6...@corp.supernews.com:
>
>> "Pat B." <lase...@bendcable.com> wrote in
>> news:1155681938.6...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> <Snipola>
>>> Hacking into the transponder worked, practical is debatable ($), range
>> <Snipola>
>>
>> Even if you could reliable detect the transponder and use it
>> to locate an aircraft, what about those which do not have a
>> transponder? Not all aircraft are required to use a transponder.
>> This typically would happen with a small plane on VFR outside
>> of controlled airspace.
>>
>> Brian
>
> Does the laser operator bear the sole responsibility for making sure the
> laser doesn't shine at the aircraft? I ask because this discueesion
> leads me to thing that the beam is more visible to the pilot, that the
> plane is to the laser operator. If this is the case, isn't there some
> negotiation made standard here? WHile it can't be left up to me (and my
> ignorance), I'd suggest that the pilot had some duty to obserbe the
> conditions he was flying into, and watching for (visible) laser beams
> should be part of their obligation,
<Smipola>
A laser show with unterminated beams requires permission from
the FAA. Since this occurs, a NOTAM is issued. ALL pilots are
required to check for NOTAMS. I am not sure if a laser show
NOTAM prohibits planes from entering the area or if it's just a
warning of the lasers presence. But in either case, there are
pilots who don't bother to check for NOTAMS. It's against the
regs, but then, speeding is also illegal.
So, given that, and as others have described in their replies,
idiot pilots who purposely fly the beams, I think it's best if
some mk1 eyeballs (or at least the remaining good one) be on
the lookout for errant aircraft to prevent an inadvertant
illumination. Even if the pilot is 100% at fault, an operator
on the ground may have the opportunity to prevent a very tragic
accident of a laser dazzled pilot losing control and crashing
by the simple act of shuttering the beam.
Buffo
>The unspoken concern was not the laser
>safety, it was that a unknown untrusted individual had a accurate posit
>fix on a bird.
Ah... Ok - I can see their point there. (Especially in the post 9-11
world we live in.)
>A HARM heading your way at mach 1+ would not be
fun.
Hehe... Decidedly not!
> He'res what happens if you try it:
> http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/1999/da991029.txt
Great info there! Hmmm... Surprising that even when it was being used
by an airport, they still didn't allow it, and fined the guy 8 grand on
top of it all! Ok - that pretty much seals it. Don't use Marine Radar
for anything other than boats...
Thanks for the background info Steve!
Adam
DougD
>> He'res what happens if you try it:
>> http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/1999/da991029.txt
What a racket..
>
>Great info there! Hmmm... Surprising that even when it was being used
>by an airport, they still didn't allow it, and fined the guy 8 grand on
>top of it all! Ok - that pretty much seals it. Don't use Marine Radar
>for anything other than boats...
Hmm.. I'm in an area where we have both heavy aircraft and marine traffic,
with all sorts of marine radar in operation, from pleasure boats to a fleet
of massive vehicle (400+cars.,200+ semi's per boat), ferry's. All of this
surrounds our international airport on the 3 sides of the penisula it's
located on. As well as standard fixed wing and rotary, there are also
many float operated versions of these that also take off from our inner
harbor downtown, which also has heavy ferry and cruise line usage.
How in the heck could it even be possible to try and enforce that a
marine operator can't use his radar to spot the local float plane
traffic in the area? I would suggest that we'd probably have some very
serious and multiple collisions daily between the dozen or so daily
scheduled float planes (these are big turbo dehavilland's, 20
passenger, etc. not just fishing flights).
Of course, this is also Canada, but I can think of at least half
a dozen other large US cities that have the same combo of marine and
float based aviation operating in the same area. Downtown Seatlle
comes to mind. Lots of helo's on Mahatten operating around the
harbor, etc.
I can see where it would be reasonable to get a license for
your marine radar if you had a fleet operation based out of a
certain area, but we have hundreds of thousands of boats, ships,
subs and aircraft carriers pass through these waters, most in
transit and not on a posted schedule, there'd be no way to enforce
this, considering they're just about killing themselves trying to make
a dent on the "War against Drugs, Terror, Bad Shoes, Poor Attitudes"..
Too many bored folks in govt. taking advantage on a non-issue to
give them an income and some sense of power.. Who started
all this mess anyway, wasn't it BOC?.. As&^%'s...
my $.000000002 (CDN)
D.
Buffo
> Hmm.. I'm in an area where we have both heavy aircraft and marine traffic,
> with all sorts of marine radar in operation, from pleasure boats to a fleet
> of massive vehicle (400+cars.,200+ semi's per boat), ferry's. All of this
> surrounds our international airport on the 3 sides of the penisula it's
> located on.
> we have hundreds of thousands of boats, ships,
> subs and aircraft carriers pass through these waters, most in
> transit and not on a posted schedule, there'd be no way to enforce
> this, considering they're just about killing themselves trying to make
> a dent on the "War against Drugs, Terror, Bad Shoes, Poor Attitudes"..
Doug;
I agree that in the example you listed, it would be pretty hard to
enforce a ban on marine radars being used to spot aircraft. But the
original concept was to use them at an outdoor laser show to spot
planes. So it's unlikely that the laser show would just happen to be
located close to a harbor. And if the show is in the middle of a
Kansas corn field, you're not going to be able to blame the yachts in
Chicago for the marine radar signals! (grin)
Likewise, the airport in Wisconsin that got in trouble for using the
marine radar was quite far inland from Lake Michigan, so again it would
be hard to use your excuse. (I don't think you'll find too many large
yachts with radar sets cruising up the Wisconsin river.) Besides, they
admitted to using it for aircraft search, so they lost all hope of
blaming it on other boats!
> Too many bored folks in govt. taking advantage on a non-issue to
> give them an income and some sense of power.
Yeah, you have a point there. Personally I think it wouldn't be that
much of an imposition to allow the airport to use the marine radar to
help them control airplanes. At least there it's clear that they
wanted to use the radar set to improve air traffic control at the
airport. (And a marine radar set has *GOT* to be cheaper than even the
smallest airport radar set.)
Laser shows are different; I think the trust factor basically
evaporates. (Not that I think this is OK - but it's just a fact we
have to live with...) I guess with all the terrorist paranoia these
days there would be no way to get a "reasonable" decision about using
radar as an additional safety feature for outdoor shows anyway. Heck,
most of the masses already believe hand-held laser pointers are a
credible threat to commercial air traffic. Can you imagine their
reaction when you tell them you want to slave a radar system to a
multi-watt laser? They'll FREAK! (sigh...)
Adam
DougD
>Laser shows are different; I think the trust factor basically
>evaporates. (Not that I think this is OK - but it's just a fact we
>have to live with...) I guess with all the terrorist paranoia these
>days there would be no way to get a "reasonable" decision about using
>radar as an additional safety feature for outdoor shows anyway. Heck,
>most of the masses already believe hand-held laser pointers are a
>credible threat to commercial air traffic. Can you imagine their
>reaction when you tell them you want to slave a radar system to a
>multi-watt laser? They'll FREAK! (sigh...)
Yeah, I can see your point about trying to explian that tying the two
together is for your own "safety".. On the other hand, no one seems
to see a potential problem with seating 70,000 pumped up fans in
front of muiltiple tons of metal moving at 200mph just a few feet in
front of them.. Yeah, there's a fence, but I think a lot more folks have
been wasted by flying race car debris than lasers.. Actually, I can
see where there might be a problem with an airport using an un-
licensed or non-standard or approved radar set. I can kinda get
that. I don't see any problem with a laser display company being
allowed to use just about any tool available as long as it's not going
to fry up someone's RF sensitive gear. When I think of how many
hundreds of thousands that has moved through the laser display
biz to the govt. for something that has been mostly likely statisticly
harmless, well.. And especially when having to compete against
folks in Europe, that had a free hand at what they were able to do.
Some of the audience scanning I've seen over there, well, grrrrrr..
Where my bp medicine....?
D.