Press release from the "Smoketown 2"

grattonja

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
944
Location
Pennsylvania
Display Name

Display name:
saratoga driver
As reported on AVWeb. This is supposed to be the press release that the guys from the FRZ incursion, through their attorney, came up with.



"We are mere private citizens from a small Pennsylvania town who have found ourselves thrust into the national spotlight after an unplanned and unintentional brush with local, state and federal authorities, during what was meant to be an uneventful flight from Lancaster to Lumberton, North Carolina. In an effort to help everyone understand what happened during this incident, the following is a recounting of those events associated with our flight on Wednesday, May 11, 2005.

"In preparation for our upcoming flight, on the evening before departure, we consulted several current weather maps and sectional maps of Washington, D.C., and Charlotte, North Carolina.

"The morning of the flight, Jim as the pilot in command, once again checked various weather websites on his home computer for the flight area and consulted the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) website, looking for Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFR). We were not required to file a flight plan because we were going to be using visual flight rules (VFR) for our journey.

"Jim conducted a thorough pre-flight inspection of the airplane, a Cessna 150, its communication devices and navigational devices and filled it with fuel prior to departure.

"We agreed that Jim, as the pilot in command, would supervise the flight while Troy would fly the airplane, which he did during the entire flight.

"In an effort to be extra careful, and wishing to avoid the restricted area of Camp David during our flight, we over compensated by taking a more than anticipated southerly route, which consequently caused us to infringe upon the Washington, D.C., restricted zones.

"After an undetermined amount of time, a Blackhawk helicopter appeared off to the right side of our airplane and attempted to communicate with us using a hand-held sign indicating the emergency radio frequency we were to use to receive instructions. Although our radio had been working during the flight, which we know, because we were able to monitor other aircraft communications, we were unable to communicate with the Blackhawk helicopter on the frequency indicated. A helicopter crew member used hand signals to indicate a second frequency option. We tuned to that frequency, identified our aircraft, and requested further instructions. We received no response on either of the indicated frequencies despite repeated attempts by both of us. The helicopter then disappeared off to the right and within a short time thereafter, two F-16 fighter planes appeared and began making repeated passes. After making several passes, the F-16 planes dropped warning flares.

"In response to the dropped flares, we made a 90-degree turn to the right to a westerly direction. At this point, for the first time, we were able to visually identify our location as being in a Flight Restricted Zone (FRZ). Once again, a helicopter appeared, whereupon we were then able to establish two-way radio communication on the original emergency frequency that we had been instructed by placard to use by the first helicopter crew. We were then instructed to stay on our current heading and proceed to the Frederick, Md., airport, where we landed safely and were subsequently met by representatives from civil, state and federal authorities and agencies. We were treated exceptionally well and proper, and with great courtesy after we explained what had happened.

"On a personal note, we would like to sincerely thank everyone for their prayers and their expressions of concern for us with regard to this incident. We very sincerely regret all of the disruption that this event has caused for so many people in our nation's capital."


If accurate, it sure seems to me to raise more questions than it answers. "We were not required to file a flight plan..." What about an ADIZ VFR plan? What "southern route" would avoid the ADIZ? A "western route" would probably have done the trick.

Seems the student pilot is admitted to have been at the controls and flying the plane during the trip.

In any event, here is the press release that the media folks have been clamboring for.



Jim Gratton
 
grattonja said:
If accurate, it sure seems to me to raise more questions than it answers. "We were not required to file a flight plan..." What about an ADIZ VFR plan? What "southern route" would avoid the ADIZ? A "western route" would probably have done the trick.

I agree - it also seems to have a "we did everything right, except this one little thing" tone to it.
 
grattonja said:
"In preparation for our upcoming flight, on the evening before departure, we consulted several current weather maps and sectional maps of Washington, D.C., and Charlotte, North Carolina.
They don't say they talked to a briefer, though.

"The morning of the flight, Jim as the pilot in command, once again checked various weather websites on his home computer for the flight area and consulted the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) website, looking for Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFR). We were not required to file a flight plan because we were going to be using visual flight rules (VFR) for our journey.
But again, no briefer - the ADIZ isn't a TFR, its SUA. And AOPA has full PAGES on how to fly in the ADIZ.

"In an effort to be extra careful, and wishing to avoid the restricted area of Camp David during our flight, we over compensated by taking a more than anticipated southerly route, which consequently caused us to infringe upon the Washington, D.C., restricted zones.
Which they'd have known about if they talked to a briefer, and instead of "infringing" they'd have been talking to ATC legally.

Seems the student pilot is admitted to have been at the controls and flying the plane during the trip.
So not only did the PIC lose his licence over this, he can't even log it. I find that funny...
 
Nothing wrong with the student pilot being sole manipulator. He couldn't have been the legal PIC but that's ok - happens all the time with Young Eagles flights. I thought the story was that they had outdated charts, though? The press release doesn't mention that. If they knew enough to get on the AOPA website, how could they not have a clue about the ADIZ? Too weird...
 
BillG said:
Nothing wrong with the student pilot being sole manipulator. He couldn't have been the legal PIC but that's ok - happens all the time with Young Eagles flights. I thought the story was that they had outdated charts, though? The press release doesn't mention that. If they knew enough to get on the AOPA website, how could they not have a clue about the ADIZ? Too weird...

I gotta agree with you on the AOPA bit, Bill. I just pulled up the AOPA home page again. If you go into Presidential and other TFRs and you click on MD on the map, it pulls up the ADIZ rules right away. It doesn't really make sense that they could get on AOPA and NOT see the ADIZ warning materials. Granted, the FAA language is obtuse, but AOPA has made that as accessible as possible, if you just scroll down to the graphic, etc.

Jim G
 
Remember, this is being filtered through an attorney, and if I remeber correctly the PIC was covered under AOPA Legal Plan, so I am assuming, an aviation savy attorney. I am sure they have been advised to keep it fairly general and avoid giving too much information, no wonder it raises more questions than it answers. I doubt we will ever know what really went on in that cockpit.
 
Kyle Thornley said:
Remember, this is being filtered through an attorney, and if I remeber correctly the PIC was covered under AOPA Legal Plan, so I am assuming, an aviation savy attorney. I am sure they have been advised to keep it fairly general and avoid giving too much information, no wonder it raises more questions than it answers. I doubt we will ever know what really went on in that cockpit.


Amen to that. But, as an attorney myself, I am not sure I would have advised them to give out even this much. The vagueness of this just fuels more speculation, IMHO.

Jim G
 
I agree it raises some questions. Reading just from the press release it appears standard intercept procedures were not followed. I don't know what my response would be to flares dropped in my path but the 90* turn appears to be an indiscriminate response.

Also, there is no mention of when the PIC 'froze'. That had been widely reported but the release does not address this.

No flight plan AND no FF. Were they even talking to app?
 
Personally, I'm curious about the "we tried the radios and freqs but it didn't work...then it did" thing. Sorry but if I've got a Blackhawk sitting next to me around DC (or anywhere really), I'd do everything in my power to communicate, including picking up my flippin' cellphone and dialing 911 to find out what's going on.
 
We have repeatedly been briefed to monitor 121.5 if not talking to center. They obviouisly weren't. If they couldn't make contact with the Blackhawk on a frequency shown on a placark; try 121.5--this is an emergency.

Can't believe folks go anywhere cross country and don't flight follow, monitor center or at the very least 121.5. It is a published Notam.

Dave
 
Brian Austin said:
Personally, I'm curious about the "we tried the radios and freqs but it didn't work...then it did" thing. Sorry but if I've got a Blackhawk sitting next to me around DC (or anywhere really), I'd do everything in my power to communicate, including picking up my flippin' cellphone and dialing 911 to find out what's going on.
They had any number of frequencies to choose from to initiate contact. What frequency were they monitoring, anyway? All they had to do was start talking.
 
Dave Siciliano said:
We have repeatedly been briefed to monitor 121.5 if not talking to center. They obviouisly weren't. If they couldn't make contact with the Blackhawk on a frequency shown on a placark; try 121.5--this is an emergency.

Can't believe folks go anywhere cross country and don't flight follow, monitor center or at the very least 121.5. It is a published Notam.

Dave


I either flight follow or monitor center. After this, I am going to start listening to 121.5 on guard regularly, rather than keeping Com 2 reserved for ATIS and AWOS. I can always use it for these two things, and just go back to 121.5 when I am done listening to a weather report.

Jim G
 
I still don't see how this can be anything close to reality.

Regardless of whether they looked up TFRs, SUAs, got a breifing or whatever, they still flew into Class B airspace which IS indicated on their charts. Besides, if they used AOPAs TFR/Notam pages, the ADIZ shows up as #1 for Maryland/Virginia/DC, complete with graphic

3-2126.jpg


As for the flight route, S37, direct to FDK, due west till past MRB, then direct on course - scoot between P-40 and the ADIZ. There looks like there are a number of VORs (MRB, FDK, LDN...) you could use to track your course that way. Or even easier, fly S and keep to the East of the water to KESN, refuel there, then direct to your destination :dunno:.

They had to have some clue on navigation to be doing a 300+ mile trip - to say that 'in an effort to be extra careful' you fly 25+ degrees off heading is a bit of a stretch. My buddy and I flew past Selfridge yesterday - and landed at an airport about 5 miles from the Canadian border....we managed not to bust either ;)

Anyone want to bet that the DG wasn't set to compass heading, and they flew a predetermined course on the DG ? Has anyone seen anything like a Radar track for the flight ? I just don't buy the explanation.
 
SJP said:
Anyone want to bet that the DG wasn't set to compass heading, and they flew a predetermined course on the DG ? Has anyone seen anything like a Radar track for the flight ? I just don't buy the explanation.

Interesting. If that were the case then I could buy them being that far of course. However, shouldn't one be checking the DG against the compass, say every 10 minutes or so?
 
grattonja said:
Amen to that. But, as an attorney myself, I am not sure I would have advised them to give out even this much. The vagueness of this just fuels more speculation, IMHO.

Jim G

The PIC admitted he infringed (screwed up) therefore, suspend his PPL until retrained both for ground & flight and retested via written and FAA flight test.
 
I suspect this press release was put out to get the MEDIA off their back. The Media doesn't care about the facts or KNOW what we know.

The mistake IMO in releasing this is that the FAA and NTSB *do* care about those facts and know what we know, and more.

But if the pilot has already had his ticket pulled and the student has no certificate that action can be taken against, what have they got to lose?
 
grattonja said:
I either flight follow or monitor center. After this, I am going to start listening to 121.5 on guard regularly, rather than keeping Com 2 reserved for ATIS and AWOS. I can always use it for these two things, and just go back to 121.5 when I am done listening to a weather report.

Jim G

That's what I do now. I keep 121.5 on Comm 2, if I have a Comm 2, and just switch over to get ATIS/AWOS when I'm near an airport. When I'm done, I switch back.
 
Dave Siciliano said:
We have repeatedly been briefed to monitor 121.5 if not talking to center. They obviouisly weren't. If they couldn't make contact with the Blackhawk on a frequency shown on a placark; try 121.5--this is an emergency.

Can't believe folks go anywhere cross country and don't flight follow, monitor center or at the very least 121.5. It is a published Notam.

Dave

I would be unsurprised if they didn't have a Comm 2 to monitor 121.5 with. None of the C-152s I fly have two radios. That means 121.5 won't be getting monitored. That said, I fully agree: If I'm being intercepted and can't talk to them on the frequency they are waving at me, I'm darn well going to be coming up on 121.5 and failing that, the center freq I should have been on to begin with.

They didn't work... then they did. Frankly, my BS detector is pegged after reading that press release, but that's just my opinion, of course.
 
N2212R said:
Interesting. If that were the case then I could buy them being that far of course. However, shouldn't one be checking the DG against the compass, say every 10 minutes or so?

One should...doesn't mean one always does ;)

I must admit, we didn't reset ours on the way back from PHN to PTK, but then it was less than 50 miles, about 30 mins in the Mooney, and we were tracking the VOR in addition to the GPS.
 
Pardon me but if their intent was to avoid P-40 (Camp David) how did they get to DOWNTOWN Washington? That is more that 30 miles off course. Hard to hit their destination being that far off course that early in the game (90 miles or so from Smoketown).
 
grattonja said:
If accurate, it sure seems to me to raise more questions than it answers.[

Forgive me for this comment, it is meant to be offered as politely as possible, but the speculation in this thread boarders on press mentality.

"We were not required to file a flight plan..." What about an ADIZ VFR plan?

Insert the implied phrase, "...for our intended route of flight..." and the statement is accurate. For their intended route of flight they were not required to file a flight plan.

What "southern route" would avoid the ADIZ? A "western route" would probably have done the trick.

The words the press release used was "more than anticipated southerly route", not "southern route" as you state. IOW, the pilots state they got lost by deviating left ("southerly") of intended course. They do not state that they intended to fly a "southern route". Their intended course was indeed westerly (thread between P-40 on the north and the ADIZ on the south).

Seems the student pilot is admitted to have been at the controls and flying the plane during the trip.

Of all the items the press release contained this is the only item that caused me to flinch. Guaranteed the press will jump on this. See the headlines now: "Untrained pilot was flying the plane!"

Come on folks, as pilots we may fry the pilot (legal PIC) for what he did/failed to do, but we should refrain from joining the press in creating news.
 
The truth will be no more harmful to us in GA than the popular BS that is made up & circulated, regardless of it's origin at this point.

Ed Guthrie said:
Forgive me for this comment, it is meant to be offered as politely as possible, but the speculation in this thread boarders on press mentality.



Insert the implied phrase, "...for our intended route of flight..." and the statement is accurate. For their intended route of flight they were not required to file a flight plan.



The words the press release used was "more than anticipated southerly route", not "southern route" as you state. IOW, the pilots state they got lost by deviating left ("southerly") of intended course. They do not state that they intended to fly a "southern route". Their intended course was indeed westerly (thread between P-40 on the north and the ADIZ on the south).



Of all the items the press release contained this is the only item that caused me to flinch. Guaranteed the press will jump on this. See the headlines now: "Untrained pilot was flying the plane!"

Come on folks, as pilots we may fry the pilot (legal PIC) for what he did/failed to do, but we should refrain from joining the press in creating news.
 
And now this:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The government has revoked the license of the pilot in charge of the small plane that strayed to within three miles of the White House on May 11, forcing the panicked evacuation of thousands of people from the executive mansion, Capitol and Supreme Court.

Though hundreds of people have mistakenly flown into Washington's restricted airspace, this was believed to be the first such revocation.

The Federal Aviation Administration said Monday that it had issued an emergency revocation of Hayden L. Sheaffer's pilot's license because he "constitutes an unacceptable risk to safety in air commerce."

The agency said no action would be taken against Sheaffer's student, who was also in the plane.

"This action reflects the seriousness in which we view all restricted airspace violations and, in this case, the level of incursion into restricted airspace," said FAA spokesman Greg Martin.

The plane entered restricted airspace and then continued flying toward highly sensitive areas, prompting evacuations of tens of thousands of people as military aircraft scrambled to intercept it.

The student, 36-year-old Troy Martin, who had logged only 30 hours of flight time, had control of the small Cessna single engine plane when a U.S. Customs Service Black Hawk helicopter and a Citation jet intercepted it.

The pair were flying to an air show in North Carolina.

Sheaffer didn't take the most basic steps required of pilots before operating an aircraft, the FAA said.

He failed to check the weather report before leaving Smoketown, Pennsylvania, and he didn't check the FAA's "Notices to Airmen," which informs pilots of airspace restrictions.
 
Accurate enough for me.

Ken Ibold said:
And now this:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The government has revoked the license of the pilot in charge of the small plane that strayed to within three miles of the White House on May 11, forcing the panicked evacuation of thousands of people from the executive mansion, Capitol and Supreme Court.

Though hundreds of people have mistakenly flown into Washington's restricted airspace, this was believed to be the first such revocation.

The Federal Aviation Administration said Monday that it had issued an emergency revocation of Hayden L. Sheaffer's pilot's license because he "constitutes an unacceptable risk to safety in air commerce."

The agency said no action would be taken against Sheaffer's student, who was also in the plane.

"This action reflects the seriousness in which we view all restricted airspace violations and, in this case, the level of incursion into restricted airspace," said FAA spokesman Greg Martin.

The plane entered restricted airspace and then continued flying toward highly sensitive areas, prompting evacuations of tens of thousands of people as military aircraft scrambled to intercept it.

The student, 36-year-old Troy Martin, who had logged only 30 hours of flight time, had control of the small Cessna single engine plane when a U.S. Customs Service Black Hawk helicopter and a Citation jet intercepted it.

The pair were flying to an air show in North Carolina.

Sheaffer didn't take the most basic steps required of pilots before operating an aircraft, the FAA said.

He failed to check the weather report before leaving Smoketown, Pennsylvania, and he didn't check the FAA's "Notices to Airmen," which informs pilots of airspace restrictions.
 
AOPA has posted more details about the FAA revocation order on its Web site:

...The FAA listed Sheaffer's actions by each regulation he violated:

  • FAR 61.57(a). Acted as pilot in command of an aircraft carrying a passenger without having made at least three takeoffs and three landings within the preceding 90 days.
  • FAR 91.103. As pilot in command, failed to familiarize himself with all available information concerning that flight.
  • FAR 91.13(a). Operated an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.
  • FAR 91.131(a)(1). Operated an aircraft within Class B airspace without receiving an ATC clearance or establishing and maintaining two-way radio communication with the ATC facility controlling that airspace.
  • FARs 73.83 and 91.133(a). Entered a prohibited area without having the permission of the using or controlling agency to do so.
  • FAR 91.139(c). Operated an aircraft within the designated airspace defined by an issued notam without complying with the authorizations, terms, and conditions prescribed in the regulation covered by the notam.
  • FAR 99.7. Operated the aircraft in an air defense identification zone (ADIZ) without complying with special security instructions issued by the administrator in the interest of national security and that are consistent with appropriate agreements between the FAA and the Department of Defense.
 
Ed Guthrie said:
Come on folks, as pilots we may fry the pilot (legal PIC) for what he did/failed to do, but we should refrain from joining the press in creating news.
I agree. The fact is that we just don't know what went on in the cockpit, and probably never will -- heck, Martin and Sheaffer may not really know what happened.
 
More Details Emerging

From the NY Times:

WASHINGTON, May 23 - A Black Hawk helicopter dispatched to intercept a private plane that entered forbidden airspace here on May 11 directed the plane's pilots to tune to a frequency that was not usable at the time, the Department of Homeland Security acknowledged on Monday.

A crewman on the helicopter, kneeling in the open doorway, held up a sign instructing the men on an errant Cessna to tune to an emergency frequency. But at the time the frequency was jammed by a device on an airplane on the ground, an emergency locator transmitter, which broadcasts on that frequency to alert rescuers in case of a crash. There was no crash, and officials are not certain why or from where the transmitter was broadcasting.
 
Re: More Details Emerging

BruceAir said:
From the NY Times:

WASHINGTON, May 23 - A Black Hawk helicopter dispatched to intercept a private plane that entered forbidden airspace here on May 11 directed the plane's pilots to tune to a frequency that was not usable at the time, the Department of Homeland Security acknowledged on Monday.

A crewman on the helicopter, kneeling in the open doorway, held up a sign instructing the men on an errant Cessna to tune to an emergency frequency. But at the time the frequency was jammed by a device on an airplane on the ground, an emergency locator transmitter, which broadcasts on that frequency to alert rescuers in case of a crash. There was no crash, and officials are not certain why or from where the transmitter was broadcasting.

Well THAT'S a lovely nugget if information! FWIW, the Pilot is slated to appear on "Today" tomorrow.... NBC's AM show.
 
Re: More Details Emerging

T Bone said:
Well THAT'S a lovely nugget if information! FWIW, the Pilot is slated to appear on "Today" tomorrow.... NBC's AM show.


Hopefully, someone will report on how that interview went. I stopped watching the morning tv news reports about 500 deaths in Iraq ago, and have not started again.

This is yet another violation of my standard rules to clients. DO NOT TALK TO THE PRESS. I hope it goes better than I think the press release went. After looking at the press release in some depth, I would have recommended the client issue something about 1/3 as long, basically mea culpa, without much detail. In light of the fact that the pilot did not even have 3 TOLs in 90 days, I sure wouldn't have claimed that I had done a good job of preparing for the flight. I think a simple apology for the incident would have been the safest course.

The local press is STILL reporting that they are trying to get this guy at home. Guess the cycle is not ready to die on this story yet.

And Ed, you are right. Speculating about what happened in the cockpit is not productive. Shame on me for doing it. What happened, happened. All we can do now is watch the damage control on it.

Jim G
 
The New York Times had an article this morning that said in part, that the initial radio contact between the helo and the Cessna was impossible because the frequency was "jammed" by what they later describe as an ELT signal.

How likely is it that two aircraft radios that are maybe 100 yards apart can overwhelm the much weaker ELT coming from the ground? I think YES! but I'm asking just for a reality check.

-Skip
 
Every time I've tuned my 2nd comm (or 1st for that matter) to 121.5 it's been impossible for me to squelch out the static and interference...
 
Well - an ELT transmission should be pretty darn strong, you want it heard.

If a plane in NJ can jam transmission at an airport in MD between two planes in the pattern, I think an ELT should be able to jam much further to get heard.

I wonder, was it the top of the hour when the freq was blocked?
 
Re: More Details Emerging

T Bone said:
Well THAT'S a lovely nugget if information! FWIW, the Pilot is slated to appear on "Today" tomorrow.... NBC's AM show.

I saw it. He appeared with his lawyer. He said what's basically in the press release. That's their story (after many hours with the lawyer) and he's sticking to it.

The lawyer said they are filing an appeal of the emergency revocation.

He at NO POINT took the controls from the student. (-K. Can we guess at this point that would be because.....?)

Nice mention of AOPA (not!) "It is not true that I didn't get a briefing. I checked the AOPA web page for a weather briefing." So like, it's AOPA's fault they didn't have voice warnings, alarms bells and lights, arms that would reach out and grab you by throat and deliver an automated dope slap?" So much for AOPA $$$'s going for an ad saying how they make sure pilots are informed for safety and security.

- Matt Lauer: So you will unable to fly for a year?
- That's correct.

For only A YEAR? Wanna bet?

We have only 1000 or so UNSAID things that would need to be mentioned. I get to start!

You were unfamilar with the intecept procedures for which reason?

You were incapable of pilotage for which reason?
 
Last edited:
Greebo said:
Well - an ELT transmission should be pretty darn strong, you want it heard.

If a plane in NJ can jam transmission at an airport in MD between two planes in the pattern, I think an ELT should be able to jam much further to get heard.

I wonder, was it the top of the hour when the freq was blocked?

I thought ELTs were on the order of 1 watt output while the comm radios are closer to 5 watts, but I have no reference for those numbers. Also, regardless of the strength, the signal attenuates as the cube of distance, I believe. So it seems that the ELT should not have a chance to block the frequency. I think the pilots heard the elt, thought that no signal could get through, and switched freqs too quickly. But again this is just a guess.

-Skip
 
I don't know - I'm speculating - but if it were me, I'd want that elt heard from miles and miles away. SAR can use a diff freq. :)
 
Greebo said:
SAR can use a diff freq. :)

Little bit of SAR education for you.

Assume you are lying in the twisted wreckage of a small aircraft, trapped or too injured to extricate yourself. You are hoping the SAR folks are out looking for your ELT signal. Well, when flying an aircraft ELT search the search aircraft flies a grid pattern while monitoring 121.5 for the familiar ELT "whoop-whoop-whoop". If the SAR aircraft has but one COM then by your suggestion the search pilot can choose to listen for your ELT signal, or the search pilot can choose to talk to other search pilots and search command on the "diff freq". Not a great choice. While talking to command the search aircraft might just happen to fly past the one and only ELT contact with your aircraft (unknown to you, your aircraft's ELT antenna was sheared in the crash and your ELT radiated signal is virtually zip, severely limiting the transmitted ranged). As a result, you don't get found because your crash location was "searched" and turned up zippo.

Of course, SAR could exclude all single COM aircraft from the search so they could comply with your request, but then you'd have to wait longer to be found.

Choices, choices.
 
Skip Miller said:
The New York Times had an article this morning that said in part, that the initial radio contact between the helo and the Cessna was impossible because the frequency was "jammed" by what they later describe as an ELT signal.

How likely is it that two aircraft radios that are maybe 100 yards apart can overwhelm the much weaker ELT coming from the ground? I think YES! but I'm asking just for a reality check.

-Skip


ELT power can be under 100mw, but with AM (the form of modulation used by our comm radios) One transmitter won't completely "overwhelm" another. What happens is the two signals combine to produce a beat (difference) frequency in the demodulated audio, and that can easily interfere with communications.
 
Back
Top