Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

In Flight Interference

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • In Flight Interference

    with the recent crap in the news about electronic equipment in flight, or in certain phases of flight, i thought this was interesting.

    "Probably the best example of that is we’re equipping all our pilots with iPads. They’re getting them as we speak. And it’s what we call Electronic Flight Bag. All of our pilots will have all the manuals and charts and everything on the iPad. They’ll be able to use in all phases of flight. We’ll be the only and first U.S. airline to have done that.

    http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/quoting tom horton.

    so if ipads can be used IN THE COCKPIT during all phases of flight, do you really expect anyone to believe that their use in the cabin during takeoff, taxi, landing is dangerous??? horsecrap!

    all that said, one thing i NEVER want to see, is allowing the use of cell phones. to paraphrase an article i read some time ago, the aircraft cabin in-flight is the last bastion--the last place you can relax without having to listen to some moron chatting away incessantly about absolutely nothing.

  • #2
    Agree totally on the cell phones..

    ..But I have to say I have some sympathy for the rule makers and airlines when it comes to the MYRIAD of electronic equipment types that are out there in the market..

    Sure.. it is pretty obvious that THIS type of gadget and THAT sort of gizmo have NO effect on anything...

    Problem is, if SOME gizmos are allowed then there (logically) has to be a list of what is and what isn't... (glad I don't have to come up with that!) and human nature being what it is folks will no doubt see SOME electronics in use...and assume they can use what they like...

    ..and presumably there ARE categories of equipment that may well be a problem.....

    Rather than have to try to define what is and isn't allowed.. then expect FA's to be able to tell the difference, I can understand the "Shut 'em all off" policy.
    Holed up in a cabin in the woods.. with 3 years worth of canned goods.. and a whole bunch of guns.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
      all that said, one thing i NEVER want to see, is allowing the use of cell phones. to paraphrase an article i read some time ago, the aircraft cabin in-flight is the last bastion--the last place you can relax without having to listen to some moron chatting away incessantly about absolutely nothing.
      I agree with you. That is the last thing I want to deal with is someone on the phone for the whole duration of the flight-It's bad enough on city public transport but it should not be on the plane.

      There are a lot of electronic devices that emit different frequencies so it would be very difficult to control what is allowed. That reminded me of a new camera that can upload to facebook or act like a smartphone. Who knows if that can interfere with an aircraft's systems? I know smartphones and SLR's are very different, but there can be some kind of guide that can be used to know what can or cannot be used during flight. That would cost a lot of money to research.

      Comment


      • #4
        It's not a policy for electronic gadgets to be off during certain phases of flight, it's a Federal regulation. The airlines don't get to set policy on this. I still believe it's to prevent additional confusion during departure or arrival if there's an evacuation as opposed to some interference caused to nav equipment. Let's hope the FAA and the FCC continues to spare us the agony of in flight cell phone use.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Deadstick View Post
          ...I still believe it's to prevent additional confusion during departure or arrival if there's an evacuation as opposed to some interference caused to nav equipment...

          ...and this is the KEY point...it's a DISTRACTION...plain and simple. During a time of the flight where one needs to be the most aware of whats going on around them, you don't want people listening to ipods, watching dvds, typing texts, playing video games, heads buried in laptops, talking on skype, etc...

          On top of that, should an accident occur, the impact force will almost certainly cause these electronics (comprised of glass and metal) to go flying out of a persons hands and shooting through the air, striking people in the head and body. Sure, a regular hardbound book can be just as dangerous, but as with every other law that forbids or prohibits, "the line has to be drawn somewhere", and use electronic devices (for now) crosses that line.

          Comment


          • #6
            nonsense. my prediction: the prohibition will go the way of the dodo in the near future.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
              nonsense. my prediction: the prohibition will go the way of the dodo in the near future.
              No one said you have to "agree" with rules, you just have to fully "comply" with them...

              Comment


              • #8
                understood. i fly several times per month and comply. however, many folks do not and the thing is, i have not heard of a single case where something happened as a result of someone using an mp3 player, ipad, kindle etc. one would think that if something did occur, the authorities would be ALL over it.

                my pilot friends have told me that even cell phone use has no real adverse effect on instrumentation.

                think about this: the authorities are concerned with RF emissions from these devices. yet, aircraft fly around in airspace absolutely JAMMED with RF signals many millions of times stronger than what an mp3 player puts out. funny, that air travel is unaffected.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
                  think about this: the authorities are concerned with RF emissions from these devices. yet, aircraft fly around in airspace absolutely JAMMED with RF signals many millions of times stronger than what an mp3 player puts out. funny, that air travel is unaffected.
                  Except that all that stronger RF energy is OUTSIDE the Faraday cage called fuselage, while your weaker mp3 one is inside.

                  Not saying that your mp3 or even your i-phone ( (c) TM all rights reserved etc) will do any harm. Just that your defense doesn't work.

                  --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                  --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    well my friend, i'm no scientist. but it's obvious to me that they penetrate the faraday cage. phones work just fine inside the aircraft without the benefit of an external antenna. so do FM receivers.

                    i'm pretty sure they use microwave ovens on planes too. don't know about commercial aircraft, but on the challenger they use a "special" $15,000.00 microwave that is "designed for aviation use." bullshit! my pilot friend had to replace one and he found that the EXACT same model is sold for rv's and sells for about $2,000.00. shielded? nah. just marketing bullshit. so, he bought the RV version and it was EXACTLY the same.

                    bottom line is i just aint buyin the whole interference thing.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      To my knowledge, there has never been a case of interference to aircraft systems by the use of any electronic device in the passenger cabin. I had this discussion with MCM (who seems to have disappeared and I miss his insight). There isn't enough power in anything we tend to carry on board to have an effect on aircraft systems. If there was, there would be an absolute ban on electronic apparatus in all phases of flight. The restrictions on use are simply to focus the attention of the geese below 10k feet if there is an emergency that needs appropriate reaction. A cell phone at altitude will tie up numerous cell sites, and piss off anyone sitting within 100 dB of the cell phone user yelling at his/her faltering sales team. I can't use my ecig on board not because it causes anyone any misery or interferes with the flight or nav gizmos, it's because everyone else thinks I'm smoking and they want a nicotine fix.

                      I post this as a retired electronics engineer very familiar with radio frequency issues.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Much the same issues exist in our hospitals where mobile phones are banned on the excuse that they interfere with cardiac monitors, IV infusion pumps, electronic ventilators etc.

                        The technical answer to this is.......

                        Total Bollocks !

                        I work with such equipment. I've used mobile phones, UHF and VHF radios handheld and mainset in very close proximity to such equipment and have never noted any problems with their normal function.
                        The only reason for such a ban is to prevent the constant irritation of people yapping on phones when patients are trying to get some peace.
                        It should be noted that the mobile phones that doctors and nurses use all day cost at least £50,000 and are extra special shielded !
                        If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Agreed. As a paramedic for 15 years in NYC the only ting that came close to interfering with the lifepak was our 800 mhz radios. when you keyed the mic, you could get the monitor to spike a bit a create a mini qrs wave--sorta. the 400 mhz radios did NOTHING even if they were touching the monitors...

                          as for this "pay attention" stuff, really? the whole plane is screaming bloody murder and the fa's are "calmly" explaining the EVACUATION procedure ad you honestly think that an mp3 player or ipad is gonna cause someone to ignore this? absolute nonsense.

                          and if by chance some poor schmuck listening to taylor swift or some other crap music ignores this, well, darwin's theory comes into play. the gene pool could always use a bit of chlorine...

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
                            ...........i'm pretty sure they use microwave ovens on planes too. don't know about commercial aircraft, but on the challenger they use a "special" $15,000.00 microwave that is "designed for aviation use." bullshit! my pilot friend had to replace one and he found that the EXACT same model is sold for rv's and sells for about $2,000.00. shielded? nah. just marketing bullshit. so, he bought the RV version and it was EXACTLY the same.
                            ...............
                            It is possible that the two microwave ovens are the same. But I imagine the aviation version cost includes amortization of initial qualification tests and subsequent acceptance tests.

                            The same reason aviation coffee pots cost so much.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Highkeas View Post
                              It is possible that the two microwave ovens are the same. But I imagine the aviation version cost includes amortization of initial qualification tests and subsequent acceptance tests.
                              And the liability insurance. If your not-aviation certified microwave fails and causes a total air disaster, the FAA and the lawyers of the victims will bee all overt he place against you. If it's the certified version that fails, then the FAA will be all over the place against the manufacturer and the lawyers of the victims against both the manufacturer and the insurance company. Never mind if both products differed only in a stamp.

                              --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                              --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X