Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

In Flight Interference

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

  • #16
    let me repeat: ZERO difference. EXACTLY the same. neither had a stamp or plate, or plaque the other didn't. exactly the same. Not even bombardier would be able to tell and they put the first one in.

    $1200 toilet seat? mil spec? no. it's just that the navy was the buyer and the navy has unlimited funds, so why not charge $1200 fr a $10 toilet seat. $800 hammer? sure! the buyer is the US army or air force, i can't remember.

    OH! it's the "aviation" version. sure! charge 7 times the price. people that own planes have plenty of money...

    Comment


    • #17
      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.

      The same reason aviation coffee pots cost so much.
      Don't forget that the FAA/Civil Aviation Authority has to certify it it airworthy for use on the aircraft it is specified for. That is the hardest part about equipment, there are different part numbers for the same componet but may not be suitable for all of the types. It's the same for example the Canadair jets since TeeVee brought up the microwave. There may be different microwaves, but you have to make sure that it is the correct one for the right aircraft(serial numbers, modifications, etc.). Coffee pots and ovens are in the same category as well as other parts.

      Comment


      • #18
        I recall a story about a pen holder fitted in B52 cockpits, the type that consisted of two metal coiled springs on a metal plate.
        Cost in your local office supplies store ? About $1.95. Cost to the USAF ? Around $195.
        The same applied to my first paramedic drugs box. Cost in Woolworths store ? £9.95. EXACTLY the same product with the same code numbers supplied to the NHS ? £98.

        The taxpayer gets ripped off every time.
        If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

        Comment


        • #19
          I can tell you from my experience with a major aircraft company a major concern is with bogus parts and equipment. Ethical aviation buyer's demand paperwork showing traceability and compliance to relevant specifications.

          I can also tell you airline companies often pay a greater price than the military for some of the devices mentioned above (no need for that fancy trim for example).

          Re TeeVee's microwave example: I'm just curious what kind of electrical plug/socket is used on the aircraft/RV microwave oven you mentioned. Standard household 2 or 3 pin plugs have been prohibited by the various aircraft makers I have work with to avoid the chance of someone plugging in incompatible equipment.

          I hope we can return to the topic.
          I'm still searching for a report (I recall it was by either NASA or FAA) in which cell phone testing on a 737 showed interferance with critical avionics when the number of cell phones users reached a certain level. I have retired so can't access my former employers data base where there is a copy.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Deadstick View Post
            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.

            Additionally, do some fuzzy math:

            How many well meaning passengers, punch the off button and throw their cell phone in a bag/briefcase whatever...except they don't hit the button quite right- and don't invest the 30 seconds it takes to see the words "shutting down".

            I know two folks on this discussion board that have done that. Not only did they survive to make posts about it, their planes landed on the right runway at the right airport.
            Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by 3WE View Post
              Additionally, do some fuzzy math:

              How many well meaning passengers, punch the off button and throw their cell phone in a bag/briefcase whatever...except they don't hit the button quite right- and don't invest the 30 seconds it takes to see the words "shutting down".

              I know two folks on this discussion board that have done that not only did they survive to make posts about it, their planes landed on the right runway at the right airport.
              make that 3 folks. and i've done it more than once...

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
                make that 3 folks. and i've done it more than once...
                I been on a couple of flight where a cell phone started ringing in the overhead bin and each time the passenger dug though his carry-on to switch off his phone.

                Comment


                • #23
                  OTOH:

                  In college, I had an FM radio that- if I tuned it just right- would "block" the reception on my roomates FM stereo receiver.

                  ...and just to drive it home FM radio ends at ~108.9 mHz with the aviation navigation band kicking in at ~109.0 mHZ

                  So, I'm not so sure I want someone messing with an FM radio when my plane is hitting 200 and 1/2 mile-especially if I'm the president of Poland and Russia has moved trees around and put TNT on my plane.
                  Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                    So, I'm not so sure I want someone messing with an FM radio when my plane is hitting 200 and 1/2 mile-especially if I'm the president of Poland and Russia has moved trees around and put TNT on my plane.
                    You are nasty!

                    --- 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


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                      You are nasty!
                      Darn, Gabriel, I thought you would call me out on the factual error that it was an ADF-based approach and not an ILS.
                      Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                        Darn, Gabriel, I thought you would call me out on the factual error that it was an ADF-based approach and not an ILS.
                        I would have, but you didn't mention the ILS, and while the 200 and 1/2 mile are typical ILS minimums and below ADF minimums, that wouldn't stop you from getting that far (and farther) in the type of scenario that you proposed that is normally called, well, busting minimums.

                        --- 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


                        • #27
                          The real RF interference issue on aircraft has always been interference between the multitude of high power RF transmitters and receivers on the plane itself due to their close proximity to each other in the avionics bay. Because of this these devices and their antenna wiring are totally shielded from each other and undergo extreme testing regimens during the development of the aircraft. That said an 800mw cell phone has no chance of penetrating the shielding, just like the 50,000 watt AM radio station antenna 4000 ft below the plane on approach can't penetrate the shielding. Devices like MP3 players, Kindles or cell phones in airplane mode have almost no RF emissions and what they do have doesn’t even make it through the seat in front of you.
                          This has always about making the pax pay at least a small amount of attention to what is happening around them during takeoff and landing yet they still let you read a book but not a Kindle. I just wish they would state it that way and drop the scare meme to achieve their goal.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X