Well you have been referred to the FAA Regs and the Airline policies and
ignored them.

http://www.fordyce.org/scanning/scan.../scan_fly.html

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...e?OpenFrameSet
Section 91.21
--------------------------------------------
So here is another URL we hope you read about GPS
http://gpsinformation.net/airgps/gpsrfi.htm

Just a snip:
There are documented cases of AM/FM radios causing interference with Avionic
systems and as a result, AM/FM radio receivers are generally prohibited.

You will be happy to learn of this quote;
"By design, (or happy accident), the "spurs" generated by a GPS generally
fall outside the communications frequencies used by Aircraft and so have not
been a problem even though a few "spurs" exist.
But SOME airlines do not permit the use of GPS receivers. Why is that if
they are "safe"?"

You will be unhappy with the answers. Hope you go to the URL for the answers

Here is one:
If a GPS is safe, why can't I use it on an airplane anyway, even if the
pilot says NO?
Answer:
This would be a) unwise, b) illegal and c) dangerous. Never presume that
you have more authority than the Captain of a ship! He is responsible for
the lives of his passengers and likely has knowledge and experience about
his aircraft and/or equipment and/or this particular flight that no one else
has.. The use of a GPS by a passenger is NOT worth a confrontation and a
possible visitation from the police or FBI when you land..

READ THE LAST SENTENCE AGAIN

Be safe, obey the law, stop guessing -- get educated and read these URL's


--
RF Gotta Go SomeWhere



"Some Guy" wrote in message ...
What a load of horse ****.

You guys are acting as if the engines and flight control surfaces of
an aircraft are intimately tied to the plane's radio receiver, and the
slightest odd or out-of-place signal that it receives is enough to
send any plane into a tail spin.

All this while the air travel industry is considering allowing
passengers to use their own cell phones WHILE THE PLANES ARE IN FLIGHT
by adding cell-phone relay stations to the planes and allowing any
such calls to be completed via satellite. So I guess the feeble
radiation by my FM radio (powered by 2 AAA batteries) is enough to
cause a plane to dive into the ocean, but the guy next to me putting
out 3 watts of near-microwave energy is totally safe.

What about my hand-held GPS unit? Any chance me using it (during all
phases of a flight, which I do routinely) will result in a one-way
ticket to kingdom come?

Getting back to the original question (poor to non-existant AM
reception), I understand the idea of aperature and long wavelenths of
AM radio and the size of airplane windows - but what about the effect
of ALL the windows on a plane? Don't they create a much larger
effective apperature when you consider all of them? And since the
plane isin't grounded, isin't the exterior shell of a plane
essentially transparent to all RF (ie it's just a re-radiator) because
it's not at ground potential?

"Some Guy" wrote in message ...
What a load of horse ****.

Yes, you are a wholesale distributor. Further, you are a loud-mouthed,
egocentric nitwit with a knowledge of physics equivalent to a smart gerbil.
You should be allowed on an aircraft only as freight.

Ed
wb6wsn

So, in all honesty, YOU can't really say how dangerous operation of an FM
receiver will be; but you KNOW that it's potentially harmful.

Given that the aircraft voice comms are just above the FM BCB, and the
typical first IF is 10.7 MHz, it's not too hard to imagine the LO sitting
right on the tower comm frequency.
You may only radiate a microwatt, but you're much closer to that antenna on
the aircraft than the tower is. Inverse square law makes it very easy for
you to win that contest.

This is a pointless argument though. It's a health and safety issue, and
you either follow the airline's rules, or I hope they boot you off the plane
(optionally, landing first for your convenience) It is just that simple.

(5) Any other portable electronic device that the operator of the aircraft
has determined will not cause interference with the navigation or
communication system of the aircraft on which it is to be used.
(c) In the case of an aircraft operated by a holder of an air carrier
operating certificate or an operating certificate, the determination
required by paragraph (b)(5) of this section shall be made by that
operator of the aircraft on which the particular device is to be used. In
the case of other
aircraft, the determination may be made by the pilot in command or other
operator of the aircraft.

So in the case of an airline (air carrier) the airline makes the
determination to allow, NOT the pilot.
In a private plane, the pilot can decide to allow.

That is what it says

But the average passenger wouldn't know the airline policies.
If so informed with written material, most won't read them anyway.

The pilot and flight attendants should know-- so asking is the reasonable
thing to do.

I queried several Airline pilots I know and they were all aware of their
Airline policies and stated they can't give permission but could state the
Airline policies and do so. AM/FM radios, GPS, FRS, GMRS, cell phones, Ham
radios and other devices were included as no no's on their Airlines.

Also Flight attendants are alerted to instruct passengers not to use certain
portable electronic devices so listed in their airline policies.

Yeah I know we are beating this thread to pieces, but maybe some readers
will desist in using a $10 Chinese radio that spews RFI all over the
aircraft.

Yes there is room for technical argument as how dangerous some devices are.
But the airlines have made their decisions based on the FAA regs.

Case closed

--
ID with held to protect the innocent



"Dave VanHorn" wrote in message
...
(5) Any other portable electronic device that the operator of the
aircraft has determined will not cause interference with the navigation
or communication system of the aircraft on which it is to be used.
(c) In the case of an aircraft operated by a holder of an air carrier
operating certificate or an operating certificate, the determination
required by paragraph (b)(5) of this section shall be made by that
operator of the aircraft on which the particular device is to be used. In
the case of other
aircraft, the determination may be made by the pilot in command or other
operator of the aircraft.

So in the case of an airline (air carrier) the airline makes the
determination to allow, NOT the pilot.
In a private plane, the pilot can decide to allow.

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 22:23:47 -0500, "Dave VanHorn"
wrote:

|
| So, in all honesty, YOU can't really say how dangerous operation of an FM
| receiver will be; but you KNOW that it's potentially harmful.
|
|Given that the aircraft voice comms are just above the FM BCB, and the
|typical first IF is 10.7 MHz, it's not too hard to imagine the LO sitting
|right on the tower comm frequency.
|You may only radiate a microwatt, but you're much closer to that antenna on
|the aircraft than the tower is. Inverse square law makes it very easy for
|you to win that contest.

Correct. Let me offer a slightly different but illustrative example.

Since this is cross-posted to some non-ham groups, bear with me. In
the 1960's I operated my amateur station on the two-meter (144 MHz)
band using several hundred watts of AM and directional antennas.

I'm in Tucson where we have both a commercial airport and D-M AFB. An
acquaintance of mine, also a ham, was the FAA tower chief at Tucson
International.

One day he calls me on the phone and says that the tower guys at D-M,
knowing he was a ham, called him first rather than the FCC, to report
that I was interfering with their tower communications.

To make an involved detective story short, it turned out that another
ham, who lived just outside the AFB was using a Heathkit "Twoer". The
Twoer used a super-regenerative receiver and was picking up my signal
and re-radiating it on the tower frequencies. I was getting blamed
for the other guy's illegal transmissions.

Considering that this technology is probably used in more receivers
today than any other type (garage door openers, computer wireless
links, etc.) if I'm flying, I hope they are all turned off.

|
|This is a pointless argument though. It's a health and safety issue, and
|you either follow the airline's rules, or I hope they boot you off the plane
|(optionally, landing first for your convenience) It is just that simple.
|

Hey folks, let's not overdo the safety aspects here, so no one panics
if aboard an airliner and sees someone using a radio. I doubt any
device emitting small RF will be able to make comm reception
unreadable. Even if it did, there are then fallback procedures which
the pilot is required to know by heart, and the pilot is even
permitted to continue flight all the way to the gate without any
communication at all. Believe it or not, other aircraft may not have
to be vectored out of your way, or even informed about your problem.
But in reality, the pilot would simply peek at the coffee-stained nav
chart and dial up another controller on another freq and ATC will say
another frequency to come up on, or "stay with me."

For navigation on frequencies 108.00-117.95, besides being rather
strong signals, the nature of the modulation is such that interference
would have to be strong and be just so, to cause navigational error.
More likely there would a panel indication of an unusable signal --
because the receiver must be designed this way, and the pilot can
listen to the nav audio to hear the problem. The aircraft is also in
radar contact, so that if the pilot were to wander off course --
you're allowed a fairly wide margin -- ATC tells you if outside the
margin or not following a clearance if given a "direct." If you can't
rectify it, you simply ask for radar vectors, or switch to GPS nav, or
vice versa, or clearance to go direct to another nav beacon off the
nose, or GPS direct if equipped.

Now the same considerations apply to flying the approach and landing,
but the pilot would rather not have to deal with potential
interference to either nav or comm, especially if the airport is 1/2
mile visibility in fog. Thus, it's not too uncommon for the pilot to
grant permission to use a radio device only while in cruise.

Also, ATC will be able to tell the pilot that other aircraft are not
reporting a problem, a hint of possible interference from inside the
cabin. But has anybody ever heard a cabin announcement during flight
to turn off any devices?

Fred F.

Everything you have written is probably correct BUT
That is not the point -- The FAA and Airlines have regs and policies about
portable electronic equipment aboard an airliner PERIOD

And yes a sharp flight attendent did tell me to turn off a GPS unit.
--
ID with held to protect the innocent



"TaxSrv" wrote in message
...
Hey folks, let's not overdo the safety aspects here, so no one panics
if aboard an airliner and sees someone using a radio. I doubt any
device emitting small RF will be able to make comm reception
unreadable. Even if it did, there are then fallback procedures which
the pilot is required to know by heart, and the pilot is even
permitted to continue flight all the way to the gate without any
communication at all. Believe it or not, other aircraft may not have
to be vectored out of your way, or even informed about your problem.
But in reality, the pilot would simply peek at the coffee-stained nav
chart and dial up another controller on another freq and ATC will say
another frequency to come up on, or "stay with me."

For navigation on frequencies 108.00-117.95, besides being rather
strong signals, the nature of the modulation is such that interference
would have to be strong and be just so, to cause navigational error.
More likely there would a panel indication of an unusable signal --
because the receiver must be designed this way, and the pilot can
listen to the nav audio to hear the problem. The aircraft is also in
radar contact, so that if the pilot were to wander off course --
you're allowed a fairly wide margin -- ATC tells you if outside the
margin or not following a clearance if given a "direct." If you can't
rectify it, you simply ask for radar vectors, or switch to GPS nav, or
vice versa, or clearance to go direct to another nav beacon off the
nose, or GPS direct if equipped.

Now the same considerations apply to flying the approach and landing,
but the pilot would rather not have to deal with potential
interference to either nav or comm, especially if the airport is 1/2
mile visibility in fog. Thus, it's not too uncommon for the pilot to
grant permission to use a radio device only while in cruise.

Also, ATC will be able to tell the pilot that other aircraft are not
reporting a problem, a hint of possible interference from inside the
cabin. But has anybody ever heard a cabin announcement during flight
to turn off any devices?

Fred F.

TaxSrv wrote:
Hey folks, let's not overdo the safety aspects here, so no one panics
[...]

Fred,

Nearly all aircraft accidents are caused by a series of unlikely events
all happening together, none of which by itself would be a problem.

Would you want to add one more "unlikely event" to your next flight? Do
you have life insurance?

73,
Dave

(to keep this on topic, I will say this: last week my garage door
snagged the corona tip on my ATAS-120 and broke something inside the
tuning section, and bent my trunk lid. A $300 mistake. Damn.)

Our club repeater also ended up interfering with the local tower.

It seems that the transmitter PLL was unstable, and "hopping" between that
frequency, and ours.
We were clearly audible in their recordings.

Lest any "experts" step in and claim that you can't receive FM on an AM
receiver, I'd ask them to consider what effect the passband filter of the AM
receiver's IF might have on the FM signal as it deviates from side to
side....

I hit the magic codes and took the repeater down, once we determined that
this was indeed the source.

A re-tweak of the transmit PLL, and a stub filter cut to pass 146.730 and
reject the tower frequency, cured the problem, and insured that if it ever
happens again, they probably won't hear us. The tower now has our phone
numbers in their books, in case there is ever another problem. The tower
complimented our rapid and assertive handling of the problem in their
closing letter to the FCC.

Repeater cans don't do much for signals that are far out of band.