"Some Guy" wrote in message ...
Dave Bushong wrote:

[Dramatic generalization mode on]
Nearly all aircraft accidents are caused by a series of unlikely
events all happening together, none of which by itself would be
a problem.
[Dramatic generalization mode off]

Nice sweeping piece of dis-information there buddy.


Will the in-flight use of an FM radio EVER cause a plane to run out of
fuel? Or cause a sudden ice build-up on the wings? Or blow out a
tire upon landing? Or an overload of the electrical system leading to
a fire? Will the feeble RF emitted by the LO even be detectable
OUTSIDE the plane, where the plane's antennas are located?


It's so damn complicated that nobody can answer the question. Airliners are
going in the direction of all-electronic flight control and management
systems. Somebody's LO won't affect fuel consumption, uhh, unless it affects
the microprocessor or sensors controlling the engine. It's unlikely, a lot
of work goes toward making it extremely unlikely. But remember, I said
unlikely, not impossible.

Ice on the wings? What controls the de-icing boot?

Blow a tire? Is the braking circuit all-mechanical, or do you have something
akin to power boost and anti-lock sensing?

Is the LO detectable outside the fuselage, near the antennas? YES, damn it,
YES. I have measured it, with calibrated field strength meters. Don't give
me your damn dumb opinions when I have seen the results myself. And is the
LO emission strong enough to degrade or deny a navcom signal. YES or MAYBE
or COULD BE. It depends on the passenger's radio, how he holds it, is he
next to a window, is the fuselage unusually leaky to RF, what seat is the
passenger in, what station is the radio tuned to, are the batteries new or
weak, how weak is the navcom signal, what is the attitude of the aircraft,
is the navcom receiver getting old, even are there multiple passenger
receivers acting on the navcom (if they are all like you, how many of 300
passengers will have personal electronics running?).

The POSSIBILITY of interference is undeniable. The PROBABILITY is very
difficult to predict. The safe course is to deny you your entertainment for
several hours to ensure maximum safety. Is that too much to ask of you?

Ed
wb6wsn

"Dave Bushong" wrote:

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

I'll bet there's no record of a U.S. airline accident caused by faulty
navigation equipment for any reason, or at least excluding maybe the
early years. General aviation, yes.

Would you want to add one more "unlikely event" to your next
flight?

I have no problem with any airline with a flat "no" policy on this,
because things do happen even if rarely. NASA gathers the PED
incident data, and over a 14-year period, there have been less than
100 events, mostly in cruise, most not classed as potentially serious.
The reason they were reported is because the equipment told the pilot
about it, and often ATC did so too. Also, NASA has to take the
pilot's word for it that the anomaly was caused by a PED.

Fred F.

Well, I'll be flying to philly again tuesday.
My dualband HT goes in my breifcase, but with the battery detached during
flight.

"Dave VanHorn" wrote in message
...

Well, I'll be flying to philly again tuesday.
My dualband HT goes in my breifcase, but with the battery detached during
flight.



The first note of personal responsibility and common sense yet seen in this
thread. Congratulations!

Ed
wb6wsn

TaxSrv wrote:
cabin. But has anybody ever heard a cabin announcement during flight
to turn off any devices?

Fred F.

YES.

I was on a flight from Toronto to Tampa a few years ago and somewhere
over the Carolinas the pilot came on the PA and calmly informed us they
have spent the last 45 mins trying to find the source of a buzzing noise
on their radios. (He also reinforced the fact that they were all still
working, but there was a buzzing noise on the audio.) He politely told
everyone to turn off any electronic devices they may be using. The
flight attendants quickly verified passenger compliance a few minutes
later. About 10 mins after that, he came on the PA to say it was gone
and instructed everyone to leave them off for the duration of the
flight, not that there was any danger, but it was distracting to have a
constant buzzing coming over the radio.

I did notice a couple of laptops had been fired up, but sitting in your
seat is not exactly an ideal vantage point to see what everyone else was
doing.

Do I think someone's radio is going to make the plane fall from the sky?
Of course not. Is there a remote possibility it could cause birdies or
other RF anomalies that 'could' affect things? Sure.

On one flight, a few years earlier still, WITH the ok from the flight
deck (you know, in those friendlier years when you could say 'hi'
through the open cockpit door when you were coming out of the bathroom)
I used my FT-470 handie for a few mins. The pilot knew what ham radio
was, knew I was going to be on UHF (because I told him that's where I
would try for a quick QSO) and he very politely said "Sure, but only for
5 minutes, then turn it off. What seat are you in?" I thanked him
kindly, returned to my window seat, and did manage to get into some
repeater in Maine for about a minute or two. The funny thing was he was
in the galley as we were getting off the plane, I thanked him again, and
he asked if I had any luck, I said 'yep' and asked him if I came over
anything up front. He smiled and said "Nope, and we were up there
looking to see if you would."

The purpose of my sharing this snippet from many years ago is not to
illustrate there's no danger in using a receiver (or in this case, a low
power transmitter) while on a plane, but using one does not
automatically imply you're going to write off the comm/nav systems.

My $.02

"phoneguy99" wrote in message
.. .

TaxSrv wrote:
cabin. But has anybody ever heard a cabin announcement during flight
to turn off any devices?

Fred F.

YES.


SNIP



On one flight, a few years earlier still, WITH the ok from the flight deck
(you know, in those friendlier years when you could say 'hi' through the
open cockpit door when you were coming out of the bathroom) I used my
FT-470 handie for a few mins. The pilot knew what ham radio was, knew I
was going to be on UHF (because I told him that's where I would try for a
quick QSO) and he very politely said "Sure, but only for 5 minutes, then
turn it off. What seat are you in?" I thanked him kindly, returned to my
window seat, and did manage to get into some repeater in Maine for about a
minute or two. The funny thing was he was in the galley as we were getting
off the plane, I thanked him again, and he asked if I had any luck, I said
'yep' and asked him if I came over anything up front. He smiled and said
"Nope, and we were up there looking to see if you would."

The purpose of my sharing this snippet from many years ago is not to
illustrate there's no danger in using a receiver (or in this case, a low
power transmitter) while on a plane, but using one does not automatically
imply you're going to write off the comm/nav systems.

My $.02



It also illustrates the safety concern. Although there were no observed
improper responses from the aircraft avionics, "we were up there looking to
see if you would" (cause a problem) is very disturbing. You added to the
pilots' workload for several minutes, involving them in an interesting
science project. The cockpit is normally a very busy place, so what tasks
were slighted to allow time for your project?

How would you have felt if the flight crew was diverting some of their time
to help somebody with a tough crossword puzzle? Was a Maine QSO worth it
all? I'd have given you a whole quarter to pull the battery from your HT!

Ed
wb6wsn

"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,

Your doubts do not stand up to empirical evidence. Stick to assertions that
have a basis in fact and not just in your mind.

The whole point is to not weaken the chain of redundant flight safety
features just to allow a piece of meat cargo to be electronically
entertained.


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.

And all passengers will immediately comply, because they are all concerned
about not creating a dangerous electronic environment. Games will be halted,
spreadsheets closed, and porn movies terminated. Cabin attendants will
notice immediate 100% compliance, and will not be distracted from other
duties to repeatedly remind, cajole or threaten recalcitrant passengers.

Fred, your world is much different than any I have ever seen.

Ed
wb6wsn

"Ed Price" wrote:
...
Stick to assertions that
have a basis in fact and not just in your mind.
...
Fred, your world is much different than any I have ever seen.

Ed
wb6wsn

My world is as an instrument rated pilot and one who services aircraft
avionics. And you must have missed my other post where I said PEDs
should be off at all times.

Fred F.

My world is as an instrument rated pilot and one who services aircraft
avionics. And you must have missed my other post where I said PEDs
should be off at all times.

Fred F.



The I presume you specified AM because the LO operates outside aviation
frequencies (now that LORAN A is gone), unlike the LO in an FM broadcast
receiver which covers the VHF localizer and VOR frequencies very nicely.

Dave

cabin. But has anybody ever heard a cabin announcement during flight
to turn off any devices?

Fred F.


There have been numerous postings in various scanner, shortwave and ham
groups by people who have been ordered to turn off their radio and other
PEDs.
More than one person has been ordered off, or met by the authorities on
landing and at least one passenger who refused to turn off a cellphone ended
up with some jail time after landing in the U.K. - it was pretty widely
reported a year or so ago.

Dave