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.
|