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.)

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.

How about this: Nearly all aircraft accidents are caused by a single
failure in a single component or a single failure to do something.
Pitot tubes that are taped over. Fuel tanks that explode. Structural
failure that causes entire pieces of fuselage to peel off while in
flight. Fuel leaks that turn large jets into gliders. Cabin fires
caused by the overload of a single wire powering the entertainment
system. Air pressure equalization valves that bleed cabin air
rendering the occupants unconscious and results in a ghost plane
flying thousands of miles before crashing. Failure to de-ice.
Overloading resulting in stalling upon take-off. Failure to secure
cargo upon takeoff. Being struck in the fuel tank by a piece of
debris on the runway kicked up by the tires. An engine ingesting a
flock of birds. A shipment of improperly-disarmed oxygen generators
placed in the cargo hold. Lack of proper lubrication of tail
jack-screws. Tail fins that are not as strongly connected to the
fuselage as they should be. Need I continue?

A series of events will surely happen AFTER any of those incidents,
none of which are either unlikely or unexpected, and by and large
would have no effect on the outcome.

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?

If you read the various documents on the web relating to issues of
in-flight use of PED's (personal electronic devices) it's clear that

1) The FAA and NTSB are either negligent or a bunch of cowards for not
forcing the AIRCRAFT MANUFACTURERS to determine the level of
susceptibility of their planes to PED's. Instead the issue is pawned
off to the aircraft operators when logically it should be the airplane
makers!

2) The use of cell phones (analog and perhaps more frequently GSM)
seems to have the most influence of any PED. The next most frequent
culprit seems to be laptop computers.

3) No incidence of communication failure or disruption seems to have
ever been documented by a passenger's FM radio receiver.

4) MANY MANY incidences of navigation equipment errors caused by
improper installation / connection of the equipment, or interference
caused by one of the plane's other systems where these were first
attributed to a PED.

5) Planes have to fly near high-power commercial radio and TV
transmission towers. They fly through the beams of powerful radar
signals. They get struck by lightning. There are those that say that
for a (commercial jet) to be certified there is no way that a
certified plane could be susceptible to the stray RF given off by
PED's (at least PED's that are non-intentional radiators).

6) The authorities would probably not admit it, but the ban or
restrictions on PED use in planes probably has more to do with
insurance/liability reasons, or passenger distraction reasons, than it
does for technical (interference) reasons.

PED's are here to stay. There will be more of them, and people will
use them wherever they are. It makes just as much sense to ban them
or perform half-ass on-board supervision on a plane for these devices
as it is to ban them from cars. PED's used cars cause injury and
death each year (due to driver in-attention). Instead of banning
radios, phones, and entertainment systems in cars, they instead come
from the factory with them installed! Where's your crusade against
that situation? Where are your dire warnings here?

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

Nothing caused by or brought on board by a passenger (short of
alcohol, a gun, a bomb, or otherwise a strong intent to do harm) will
or has ever caused anything bad to happen on a plane or to a plane.
No gun ever brought on board (and there have been MANY!) has ever
discharged. No can of hairspray has ever exploded in the cargo hold.

There is relatively little variety in the types, makes or models of
commercial airplanes flying today. There is a high degree of
uniformity in construction of these vehicles. There have been
millions of flights over the past, say 20 years. There have been many
hundred million passengers carried by these planes. There surely has
been ample opportunity for all sorts of PED's to be used on these
planes (surreptitiously or with consent). If any particular plane
model (or even specific plane) had a systemic or inherent
susceptibility to a PED, it would have been recognized by now.

Amen!
"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.

How about this: Nearly all aircraft accidents are caused by a single
failure in a single component or a single failure to do something.
Pitot tubes that are taped over. Fuel tanks that explode. Structural
failure that causes entire pieces of fuselage to peel off while in
flight. Fuel leaks that turn large jets into gliders. Cabin fires
caused by the overload of a single wire powering the entertainment
system. Air pressure equalization valves that bleed cabin air
rendering the occupants unconscious and results in a ghost plane
flying thousands of miles before crashing. Failure to de-ice.
Overloading resulting in stalling upon take-off. Failure to secure
cargo upon takeoff. Being struck in the fuel tank by a piece of
debris on the runway kicked up by the tires. An engine ingesting a
flock of birds. A shipment of improperly-disarmed oxygen generators
placed in the cargo hold. Lack of proper lubrication of tail
jack-screws. Tail fins that are not as strongly connected to the
fuselage as they should be. Need I continue?

A series of events will surely happen AFTER any of those incidents,
none of which are either unlikely or unexpected, and by and large
would have no effect on the outcome.

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?

If you read the various documents on the web relating to issues of
in-flight use of PED's (personal electronic devices) it's clear that

1) The FAA and NTSB are either negligent or a bunch of cowards for not
forcing the AIRCRAFT MANUFACTURERS to determine the level of
susceptibility of their planes to PED's. Instead the issue is pawned
off to the aircraft operators when logically it should be the airplane
makers!

2) The use of cell phones (analog and perhaps more frequently GSM)
seems to have the most influence of any PED. The next most frequent
culprit seems to be laptop computers.

3) No incidence of communication failure or disruption seems to have
ever been documented by a passenger's FM radio receiver.

4) MANY MANY incidences of navigation equipment errors caused by
improper installation / connection of the equipment, or interference
caused by one of the plane's other systems where these were first
attributed to a PED.

5) Planes have to fly near high-power commercial radio and TV
transmission towers. They fly through the beams of powerful radar
signals. They get struck by lightning. There are those that say that
for a (commercial jet) to be certified there is no way that a
certified plane could be susceptible to the stray RF given off by
PED's (at least PED's that are non-intentional radiators).

6) The authorities would probably not admit it, but the ban or
restrictions on PED use in planes probably has more to do with
insurance/liability reasons, or passenger distraction reasons, than it
does for technical (interference) reasons.

PED's are here to stay. There will be more of them, and people will
use them wherever they are. It makes just as much sense to ban them
or perform half-ass on-board supervision on a plane for these devices
as it is to ban them from cars. PED's used cars cause injury and
death each year (due to driver in-attention). Instead of banning
radios, phones, and entertainment systems in cars, they instead come
from the factory with them installed! Where's your crusade against
that situation? Where are your dire warnings here?

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

Nothing caused by or brought on board by a passenger (short of
alcohol, a gun, a bomb, or otherwise a strong intent to do harm) will
or has ever caused anything bad to happen on a plane or to a plane.
No gun ever brought on board (and there have been MANY!) has ever
discharged. No can of hairspray has ever exploded in the cargo hold.

There is relatively little variety in the types, makes or models of
commercial airplanes flying today. There is a high degree of
uniformity in construction of these vehicles. There have been
millions of flights over the past, say 20 years. There have been many
hundred million passengers carried by these planes. There surely has
been ample opportunity for all sorts of PED's to be used on these
planes (surreptitiously or with consent). If any particular plane
model (or even specific plane) had a systemic or inherent
susceptibility to a PED, it would have been recognized by now.

"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.

How about this: Nearly all aircraft accidents are caused by a single
failure in a single component or a single failure to do something.
Pitot tubes that are taped over. Fuel tanks that explode. Structural

What is a Pitot tube anyway? I have seen a switch for most aircraft
in Flight Simulator marked "Pitot Heat", what is that?

Pitot tube at URL;
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/pitot.html

Re Pitot Heat -- see URL:
http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/aero/PSSI.htm


Sez
The system shown employs a heated pitot tube to prevent ice formation, a
necessary feature for flight in instrument conditions.
--
ID with held to protect the innocent



What is a Pitot tube anyway? I have seen a switch for most aircraft
in Flight Simulator marked "Pitot Heat", what is that?

"Charles Newman" . on.sight
wrote in message ...
What is a Pitot tube anyway? I have seen a switch for most aircraft
in Flight Simulator marked "Pitot Heat", what is that?

A pitot tube is a tube which protrudes from the aircraft
body into the path of the air through which the aircraft is
flying. They are used for such things as determining airspeed
(which is the speed of the aircraft through the air, not over
the ground), and in some meteorological conditions are
prone to becoming clogged with ice. Hence, "pitot heat"
is just that - the switch in question controls a heater (most
often, electric) built into the pitot tube, which keeps in clear
of ice. Losing pitot pressure due to having the damn thing
plugged up is generally considered a Bad Thing, and
unfortunate events have been known to follow such an
occurence.

Bob M.

Lots of data, not much information. No cites given.

Angry crap.

Some Guy wrote:
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.

How about this: Nearly all aircraft accidents are caused by a single
failure in a single component or a single failure to do something.
Pitot tubes that are taped over. Fuel tanks that explode. Structural
failure that causes entire pieces of fuselage to peel off while in
flight. Fuel leaks that turn large jets into gliders. Cabin fires
caused by the overload of a single wire powering the entertainment
system. Air pressure equalization valves that bleed cabin air
rendering the occupants unconscious and results in a ghost plane
flying thousands of miles before crashing. Failure to de-ice.
Overloading resulting in stalling upon take-off. Failure to secure
cargo upon takeoff. Being struck in the fuel tank by a piece of
debris on the runway kicked up by the tires. An engine ingesting a
flock of birds. A shipment of improperly-disarmed oxygen generators
placed in the cargo hold. Lack of proper lubrication of tail
jack-screws. Tail fins that are not as strongly connected to the
fuselage as they should be. Need I continue?

A series of events will surely happen AFTER any of those incidents,
none of which are either unlikely or unexpected, and by and large
would have no effect on the outcome.

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?

If you read the various documents on the web relating to issues of
in-flight use of PED's (personal electronic devices) it's clear that

1) The FAA and NTSB are either negligent or a bunch of cowards for not
forcing the AIRCRAFT MANUFACTURERS to determine the level of
susceptibility of their planes to PED's. Instead the issue is pawned
off to the aircraft operators when logically it should be the airplane
makers!

2) The use of cell phones (analog and perhaps more frequently GSM)
seems to have the most influence of any PED. The next most frequent
culprit seems to be laptop computers.

3) No incidence of communication failure or disruption seems to have
ever been documented by a passenger's FM radio receiver.

4) MANY MANY incidences of navigation equipment errors caused by
improper installation / connection of the equipment, or interference
caused by one of the plane's other systems where these were first
attributed to a PED.

5) Planes have to fly near high-power commercial radio and TV
transmission towers. They fly through the beams of powerful radar
signals. They get struck by lightning. There are those that say that
for a (commercial jet) to be certified there is no way that a
certified plane could be susceptible to the stray RF given off by
PED's (at least PED's that are non-intentional radiators).

6) The authorities would probably not admit it, but the ban or
restrictions on PED use in planes probably has more to do with
insurance/liability reasons, or passenger distraction reasons, than it
does for technical (interference) reasons.

PED's are here to stay. There will be more of them, and people will
use them wherever they are. It makes just as much sense to ban them
or perform half-ass on-board supervision on a plane for these devices
as it is to ban them from cars. PED's used cars cause injury and
death each year (due to driver in-attention). Instead of banning
radios, phones, and entertainment systems in cars, they instead come
from the factory with them installed! Where's your crusade against
that situation? Where are your dire warnings here?


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


Nothing caused by or brought on board by a passenger (short of
alcohol, a gun, a bomb, or otherwise a strong intent to do harm) will
or has ever caused anything bad to happen on a plane or to a plane.
No gun ever brought on board (and there have been MANY!) has ever
discharged. No can of hairspray has ever exploded in the cargo hold.

There is relatively little variety in the types, makes or models of
commercial airplanes flying today. There is a high degree of
uniformity in construction of these vehicles. There have been
millions of flights over the past, say 20 years. There have been many
hundred million passengers carried by these planes. There surely has
been ample opportunity for all sorts of PED's to be used on these
planes (surreptitiously or with consent). If any particular plane
model (or even specific plane) had a systemic or inherent
susceptibility to a PED, it would have been recognized by now.

Dave, try these:

Boeing has investigated alleged interference from portable electronic
devices (PEDs) and concluded:

"As a result of these and other investigations, Boeing has not been able
to find a definite correlation between PEDs and the associated reported
airplane anomalies."

You can look this up at:

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aer..._textonly.html
Aero 10 - Interference from Electronic Devices

Here's another one:

http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publ...ticle/EMI.html
Electromagnetic interference with aircraft systems


Dave Bushong wrote:
Lots of data, not much information. No cites given.

Angry crap.

Some Guy wrote:

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.

How about this: Nearly all aircraft accidents are caused by a single
failure in a single component or a single failure to do something.
Pitot tubes that are taped over. Fuel tanks that explode. Structural
failure that causes entire pieces of fuselage to peel off while in
flight. Fuel leaks that turn large jets into gliders. Cabin fires
caused by the overload of a single wire powering the entertainment
system. Air pressure equalization valves that bleed cabin air
rendering the occupants unconscious and results in a ghost plane
flying thousands of miles before crashing. Failure to de-ice.
Overloading resulting in stalling upon take-off. Failure to secure
cargo upon takeoff. Being struck in the fuel tank by a piece of
debris on the runway kicked up by the tires. An engine ingesting a
flock of birds. A shipment of improperly-disarmed oxygen generators
placed in the cargo hold. Lack of proper lubrication of tail
jack-screws. Tail fins that are not as strongly connected to the
fuselage as they should be. Need I continue?

A series of events will surely happen AFTER any of those incidents,
none of which are either unlikely or unexpected, and by and large
would have no effect on the outcome.

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?

If you read the various documents on the web relating to issues of
in-flight use of PED's (personal electronic devices) it's clear that

1) The FAA and NTSB are either negligent or a bunch of cowards for not
forcing the AIRCRAFT MANUFACTURERS to determine the level of
susceptibility of their planes to PED's. Instead the issue is pawned
off to the aircraft operators when logically it should be the airplane
makers!

2) The use of cell phones (analog and perhaps more frequently GSM)
seems to have the most influence of any PED. The next most frequent
culprit seems to be laptop computers.

3) No incidence of communication failure or disruption seems to have
ever been documented by a passenger's FM radio receiver.

4) MANY MANY incidences of navigation equipment errors caused by
improper installation / connection of the equipment, or interference
caused by one of the plane's other systems where these were first
attributed to a PED.

5) Planes have to fly near high-power commercial radio and TV
transmission towers. They fly through the beams of powerful radar
signals. They get struck by lightning. There are those that say that
for a (commercial jet) to be certified there is no way that a
certified plane could be susceptible to the stray RF given off by
PED's (at least PED's that are non-intentional radiators).

6) The authorities would probably not admit it, but the ban or
restrictions on PED use in planes probably has more to do with
insurance/liability reasons, or passenger distraction reasons, than it
does for technical (interference) reasons.

PED's are here to stay. There will be more of them, and people will
use them wherever they are. It makes just as much sense to ban them
or perform half-ass on-board supervision on a plane for these devices
as it is to ban them from cars. PED's used cars cause injury and
death each year (due to driver in-attention). Instead of banning
radios, phones, and entertainment systems in cars, they instead come
from the factory with them installed! Where's your crusade against
that situation? Where are your dire warnings here?


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



Nothing caused by or brought on board by a passenger (short of
alcohol, a gun, a bomb, or otherwise a strong intent to do harm) will
or has ever caused anything bad to happen on a plane or to a plane. No
gun ever brought on board (and there have been MANY!) has ever
discharged. No can of hairspray has ever exploded in the cargo hold.

There is relatively little variety in the types, makes or models of
commercial airplanes flying today. There is a high degree of
uniformity in construction of these vehicles. There have been
millions of flights over the past, say 20 years. There have been many
hundred million passengers carried by these planes. There surely has
been ample opportunity for all sorts of PED's to be used on these
planes (surreptitiously or with consent). If any particular plane
model (or even specific plane) had a systemic or inherent
susceptibility to a PED, it would have been recognized by now.