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.

"chuck" wrote in message
nk.net...
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


Not to cast aspersions on Boeing research, as they are quite reputable, but
if they had found correlatable evidence of PED's interfering with avionics,
who gets sued? The passenger, a Hong Kong radio manufacturer, or the
aircraft builder?

In any case, the reports of interference keep coming in, despite the
difficulty of replicating the problem. Obviously, the problem is rare and
elusive, but, as in most Electromagnetic Compatibility issues, the easiest,
surest, and cheapest cure is to control the source of the problem.

Just turn off ALL passenger electronics for the duration of the flight. Read
a book for 2 hours, and let your kid kick the seat in front of him.

Ed
wb6wsn


Ed
wb6wsn

"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