"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 14:11:44 -0800, "Ed Price"
wrote:

You
are asking him to allow a potentially dangerous device to be operated
just
for your convenience and entertainment. Switch roles for just a
minute.

Hi Ed,

This would make sense (to switch roles) if the administration hadn't
trumped that call. Reports recently indicate that the FAA may soon
allow anyone, anytime, to make cell phone calls while in flight.

Anything goes for a price. The FDA has proven that it is no longer
the watchdog of medicine, and the FCC is the gateway for spectrum
bargains and marketplace sweeps.

With these acronyms, one may well wonder what the "F" stands for.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

If you make your own TRF receiver, with no LO, it won't interfere with
anything. In fact, you can then put an AM detector in it, and also
listen to the aircraft chatter.

Another way is to listen to stations at or below 97.3 MHz, which would
keep the LO at 108 MHz or below.

"Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark Remover"" wrote
in message ...

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 14:11:44 -0800, "Ed Price"
wrote:

You
are asking him to allow a potentially dangerous device to be operated
just
for your convenience and entertainment. Switch roles for just a
minute.

Hi Ed,

This would make sense (to switch roles) if the administration hadn't
trumped that call. Reports recently indicate that the FAA may soon
allow anyone, anytime, to make cell phone calls while in flight.

Anything goes for a price. The FDA has proven that it is no longer
the watchdog of medicine, and the FCC is the gateway for spectrum
bargains and marketplace sweeps.

With these acronyms, one may well wonder what the "F" stands for.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

If you make your own TRF receiver, with no LO, it won't interfere with
anything. In fact, you can then put an AM detector in it, and also
listen to the aircraft chatter.

Another way is to listen to stations at or below 97.3 MHz, which would
keep the LO at 108 MHz or below.




Like maybe putting the LO at about 80 MHz, so that the 3rd harmonic of the
LO drops into the UHF navcom band?

Ed
wb6wsn

Ed Price wrote:

"Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, the Dark Remover"" wrote
in message ...

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 14:11:44 -0800, "Ed Price"
wrote:

You
are asking him to allow a potentially dangerous device to be operated
just
for your convenience and entertainment. Switch roles for just a
minute.

Hi Ed,

This would make sense (to switch roles) if the administration hadn't
trumped that call. Reports recently indicate that the FAA may soon
allow anyone, anytime, to make cell phone calls while in flight.

Anything goes for a price. The FDA has proven that it is no longer
the watchdog of medicine, and the FCC is the gateway for spectrum
bargains and marketplace sweeps.

With these acronyms, one may well wonder what the "F" stands for.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

If you make your own TRF receiver, with no LO, it won't interfere with
anything. In fact, you can then put an AM detector in it, and also
listen to the aircraft chatter.

Another way is to listen to stations at or below 97.3 MHz, which would
keep the LO at 108 MHz or below.




Like maybe putting the LO at about 80 MHz, so that the 3rd harmonic of the
LO drops into the UHF navcom band?

Ed
wb6wsn

It is official; i just read in one of my electronigs mags i get that
the FAA indeed has ruled that airlines can allow use of computers over
the net when flying.
But it is up to each given airline to modify their own giudelines (as
they see fit).

"Richard Clark" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 14:11:44 -0800, "Ed Price"
wrote:

You
are asking him to allow a potentially dangerous device to be operated
just
for your convenience and entertainment. Switch roles for just a
minute.

Why is an AM/FM radio receiver potentially more dangerous than laptop PCs,
gameboys, DVD players, and other electronic devices that are used quite
routinely on airplanes?

Why is an AM/FM radio receiver potentially more dangerous than laptop PCs,
gameboys, DVD players, and other electronic devices that are used quite
routinely on airplanes?

The other devices may have circuits that incidentally radiate a little noise
in the aircraft VHF band.
A broadcast FM receiver almost certainly has an oscillator running by
design, in the band.
Where it lands in the aircraft band, is determined by where it's tuned to.

"Dave VanHorn" wrote in message
...
The other devices may have circuits that incidentally radiate a little
noise in the aircraft VHF band.
A broadcast FM receiver almost certainly has an oscillator running by
design, in the band.
Where it lands in the aircraft band, is determined by where it's tuned to.

Ah... you're thinking... FM broadcast range is 88-108MHz... with a 10.7MHz
IF... a high side LO is at ~98-118MHz, easily landing within the aircraft
band (which is... 108-??? MHz, right?).

"Joel Kolstad" wrote in message
...
"Dave VanHorn" wrote in message
...
The other devices may have circuits that incidentally radiate a little
noise in the aircraft VHF band.
A broadcast FM receiver almost certainly has an oscillator running by
design, in the band.
Where it lands in the aircraft band, is determined by where it's tuned
to.

Ah... you're thinking... FM broadcast range is 88-108MHz... with a 10.7MHz
IF... a high side LO is at ~98-118MHz, easily landing within the aircraft
band (which is... 108-??? MHz, right?).



The original poster is long gone -- refused any info and advice we gave him
including a list of airlines that prohibit AM/FM radios and other devices
And the FAA stance on the matter
Must have been 50+ responses
So I guess we can put this to bed



--
Caveat Lector