"Steve Giovanis" wrote in message
...
Why is it against the rules to operate a scanner radio on commercial
airliners? It's not a transmitter. It can't do harm to the aircraft in
any mannner. So what's the big deal? Steve

While it is not a transmitter by design it still transmitts weak signals.
There are various oscillators in the scanners that can act as very low power
transmitters without antennas. The range may be only 100 yards but that
can be enough to cause problems with the radios and other electronic gear in
the plane. Just imagine the scanner outputs a stray signal on the
navagation receiver or it blocks a transmissoin from the tower at a critical
point. Not likely that it can hapen but they want to cover all the bases.

In article .net,
Ralph Mowery wrote:

"Steve Giovanis" wrote in message
...
Why is it against the rules to operate a scanner radio on commercial
airliners? It's not a transmitter. It can't do harm to the aircraft in
any mannner. So what's the big deal? Steve

While it is not a transmitter by design it still transmitts weak signals.
There are various oscillators in the scanners that can act as very low power
transmitters without antennas. The range may be only 100 yards but that
can be enough to cause problems with the radios and other electronic gear in
the plane. Just imagine the scanner outputs a stray signal on the
navagation receiver or it blocks a transmissoin from the tower at a critical
point. Not likely that it can hapen but they want to cover all the bases.


Yet they will allow you to use a Laptop, portable DVD, Gameboy,
electric shaver, etc. All of these will put out as much if not more RF
interference than a scanner. If the airplane's navigation system is so
suceptible to RF interference, what's stopping terrorists from taking
advantage of this by using a scanner secretly, say in their pocket with
an earpiece? Or, does the scanner have to be seen by the flight crew
for it to have any ill effects?

Yet they will allow you to use a Laptop, portable DVD, Gameboy,
electric shaver, etc. All of these will put out as much if not more RF
interference than a scanner. If the airplane's navigation system is so
suceptible to RF interference, what's stopping terrorists from taking
advantage of this by using a scanner secretly, say in their pocket with
an earpiece? Or, does the scanner have to be seen by the flight crew
for it to have any ill effects?

I don't hear computers, DVDs, Gameboys, and shavers over a block and
a half away in my car on VHF and UHF, but I can show you areas where
I CAN hear the LO of a scanner 'sweeping by' when I drive through
at that distance.

It's not ALL scanners. Some are worse than others.

Heck, I've gotten permission to use my 2M ht in flight, as long as I
promised
not to transmit, and advise the captain when I turned it on AND when I
turned it off. (I assume he was actually going to look at things to see if
he
could detect any issues.)

Stop whining, keep the scanner shut off when you fly, unless you are in a
private place and the pilot in command says it's ok.

Just imagine the scanner outputs a stray signal on the
navagation receiver or it blocks a transmissoin from the tower at a critical
point.

I know some people who live right near airports. (almost right next to the
airports).

could them listening to scanners in their own homes interfere with the
airports' and airplanes' navigation sysyems and cause the planes to crash?

I hope not, but it sounds to me like they can from the information given in
this newsgroup.

My understanding from an aviation standpoint is that there really is no
problems with using these devices on or near aircraft. The problem lies in
that some devices MAY cause interference MAYBE. It is easier to paint
everything with the same brush and just say no than it is to say what is
allowed or not. Then you get into fighting with every clown that wants to
bring their device just because "someone else was doing it so why cant I"

As for living next to the airport and using a scanner....scanners don't
cause airplanes to crash....pilots cause airplanes to crash. Think about
it. Airports use some heavy duty transmitters...RADAR, and VHF/ UHF and
aircraft transmit all sorts of signals. Why hasn't one pilot on one
airplane or an ATC transmission caused another aircraft to get lost/act
funny/fall out of the sky?

We are merely being protected from the few that would try to use this
equipment with malicious intent.

S


"Mediaguy500" wrote in message
...
Just imagine the scanner outputs a stray signal on the
navagation receiver or it blocks a transmissoin from the tower at a
critical
point.

I know some people who live right near airports. (almost right next to the
airports).

could them listening to scanners in their own homes interfere with the
airports' and airplanes' navigation sysyems and cause the planes to
crash?

I hope not, but it sounds to me like they can from the information given
in
this newsgroup.

"Mediaguy500" wrote in message
...
I know some people who live right near airports. (almost right next to the
airports).

could them listening to scanners in their own homes interfere with the
airports' and airplanes' navigation sysyems and cause the planes to
crash?

I hope not, but it sounds to me like they can from the information given
in
this newsgroup.


Uh, think about that for a moment. A scanner can cause interference for a
few hundred feet. How far is that plane? It's the planes receiver that's
at
issue for interference, not the ground.

It's like the idiots on Long Island that protested the first Concord flights
because they were aftraid of the supersonic airliner when it landed. The
press seemed to be sympathetic to the cause, but the night before the
pilots were featured at a press conference and were asked about that.
I think it was the co-pilot that pointed out that if the Concord was
supersonic during landing, they had a lot of other issues that were probably
more of a problem.