Me wrote:
In article ,
Tim Jackson wrote:


What a load of total crap!

Aircraft avionics are, for obvious reasons, made to be very safe. This
includes a high degree of resistance to stray RF interference.

What a DOUBLE LOAD OF CRAP.

Hey dude, it isn't the adjacent channel interference that airlines are
concerened with here, it is the stuff being radiated ON FREQUENCY

Hehehe! Just testing, just testing. Glad you're wide awake.

You're absolutely correct that a scanner might, in some rare
circumstances, radiate a small amount of RF on the aircraft radio's
operating frequency possibly causing interference.

All of this is very much "might" and "could possibly" etc but,
obviously, no one wants to be on that particular plane if the problem is
likely to endanger anyone.

The reality, of course, is that 99,9% of all these bans on the use of
various bits of equipment is because they just MIGHT cause a problem,
and not at all because most most of them DO cause a problem. The truth
is that VERY few pieces of equipment ever cause any problem at all, the
airlines just can't afford to take chances though.

Many people are under the hugely mistaken impression that aircraft
avionics are highly sensitive and temperamental and that just about any
electronic gizmo will cause a plane to fall from the sky.

The truth is that most everyday equipment is FAR more likely to cause a
problem with the electronics in your car than with those in a plane,
it's just that the consequences are somewhat more dire.

Tim