scanner use on airliners
 

What about Air Canada,in Canada between Alberta and British Columbia?

roadwarrior wrote in article
01c4a1d7$84c8a8c0$c698ba89@dnyeaqvf...
What about Air Canada,in Canada between Alberta and British Columbia?

They won't even let you have the batteries connected. You must also remember
that scanners are so poorly put together that they can really screw up the
electronics in the aircraft just by turning it on. Don't take it in your
carry on unless you want to be detained and treated like a terrorist.


"roadwarrior" wrote in message
news:01c4a1d7$84c8a8c0$c698ba89@dnyeaqvf...
What about Air Canada,in Canada between Alberta and British Columbia?

WG wrote:
... scanners are so poorly put together that they can really screw up the
electronics in the aircraft just by turning it on.

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.

There are COUNTLESS devices on the ground that radiate FAR more RF
interference into the sky than a handheld scanner would and yet we do
not see planes falling out of the sky every time they get near a
built-up area.

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, by
poorly designed electronics. You can't filter ON FREQUENCY signals, or
you raise the sensitivity threshold of the receiver. The only way to
deal with ON FREQUENCY signals is to TURN THEM OFF.


Me who used to be a Federal Regulator, and deal with this stuff

Tim Jackson wrote:

WG wrote:
... scanners are so poorly put together that they can really screw up the
electronics in the aircraft just by turning it on.

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.

There are COUNTLESS devices on the ground that radiate FAR more RF
interference into the sky than a handheld scanner would and yet we do
not see planes falling out of the sky every time they get near a
built-up area.


Funny, I have several scanners and all of them radiate interference on
aviation frequencies, depending on what frequency they are tuned to. I
also have 5 VHF/UHF ham transceivers with wide band receive coverage and
all of them also radiate interference on aviation frequencies - any
receiver (with a few expensive exceptions) with an IF (a superhet)
generates signals strong enough to be picked up by another sensitive
receiver close by.

Also, every FM broadcast receiver from a walkman to an expensive stereo
also radiates on the civil aviation band. Try tuning a scanner to any
frequency in the VHF aviation navigation band 108-118MHz, if you are
near an airport you should be able to find a navigation signal. Then
place an FM broadcast receiver nearby and slowly tune down from the top
of the band - you should soon find a spot where you can interfere with
and probably totally obliterate the navigation signal.

Dave

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 16:21:11 GMT, Me wrote:


Me who used to be a Federal Regulator, and deal with this stuff

Regulator of ...?

In article ,
wrote:

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 16:21:11 GMT, Me wrote:


Me who used to be a Federal Regulator, and deal with this stuff

Regulator of ...?


FCC Field Agent


Me

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

roadwarrior wrote:

What about Air Canada,in Canada between Alberta and British Columbia?


There are some rather large lumps of rock in that area.

I don't think I would want to take even a very slim chance of even
slightly affecting the navigation systems.

Dave