Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 65

Thread: New FAA Ruling ?

  1. #51
    Mayhemxpc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Manassas, Virginia
    Posts
    800
    It seems to me that there are two issues here. Maybe more, but two general categories. The first is engineering. Can such electronics interfere with the navigation or communications systems in an airplane (not just 787's but any aircraft operating under Part 135 or 121)? If so, then what kinds of electronics? Can they be categorized (e.g., things that transmit -- to include devices which poll or search for outside links)? Can the list be further refined and defined so that a list of potentially harmful devices is possible? Before I go on to the second category, a little anecdote. Like many government employees, I have to carry around a blackberry. Newer, but not the most current version. At night, I used to have it plugged into the charger on my sink. No more. When it RECEIVES a message (not sending a message) it turns on my electric razor! (Yes, I know that the way it is designed, it automotically sends out a transmit signal when receiving a message.) Move it a few feet away and the effect disappears (radiation dissipating by the square of the distance.) Still, it is enough that I make absolutely sure that the device is turned off in a plane, whether mine or commercial. Just an anecdote which may not be repeatable on Mythbusters.

    The second is a human factors issue. If you found that some devices did cause interference and not others, or that undamaged devices were fine but devices with cracked cases or what not could cause interference, how realistic is it to believe that the passengers are willing or even able to discriminate in their use of such devices (or even flight attendants to keep up on the list.) There is also a safety issue. Someone plugged into a game or music or whatever is not listening to the safety instructions and may be completely unaware that there may be anything wrong with the airplane...say, requiring an emergency evacuation. You could say that it would just be Darwin in action, but in a crowded airplane, that can affect the lives of others, too. (Just look at people WALKING on the street, totally oblivious to everything around them...including red lights, cars, and other people.) Overall, it may be best just to restrict everyone from using such devices in critical stages of flight. What you do on your own airplane under your responsibility as PIC is up to you.

    Remember, we are dealing with the same people who pressured the TSA into reinstating the restriction on pocket knives of any size (requiring me to return to using my teeth to open the hermetically sealed plastic eating utensils.)

  2. #52
    Jim Hann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ballwin, Missouri, United States
    Posts
    425
    Quote Originally Posted by Greg Bockelman View Post
    Seems you are on a vendetta, Bill.

    Having said that, I am sort of playing Devil's Advocate here.

    But, I do think that there are enough unknowns that the risks can't just be ignored.
    I agree on all accounts.
    Jim Hann
    EAA 276294 Lifetime
    Vintage 722607
    1957 Piper PA-22/20 "Super Pacer"
    Chapter 32 member www.eaa32.org
    www.mykitlog.com/LinerDrivr
    Fly Baby/Hevle Classic Tandem


  3. #53
    rwanttaja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    2,951
    Considering this discussion, I found this discussion on HomebuiltAirplanes.com interesting:

    http://www.homebuiltairplanes.com/fo...eld-radio.html

    "It seems that plugging in my iPhone to charge it while in flight causes some radio interference. It basically causes the channel to open on the receive side and I just get flooded with static. I can still hear people come on the channel and I can still transmit just fine but other than that the static gets very distracting."

    Now, this isn't an airliner...may even be a homebuilt... but it's obvious that some combinations of common consumer electronics can cause interference in the aircraft band.

    Ron Wanttaja

  4. #54

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    2,575
    Gegg, well, how does your idea that I "am on a vendetta" hold up to facts since I don't own a cell phone, nor an Ipad, nor a laptop computer, nor any sort of game playing or music playing device that is mobile and that could be used on a plane. If I listen to anything when I go on a plane it would be the conversation between pilots and controllers.
    I do own stock in Southwest, that is up 82% since I bought it, and I have owned stock in other airlines before.
    I travel often on airlines, mostly United and Southwest. I do get tired of hearing the same old nonsense over the P a, like the other night on a 25 minute flight Denver to Aspen the F A got a kick out of repeating the same banal announcement 3 times and we hadn't even taken off yet.
    Probably a third of my friends who are pilots are/were flying for an airline.
    And the same story is in the USA Today on Fri. Oct. 4. Maybe they have a vendetta also.

    Well, your idea fits the facts about as well as the claims made over the years.

    Maybe I am really Alec Baldwin writing under an alias and have my vendetta against airlines.

    And speaking of unlikely, if possible, there is a story on the news today that a new scientific ? research group says Bigfoot is real and they not only have a video of him in the woods in Tenn. , but some DNA tests on hair that shows he is a humanoid that split off from our race 13,000 years ago.
    I can't vouch for the truth of this story, but I didn't make it up, it is actually on the news. And it is possible, isn't it?
    Last edited by Bill Greenwood; 10-04-2013 at 02:22 PM.

  5. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Greenwood View Post
    Gegg, well, how does your idea that I "am on a vendetta" hold up to facts since I don't own a cell phone, nor an Ipad, nor a laptop computer, nor any sort of game playing or music playing device that is mobile and that could be used on a plane.
    Well you are the one that started the thread with the premise that there is no interference from consumer electronics. If you truly don't use any of that stuff, why do you care?

    Probably a third of my friends who are pilots are/were flying for an airline.
    You need better quality friends. Seriously, I am also one of those that fly for an airline. As I said in my previous post, I am sort of playing Devil's Advocate. But there is enough weird stuff out there that it DOES warrant caution. Are we SO addicted to our electronics that we can't do without them for 15 minutes prior to takeoff and maybe 30 prior to landing?

    And the same story is in the USA Today on Fri. Oct. 4. Maybe they have a vendetta also.
    Really? All they care about is selling papers. And a lot of times, they don't even care if what they report is accurate.

    Well, your idea fits the facts about as well as the claims made over the years.
    What IS my idea? That MAYBE some electronics may cause a problem? Guilty as charged. Do I have any proof? Not really, but there isn't much proof that they DON'T either.

    Maybe I am really Alec Baldwin writing under an alias and have my vendetta against airlines.
    The only reason I said you appear to have a vendetta is because you seem to be so adamant about it.

    And speaking of unlikely, if possible, there is a story on the news today that a new scientific ? research group says Bigfoot is real and they not only have a video of him in the woods in Tenn. , but some DNA tests on hair that shows he is a humanoid that split off from our race 13,000 years ago.
    Talk about a non sequitur.

    Bill, for someone who admittedly doesn't have a horse in the race, you sure are pursuing it hard.

  6. #56
    rwanttaja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    2,951
    Quote Originally Posted by Greg Bockelman View Post
    Bill, for someone who admittedly doesn't have a horse in the race, you sure are pursuing it hard.
    Indeed. This is the fourth time Bill has started a thread on this topic, all with different "Subject" identifiers but all resulting in Bill giving other folks the same grief when they respond.

    http://eaaforums.org/showthread.php?4353-New-FAA-Ruling

    http://eaaforums.org/showthread.php?...-Bogeyman-Gone

    http://eaaforums.org/showthread.php?...enger-question

    http://eaaforums.org/showthread.php?...phone-nonsense

    And now he tells us he doesn't even *own* one of the devices?

    "You no play-a the game, you no make-a the rules...."

    Ron Wanttaja

  7. #57

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    290
    Quote Originally Posted by rwanttaja View Post
    Indeed. This is the fourth time Bill has started a thread on this topic, all with different "Subject" identifiers but all resulting in Bill giving other folks the same grief when they respond.

    http://eaaforums.org/showthread.php?4353-New-FAA-Ruling

    http://eaaforums.org/showthread.php?...-Bogeyman-Gone

    http://eaaforums.org/showthread.php?...enger-question

    http://eaaforums.org/showthread.php?...phone-nonsense

    And now he tells us he doesn't even *own* one of the devices?

    "You no play-a the game, you no make-a the rules...."

    Ron Wanttaja
    It is probabaly about as many times he has come up with.

    " Where does the Gathering of Eagles money go.? "
    " Why do they send me so many renewal notices. "
    " America's failure in the Vietnam War "
    " Salute to Enemy Combatants "
    Last edited by RV8505; 10-05-2013 at 09:16 AM.

  8. #58

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    NW FL
    Posts
    405
    It seems that there is a strong case being built against using PEDs & cellphones on most aircraft. The personal experiences detailed on this forum and that pesky ASRS report that Ryan provided make a devastating case against their use. Sure, new aircraft are shielded against interference. But so many legacy aircraft remain in service.

    If PEDs will be permitted, a few common sense precautions must be put in place. At least on air carriers. First, a pair of oven mitts or welders gloves must be available to handle the smoking, exploding, burning or fuming PEDs that may be encountered.

    Second, a means to contain or jettison the offending items would be desirable. An in flight openable window is out of the question. However the USAF "hurricane hunter" C-130s use a kind of air lock installation to deploy drop sondes while still maintaining cabin pressure. It is no more than a capped tube rising out of the cabin floor with a remotely controlled opening on the belly. A proposed installation should be sized to accept a large laptop. This could also be used under controlled conditions to jettison other offensive material. Soiled diapers (infant or adult) for instance.

    There are few problems using this installation on oceanic routes. Use over highly populated areas is problematic. But then, so is blue ice. Also forested areas experiencing drought may be exposed to risk. It may be required to post a notice for certain flights that say: USE OF PEDs ON THIS FLIGHT IS PROHIBITED DUE TO HIGH FOREST FIRE DANGER!

    Bob

  9. #59
    Jim Hann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ballwin, Missouri, United States
    Posts
    425
    Quote Originally Posted by rwanttaja View Post
    And now he tells us he doesn't even *own* one of the devices?

    "You no play-a the game, you no make-a the rules...."

    Ron Wanttaja

    Quote Originally Posted by RV8505 View Post
    It is probabaly about as many times he has come up with.

    " Where does the Gathering of Eagles money go.? "
    " Why do they send me so many renewal notices. "
    " America's failure in the Vietnam War "
    " Salute to Enemy Combatants "
    Jim Hann
    EAA 276294 Lifetime
    Vintage 722607
    1957 Piper PA-22/20 "Super Pacer"
    Chapter 32 member www.eaa32.org
    www.mykitlog.com/LinerDrivr
    Fly Baby/Hevle Classic Tandem


  10. #60
    rwanttaja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    2,951
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Dingley View Post
    Second, a means to contain or jettison the offending items would be desirable. An in flight openable window is out of the question. However the USAF "hurricane hunter" C-130s use a kind of air lock installation to deploy drop sondes while still maintaining cabin pressure. It is no more than a capped tube rising out of the cabin floor with a remotely controlled opening on the belly. A proposed installation should be sized to accept a large laptop. This could also be used under controlled conditions to jettison other offensive material. Soiled diapers (infant or adult) for instance.
    Boeing is building the P-8 sub-hunter aircraft, using 737 airframes, and they include a cabin-loaded magazine-fed sonobuoy dispenser. So you've already got a piece of hardware compatible with a large percentage of the commercial aircraft out there.


    Ron Wanttaja

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •