Cellphone use

Kev writes:

There was one particular report that stuck in my mind. It was a
flight trying to use the autoland feature in almost zero visibility
conditions. They reported that each time they got close to the ground
the autopilot would go wacky and try to drop them in. They aborted
landing twice and finally the copilot went back to the first-class
section (I think 747 upper deck) and noticed that a lady was trying to
call her friends each time to say they were landing! He made her turn
the phone off and they landed okay on the third try.

I would be wary of using anything that is designed to transmit radio
waves near avionics unless it were certified for such use, so cellular
telephones do make me uneasy.

The irrational prohibitions are those against devices that are not
transmitters, such as laptops, GPS receivers, and the like. But most
air crews haven't a clue in this domain so they ride on superstition;
some airlines do the same.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:

The irrational prohibitions are those against devices that are not
transmitters, such as laptops, GPS receivers, and the like. But most
air crews haven't a clue in this domain so they ride on superstition;
some airlines do the same.


You would think that the digital cell phones would be low power
enough, yet my GSM cell phones have always annoyed the hell out
of come low level audio (portable MP3 player docks and the like).
The sound is pretty distinctive. It's even gotten into my airplane
audio. It's a reminder for me to shut off my phone.

Ron Natalie writes:

You would think that the digital cell phones would be low power
enough, yet my GSM cell phones have always annoyed the hell out
of come low level audio (portable MP3 player docks and the like).
The sound is pretty distinctive. It's even gotten into my airplane
audio. It's a reminder for me to shut off my phone.

I think that interference comes from chip-modulation RFI in the phone.
I note that it's extremely sensitive to distance, which implies that
it has nothing to do with the actual transmitted energy. Laptops and
other types of computers also generate this kind of audio-frequency
interference. I don't think it bothers most avionics, but I'm not
sure (which means that I'd avoid it).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:
The irrational prohibitions are those against devices that are not
transmitters, such as laptops, GPS receivers, and the like. But most
air crews haven't a clue in this domain so they ride on superstition;
some airlines do the same.

Not irrational at all. Just because something isn't called a
transmitter, doesn't mean it isn't one. Laptops, GPS receivers, many
radios, are all inadvertent transmitters. Laptops because of their
onboard computer clocks at maniacal rates. Many types of tuners also
produce interference frequencies.

One of the most popular projects in 60s electronics magazines was for
non-transmitting (passive tuning) airline receivers you could use on a
plane.

Kev

Kev wrote:
Not irrational at all. Just because something isn't called a
transmitter, doesn't mean it isn't one. Laptops, GPS receivers, many
radios, are all inadvertent transmitters. Laptops because of their
onboard computer clocks at maniacal rates. Many types of tuners also
produce interference frequencies.

Not to mention - how many people turn off their laptop's Bluetooth or
Wi-Fi when they're on an airplane?

.... Alan

--
Alan Gerber
PP-ASEL
gerber AT panix DOT com

In article , lid
says...



Not to mention - how many people turn off their laptop's Bluetooth or
Wi-Fi when they're on an airplane?



http://home.zcu.cz/~honik/fun/images..._in_airbus.jpg

Greg Farris wrote:
In article , lid
says...

Not to mention - how many people turn off their laptop's Bluetooth or
Wi-Fi when they're on an airplane?

http://home.zcu.cz/~honik/fun/images..._in_airbus.jpg

Ooooooo. That's funny !!

Kev