I think allowing the use of electronics in aircraft is a mistake.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news...ectid=10536660

I have been using my laptop on hundreds of flights and have seen hundreds of other passengers do it as well. I have also seen hundreds of passengers use their iPODs and other PEDs. I'm talking about 747s, 767s, 757s, 737s, RJs, ATRs, A340s, A330s, A320s, A300s, and some models I can't remember. Never experienced any incidents, so perhaps QF is looking at the wrong direction? or trying to sideline the real blame? whatever it may be.

So because you've never seen a problem, one can't exist? That's the most ridiculous statement I've ever heard. Besides, I had no idea you were an RF engineer.

On just about EVERY flight over an hour long there are dozens of passengers using PEDs. That amounts to <u>hundreds of thousands flights a day</u>.

How many reports do you see that the plane lost altitude due to some electronic malfunction because of a PED was used on board?

Not many if any, until this one.

To me that's pretty good evidence that PEDs are not interfering with the planes electronics.

You can believe what you want.

<i>How many reports do you see that the plane lost altitude due to some electronic malfunction because of a PED was used on board?

Not many if any, until this one.</i>

Let's see - should I take your word for it, or the IEEE's? Here's a report from that organization: http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/mar06/3069

&quot;...the data support a conclusion that <b>continued use of portable RF-emitting devices such as cellphones will, in all likelihood, someday cause an accident</b> by interfering with critical cockpit instruments such as GPS receivers. This much is certain: there exists a greater potential for problems than was previously believed.&quot;

PEDs = Personal electronic devices. In my book and as far as this discussion was concerned I thought we were talking about laptops, iPODs and similar devices. I never mentioned cellphones.

In fact the article you posted a link to never mentions cellphones.

Make up your mind as to what you want to object to?

In fact, I'm all against allowing cellphone use during a flight, not because I buy into the theory that they are dangerous electronically, but because they will be dangerous in terms of passengers having a rage over the one or two obnoxious passengers telling the whole world that they are at 33,000ft above sea level and isn't it cool they can talk to their friends/family.....

<i>In fact the article you posted a link to never mentions cellphones.</i>

You're either on crack or you didn't read the IEEE article. Both cell phones and other electronic devices are discussed exhaustively. I object to the cavalier use of <u>all</u> of them.

It's obvious you don't care to learn anything about this issue; you're only interested in being right.

First, 95% of all PEDs (or whatever you wish to call them) do emit small amounts of RF radiation. Yes, even some radio receivers. Fortunately, modern technology allows them to be well shielded to keep the measurable emissions at an extremely low and generally acceptable level outside the device.

Nonetheless, no matter how much we try to shield (and no matter how good the aircraft's defensive measures are) it is still possible that stray radiation can get through, be amplified by unrelated &quot;stuff&quot; around (yes, possible), and find its way into critical navigation equipment. To induce a glitch into the aircraft's systems during critical phases of flight is potentially dangerous.

That one's experience shows millions of instances of noneventful usage goes to compliment the designers on their attention to reduction of the emissions. But the threat has not yet been 100% eliminated.

We go through excruciating levels of security so that one person's shoes don't blow up an aircraft; I see a similar a risk with RF interference. And if it can be prevented by simple measures such as turning the equipment off during critical phases of flight, so be it.

Credentials: BSEE, former professional RF Engineer, former member IEEE.

I know that before they made the decision to ban electronics during takeoff and landing, but allow them during cruising, they did studies and concluded there were no risks (actually, I think they also concluded there were no risks during takeoff and landing, also, but banned them then out of an excess of caution, I think based on their feeling that there was time to react to an event during cruising, but not during takeoff and landing).

However, those studies were done some years ago, and the IT industry is subject to frequent changes. I'm not sure, thus, that things like wireless connectivity were evaluated during the initial studies, as they may not have existed then.

It would be comforting to know that the studies are ongoing and cover the latest technology. but it is certainly possible that the FAA, which seems to be constantly underfunded, would not have a program of continuous testing.

<i>...they did studies and concluded there were no risks...</i>

What?!?!

<b>&quot;Our research has indicated that PED interference occurs at an appreciable rate and that some of these events create hazardous situations. The rapid growth of wireless and other devices emitting RF radiation poses increasing risks for airlines.&quot;</b>

(Thank you, NFZ. Finally, someone on the same page with me. I don't have an EE, but I've been a ham since 1956, so I can follow a discussion with an experienced eye.)

<i>You're either on crack or you didn't read the IEEE article.</i>,

chill out Robes, I meant the OP link, not the follow up post.

Again. make up your mind what you want to debate about, is it PEDs or cellphones?

because the QF article pointed a finger at somebodies laptop or iPOD, not a cellphone.

What specific findings and/or recommendations of the IEEE do you want to take issue with?

Whatever Robes....

It's kind of strange that laptops, iPODs and such have been flying with us for years and AFAIK, there was not one crash attributed to the devices.

And wasn't it our own FAA that about a year ago started to have hearings about cellphone use during flights? They came to the conclusion that the use could be controlled as far as the electronics go, but they wanted the input from the traveling public to see if they wanted to hear others chatter about nothing for hours when the seat mate really has no choice but to sit there and listen to it. .

As I stated in my earlier post, I'm against it, but not because I buy into the interference BS.

On that note I will leave this room.

Believe what you want.

btw, AA, VirginAmerica are in a test mode to offer high speed internet during their domestic flights using land based cellular type towers. That has been approved by the FAA, it's just a matter of working out some of the kinks with the system. Some major international airlines did offer Boeing Connexion internet couple of years ago which was satelite based, but Boeing closed the shop on that because the economics were just not there. It was a very expensive system and it was brought on line during airlines difficult times so not many airlines as Boeing hoped signed up to it thus making it too expensive for the few that did. Not one of those planes crashed.
Amazing, isn't?

Here it is:

<i>American Airlines' plans to offer in-flight broadband access across certain transcontinental flights took a major step forward yesterday. Aircell, the airline's in-flight Internet access provider, has received two important approvals from the FAA, and is now cleared to begin rolling out its service.

The new permits cover device manufacturing and functionality, so Aircell is now cleared to both produce and deploy its technology on any aircraft that's cleared to use it. Currently, Aircell is focusing on AA's Boeing 767-200 transcontinental fleet, and has additional plans to work with Virgin America. Aircell has stressed, however, that its technology is not airline-specific, and can theoretically be deployed by any US airline.

We've previously reported on Aircell's plans to offer its service via a series of 92 cellular towers scattered across the 48 states. Access points will be spaced evenly throughout the aircraft, and will communicate using the 3GHz spectrum. A set of three antennas (one on top of the aircraft and two on the bottom) will keep the plane communicating with terra firma. </i>

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...-airlines.html


I guess you better start writing your congressperson to stop this insanity.....

It's one thing when the WiFi system is a) engineered to avionics specifications, b) installed by professionals who know infinitely more about the subject than the typical consumer ever will, and c) periodically tested rigrously for spurious and stray RF emissions.

It's quite another when J. Random Passenger brings some Chinese-made Wal-Mart crap on board and fires it up during a CAT III landing.

Get the distinction, Marconi?

oh I do, but I not so sure about you...genius!

Tell me, how will it be different if I bring a high end laptop to do my internet work during a flight, and my seatmate brings some cheap end version of his to do his?

Just because the the Aircell Co. tests everything as far as the connection is concerned, they will NOT test the laptops that the passengers will be using.

Get IT NOW!

or are you that dense?

The crew has control of the network's power, so that's covered.

Since laptops aren't the kind of thing that can be surreptitiously operated during critical flight phases or when the Captain has prohibited their use, I don't see much danger there. They power down (at least to Standby) when the lid is closed at the request of the FAs.

But some clown watching his porn on an MP4 player that misbehaves could bring down an airplane. Don't tell me if you think IEEE is wrong - I don't care.

My reading of the linked article is that it wasn't the laptop per se that was thought to be the problem -- it was the wireless mouse.