Northwest Airlines

[tossedsalad]

tossedsalad,

 

What part of "off topic" was not clear to you?

Techie, techie, techie... I made the post before I read your post. ok?

 

Technically, aren't all these posts about off topic, off topic? Maybe it should be done by PM or email?

[+tabulator32]

Interesting.

 

Pda's 'broadcast' in four ways; IR, bluetooth, and cellular, and wifi. I can't imagine IR being an issue, and the other three are already verboten. The only real issue here is how many people actually disobey the airlines instructions. Certainly, if you and I were both on a flight with our pdas, we could communicate via bluetooth and the FA would never know. I don't think anyone in this thread is advocating willfully disobeying the instructions of the FA or airline, however.

Ohmygodletstrythisagain.

 

I agree they aren't a hazard to on board flight electronics, however, the reason the airlines have this rule is because THEY think they might be a potential hazard to onboard flight electronics.

 

Concerning whether they would ever know...they obviously told a few people to turn them off already.

 

And I wasn't accusing anyone of "advocating willfully disobeying the instructions of the FA(A) or airline".

 

Geez, I'll bet your fun at parties!

 

By the way, the radio room on the guided missile cruiser I was on picked up sailors using their PDA's and cell phones while we were approaching the harbor to pull into port. Anything that transmits can be "received".

[+sbell111]

I agree they aren't a hazard to on board flight electronics, however, the reason the airlines have this rule is because THEY think they might be a potential hazard to onboard flight electronics.

I don't know enough about the electronics to know for certain whether wifi or bluetooth could be a problem. If cellular could take down a jumbo, the WTC would still be standing.

Concerning whether they would ever know...they obviously told a few people to turn them off already.

The FA certainly wouldn't be able to tell what I was doing on my pda. Using a pda is allowed by all airlines, I believe.

And I wasn't accusing anyone of "advocating willfully disobeying the instructions of the FA(A) or airline".

No one ever said you were.

Geez, I'll bet your fun at parties!

Thanks.

By the way, the radio room on the guided missile cruiser I was on picked up sailors using their PDA's and cell phones while we were approaching the harbor to pull into port.  Anything that transmits can be "received".

I would think that this is the argument for banning the use of transmitting devices. The FA doesn't carry the equipment to detect these transmissions, however. Edited June 22, 2005 by sbell111

[Colonel Mustard]

It may have nothing to do with interference. It could be that they just don't want you to know how big the circles were that they flew you around in for an hour, while they waited for a turn in the pattern, before they plopped your butt back on the ground.

[+sbell111]

Good point. On a trip to LA a while back, we were stuck in the pattern three different times before they let us come in. It was kind of amusing, but I can see someone getting bendy over it.

[+sept1c_tank]

"Excuse me mam, could you kindly inform the pilot he's lost his bearings?"

Edited June 22, 2005 by sept1c_tank

[+Sonoran Privateers]

It can happen.  That's why they stick those little signs all over the place at the gas station.

 

Dunno about this. This was an episode of "Mythbusters" a few months ago, and they had to REALLY try hard to generate a spark that would ignite gas fumes. They weren't able to generate a spark with a cell phone, either. At one point, they interviewed a guy from whatever government agency mandates those signs at the gas pumps, and he basically said the whole thing was an urban myth.

 

Peace,

TeamRJJO

While I aggree that it's a myth, I would just like to add that: Failing to accomplish something does not negate the possibility of it happening.

 

The mere fact that these dudes could not replicate the event, an event said to be very unlikely, but possible, does not mean the event can't occur, under the right conditions. Consider ambient air temperature, humidity, power output of the cell phone, etc.

 

But, I still think it's a myth.

[+tabulator32]

By the way, the radio room on the guided missile cruiser I was on picked up sailors using their PDA's and cell phones while we were approaching the harbor to pull into port.  Anything that transmits can be "received".

I would think that this is the argument for banning the use of transmitting devices. The FA doesn't carry the equipment to detect these transmissions, however.

You're correct. They don't. I was just trying to make a point that the signal can be "picked up" and, in that respect, it can be "picked up" by equipment designed for such a task (such as on the cruiser) or by other electronic equipment quite unintentionally (as interference, much like the spurious emission of an old, untuned amateur radio set or an over-powered CB being picked up by a VHF channel).

 

People used to watch "Happy Days" and, all of a sudden, the Fonz would say "Breaker, Breaker!"

 

 

[+GibsonCRG]

While piloting private aircraft, I have used both built-in and handheld GPSr's (including two that have NOT been in any way recommended for aircraft use). Never once have I seen so much as a blip on any of the aircraft systems. So, really, I don't believe that a GPSr can affect an airliner's electronic systems.

 

That being said, all receivers do indeed transmit SOME energy outward. So, you do get into the realm of "is it POSSIBLE" for some interference to occur.

 

The FAA comes at this issue with an entirely different perspective. After all, center fuel tanks are NOT expected to explode in mid-air. But it has happened, and the results are disastrous. When the weather is down to minimums, any glitch at all in any system can lead to, well, to a disaster. There are many backups, but when you're close to the ground, even a small problem can be greatly amplified by a lack of time to deal with it.

 

In the end, the FAA makes the captain responsible for all aspects of the flight. They can even deviate from the regulations, legally, IF it is required for the safe continuation of the flight. Because of that, you get the captain's personal feelings overriding everything, including both the regulations and the airline's policies. And of course today, you are required by law to follow the instructions of any flight crew member, so you've got even more potential for personal bias to come into play.

 

Who knows - maybe for some captains, they never care about a GPSr. Or maybe one has heard anecdotal evidence (which is indeed floating around out there, I've seen and heard it) that GPSr's can cause problems. Or, maybe if a captain knows he's going to be making a tough approach through weather, he's going to say "no GPSr operation on this flight 'today.'"

 

I guess the point of this rambling is that, when you are attempting to estimate the risk of something, you generally do this equation in your head:

 

PROBABLE COST = RISK OF EVENT x COST IF EVENT HAPPENS

 

Even if the risk of something happening is very very small, the cost of an airliner crashing, in human and economic terms, is enormous. The risk needs to approach zero before people are willing to incur the cost. For some people/airlines/flight crew, that risk today is still non-zero. And the fact that the policies are applied inconsistently is going to be due to differing conditions and people's differing perceptions, which is just the price of doing business in this unfair, human-occupied world of ours.

 

Gosh, I am on a soapbox now, aren't I? Probably comes from being in the left seat of a plane few times - the responsibility is enormous, so I have a lot of sympathy for the guys and girls who do that for a living.

 

I will now climb back off the soapbox, and go back to my normal mode of just using my electronics (when above 10,000 feet) unless requested by a crew member to do otherwise.

 

..Chris..

[+sbell111]

You're correct. They don't. I was just trying to make a point that the signal can be "picked up" and, in that respect, it can be "picked up" by equipment designed for such a task (such as on the cruiser) or by other electronic equipment quite unintentionally (as interference, much like the spurious emission of an old, untuned amateur radio set or an over-powered CB being picked up by a VHF channel).

So basically, you agree with me when I agreed with you way up there.

Edited June 23, 2005 by sbell111

[+tabulator32]

So basically, you agree with me when I agreed with you way up there.

Jun 21 2005, 12:55 AM

"Considering the unlikelihood of the any interference from phones, ..."

 

Jun 21 2005, 04:44 PM

"Incidentally, if I was emphasizing the fact that it is an EXTREMELY rare occurence (which it is)..."

 

Jun 21 2005, 05:22 PM

(tttedzeins)

I personally believe that the reason they tell you to turn off your cell phone is that the emitted frequencies might mess with the measuring mechanisms...

 

(tabulator32)

"I think that is about as unlikely as starting a fuel fire with your cell phone...(BUT NOT IMPOSSIBLE)"

 

Jun 21 2005, 05:38 PM

" Oh, hey! I AGREE with you.

I don't think it warrants banning cell phones at the fuel pumps, either!"

 

Jun 22 2005, 10:24 AM

"I agree they aren't a hazard to on board flight electronics, however, the reason the airlines have this rule is because THEY think they might be a potential hazard to onboard flight electronics."

 

Jun 22 2005, 12:28 PM

(sbell111)

"I would think that this is the argument for banning the use of transmitting devices. The FA doesn't carry the equipment to detect these transmissions..."

 

(tabulator32)

"You're correct. They don't. I was just trying to make a point that the signal can be "picked up" and, in that respect..."

 

Several Times

 

[+sbell111]

That sure is alot of writin'. I have no idea what your point is, but you have a bunch of stuff there.

[+tabulator32]

That being said, all receivers do indeed transmit SOME energy outward. So, you do get into the realm of "is it POSSIBLE" for some interference to occur.

And that's all I was trying to say. I agree with you.

 

Its not an epidemic. Its not going to cause riots in airlines or picketers outside terminals.

 

It was just a little conversation.

 

I also agree wholeheartedly with everything else Gibson says in his post.

 

(I hope that doesn't cause any consternation amongst cachers!)

 

 

[+RoyalRed]

Interesting thread...I just don't like paying $400 to get a seat next to the bathroom!

[+treasure_hunter]

The last time I flew on American Airlines, they had a rule book on the flight and the attendant brought it to our seat and showed us where it said that we could use the GPSr in flight!

[+GibsonCRG]

I also agree wholeheartedly with everything else Gibson says in his post.... (I hope that doesn't cause any consternation amongst cachers!)

So, I guess in the end, we agree to...agree!

[+dkwolf]

I do admit, it would be interesting to see the LARGE circles you start doing prior to landing as they try to shoehorn you into the pattern somewhere, and watch them tighten as you get closer to the ground---especially some of those last-minute, final approach, lay-the-plane-on-it's-side turns that let you examine the planes shadow in intricate detail on the ground below you...

 

Wish I had had the GPS fired up for the first flight of the trip last week...one of the shorter ones in commercial aviation--less than 2 min after takeoff, we had levelled off and were returning to the airport-no waiting in line that time, we got us the express lane to the ground, complete with emergency vehicles rolling out the red carpet for us and all. (in case yer wondering, the plane didn't crash, but I think everyone that truly knew what was going on expected it to--they didn't tell us passengers anything. Cartwheeling down the runway would have made an interesting track log, though....) In retrospect, I'll take the big circles...

[+tabulator32]

I don't know why I'm just now thinking of this but it seems pretty cool that a GPSr works as well as it does inside an airplane. I would think the metal skin of the plane would cause reception issues.

 

Thoughts and comments?

[+sept1c_tank]

On airplanes, I always sit by a window (and hold the GPSr next to it); I've found that signals can be acquired in some of the most unlikely places, like in a room with only one small window.