GPS Usage on Passenger Airplane

[+Team Cotati]

The tin can of the aircraft really toyed with the signal. The Lowrance doesn't have very good reception anways.

 

The pilot gave the Ok for me to turn on the unit. He said it wouldn't cause any troubles.

 

My gizmo works just fine without pilot assistance.

[luckykoi]

Alaska airlines told me not to use it on the way down to LA.. On the way back I kept it hidden and got a real nice track log.. It was really fun to be able to see what cities we were flying over at night.

 

We were going 180 MPH when we landed.

 

Some GPS such and the Rhino do transmit so maybe that is the reason for the GPS ban on some flights.

[+Team Cotati]

Alaska airlines told me not to use it on the way down to LA.. On the way back I kept it hidden and got a real nice track log.. It was really fun to be able to see what cities we were flying over at night.

 

We were going 180 MPH when we landed.

 

Some GPS such and the Rhino do transmit so maybe that is the reason for the GPS ban on some flights.

 

Yeah that, and the fact that some people can't seem to follow the rules like everybody else. Never have understood that.

 

How fast were you going when you lifted off?

Edited August 16, 2007 by Team Cotati

[+treasure_hunter]

Alaska airlines told me not to use it on the way down to LA.. On the way back I kept it hidden and got a real nice track log..

 

Shame, shame, they would freak if they knew you did that.

 

At least I had permission to use mine.

[+FireRef]

Some people realize that some rules, regardless of who makes them, aren't always anything more than rules made because someone wanted to make a rule - not for safety, not for security, not for any good reason.

 

In PA, it's illegal to drive down the highway and drop anything along the highway. Unless you drop feathers - then it's completely legal. A law which makes sense, for safety reasons, with an exception which doesn't make sense, because a lawmaker had a friend who delivered chickens or turkeys and when they got a fine, didn't like it.

 

A wise man once said something that a person who has the highest respect for the law but disagrees with it should choose to break it and be willing to accept the consequences of that choice. I don't know the exact quote, or who said it (been looking for years without success), but I strongly agree with it. I don't feel rules were meant to be broken - but they definitely were meant to be questioned if they don't make sense or have no logical reason for existing.

[+Team Cotati]

Some people realize that some rules, regardless of who makes them, aren't always anything more than rules made because someone wanted to make a rule - not for safety, not for security, not for any good reason.

 

In PA, it's illegal to drive down the highway and drop anything along the highway. Unless you drop feathers - then it's completely legal. A law which makes sense, for safety reasons, with an exception which doesn't make sense, because a lawmaker had a friend who delivered chickens or turkeys and when they got a fine, didn't like it.

 

A wise man once said something that a person who has the highest respect for the law but disagrees with it should choose to break it and be willing to accept the consequences of that choice. I don't know the exact quote, or who said it (bee to pron looking for years without success), but I strongly agree with it. I don't feel rules were meant to be broken - but they definitely were meant to be questioned if they don't make sense or have no logical reason for existing.

 

"but they definitely were meant to be questioned if they don't make sense or have no logical reason for existing."

 

In the context of that pronouncement, what observable actions are you contemplating to proactively 'question' passenger airline rules, regulations and laws?

[+Caching Scout]

To me it doesn't matter if I allowed to use my GPS onflight, i really doubt that the flight attendants would allow me to jump out of the airplane to get a cache, so why is there any other point

[+FireRef]

Some people realize that some rules, regardless of who makes them, aren't always anything more than rules made because someone wanted to make a rule - not for safety, not for security, not for any good reason.

 

In PA, it's illegal to drive down the highway and drop anything along the highway. Unless you drop feathers - then it's completely legal. A law which makes sense, for safety reasons, with an exception which doesn't make sense, because a lawmaker had a friend who delivered chickens or turkeys and when they got a fine, didn't like it.

 

A wise man once said something that a person who has the highest respect for the law but disagrees with it should choose to break it and be willing to accept the consequences of that choice. I don't know the exact quote, or who said it (bee to pron looking for years without success), but I strongly agree with it. I don't feel rules were meant to be broken - but they definitely were meant to be questioned if they don't make sense or have no logical reason for existing.

 

"but they definitely were meant to be questioned if they don't make sense or have no logical reason for existing."

 

In the context of that pronouncement, what observable actions are you contemplating to proactively 'question' passenger airline rules, regulations and laws?

 

As stated in an earlier reply, the fact that electronic instruments which transmit (as well as some that do not) have been tested in the vicinity of active flight instruments, without any deleterious effects of any kind. The rule is to prohibit things which "may" cause interference. If they do not have an effect, there should be no rule - simple.

[+treasure_hunter]

Stupid or not, I do respect their interest in keeping the instruments working properly, and I will obey the rules.

 

Lord knows doing something you shouldn't on an airplane now days could mean big problems for you once you land.

Edited August 17, 2007 by treasure_hunter

[+FireRef]

Stupid or not, I do respect their interest in keeping the instruments working properly, and I will obey the rules.

 

Lord knows doing something you shouldn't on an airplane now days could mean big problems for you once you land.

 

Doing anything anywhere you "shouldn't" should get you in trouble. However, it shouldn't get you in any more trouble for doing it up there than down here.

 

Safety is the most important thing. Doing things which make the plane unsafe should not be allowed to occur, and people who do those things should get in trouble. Arbitrarily deciding things are unsafe, when they are not, is a waste of time and energy to make and enforce rules which have no basis in fact to exist. I'm all for safe plane rides. Someone brings a knife or explosive on a plane, or stars fighting on a plane, deal with them... someone uses an electronic instrument which is not unsafe nor dangerous, let them be.

 

If things which transmit OR receive signals are banned, no one with a reasonably recent pacemaker can fly - they communicate transdermally to reprogram, download information, etc. Hearing aids both receive and retransmit signals - sound waves. No one can fly with these, right? I talked about watches before. PSP's transmit and receive just like laptops, and so do some other game systems. Better make the kid with the doll that talks leave that at home too. Do you see my point? Arbitrarily picking things, because someone is afraid they "might" do something, is a slippery slope.

 

We need to be careful which rights we decide to give up and under which circumstances. This country is a lot less free since 9/11. Is it really that much safer, or do we just think it is because everyone makes new rules to prohibit things which "scare" us. I really don't think so - just a lot less free.

[+flask]

once a long time ago at a party someone wishing to make a point about air safety asked the general crowd: "really, who here ever knew anyone killed in a car wreck?" a few hands went up. "a plane wreck?" eery hand in the room shot up.

 

my count of people i knew who have been killed in plane wrecks is currently six.

 

i do not fly. ever.

 

i am not afraid of crashes or terrorists. i am afraid that someone near me will become airsick.

 

and these days, i am not afraid of fascist flight and security personnel, but i have a bad rotator cuff and i know that i would not enjoy the handcuffs that they put on me as they drag me away screaming about civil liberties.

 

here's my rule: if i have to go through a metal detector to get there, i don't want to go.

 

this very simply precludes the question of the GPS.

[+deafnut]

Doing anything anywhere you "shouldn't" should get you in trouble. However, it shouldn't get you in any more trouble for doing it up there than down here.

 

Safety is the most important thing. Doing things which make the plane unsafe should not be allowed to occur, and people who do those things should get in trouble. Arbitrarily deciding things are unsafe, when they are not, is a waste of time and energy to make and enforce rules which have no basis in fact to exist. I'm all for safe plane rides. Someone brings a knife or explosive on a plane, or stars fighting on a plane, deal with them... someone uses an electronic instrument which is not unsafe nor dangerous, let them be.

 

If things which transmit OR receive signals are banned, no one with a reasonably recent pacemaker can fly - they communicate transdermally to reprogram, download information, etc. Hearing aids both receive and retransmit signals - sound waves. No one can fly with these, right? I talked about watches before. PSP's transmit and receive just like laptops, and so do some other game systems. Better make the kid with the doll that talks leave that at home too. Do you see my point? Arbitrarily picking things, because someone is afraid they "might" do something, is a slippery slope.

 

We need to be careful which rights we decide to give up and under which circumstances. This country is a lot less free since 9/11. Is it really that much safer, or do we just think it is because everyone makes new rules to prohibit things which "scare" us. I really don't think so - just a lot less free.

 

 

you might need to double check !!!!!! I hate have my hear aid in plane why ... It make wried noise in my freak ear so i took off ... most time hearing aid just target on noise not signal .....

[tttedzeins]

What is really cool is that ALL airlines let you keep your pacemaker on during take-off and landing...

[+sbell111]

... The final line still does not address the point - are they permitted to supersede airline regulations (allowing the use of the GPS) by prohibiting its use?

In a previous thread on this subject a reg was dredged up (I might have done the dredging, I don't remember) that spoke directly to who gets to decide whether use of elctronic devices is acceptable. As I recall, the language was something like 'the aircraft operator' decides what usage is acceptable. Obviously, without having a legal definition of 'operator' it could be argued that this is either the company that gets to decide or the pilot in command. I suspect that if a passenger were to try to ignore the directions of the crew and it were to go to court, that the passenger would lose pretty much every time.

 

ETA: This isn't the thread that I was thinking of, but Neo Geo did post the reg that I was trying to describe.

Edited August 17, 2007 by sbell111

[+JeremyR]

Pondering...

 

I wonder if the ban that some airlines have on GPSr's extends to the one they have in the cockpit

[+Team GeoBlast]

Pondering...

 

I wonder if the ban that some airlines have on GPSr's extends to the one they have in the cockpit

 

I know a pilot for United that is not afraid to turn his handheld on in the cockpit. That's about all the proof I needed that it's harmless.

[rwolf]

I knew a pilot that used his cell phone in the cockpit. He was asking me if it really interferred.... that was funny then. of course this was years ago.

And yes phones will work up there

[+Team Cotati]

Pondering...

 

I wonder if the ban that some airlines have on GPSr's extends to the one they have in the cockpit

 

I know a pilot for United that is not afraid to turn his handheld on in the cockpit. That's about all the proof I needed that it's harmless.

 

Talk is cheap.

[+CaptRussell]

First of all: keep in mind that no matter how carefully those onboard-electronics policies are researched, considered and written by the airlines; and no matter how much sense they make the way they’re worded in those official airline publications; it is the front line employee(s) who will be interpreting them and making the ultimate decisions.

 

There is quite a bit of turnover these days among the ranks of flight attendants (Trust me, they don't like being called "stewardess"), none of whom will ever get rich from what they’re paid – especially with all the cost-cutting that has happened during recent industry turmoil. (They say the airlines are the only companies in the whole economy that pass their cost increases onto their employees instead of their customers.) Turnover is heavy, and your low-paid flight attendant has a LOT of responsibilities, and a LOT to keep up with. Their primary responsibility is to your safety, and they are frequently and commonly excused for erring on the side of caution in cases where they must make a quick decision during a busy day. (A bumper sticker I once saw on a flight attendant’s car: "I’m here to SAVE you’re a**, not KISS it.")

 

If your flight attendant wrongly tells you to turn off your GPS due to her own lack of experience or familiarity with the details of the rules, it’s probably best to just smile and comply. Is that good service for the paying customer? Maybe not, but people don’t generally buy airline tickets based on service ratings. The vast majority of airline passengers buy their tickets based solely on price, and only later wonder why things are run so cheaply no-frills.

 

And yes, once the aircraft is in motion the Captain has the ultimate authority as to the safe operation of that aircraft – but he is ultimately responsible as well. If you feel you have been wronged by any flight or cabin crew member during a flight, you can and should contact the airline about it later – but it’s probably best not to push things too much at the time. If you butt heads with a flight attendant over the use of your GPS you may well be in the right, but do you really want to have to explain that to the local police at whatever Podunk airport your flight diverts to after you’ve made the flight crew a bit too nervous?

 

It ain’t ideal, but that’s reality. Fortunately, most flight attendants know the rules and don't mind, or even care, what you do with your GPS.

 

Second: Just because a gadget is called a "receiver" doesn’t mean that it does not produce any radio emissions of its own. Maybe your specific Garmin doesn’t fall into that category, but the airlines must balance that reality with simplicity: It is much simpler to make a short list of blanket rules, a list that is easy to understand and enforce, than to make each crewmember carry around a fifty-pound, constantly-updated reference binder of model numbers and acceptability ratings for each and every piece of electronics in existence.

 

And lastly: If you ever find yourself on a regional-sized jet that looks like the one in my avatar, ask your flight attendant if that’s CaptRussell (aka KBI) up there in the pilot seat! Not only will I give you permission to use your GPS on my airplane – I’ll pass along the coords of our destination airport so you can follow along ... and tell me when if I get lost!

[chuckr30]

Studies have shown that GPS units do not interfere with ANY airline instruments during takeoff/landing mode or at crusing altitude. However you still have to do what they say, even if the rule is not based on fact, because they still have the right to take the unit away or kick you off the plane.

 

Sorry, I do not have the link to the study at this time.

[+Team Cotati]

Studies have shown that GPS units do not interfere with ANY airline instruments during takeoff/landing mode or at crusing altitude. However you still have to do what they say, even if the rule is not based on fact, because they still have the right to take the unit away or kick you off the plane.

 

Sorry, I do not have the link to the study at this time.

 

Does this really matter?

[+seaquest]

A lot of it comes from th level of understanding on the part of the cabin crew. They are instructed, if you are not sure then decline the request. Better to be safe. I am a pilot myself and if anyone wants to use a GPS on board my aircraft I have no problem with that ... with one exception. Some GPS units are combined with an FRS two way radio which definately is not permissable. Because of this I will always ask to see the unit before I grant approval.

 

BTW I use a Lowrance Airmap 600c for personal flying as well as Geocaching and I love it. The reception is excellent.

 

Jim

 

The tin can of the aircraft really toyed with the signal. The Lowrance doesn't have very good reception anways.

 

The pilot gave the Ok for me to turn on the unit. He said it wouldn't cause any troubles.

[+EraSeek]

First of all: keep in mind that no matter how carefully those onboard-electronics policies are researched, considered and written by the airlines; and no matter how much sense they make the way they’re worded in those official airline publications; it is the front line employee(s) who will be interpreting them and making the ultimate decisions.

 

There is quite a bit of turnover these days among the ranks of flight attendants (Trust me, they don't like being called "stewardess"), none of whom will ever get rich from what they’re paid – especially with all the cost-cutting that has happened during recent industry turmoil. (They say the airlines are the only companies in the whole economy that pass their cost increases onto their employees instead of their customers.) Turnover is heavy, and your low-paid flight attendant has a LOT of responsibilities, and a LOT to keep up with. Their primary responsibility is to your safety, and they are frequently and commonly excused for erring on the side of caution in cases where they must make a quick decision during a busy day. (A bumper sticker I once saw on a flight attendant’s car: "I’m here to SAVE you’re a**, not KISS it.")

 

If your flight attendant wrongly tells you to turn off your GPS due to her own lack of experience or familiarity with the details of the rules, it’s probably best to just smile and comply. Is that good service for the paying customer? Maybe not, but people don’t generally buy airline tickets based on service ratings. The vast majority of airline passengers buy their tickets based solely on price, and only later wonder why things are run so cheaply no-frills.

 

And yes, once the aircraft is in motion the Captain has the ultimate authority as to the safe operation of that aircraft – but he is ultimately responsible as well. If you feel you have been wronged by any flight or cabin crew member during a flight, you can and should contact the airline about it later – but it’s probably best not to push things too much at the time. If you butt heads with a flight attendant over the use of your GPS you may well be in the right, but do you really want to have to explain that to the local police at whatever Podunk airport your flight diverts to after you’ve made the flight crew a bit too nervous?

 

It ain’t ideal, but that’s reality. Fortunately, most flight attendants know the rules and don't mind, or even care, what you do with your GPS.

 

Second: Just because a gadget is called a "receiver" doesn’t mean that it does not produce any radio emissions of its own. Maybe your specific Garmin doesn’t fall into that category, but the airlines must balance that reality with simplicity: It is much simpler to make a short list of blanket rules, a list that is easy to understand and enforce, than to make each crewmember carry around a fifty-pound, constantly-updated reference binder of model numbers and acceptability ratings for each and every piece of electronics in existence.

 

And lastly: If you ever find yourself on a regional-sized jet that looks like the one in my avatar, ask your flight attendant if that’s CaptRussell (aka KBI) up there in the pilot seat! Not only will I give you permission to use your GPS on my airplane – I’ll pass along the coords of our destination airport so you can follow along ... and tell me when if I get lost!

 

Always love to hear from the professionals! Great input. BTW I have a doughboy TB also

[neoduder]

Another thing to keep in mind is that all recievers are also transmitters to a lesser degree by nature of how they work. How do you think TV detector vans work?

[+Team Cotati]

Another thing to keep in mind is that all recievers are also transmitters to a lesser degree by nature of how they work. How do you think TV detector vans work?

 

Funny that you would mention that. Back in the "old" days of mainframe computing, we had a programmer with what you might refer to as 'having too much time on his hands". A pioneeringy propeller head no doubt. Well anyway this dude wrote a program that would "play" music via the static RF emissions from the core memory stack in the CPU.

 

What we'd do is hold a portable transistor radio near the core stack and start his program....it actually worked, forgot the music piece, possibly 'Surfing USA' or some such. Cheap thrills no doubt.

 

To the best of our knowledge, this CPU had neither a transmitter/reveiverr nor an antenna design component.

 

Lordy how I long fer the 'good ole days' sometimes. Beautiful.

Edited August 19, 2007 by Team Cotati

[+152Driver]

As stated in an earlier reply, the fact that electronic instruments which transmit (as well as some that do not) have been tested in the vicinity of active flight instruments, without any deleterious effects of any kind. The rule is to prohibit things which "may" cause interference. If they do not have an effect, there should be no rule - simple.

 

If by "been tested" you mean Mythbusters then you need to watch that episode again. They clearly state that they were not able to recreate/simulate flight conditions while static on the ground so it was impossible to actually test if there was interference. You are making wild assumptions about what should be permitted on the airplanes based on your own feelings. Studies have been performed using Aviation Certified GPS units which are built to standards not imposed on general consumer units. Anything intended to be installed within an aircraft must be tested that it doesn't interfere with other systems. R&D costs for these types of units is one reason why they cost an arm and a leg.

 

As CaptRussell stated, the Captain is the final authority on the aircraft. You may have purchased seat 10F but if for safety reasons he wants you to move, you move. On the flip side the Captain can also grant passengers the ability to use electronic devices and cell phones whenever he deems it to not be a safety concern (ie sitting on the ramp for a long period of time).

 

Thousands upon thousands of new electronic devices are created each year, very few of which are actually created to insure no interference with any/all aircraft systems. Even the newest aircraft have electronic systems developed 10+ years ago, well before the current overload of handheld devices we have today. Given the possible consequences I personally don't see why anyone would complain about having to do without a particular device for a flight, especially since laptops and movie/music players are still allowed.

 

I've experienced interference from Nokia phones when someone in the flight deck forgets to turn it off while other phones don't seem to do anything. Rather than figure out which of the 10,000+ phone models would work airlines just ban them all. No big loss as they don't work above 6-7,000' above the ground anyway.

 

I find it funny that FireRef doesn't fly because he doesn't like the rules imposed. You probably subject yourself to just as many rules (albeit of a different nature) everytime you get behind the wheel vs. when you strap into an airplane seat. Make sure you drive the speed limit, use your turn signal, stay in the proper lane, wear your seatbelt, etc.

[+Team Cotati]

As stated in an earlier reply, the fact that electronic instruments which transmit (as well as some that do not) have been tested in the vicinity of active flight instruments, without any deleterious effects of any kind. The rule is to prohibit things which "may" cause interference. If they do not have an effect, there should be no rule - simple.

 

If by "been tested" you mean Mythbusters then you need to watch that episode again. They clearly state that they were not able to recreate/simulate flight conditions while static on the ground so it was impossible to actually test if there was interference. You are making wild assumptions about what should be permitted on the airplanes based on your own feelings. Studies have been performed using Aviation Certified GPS units which are built to standards not imposed on general consumer units. Anything intended to be installed within an aircraft must be tested that it doesn't interfere with other systems. R&D costs for these types of units is one reason why they cost an arm and a leg.

 

As CaptRussell stated, the Captain is the final authority on the aircraft. You may have purchased seat 10F but if for safety reasons he wants you to move, you move. On the flip side the Captain can also grant passengers the ability to use electronic devices and cell phones whenever he deems it to not be a safety concern (ie sitting on the ramp for a long period of time).

 

Thousands upon thousands of new electronic devices are created each year, very few of which are actually created to insure no interference with any/all aircraft systems. Even the newest aircraft have electronic systems developed 10+ years ago, well before the current overload of handheld devices we have today. Given the possible consequences I personally don't see why anyone would complain about having to do without a particular device for a flight, especially since laptops and movie/music players are still allowed.

 

I've experienced interference from Nokia phones when someone in the flight deck forgets to turn it off while other phones don't seem to do anything. Rather than figure out which of the 10,000+ phone models would work airlines just ban them all. No big loss as they don't work above 6-7,000' above the ground anyway.

 

I find it funny that FireRef doesn't fly because he doesn't like the rules imposed. You probably subject yourself to just as many rules (albeit of a different nature) everytime you get behind the wheel vs. when you strap into an airplane seat. Make sure you drive the speed limit, use your turn signal, stay in the proper lane, wear your seatbelt, etc.

 

The reason that he doesn't fly is more likely to be because of the fear of flight.

[+wimseyguy]

maybe he had a bad experience after reading the book?

[steve638]

Irony on the airlines. Being in the military I thought some of you like this is anecdote. My troop of 135 soldiers and some extra were getting ready to board a flight from Germany to Kwait. We have all our equipment with us and it's only military personal on a civilian flight, this was back in Feb 2004. They provided a list of items we could not take on the plane. I couldn't help but list some that have always stuck out in my mind.

 

I could not bring a lighter or matches! But I could carry my 240B Machine Gun and M-4 Carbine.

 

I could not bring my small scissors! But I could wear a Helmet and Body Armor.

 

I could not my bring my Gerber Multi Tool! But could carry my Gas mask and assorted sensitive items from our arms room.

 

Yes, I had to take each of those items and then some and stuff them in my already over packed dufflebag.

Back to topic, I always tell people "Do what you can afford!" If you want to argue with them and can afford the court cost please email me and let me what the outcome was, because I can't!

[+FireRef]

Now that I can actually reply again, since I was silenced for three days for what I consider to be no violation of the rules whatsoever in another thread, and am still waiting for a reply to my challenge of this from GS's main office 4 days later...

 

I am, in no way, afraid to fly. I have flown a number of times in the past. I have a problem with turning over control of my life to someone who decides not to fly because of a little rain, and affects my ability to attend once-in-a-lifetime or extremely important events, as I stated in an earlier post.

 

As for interference - Mythbusters aside, should we assume every device generates interference, when none have been proven to? They were unable to replicate "in-flight" conditions, but the devices generated no interference in their tests. If the statement is that you are unable to test every piece of electronics, but you will randomly allow some and not allow others, then we better stop allowing any laptops in flight or any other electronics. It makes no sense to say "these are untested but we'll allow them, those are untested but I don't like them, so you can't use them".

 

I don't see how these captains can just randomly decide, based on their personal feelings of what works in what way, what they will allow and what not, even if it is contrary to company policy, FCC rules and regulations, and common sense. Police can't just make up laws and rules as they go - they are required to follow the laws as written. If they choose to enforce a non-existant law (for example, ticket you for having a radar detector in a state which permits them), you can take it to court and it will get thrown out. The way people on this post, including apparently a couple of airline pilots, are talking, these captains are given carte blanche authority to make and enforce, under federal law, whatever rules they want to make while in the sky.

 

As stated in another post, if a passenger purchased seat 10F, and the pilot chooses to move them for "safety reasons", I'd love to see this one explained in court. I can almost guarantee there would be no "safety reasons" which would prohibit a passenger from sitting in that seat - it is more likely some form of discrimination, or simply the pilot over-exercising the apparently excessive authority which they seem to be given over the passengers in their aircraft. The way some of you are talking, they could say "Your shirt is too bright a color - it might interfere with someone finding their way out in an emergency, because it might blind them, and therefore, I want you to change your clothes.", and would be well within their rights to do so - to any normal person, this should sound completely silly.

 

One of the pilots on here readily admitted that many of the flight attendants are underpaid, and are supposed to be more concerned with your safety than your comfort. If they are misinterpreting policies, this should be dealt with, not simply excused on the premise of "they're doing it for your safety". In another example, Rodney King was supposedly beaten as bad as he was because the officers were in fear for their safety - in that case, at least they had to answer for their bad decision. How many flight attendants lose their jobs for making a decision which compromises personal rights on a flight in supposed support of non-existant safety issues?

[+One of the Texas Vikings]

This kind of thing is one reason I very rarely will fly, unless absolutely necessary. Consideirng that air traffic is safer than driving, some of the idiotic rules that these airlines, the FAA, and the TSA have come up with make traveling by air similar to living in a fascist state. I have never agreed with absolute authority under any circumstances, and even more certainly not under circumstances where the person in authority clearly doesn't know what they are talking about. I would rather drive a lot longer trip to have control over what I bring and how I get there, rather than getting there quickly, but being subject to the crap that travelers have to put up with in a free country.

 

The FAA has indicated that there is no problem with using them - how an airline can tell you what you can and cannot do, when it will have no bearing on the flight, is beyond me. No weapons -makes sense. Nothing that could mess with the plane's electronics -makes sense. However, show there is any effect from a receiver receiving and decoding radio signals which are penetrating the plane 100% of the time, and I will have no problem with this.

 

Even with the occasional plane hijacking before 9/11, it was STILL safer to travel by plane. I'm not saying we should support hijackers. I am only saying we need to do a little more common sense in our rules. Prohibiting water bottles? Prohibiting TINY shampoo bottles? Some of these things are just completely idiotic. Prohibiting weapons? This makes sense...

 

I'll stick to my car where I can do reasonably what I want.

 

Power Corrupts

Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely.

 

(step off soapbox)

 

Maybe because it is their plane, ya' think ?

I agree, sometimes, it doesn't make sense, but, again, it's their plane....

When you are driving, would you let me smoke in your car ? Your car, your rules. Their plane, their rules.

Don't like their rules, then drive ! or fly someone else's airplane.

[+steve p]

Another thing to keep in mind is that all recievers are also transmitters to a lesser degree by nature of how they work. How do you think TV detector vans work?

What is a "TV detector van"?

[+Team Cotati]

Another thing to keep in mind is that all recievers are also transmitters to a lesser degree by nature of how they work. How do you think TV detector vans work?

What is a "TV detector van"?

 

It is a vehicle that at one time, not sure if they still use them, that would drive thru communities and supposedly could determine what TV channels were being watched by the households. I am not for certain sure that this was not an urban legend. But the poster's point is still the same. Lots of electronic devices emit radio frequency signals that can be detected...."everybody's gone surfin, surfin USA!!!"

Edited August 21, 2007 by Team Cotati

[+-CacheMonkey-]

I flew from Baltimore to Salt Lake to Seattle on Delta in May and didn't have a problem. I asked the flight attendant before powering up. She said no at first with what sounds like the standard send/receive signal excuse. I explained that it didn't send signals, only received them. After that, she said "go ahead." Pretty cool to see us trucking along at 500+mph at 15k feet. I turned on the track log and watched our path as we flew.

[+Renegade Knight]

...In the context of that pronouncement, what observable actions are you contemplating to proactively 'question' passenger airline rules, regulations and laws?

 

In this case the FAA allows the use in general. The Airlines decide to be more restrictive or not.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Lots of electronic devices emit radio frequency signals that can be detected...."everybody's gone surfin, surfin USA!!!"

 

All electronics do unless they are sheilded to prevent EMF leakage. The FCC regulates this leakage and classifes it. That's about all I know about that.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Maybe because it is their plane, ya' think ?

I agree, sometimes, it doesn't make sense, but, again, it's their plane....

When you are driving, would you let me smoke in your car ? Your car, your rules. Their plane, their rules.

Don't like their rules, then drive ! or fly someone else's airplane.

 

That's exactly what it comes down too.

[+ecolon]

Just last weekend, I flew Continental (Continental Express actually, which is operated by ExpressJet airlines), and I left my GPS in my luggage because I read on the internet somewhere that Continental does not allow the use of GPS on the airlines. However, in the in-flight magazine, they have a page in the back that details the kinds of equipment allowed and not allowed on the flight. It specifically says that GPS units are allowed once the plane reaches 10,000 feet, along with iPods and other approved electronic devices.

 

I fly Continental a lot and have always been able to use my GPS and you are correct, it states that it is a permitted device in the Continental onboard magazine. I was looking for the online version but that type of info is omitted.

 

You are correct. I am a pilot for one of the mentioned airlines. The in-flight magazine is your best reference. Each airline sets it's own policy on GPSs. And, from experience, I can tell you the policies change every so often. So when you have used it in the past, still check the magazine again when you fly the next time. If you get a hard time from the flight attendant, kindly show them the paragraph in the magazine and you shouldn't have any problem. Just as a tip, I would keep it put-away until above 10,000 feet. That way it will not spark the flight attendants attention. I have seen passengers who even stick a suction cup external attenae to the window.

[+FireRef]

Another thing to keep in mind is that all recievers are also transmitters to a lesser degree by nature of how they work. How do you think TV detector vans work?

What is a "TV detector van"?

 

It is a vehicle that at one time, not sure if they still use them, that would drive thru communities and supposedly could determine what TV channels were being watched by the households. I am not for certain sure that this was not an urban legend. But the poster's point is still the same. Lots of electronic devices emit radio frequency signals that can be detected...."everybody's gone surfin, surfin USA!!!"

 

The issue isn't determining which things emit radio signals - it is determining which ones actually cause any kind of interference.

 

Under FCC rules, any consumer applience (as far as I know), has to meet 2 guidelines - it's not permitted to emit harmful signals, and must accept any harmful interference it receives. Those are pasted on just about every electronic device. If, under the law, these devices aren't allowed to emit harmful signals, they can't interfere with the precious flight instrumentation - which again, has never been proven that it has.

 

(and if you want to go with the argument that we should assume they DO, rather than that they DON'T, then we better ban everything which hasn't been completely and exhaustively tested to cause any kind of harm in any way to anyone or anything)

[+JeremyR]

What is a "TV detector van"?

[tangent]

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/information/tvdetectorvans.jsp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_li..._United_Kingdom

 

Not that it actually tells you how they work. They're used by the UK's TV licensing authority to extract cash from us to pay for the BBC. TBH, I'm pretty sure that the 'high tech' inside the van is actually a clipboard with a print out of addresses that haven't coughed up.

[/tangent]

[+sbell111]

Another thing to keep in mind is that all recievers are also transmitters to a lesser degree by nature of how they work. How do you think TV detector vans work?

What is a "TV detector van"?

 

It is a vehicle that at one time, not sure if they still use them, that would drive thru communities and supposedly could determine what TV channels were being watched by the households. I am not for certain sure that this was not an urban legend. But the poster's point is still the same. Lots of electronic devices emit radio frequency signals that can be detected...."everybody's gone surfin, surfin USA!!!"

 

The issue isn't determining which things emit radio signals - it is determining which ones actually cause any kind of interference.

 

Under FCC rules, any consumer applience (as far as I know), has to meet 2 guidelines - it's not permitted to emit harmful signals, and must accept any harmful interference it receives. Those are pasted on just about every electronic device. If, under the law, these devices aren't allowed to emit harmful signals, they can't interfere with the precious flight instrumentation - which again, has never been proven that it has.

 

(and if you want to go with the argument that we should assume they DO, rather than that they DON'T, then we better ban everything which hasn't been completely and exhaustively tested to cause any kind of harm in any way to anyone or anything)

It still falls back on the fact that under federal law, the airlines get to make this decision. If we want to fly with a particular carrier, we have to follow their rules or be prosecuted for interfering with a flight crew (or probably half a dozen other federal laws).

[+RockyRaab]

Read what alienbogey said, then read it again.

 

They call them "Captains" because they are exactly the same as the Captain of a ship: the absolute and final authority for everything that happens on board.

 

If a given Captain is nervous about a GPS (you can bet money his imagination is running along the lines of "Look, Achmed, we are nearing the Trade Center!") then he is going to prohibit the use of a GPSr aboard his ship. Period.

 

If you and Achmed persist in trying to use it, you will soon learn from a crew member, Air Marshall or even a travelling Marine that you and your little toy are not welcome. You will not enjoy the lesson. And when you land, you will be met by Mr Handcuffs, who will take you to your longterm reservation at the Graybar Hotel.

 

Reason enough to avoid an inflight tantrum? I hope so.

[+Team Cotati]

Read what alienbogey said, then read it again.

 

They call them "Captains" because they are exactly the same as the Captain of a ship: the absolute and final authority for everything that happens on board.

 

If a given Captain is nervous about a GPS (you can bet money his imagination is running along the lines of "Look, Achmed, we are nearing the Trade Center!") then he is going to prohibit the use of a GPSr aboard his ship. Period.

 

If you and Achmed persist in trying to use it, you will soon learn from a crew member, Air Marshall or even a travelling Marine that you and your little toy are not welcome. You will not enjoy the lesson. And when you land, you will be met by Mr Handcuffs, who will take you to your longterm reservation at the Graybar Hotel.

 

Reason enough to avoid an inflight tantrum? I hope so.

 

"Reason enough to avoid an inflight tantrum?".......sadly I doubt it.

[+FireRef]

Read what alienbogey said, then read it again.

 

They call them "Captains" because they are exactly the same as the Captain of a ship: the absolute and final authority for everything that happens on board.

 

If a given Captain is nervous about a GPS (you can bet money his imagination is running along the lines of "Look, Achmed, we are nearing the Trade Center!") then he is going to prohibit the use of a GPSr aboard his ship. Period.

 

If you and Achmed persist in trying to use it, you will soon learn from a crew member, Air Marshall or even a travelling Marine that you and your little toy are not welcome. You will not enjoy the lesson. And when you land, you will be met by Mr Handcuffs, who will take you to your longterm reservation at the Graybar Hotel.

 

Reason enough to avoid an inflight tantrum? I hope so.

 

And again, incorrect. Read it once more... Same conclusion.

 

If they are the absolute and final authority on everything that happens, they would be permitted to allow drug use and other illegal activities. Yes, this is a silly example, but it points out a simple fact: They are NOT the final authority on everything. They have rules to follow. And I guarantee they do not have nearly the authority of a military captain on a military vessel (air or sea).

 

A captain being "nervous" about something which doesn't cause any problems is certainly not a good enough reason for them to ban them, in my opinion. If the captain is nervous about things which don't cause problems, I really pity them - they are worrying about things they shouldn't be worrying about... when they should be worrying about safely getting the passengers where they need to go.

 

"Hmmm - I'm afraid of those little yellow smileyface balls... if anyone had them, they'd better not get on my plane or have them out in the open... or I'll have them arrested!"

[+Team Spaced Out]

What is not mentioned in this thread is that historically the FAA and the Aviation community in general has had a "prove its safe" mentality, not a "prove it's not safe."

 

In the past, for an electronic device to be approved for use on an airplane, the specific device (by make and model) had to be tested on each make and model of aircraft one wanted to use it on. So in this sense the FAA and airlines have relaxed a bit.

 

I agree that the current policies the Airlines make don't make sense. To ban a GPSr and allow laptop computers make no sense. How many of the laptop computers have wireless network cards that are turned on during the flight, or PDA's with Bluetooth turned on. People are told to make sure that these features are turned off, but there is no way for the crew to know.

 

Unfortunately I don't think airlines aren't going to change anytime soon.

[+Team Cotati]

Read what alienbogey said, then read it again.

 

They call them "Captains" because they are exactly the same as the Captain of a ship: the absolute and final authority for everything that happens on board.

 

If a given Captain is nervous about a GPS (you can bet money his imagination is running along the lines of "Look, Achmed, we are nearing the Trade Center!") then he is going to prohibit the use of a GPSr aboard his ship. Period.

 

If you and Achmed persist in trying to use it, you will soon learn from a crew member, Air Marshall or even a travelling Marine that you and your little toy are not welcome. You will not enjoy the lesson. And when you land, you will be met by Mr Handcuffs, who will take you to your longterm reservation at the Graybar Hotel.

 

Reason enough to avoid an inflight tantrum? I hope so.

 

And again, incorrect. Read it once more... Same conclusion.

 

If they are the absolute and final authority on everything that happens, they would be permitted to allow drug use and other illegal activities. Yes, this is a silly example, but it points out a simple fact: They are NOT the final authority on everything. They have rules to follow. And I guarantee they do not have nearly the authority of a military captain on a military vessel (air or sea).

 

A captain being "nervous" about something which doesn't cause any problems is certainly not a good enough reason for them to ban them, in my opinion. If the captain is nervous about things which don't cause problems, I really pity them - they are worrying about things they shouldn't be worrying about... when they should be worrying about safely getting the passengers where they need to go.

 

"Hmmm - I'm afraid of those little yellow smileyface balls... if anyone had them, they'd better not get on my plane or have them out in the open... or I'll have them arrested!"

 

Tell you what pardner, you try pulling some silly arsed stunt in violation of what that captain thinks is behavior that is conducive to safe and orderly flight and you'll soon learn exactly how much authority and power he has.

 

Talk is cheap................bad boy.

[magellan315]

 

If they are the absolute and final authority on everything that happens, they would be permitted to allow drug use and other illegal activities.

 

Your right it is a silly example. A pilot does not have the authority to override existing laws to allow illegal drug use on their aircraft. They do have the authority to take action on any activity that they feel will disrupt or endanger the safety of the aircraft. You can agrue semantics all you want, try flying on a commercial flight and see what happens.

[+ADKcachers]

I was flying on Continental Airlines from California to New Joysee recently using my handheld GPS somewhere over Nevada and a flight steward told me the GPS was not permitted. He said any electronics which send or recieve signals is not allowed. I told him it is passive and only receives radio signals. He insisted I put it away. Made feel like a little kid.

 

Later Bye

Uminski

 

Electronics that receive signals are not allowed. To which you responded it receives signals?

Sounds like you should be treated like a kid.

[+sbell111]

I was flying on Continental Airlines from California to New Joysee recently using my handheld GPS somewhere over Nevada and a flight steward told me the GPS was not permitted. He said any electronics which send or recieve signals is not allowed. I told him it is passive and only receives radio signals. He insisted I put it away. Made feel like a little kid.

 

Later Bye

Uminski

 

Electronics that receive signals are not allowed. To which you responded it receives signals?

Sounds like you should be treated like a kid.

That's not very nice.

[+wandererrob]

wtf? Neither of my GPSr's have been able to hold onto a satellite signal in a plane so I gave up and just watch movies on my laptop now.