Jump to content

Commercial Aircraft vs. Garmin eTrex Vista HCX


command Z

Recommended Posts

Is it harmless to turn on my eTrex while on a commercial flight from Washington DC to Madrid? I'd like to track my progress over the Atlantic Ocean.

 

I've heard that it can interfere with the airplane's gps systems. whoops!

First things first, how can any electronic device that does not transmit, interfer with a modern plane? GPSr's do not transmit, unless you have on with bluetooth and it is active.

 

I took a domestic trip (except for the shortcut over Canada) and used mine during the flight. They do ask that everyone turn off and stow your devices during takeoff and landings, but you can turn them back on during the flight, when told so.

 

Have fun!

Link to comment

In theory .. yes .. however these days courtesy of the many "security" rules wrt flying .. the answer is "who knows"

 

First rule is do what a crew member instructs - no arguments.. no debate . smile and do it

 

The Airlines each have their own policies if they do or do not allow GPS receivers to be used while onboard the aircraft. its often listed in the in flight magazine.. Doing LHR to LA every month I know, the Virgin magazine says NO

 

If its not in the magazine, Years ago you used to be able to ask the cabin crew to "ask the captain if it is ok" .. IMO now a days they dont ask and just say no ;)

 

Sometimes your lucky and the airline web site has the policy on it

British Airways web site says yes

http://www.britishairways.com/travel/gsans...k=searchResults

 

"Electronic games, iPods, iPaqs, small radios, tape and disc players, miniature television receivers, GPS receivers and similar entertainment equipment have negligible effect on aircraft systems and may be used during flight, but must be switched off during take-off, approach and landing."

Link to comment

Have fun on the Madrid flight. Something else you might consider is setting the HCX so that it logs GPS altitude rather than cabin altitude during the flight. There is a thread elsewhere on this forum detailing the settings. My apologies, I forget what they are, but they do work. Otherwise you might be logging cabin altitude (around 8,000 feet max).

Link to comment
First things first, how can any electronic device that does not transmit, interfer with a modern plane? GPSr's do not transmit, unless you have on with bluetooth and it is active.

I am an FAA certified avionics repairman. A GPSr CAN cause problems with aircraft safety of flight! It is not likely, but it can happen. I will spare you the technical explanation.

 

So, do YOU want to be the one responsible for an aircraft crash? Better safe than sorry and if not that, at least obtain permission first. This is NOT a good subject to seek forgiveness after the event. (Same thing with cell phones, games and pda's.) It may not have caused a problem last week, but that does not mean it will not in the future.

SparksGuy

Link to comment

Is it harmless to turn on my eTrex while on a commercial flight from Washington DC to Madrid? I'd like to track my progress over the Atlantic Ocean.

 

I've heard that it can interfere with the airplane's gps systems. whoops!

My understanding is that the FAA has cleared the use of GPS devices on airplanes. However they leave it to individual carriers to set their own rules. So some airlines allow the use of a GPS and some don't.

Link to comment
First things first, how can any electronic device that does not transmit, interfer with a modern plane? GPSr's do not transmit, unless you have on with bluetooth and it is active.

I am an FAA certified avionics repairman. A GPSr CAN cause problems with aircraft safety of flight! It is not likely, but it can happen. I will spare you the technical explanation....

 

I'm sure that technical explination would also include how the airplanes own electronics can interfere for exactly the same reasons.

Link to comment
I am an FAA certified avionics repairman. A GPSr CAN cause problems with aircraft safety of flight! It is not likely, but it can happen. I will spare you the technical explanation.

 

Please do not patronize the readers. If you feel that the explanation is too technical for the general public, can you post a link? Explanations such as "Trust me, it is good for you" generally do not go down very well in a public forum.

 

Would a GPSr that does not transmit post any more problem than a laptop, whose owner may not know how to turn off the wifi transmitter?

Link to comment

...how can any electronic device that does not transmit, interfer with a modern plane?...

 

The flow of electricity in the gizmo's circuits generates radio waves. All electronics do this and the Radio Frequences (RF) they generate can (and do) interfere with other electronics to some extent. RF sheilding is common in electronics to help mitigate this problem. This is actually one of the things regulated in modern electronics. So even though your GPS is a reciever it does generate RF interference at some level.

Link to comment

Thank you Renegade Knight, I completely agree with your 3 posts after my last one.

 

I am sorry that Chrysalides feels slighted. Actually, rather than spare readers an explanation, I was sparing myself the frustration of writing several books on the subject. If Chrysalides feels the need for better explanation, I suggest several years study at a local university. Start with Maxwell and Faraday, anything better than the pseudoscience you might find on the History and Discovery channels.

 

Would a GPSr that does not transmit post any more problem than a laptop, whose owner may not know how to turn off the wifi transmitter?
Hard to tell, to many variables. Both could, even without wifi. Again, It is not likely but, still possible.

 

I did not expect to resurrect a quiet thread.

SparksGuy

Link to comment
I am sorry that Chrysalides feels slighted. Actually, rather than spare readers an explanation, I was sparing myself the frustration of writing several books on the subject. If Chrysalides feels the need for better explanation, I suggest several years study at a local university. Start with Maxwell and Faraday, anything better than the pseudoscience you might find on the History and Discovery channels.

 

I brought up this point because every time I read such an explanation, it is always along the lines of "I know the reason, but it is too complicated for me to explain to you, so just take my word for it because I know what I'm talking about". I did not question your credentials, insinuations about my lack of qualifications is totally unnecessary, since you do not know anything about me.

 

It is interesting that you agree with Renegade Knight because he said "the FAA has cleared the use of GPS devices on airplanes" but you paint a doom and gloom scenario.

 

The post I most agree with is #3 by S&G.Davison - if you're told no by the flight crew, smile, don't do it, and do not argue.

Link to comment

Most likely you will be asked to turn off a 60Cx/CSx because it resembles a walkie-talkie and therefore could be mistaken for a two-way radio by any attendant. You might have a shot with the Vista, although if your air carrier frowns on GPS use, they will know what to look for. With everyone and GPS these days, I'm sure it's been discussed extensively by more than one airline.

 

I'm sure they can't be any more dangerous to aircraft systems than laptops, digital cams, ipods, gameboys, the list goes on. But that's just my opinion.

Link to comment

This is a simple issue. It's up the airline. Period.

 

So, between their inflight magazine and their website you will get the answer. Even then, the crew and captain trump everything else.

 

Sometimes, those two sources give conflicting information.

 

A year ago, Delta's inflight magazine said no, but their website said yes. I printed the information from their website and had it in my shirtpocket for the flight. I asked. They hemmed. I showed them the printout. They said yes. Pretty simple.

 

With the FAA approval, more and more airlines will come around. But remember, the crew and captain trump everything else for their flight. Like mentioned above, smile and comply.

Link to comment

...It is interesting that you agree with Renegade Knight because he said "the FAA has cleared the use of GPS devices on airplanes" but you paint a doom and gloom scenario....

 

It's a function of risk. FAA says the risk is low enough to be acceptable. SparksGuy said the risk isn't zero so why create the risk to begin with?

 

Im paraphrasing, but that's the shortest version of both that I can come up with. A lot of times the difference between two sides in a debate is the focus. Both the FAA and SparksGuy would agree on the details, But how they approach the problem differs. It would have been nice if SparksGuy expanded (especially since he brought up that he knew) but his choice becomes the ultra simple version that I presented (which would make SparksGuy wince to type it), or explaining in excruciating detail the hows and why's that are taught in a Physics class that does a great job weeding out freshman.

Link to comment

To follow up with my initial posting:

 

I went on my vacation, I took four flights total.

 

1st flight, American Airlines: Flight attendant saw my GPS turned on, asked what it was and told me to turn it off immediatly.

 

2nd flight, Iberia Airlines: I hid the GPS from the flight attendants, but halfway through the flight, while the GPS was on, a flight attendant approached a woman seated in front of me and asked if her cell phone was on, because the pilots in the cockpit were experiencing some interference. The flight attendants claimed that other passengers saw the woman on the phone during take off. I turned the GPS off immediately after hearing this, and thought what a strange coincidence that I happened to hear the conversation.

 

3rd flight, EasyJet: Used the GPS with no problem, but no flight attendants saw it.

 

4th flight, Iberia Airlines: I didn't have a window seat.

 

command_z

Link to comment

At first when I read SparksGuy's first post I balked. But after some more thought he is correct. I am a KC-135 (USAF Tanker) Weapons Officer and flew for years with a handheld GPSr and laptop in the cockpit before our avionics were upgraded.

 

The big difference is, the GPS and computer I flew with had been tested and approved for the cockpit. It was 1 approved computer and 1 approved GPSr. The problem nowadays is that you're talking about a myriad of electronic devises that passengers could be using, most of which have not been certified for flight. The chances that any one system could have an adverse affect on the avionics in the cockpit are small. But the number and different types that could be possibly used at once opens Pandora's box. It is much easier and much safer for us as a whole for the airlines to prohibit their use.

 

I try to understand and explain things in the simplest terms possible ( I'm not worried about all of the ins and outs of a system, just how to use them efficiently. I rely on people like SparksGuy to fix it when I break it). An example of this is: have you ever picked up someone else's conversation on a cordless telephone or gotten static on a cordless telephone from someone using a hairdryer in the house? This interference is essentially what the airlines are worried about in the most critical phases of flight (i.e takeoff and approach). Some airlines just decide to be more conservative and prohibit their use altogether.

 

-galaP-

Link to comment
The problem nowadays is that you're talking about a myriad of electronic devises that passengers could be using, most of which have not been certified for flight. The chances that any one system could have an adverse affect on the avionics in the cockpit are small. But the number and different types that could be possibly used at once opens Pandora's box. It is much easier and much safer for us as a whole for the airlines to prohibit their use.

If they did prohibit all types of electronic devices during the cruise portion of a flight, it might make sense; though I would consider it overly conservative. The thing is, computers, video players and portable gaming devices are almost universally allowed during the cruise portion of flight. Some airlines single out GPS devices to prohibit during cruise, others don’t. I fly with the group in the latter category whenever possible.

 

This interference is essentially what the airlines are worried about in the most critical phases of flight (i.e takeoff and approach). Some airlines just decide to be more conservative and prohibit their use altogether.
I wholeheartedly support the prohibition against the use of personal electronics during critical portions of flight. That rule, by the way, comes from the FAA, not the airlines.

 

A few years back, I spent quite a bit of time searching for authoritative information on this subject. Among other things, I found an FAA document that, in essence, said that any interference electronic devices might cause didn’t represent enough of a hazard to justify banning their use completely when an aircraft was at an altitude where there would be sufficient time to ask the passengers to shut everything off before anything serious happened. The conclusion was that it was sufficiently safe to allow electronic devices to be used during cruise, and monitor for problems. This document also concluded that it should be left up to the airlines to decide what devices they would and would not allow; and that is how the rule was written.

 

The other thing I discovered was that although there were several instances where devices such as computers, video players and portable gaming devices were suspected (but never proven) to have caused interference with an aircraft in flight, I could not find so much as a rumor of a GPS receiver ever having been suspected of causing interference.

 

That was only a couple of years or so ago. As far as I know, United Airlines has never has a policy of prohibiting the use of GPS receivers on their flights. I bought my first receiver in about 1995, so they have been generally available to the public since then. That means that United now has at least 13 years, and I presume even more, experience of flying while passengers were operating GPS receivers. Many other airlines have allowed their use during that period as well. Yet as of the time I did my research, I could find no reports of suspected interference with aircraft in flight cause by GPS receivers.

 

Does that mean it couldn’t happen? Of course not. But the evidence I found was sufficient to convince me that GPS receivers are no more likely to cause interference with aircraft than other types of electronic devices which have actually been suspected of causing interference, yet are almost universally allowed by airlines.

 

So if an airline wants to prohibit use of a GPS receiver during all phases of their flights, that is their prerogative. It is my prerogative to consider such a policy as arbitrary, uninformed, not supported by operational experience, and unnecessary; and to choose to fly with their GPS friendly competitors. I feel every bit as safe flying on airlines which permit GPS use as I do on those that don’t.

Edited by roybassist
Link to comment

Does anyone know of any proven evidence of a major commercial airliner coming into any sort of danger through the use of passive electronic devices onboard?

 

Emirates have intoduced onboard sytems to allow passengers to use mobile phones on some of their scheduled routes - if they can do that, what's wrong with other electronic equipment?

 

I think airlines must have other motives for not allowing electronic devices on flights.

Edited by richard1152
Link to comment

Does anyone know of any proven evidence of a major commercial airliner coming into any sort of danger through the use of passive electronic devices onboard?

Putting an aircraft in danger is a very high standard. It isn’t necessary for an aircraft to actually be put in danger to see that it could be put in danger if a critical system malfunctioned in a critical situation. If no aircraft have actually been put in danger, it may only be because interference has occurred only in flight situations where the interference was not a problem. It could be that if the same interference occurred in a critical situation, an aircraft would be put in danger. This is why all electronic devices are required to be turned off on takeoff and landing. I consider this a reasonable policy. A malfunction of a critical aircraft system close to the ground could have fatal consequences.

 

Proof is also a very high standard. The suspected cases I mentioned in my previous post were incidents reported by flight crews. Investigators were unable to reproduce the interference later. That doesn’t mean the incidents were the crews’ imagination. They are credible (if not proven) evidence. Ever taken a car to your mechanic, only to have it refuse to misbehave in the way that led you to take it to him? Problems can be intermittent and very hard to reproduce. This article by Boeing provides details. Note the conspicuous absence of any mention of GPS receivers. ;)

Emirates have intoduced onboard sytems to allow passengers to use mobile phones on some of their scheduled routes - if they can do that, what's wrong with other electronic equipment?
Such systems are designed to work with the aircraft and tested. Personal electronic devices are not.
I think airlines must have other motives for not allowing electronic devices on flights.
You are free to think anything you like, but the airlines have good reason to be concerned about the potential for interference with aircraft systems by personal electronic devices. Edited by roybassist
Link to comment

In this litgious age, I can't blame some airlines for not allowing the use of GPS devices while underway. Having said that, my Etrex Cx meets the requirements of 47 CFR Part 15-B, as does my laptop. Yet, I can use my laptop onboard commercial aircraft, but not my Etrex.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Part_15_(FCC_...ional_radiators

 

Garmin also says that my Etrex meets EN 55022:1998, EN 61000-3-2, and EN 60950-2:2001, which my laptop doesn't even meet.

Link to comment

Does anyone know of any proven evidence of a major commercial airliner coming into any sort of danger through the use of passive electronic devices onboard?

"Proven" interference from a passive electronic device, leading to a "dangerous" situation? I'm not sure, but there is at least one case where interference from a wireless mouse is the "official" explanation for an "incident". (Yes, I know a wireless mouse is not a "passive" device, but the point is that it does appear that consumer electronic equipment CAN interfere with modern avionics systems, under certain conditions.)

 

According to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB), a Boeing 747-438 started to bank at about three degrees angle of bank while in cruise mode. A passenger was using a wireless mouse and this is believed to have caused the oscillations.

 

Incident reference: 200804158, 22 June 2008.

 

http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/2008/pdf/aws250708.pdf

Link to comment

Thanks for the info, roybassist and Julian, it's an interesting topic, especially the info about the wireless mouse.

 

I can appreciate that at critical times during a flight electronic equipment could interfere with the plane's systems. But we must assume that on almost every commercial flight there are electronic devices onboard that passengers have forgotten to turn off; such as laptops on standby, mobile phones in cabin baggage and pockets that people have forgotten to switch off, PDAs still turned on or turning on during flights to flag up appointments etc, and god knows how much other stuff in the hold of the aircraft. None of this seems to cause any major issues.

 

The problem with banning electronic devices is that the decision on what is OK or not is taken by the airline, not the manufacturer of the airplane. Leaving decisions such as this up to the carrier is nonsense - how do they know what interferes and what doesn't? It should be the manufacturer who sets guidelines and who does he research. This at least might stop the discrepency between rules on different airlines. (And crazy rules such as Aer Lingus allowing the use of laptops above 10,000ft but not the use of personal CD players. What laptop doesn't have a CD player?)

 

As a side, a BBC report into the issue on TV in Hong Kong recently explained that some airlines ban the use of electronic equipment under 10,000 ft as a matter of safety - people listening to music can't hear announcements, and laptops etc can get in the way of evacuating passengers if anything happens during takeoff and landing.

Link to comment

It should be the manufacturer who sets guidelines and who does he research.

 

The interested reader can find Boeing's official paper on the subject here. Guess what? Nearly every "anomaly" was unable to be duplicated--even with the exact device, aircraft, and flight conditions. This is a very complex issue with very complicated machinery operating in the upper reaches of earth's atmosphere. I'm not sure we'll ever have a definitive answer. There's an entire branch of the government based here in Colorado that does nothing but warn the Air Force, NASA, and power companies of solar activity that causes abnormalities in EM radiation headed toward earth.

 

I agree that there are probably dozens of device that never get shut off in flight, simply due to user error or plain ignorance on how to shut the device off. it is more important for the passengers not to be distracted or impeded by their electronics under 10,000ft. Imagine trying to exit the aircraft in a hurry with DVD players and laptops getting in the way. It's hard enough trying to get down the emergency exit while hauling your carry on. :unsure:

Link to comment
we must assume that on almost every commercial flight there are electronic devices onboard that passengers have forgotten to turn off; such as laptops on standby, mobile phones in cabin baggage and pockets that people have forgotten to switch off, PDAs still turned on or turning on during flights to flag up appointments etc, and god knows how much other stuff in the hold of the aircraft. None of this seems to cause any major issues.
Not that we know of, so far. It may be that we have just been lucky.

 

The problem with banning electronic devices is that the decision on what is OK or not is taken by the airline, not the manufacturer of the airplane. Leaving decisions such as this up to the carrier is nonsense - how do they know what interferes and what doesn't? It should be the manufacturer who sets guidelines and who does he research.
It is my understanding that, in the U.S. at least, the airlines are held responsible for safe operation. In theory, the pilot has the ultimate responsibility, but I believe in practice it would be the airline that has to pay if something goes wrong. If they have to bear the responsibility for accidents, it seems only fair that they get to make the rules concerning what passengers do that might affect safety on their flights. I believe it is only pressure from consumers that leads them to allow any electronic devices at all. They don’t have to, you know. I’m just glad that some airlines are GPS friendly, and I always try to fly with them whenever possible. Mostly so I can have my favorite in-flight entertainment, and to a lesser degree voting with my dollars.
Link to comment

As I recall, American banned them after 9/11. The hijackers used GPS to navigate.

That has been claimed and refuted many times. American banned them prior to 9/11. As for hijackers using GPS to navigate, if true at all, they may have been using the aircraft's built-in GPS system. Remember, the terrorist hijackers went to flight school. They knew enough about flying the planes to use the onboard equipment if they needed it.

 

If you have documentation to support your statements, please post links.

Edited by roybassist
Link to comment

Why not have a feature on a personal GPS receiver called "aircraft mode", where the GPSr is plugged into a special jack in the wall of the plane so as to enable it to receive NMEA-formatted data from the aircraft's own avionics to show position, altitude and velocity?

"...and you can take advantage of this service by purchasing a cable for only 17 dollars! Please alert a flight attendand for purchase..."

Link to comment

As I recall, American banned them after 9/11. The hijackers used GPS to navigate.

That has been claimed and refuted many times. American banned them prior to 9/11. As for hijackers using GPS to navigate, if true at all, they may have been using the aircraft's built-in GPS system. Remember, the terrorist hijackers went to flight school. They knew enough about flying the planes to use the onboard equipment if they needed it.

 

If you have documentation to support your statements, please post links.

 

Gee, bad Turkey day?? :)

 

I wasn't sure of the date of the ban, I know I used GPS on AA metal in the late 90s. (Garmin GPS PILOT III)

 

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/05/22/hijack.paper.trail/

 

Investigators believe at least three other GPS devices were purchased, one for each hijacked plane.

 

[i/]

 

I don't know if you have ever flown a plane, and used an aircraft GPS system, but typically, they are much more complicated than a handheld. Those aircraft might not have even had an onboard GPS, as Inertial Navigation Systems were used a bunch.

 

Using a handheld to create a waypoint for the WTC/Pentagon and navigate to it would be far easier than using on board systems.

Link to comment

Why not have a feature on a personal GPS receiver called "aircraft mode", where the GPSr is plugged into a special jack in the wall of the plane so as to enable it to receive NMEA-formatted data from the aircraft's own avionics to show position, altitude and velocity?

That would not make much of a difference in the amount of interference a GPSr could cause would it? It only disables the GPS signal receiver, which is not the most active component of the GPSr I'd guess. The screen, CPU (if you can speak of such a thing in a GPSr), memory controller etc. are still active.

 

With an active device like a phone or other kind of tranceiver, it would make sense to place an antenna on the outside of the plane, with a shielded cable to your seat to which you connect your tranceiver, but that's not the case here :)

Edited by Orion84
Link to comment

I think the main problem is the possible use of GPS for terrorist navigation. As far as the physical receiver leaking enough RF to cause harm to the airplane is bogus. If this was true, than every iPod, laptop, PSP, ect. would have caused numerous crashes and be 100% inspected and banned from the passenger compartment.

 

I personally work in the communications field and have had my tech security people (read bug finders) scan my office's GPS systems that we use with our satellite equipment and they leak far less than a typical laptop.

 

For references, I can not post as they belong to the Government. This is an interesting read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TEMPEST

 

enjoy,

 

Joe

Link to comment

I don't think the airlines regard GPSr as a terrorist issue. If they did they would be banned from all aircraft. At the moment you can take your GPSr onboard any airline, so long as you don't turn it on.

 

If a terrorist has the ability to fly a plane into a building, I'm sure he would have learnt basic use of the navigation systems.

Link to comment

I think the main problem is the possible use of GPS for terrorist navigation.

If that were the case, then the majority of airlines must not be concerned about terrorism, since the number of airlines that do not prohibit GPS use far exceeds the number of those that do. (Reference.) I do not believe that the majority of airlines don’t care about terrorism, so I don’t accept that the concern is terrorist navigation.

 

As far as the physical receiver leaking enough RF to cause harm to the airplane is bogus.

I agree.

 

If this was true, than every iPod, laptop, PSP, ect. would have caused numerous crashes
Not necessarily. Reported cases of even suspected interference seem to be relatively rare. In order for such interference to cause a crash, it would first have to occur (which is apparently rare, if it happens at all), and it would have to occur when circumstances would result in a crash because of the interference. Per the article referenced in my previous post, several instances of suspected interference have been reported, but no crash occurred. That doesn’t mean that one couldn’t, and that the airlines don’t have reason to be concerned about it.

 

I personally work in the communications field and have had my tech security people (read bug finders) scan my office's GPS systems that we use with our satellite equipment and they leak far less than a typical laptop.
Radio amateurs have made similar measurements and reported similar findings. Maybe that’s why, in all the reports of suspected interference with aircraft systems, handheld GPS receivers have never been mentioned.

 

I think the real issue is that some of the airlines just don’t care enough about GPS users to really evaluate the available information and make an intelligent decision on this issue. Fortunately, those airlines are now greatly in the minority.

Link to comment
Gee, bad Turkey day?? :laughing:
Not at all. Why do you ask?

 

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/05/22/hijack.paper.trail/

 

Investigators believe at least three other GPS devices were purchased, one for each hijacked plane.

 

 

From the article you referenced (emphasis mine):

 

Officials speculate Atta may have been in New York on September 10 to make a final visit to the World Trade Center to program the towers' location into a global positioning system, the source said.

 

So far, however, investigators have been unable to prove he was doing that, the source said.

 

I don't know if you have ever flown a plane, and used an aircraft GPS system, but typically, they are much more complicated than a handheld. Those aircraft might not have even had an onboard GPS, as Inertial Navigation Systems were used a bunch.
As I said in my previous post, the terrorist hijackers had been to flight school. It is at least as plausible that they could have used the aircraft’s normal navigation systems.

 

The Department of Homeland Security has us taking off our shoes at checkpoints and limiting the amount of liquids we can carry. Do you really think they would be allowing us to continue carrying our GPS receivers onboard if they thought they might facilitate a terrorist threat? I don’t.

 

Hope you had a nice Turkey Day, too. :P

Link to comment

If my $300 piece of passive electronics can bring down a multi-million dollar aircraft, we're all in bad shape people.

 

If the risk was anywhere near possible I would want to believe there would be announcements from Boeing (and other aircraft manufacturers) and FAA regulations covering the usage of electronics while on an aircraft. I understand the desire to keep passengers' ears open with distractions to a minimum during takeoff and approach.

 

But...I'm not holding my breath for an airline to tell the whole truth.

Link to comment

First let me say that I hope it’s obvious from my first couple of posts in this thread which side I’m on in this discussion. I’m a GPS user, and I love using my handheld on flights to determine what I’m looking at out the window, etc. I do not believe that use of a GPS receiver on an aircraft above 10,000 feet poses any safety risk. But I try to be objective and rational, so when someone makes a statement that I feel may be overlooking some of the information that is available on this topic, even if we may be on the same side of the argument, I try to provide information to keep the discussion real. One doesn’t persuade anyone by overlooking facts that don’t support your viewpoint.

 

That’s why it may sometimes seem that I am posting information that works against my own goals. I’m not trying to be contrary; I’m just trying to be realistic and factual to the extent that I can. Actually, I believe that if all the known data is presented, it is self-evident that there is no reason to prohibit GPS use in an aircraft above 10,000 feet, when other personal electronic devices are permitted to be used, because the other devices have been suspected of causing interference with aircraft systems, while I have not been able to find documentation of a single instance where a GPS receiver was suspected.

 

If my $300 piece of passive electronics can bring down a multi-million dollar aircraft, we're all in bad shape people.

It isn’t as simple as “you turn on your device and the plane crashes.” Imagine a plane making an instrument approach (translation: the pilot can’t see squat out the window until the plane is practically on the runway, and is relying on his instruments not only for guidance, but also to keep the plane right side up), in an urban environment with tall buildings and towers. Now imagine that interference from, let’s say a laptop computer, since they have been suspected of causing interference, causes an uncommanded (by the pilot) turn. This is one of the kinds of interference that personal electronic devices have been suspected of causing, based on actual observed incidents. (Reference: links posted previously) It seems really obvious to me that could be dangerous in that situation. This is why all personal electronic devices are supposed to be turned off during takeoff and landing, and any other time the pilot says so. I think that is a reasonable rule.

 

The problem I see is that the assumption seems to be that the passengers will do as they are told. I know that isn’t always the case. But it may be that as long as most passengers turn off their devices when requested, the few remaining violators are not sufficient to cause a problem. I certainly hope so.

 

If the risk was anywhere near possible I would want to believe there would be announcements from Boeing (and other aircraft manufacturers)…
They have. That is exactly what this is from Boeing, in keeping with what has been observed and is known.

 

… and FAA regulations covering the usage of electronics while on an aircraft.
Here is the actual FAA regulation, and here is the FAA’s Advisory Circular to offer guidance to aircraft operators regarding what constitutes compliance with the official rule. The fact that the manufacturer’s recommendations and FAA regulations don’t totally prohibit the use of all personal electronic devices doesn’t mean that there isn’t a valid concern. It is an indication that the devices are considered acceptably “safe when used as directed,” based on what has been observed and what is known.
Link to comment

First let me say that I hope it’s obvious from my first couple of posts in this thread which side I’m on in this discussion. I’m a GPS user, and I love using my handheld on flights to determine what I’m looking at out the window, etc. I do not believe that use of a GPS receiver on an aircraft above 10,000 feet poses any safety risk. But I try to be objective and rational, so when someone makes a statement that I feel may be overlooking some of the information that is available on this topic, even if we may be on the same side of the argument, I try to provide information to keep the discussion real. One doesn’t persuade anyone by overlooking facts that don’t support your viewpoint.

 

That’s why it may sometimes seem that I am posting information that works against my own goals. I’m not trying to be contrary; I’m just trying to be realistic and factual to the extent that I can. Actually, I believe that if all the known data is presented, it is self-evident that there is no reason to prohibit GPS use in an aircraft above 10,000 feet, when other personal electronic devices are permitted to be used, because the other devices have been suspected of causing interference with aircraft systems, while I have not been able to find documentation of a single instance where a GPS receiver was suspected.

 

If my $300 piece of passive electronics can bring down a multi-million dollar aircraft, we're all in bad shape people.

It isn’t as simple as “you turn on your device and the plane crashes.” Imagine a plane making an instrument approach (translation: the pilot can’t see squat out the window until the plane is practically on the runway, and is relying on his instruments not only for guidance, but also to keep the plane right side up), in an urban environment with tall buildings and towers. Now imagine that interference from, let’s say a laptop computer, since they have been suspected of causing interference, causes an uncommanded (by the pilot) turn. This is one of the kinds of interference that personal electronic devices have been suspected of causing, based on actual observed incidents. (Reference: links posted previously) It seems really obvious to me that could be dangerous in that situation. This is why all personal electronic devices are supposed to be turned off during takeoff and landing, and any other time the pilot says so. I think that is a reasonable rule.

 

The problem I see is that the assumption seems to be that the passengers will do as they are told. I know that isn’t always the case. But it may be that as long as most passengers turn off their devices when requested, the few remaining violators are not sufficient to cause a problem. I certainly hope so.

 

If the risk was anywhere near possible I would want to believe there would be announcements from Boeing (and other aircraft manufacturers)…
They have. That is exactly what this is from Boeing, in keeping with what has been observed and is known.

 

… and FAA regulations covering the usage of electronics while on an aircraft.
Here is the actual FAA regulation, and here is the FAA’s Advisory Circular to offer guidance to aircraft operators regarding what constitutes compliance with the official rule. The fact that the manufacturer’s recommendations and FAA regulations don’t totally prohibit the use of all personal electronic devices doesn’t mean that there isn’t a valid concern. It is an indication that the devices are considered acceptably “safe when used as directed,” based on what has been observed and what is known.

 

Oh my...you are a bit touchy on this subject.

 

Clearly I know it's "not as simple" as I make it sound. Of course I'm going to turn my ish off when I'm told. I just think the idea of being told that ALL electronics can possibly disrupt aircraft electronics to be insulting. Are the airlines (and some in this thread) trying to tell me that sitting in row 36 and listening to an ipod shuffle (with a massive RF signature I'm sure :P ) I'm going to cause interference with radar, ILS or other critical systems?

 

BTW-FAA "Guidence" is a far cry from FAA regs which have the power of federal law.

 

So many people in this thread who have engineering/avionics backgrounds are doing thier best to offer "its too much for me to explain or for you to understand" responces...Of coures I'll be a little bit of a smartass.

Link to comment
Oh my...you are a bit touchy on this subject.
I don’t know what I have said that makes you think that. I strive for a polite, matter-of-fact tone in my writing. I don’t see anywhere that I’ve been particularly emotional. I’ve certainly seen threads in this forum where people really became emotional and made personal attacks. Yet I don’t recall anyone accusing anyone of being “touchy” in those cases.

 

Maybe you thought the first couple of paragraphs in my previous post were directed specifically at you. They weren’t. It was more about explaining myself, and what I thought might seem contradictory. Maybe I should have written that in a separate post, if at all. If you thought I was making a personal attack on you, my sincere apologies.

 

BTW-FAA "Guidence" is a far cry from FAA regs which have the power of federal law.
Which is the reason I posted the link to the actual regulation first.

 

So many people in this thread who have engineering/avionics backgrounds are doing thier best to offer "its too much for me to explain or for you to understand" responces...Of coures I'll be a little bit of a smartass.

I absolutely agree. A complete technical explanation of exactly how personal electronic devices may interfere with aircraft systems is not as relevant to me as the technical papers that have been referenced that address: has it ever happened, if so what happened and what type of devices were involved. I think most of the referenced pages are written in a way that most ordinary people without a technical background can understand.
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...