Jump to content

Personal GPS on Commercial Flights


ejmct

Recommended Posts

Anyone have any experience using their GPS on a regular commercial flight?

 

My GPS II+ had a good antenna so if I got a window seat it would work probably 75-80% of the time.

 

However I have struggled with the flight crew on this subject.

Typical interaction goes like this:

 

Clueless High-School Dropout Flight-Attendant: What is that thing?

Me: Its a GPS

FA: What's a TBS?

Me: Not a TBS, NBC, CBS HBO or even a FOX. Its a GPS!

FA: That's like a radio. You can't use that here.

 

::By now another clueless flight attendant has stopped to see what's going on::

 

Me: Its not a radio. Its NOTHING like a radio. It uses satellites...

2nd FA: No, no. You can't use that. Put it away now.

Me:...thinking to myself that since its only a month after the 9/11 hijackings it would be best not to make a big deal about this for fear I'll have 200 other passengers ready to kick my butt...

 

Anyway, whenever I fly I always check the in-flight magazines where it says which devices are allowed and which are not. It seems like there are 2 categories of devices:

1) The kind you can use after initial takeoff like notebook computers, CD players, etc.

2) Those that aren't allowed at all, such as mobile phones.

 

Now I don't fly all that much, but never have I seen a GPS fall on either list. So I therefore assume its my legal right to use the thing if I want. But a couple times I have had issues with the flight attendants.

 

So now I just hide the unit under a newspaper or magazine and nobody seems to mind.

 

Anyone have any experiences, thoughts or ideas on this?

Link to comment

Well, I have not had any colorful experiences like yourself, but I do use my GPS on flights. I stick it in the map pocket on the seat in front of me and have even had it on my dinner tray before. No one has ever said anything to me. Maybe they did not see it. At any rate, I love keeping up with where I am on a flight and the GPS if perfect. I have not heard anything either about the law concerning this, but I would assume most FA would make you shut it off. Perhaps out of extreme caution or simple stupidity. Good question!

 

Thanks,

Phil

LaGeocaching

Link to comment

You are right on about some of the flight attendants. I just flew to Houston, and back, and it was four separate flights. The first three, I held it out in the open, and no one, including the flight attendants said anything. A couple people were asking about it, and the person sitting by me got interested. It was really cool watching the map and cities go by, and then looking out the window and seeing them. The fourth flight was where it went downhill. I had my kids holding it to the window, and it kept them pretty busy. With about 30 mins left in the flight, a male steward walked to the back, for about the fifth time, and all of the sudden spotted the gps, which had been in plain view the whole trip. He asked if it was a GPS, and the reply was yes. He then said in a loud voice that they weren't allowed. Instead of creating a scene, I just had my son hand it to me, turned it off, and put it in my backpack. I had no intention of becoming a story on the national news.

 

Here's a thought though. In a moment of foresight, I bought a 5 foot coax cable with the intention of holding the antenna in the window and the gps in my lap, or tucked in the bag to keep the commotion down. Lacking total foresight though, I forgot that the cable was male on both ends, and one end would need a female connector, so needless to say, I didn't get to use my extended antenna on the plane, but from testing after getting the right connector, it would have worked just fine. Heck, I could have taped it to the window with a piece of scotch tape. Of course, now thinking about it, a couple of strange electronic devices and a coil of wire might have required extra explaining just to get through security. As it was, I, being the dimwit that I am, wore steel toe boots to the airport. This ensured that every time I had to go through security, I was given the probe. But that's another story.

Fig

Link to comment

I've only been on one flight since I got my GPS, but I was ready to use it once we got in the air. My Etex Legend worked rather nicely, with the exception that I had to hold the unit directly next to the window. However, I did have my laptop with Mapsource installed on it, so I managed to connect the GPS unit to my laptop and watch the GPS Unit stats on my computer instead. The flight attendant was curious as to what I was doing and asked several questions. Never once did she ask me to put it away (other than landing).

Link to comment

Well, about four years ago I took my now defunct Magellan 2000 XL on a flight to Florida. It was great fun keeping track of elevation, speed, and location. No flight attendants said anything on the way down or the way back, and it involved two planes each way. Of course, that was before 9-11. Now you can't take a nail file or clippers with you. I would ask the flight crew if I could use mine now, simply because everyone is so uptight about everything. Someone could accuse you of having a time bomb or someting.

 

As an aside, back in those days I used to carry my 3 1/2 inch 'flip blade' knife with me on the plane. Not a problem. icon_frown.gif

 

"Nobody cares what you REALLY do,

as long as the paperwork looks good"

Link to comment

Well, about four years ago I took my now defunct Magellan 2000 XL on a flight to Florida. It was great fun keeping track of elevation, speed, and location. No flight attendants said anything on the way down or the way back, and it involved two planes each way. Of course, that was before 9-11. Now you can't take a nail file or clippers with you. I would ask the flight crew if I could use mine now, simply because everyone is so uptight about everything. Someone could accuse you of having a time bomb or someting.

 

As an aside, back in those days I used to carry my 3 1/2 inch 'flip blade' knife with me on the plane. Not a problem. icon_frown.gif

 

"Nobody cares what you REALLY do,

as long as the paperwork looks good"

Link to comment

i just took mine on a flight to Florida -- with no problems ..........thankfully i remebered to take the utility blade and silly putty out of my cache pack before i used it as a carry on bag ....had i missed those items i think there would have been a little scene @ the security check-in ....umm, ma'am could you explain why you are carrying a GPS, blade and something which looks suspiciously like plastic explosives????

Link to comment

Here's the most complete and up-to-date list I know of on airline GPS policy:

http://www.gpsinformation.net/airgps/airgps.htm

 

Note that this is for use of the GPSr at cruising altitude. Almost all passenger electronics (incl GPSr) are to be turned off during the takeoff and landing phases.

 

I've used my GPS rcvrs. on numerous flights and have never had any trouble getting a lock with the antenna held near the window. Once they get a lock they can usually retain it while sitting on the edge of the tray table.

Link to comment

GPSR's are specifically ALLOWED on Southwest airlines flights except for the takeoff and landing portion of the flight. I take that technically to mean if the flight attendants aren't strapped into their seats, we aren't taking off or landing.

 

Again, like mentioned earlier, look on one of the info pages in the back of the airline magazine where they list the drink and snack menu. There will be a complete list of approved and unapproved devices.

 

I have used my Garmin V on probably half a dozen flights with Southwest Airlines and the only comment I got was from one male attendant who thought it was cool and wanted to know how much they cost.

Link to comment

I have also used my GPS III+ and recently my GPS V on commercial as well as military flights. I don’t know why but I get absolutely no signal through the cockpit windows on C-141B StarLifters. Not really a problem since I can connect to the aircraft’s GPS antenna with a short cable.

 

Commercial flights allow a good signal through the side windows and you’ll get satellites as long as they’re on that side of the plane. As for flight attendants, I’ve had the exact same problems. That’s hit or miss. On a recent flight to Hawaii (post 9/11) I had no problem with the GPSr in the RAM mount suction-cupped to the window. On the way back the FA actually attempted to create a scene when it was in my hand! Remember; ignorance causes fear.

 

The best configuration I have used it this one: The GPSr sitting on the tray table and the antenna suction-cupped to the window. Shadio Rack sells a short cable with a male BNC on one end and two small suction cups and male right-angle BNC at the other. Using another right angle BNC connector allows you to rotate the antenna to the best angle.

 

If your house catches afire, and there aint no water around,

If your house catches afire, and there aint no water around,

Throw your jelly out the window; let the dog-gone shack burn down.

**Huddie Ledbetter**

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Gliderguy:

GPSR's are specifically ALLOWED on Southwest airlines flights except for the takeoff and landing portion of the flight.


 

I had my Legend out on a Southwest flight over the summer, and none of the flight attendants said a word about it. I didn't take it out until I saw in the in-flight magazine that they were allowed. My girlfriend and I both enjoyed being able to know what we were flying over; I especially liked watching the speed - 398 mph was the fastest my GPSr has ever been. icon_smile.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Gliderguy:

GPSR's are specifically ALLOWED on Southwest airlines flights except for the takeoff and landing portion of the flight.


 

I had my Legend out on a Southwest flight over the summer, and none of the flight attendants said a word about it. I didn't take it out until I saw in the in-flight magazine that they were allowed. My girlfriend and I both enjoyed being able to know what we were flying over; I especially liked watching the speed - 398 mph was the fastest my GPSr has ever been. icon_smile.gif

Link to comment

quote:
So I therefore assume its my legal right to use the thing if I want.

 

You don't have a "legal right" to use anything on a commercial flight that the flight crews asks you not to use! Not even the bathroom(just try using the restroom during a "don't leave your seats phase of your flight)! Assuming that you have a "legal right" to use your GPSR without permission will end up getting your flight diverted, with some unhappy folks wearing sunglasses waiting for you upon landing and your name on CNN that night!

Link to comment

If a pilot ever asked me to shut it off and put it away I would do so immediately.

Nor would I ever do anything that would put the safety of the plane (or anyone on it) in jeapordy.

 

What irritates me is when a flight attendant with barely a high school education and has not the foggiest notion what a GPS even is tells me I can't use it.

 

If that list (referenced in this thread) of airlines that offically allow GPS' is correct, not only do these people not know what it is, they apparently don't even know their own company's policy on the subject!

 

Sadly the events of 9/11 have given maximum authority to those people with a minimum of intelligence (ticket counter folks, gate attendants, flight attendants, x-ray screeners, etc.)

 

My Vista looks almost identical to my cell phone so I can absolutely see the flight crew questioning me on that.

 

I think I'm going to use that travel planner story, although putting on a pair of headphones and pretending to be-bop to the "tunes" on my GPS is too funny.

I'll also continue to use it as discreetly as possible just to avoid questions in the first place.

 

I'm going away next week and before I leave I'm going to check the USAir website (assuming they are still in business then icon_biggrin.gif) and print out their policy if I can find it.

 

Come to think of it, the reception on my Vista is so lousy I doubt it will even work on a plane.

 

Does anyone know if the barometric altimeter can be shut off and just use the satellites to determine altitude? I assume the pressurized cabin will preclude the barometric altimeter from working properly. Or perhaps I can recalibrate it when the pilot announces what altitude we're currently flying at.

 

Any thoughts?

Link to comment

If a pilot ever asked me to shut it off and put it away I would do so immediately.

Nor would I ever do anything that would put the safety of the plane (or anyone on it) in jeapordy.

 

What irritates me is when a flight attendant with barely a high school education and has not the foggiest notion what a GPS even is tells me I can't use it.

 

If that list (referenced in this thread) of airlines that offically allow GPS' is correct, not only do these people not know what it is, they apparently don't even know their own company's policy on the subject!

 

Sadly the events of 9/11 have given maximum authority to those people with a minimum of intelligence (ticket counter folks, gate attendants, flight attendants, x-ray screeners, etc.)

 

My Vista looks almost identical to my cell phone so I can absolutely see the flight crew questioning me on that.

 

I think I'm going to use that travel planner story, although putting on a pair of headphones and pretending to be-bop to the "tunes" on my GPS is too funny.

I'll also continue to use it as discreetly as possible just to avoid questions in the first place.

 

I'm going away next week and before I leave I'm going to check the USAir website (assuming they are still in business then icon_biggrin.gif) and print out their policy if I can find it.

 

Come to think of it, the reception on my Vista is so lousy I doubt it will even work on a plane.

 

Does anyone know if the barometric altimeter can be shut off and just use the satellites to determine altitude? I assume the pressurized cabin will preclude the barometric altimeter from working properly. Or perhaps I can recalibrate it when the pilot announces what altitude we're currently flying at.

 

Any thoughts?

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by ejmct:

Does anyone know if the barometric altimeter can be shut off and just use the satellites to determine altitude? I assume the pressurized cabin will preclude the barometric altimeter from working properly. Or perhaps I can recalibrate it when the pilot announces what altitude we're currently flying at.

 

Any thoughts?


 

I've recently flown w/my 76S on Northworst without any problems from the flight staff.

 

I used my external antenna (see ebay... gpsgeeks) because it was easier than holding the unit close to the window.

 

On the 76S (not sure of Vista) you can see both GPS and barametric altitude. The GPS altitude was obviously correct at 30K+ ft. The barametric altitude was at times 5k ft. and other times as high as 7k ft.

 

The older woman sitting next to me was very interested and amazed at being able to see exactly where we were and how fast we were going (599mph), how soon we'd be there etc. She said her son would love one and thought a gps might be under the tree for him for Christmas...!!!

 

"Never have a philosophy which supports a lack of courage..."49061_400.gif

Link to comment

I've found that if you have a quick chat with either the pilot or the co-pilot before you get in the air, not only do they understand what a GPS is (as they should!), they're likely to give you the thumbs up to use it while in-flight. If the flight deck crew gives you the 'O.K.', you'll have no problem with the flight attendants in the passenger cabin.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Criminal:

I get absolutely no signal through the cockpit windows on C-141B StarLifters.


 

The cockpit windows of most aircraft are designed to heat for de-icing. Usually this is done by laminating a very thin layer of gold filament between two panes of glass. The metal will not allow the GPSr to "see" the satellites.

Link to comment

quote:
The cockpit windows of most aircraft are designed to heat for de-icing. Usually this is done by laminating a very thin layer of gold filament between two panes of glass. The metal will not allow the GPSr to "see" the satellites.

 

Kingsman,

It never ceases to amaze me what can be learned in the most innocuous threads on this site. Outstanding!

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Anders:

With the eTrex, the only concern I've met is if it's a cellular phone, since they aren't allowed. No, I answer, it's a travel planner, which it kind of is, but they haven't heard about, so they assume it's like a PDA or something and there hasn't been any further questions.

 

Anders


 

Heh, travel planner. Thats actually a good one. I'll have to remember that next time. icon_smile.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Anders:

With the eTrex, the only concern I've met is if it's a cellular phone, since they aren't allowed. No, I answer, it's a travel planner, which it kind of is, but they haven't heard about, so they assume it's like a PDA or something and there hasn't been any further questions.

 

Anders


 

Heh, travel planner. Thats actually a good one. I'll have to remember that next time. icon_smile.gif

Link to comment

A Vista does work in an aircraft, assuming you have it near the window. On some occasions, I had to make a "shelf" by putting something on the tray, close to the window, and then place the GPS on top. It depends upon how the window is located relative to the table.

 

The Vista uses the barometric sensor only, although the later versions can display the GPS altitude from the sat screen. But that's not even dynamic, meaning that it will show what it is, but you have to close and open that window again, to get it updated.

 

The perssure in a cabin is equivalent to about 2000 m above sea level. Recalibrating the Vista to, say, 11000 meters will not work, since it assumes that there must be something wrong, with such a difference.

 

Besides, if you do recalibrate at a lower level, it will not correctly sense changes in altitude anyway. As long as Garmin stubbornly refuses to make it possible to switch in the GPS altitude as an alternate data source for the elevation plot screen, it's nearly useless in an aircraft. Except for the postion, that is.

 

If you want to use the GPS on just any airline, try flying in the geo-suit. They'll have eyes for that only. Besides, makes the security inspections easier for them, too! icon_biggrin.gif

 

Anders

Link to comment

A Vista does work in an aircraft, assuming you have it near the window. On some occasions, I had to make a "shelf" by putting something on the tray, close to the window, and then place the GPS on top. It depends upon how the window is located relative to the table.

 

The Vista uses the barometric sensor only, although the later versions can display the GPS altitude from the sat screen. But that's not even dynamic, meaning that it will show what it is, but you have to close and open that window again, to get it updated.

 

The perssure in a cabin is equivalent to about 2000 m above sea level. Recalibrating the Vista to, say, 11000 meters will not work, since it assumes that there must be something wrong, with such a difference.

 

Besides, if you do recalibrate at a lower level, it will not correctly sense changes in altitude anyway. As long as Garmin stubbornly refuses to make it possible to switch in the GPS altitude as an alternate data source for the elevation plot screen, it's nearly useless in an aircraft. Except for the postion, that is.

 

If you want to use the GPS on just any airline, try flying in the geo-suit. They'll have eyes for that only. Besides, makes the security inspections easier for them, too! icon_biggrin.gif

 

Anders

Link to comment

I used mine on and off for a few minutes on my latest American Airlines flight (Aug. '02) and I guess nobody saw it. BUT, it IS listed in there list of things you can NOT have on the flight. It actually says GPS recievers. Once my wife read that I shut if off and put it away.

 

Can you blame them? The terrorists most likely used one while visiting the WTC to get coordinates and altitude of the buildings.

Link to comment

Thats very true Alan. But there were reports that a couple of them visited the WTC and may have had some type of "electronic" equipment with them. I heard that on the news last year. Probably the same few guys that actor James Woods was on a flight with and reported to the FBI. That same flight was the exact flight going to San Fran that was flown into the WTC.

 

Since they went to flight school wouldnt it be easier to fly a plane moving at 600 mph into a 200 ft wide target if they punched in coordinates to help guide them.

==================

Now how about someone telling me if you can post a pic to these reply's and how?

thanks.

Link to comment

good point alan.

 

i regularly fly in choppers and small aircraft, beavers, cesna and the like, and most of the navagation is done by sight. the only use for gps is course bearings and in extreme weather. besides aircraft have gps units that are much more advanced that our commercial unit, what about sa, when it was activated?

 

i believe that shortly after the attacks there were several pilots on cnn and other news shows saying that from watching tapes of the crashes that navigation was done on sight. i also believ that i saw on tv that some of the flight instructors these mopes used said the the terrorists asked about flying the liners on sight.

 

i wouldn't fly with a pilot who was depending on my gps for direction, but that won't stop some dumba$$ flight attendent from figuring that you have the key to the caramilk secret and are going to crash the plane. if you want to use your unit inflight, check with the pilot because he is the one who calls all the shots and the attendants do what they are told.

 

just an after thought, most of these terrorists has no experience flying air liners, do you really think that they were skilled enough to take the stick for the first time without a pilot and navigate the liner as if they had done it before? with all due respect to those affected by these attacks, i would think that the last moments of these flights was one hell of a rough ride.

Link to comment

Folks, sorry to say, but GPS units ARE radios to some degree. ANY device that receives signals use components such as beat-frequency oscilators (BFO) and they do generate a low level fix frequency that is TRANSMITTED. It is very low power, but it is transmitted all the same. There could be several reasons why planes don't want them used from this "possible" interferance issue to the fact that since they don't know/understand it, it should not be used. Simple truth is, if they ask you to shut it down, do so in RAPID fashion or you may just be escorted off by an air marshall. I take mine with me and use it in flight as long as they are cool about it, but if they tell me to shut it down, I shut it down. These days, even if they are stupid, don't argue with them. Take care.

Link to comment

If you want to define anything that emits electromegnetic radiation as a radio, then everything that's electric is a radio.

 

But perhaps we should first differentiate between radio receivers and transmitters. The GPS is not a transmitter, by any definition. It's a receiver.

 

It does generate electromagetic noise, as everything that's electric does. Electronic units with digital circuitry emits rather high frequencies, base on their clock frequency or harmonics thereof.

 

However, starting a laptop computer, with its significantly higher power consumption (an eTrex Vista runs on about 0.35 W), generates quite a lot more radiaton. With the clock frequencies that are regular today, it's in about the same frequency range too.

 

Now, looking at the battery compartment cover on an eTrex Vista, you'll see both the FCC and CE logos. So it has passed the limits for immunity and radiation levels, according to these standards. I assume it's tested according to FCC part 15 as a class B device, and checking in the manual of the Vista confirmed my assumption. According to the EMC directive of the European union, it's most likely tested as an IT equipment, which is roughly the same test.

 

The FCC standard is a little tougher in this case, with a lower allowed radiation level at higher frequencies, although the EMC directive is more stringent at lower frequencies. The lower ones (FCC ends at 450 kHz, while EMC goes down to 150 kHz) are hardly any problem in this case. Problems at these frequencies are usually due to power supplies or electronic motor drives. Both standards end (today, changes are suggested) at 1 MHz at the upper end. Since the GPS frequency is about 1.5 GHz, there must be oscillators in the unit with a higher frequency than 1 GHz.

 

But, and now I'm finally coming to the point, radiation at these frequencies is easily shielded with a thin, grounded layer of aluminium. Besides, the power dissipation of 0.35 W, where a significant part is used for something good, not heating up the enivronment, means that these signals are so weak, that it's not that easy to even measure them in a shielded room. I know, because out of curiosity, we tested while measuring another machine.

 

Now it's true that a lot of wirings in an aircraft is routed along the side walls, but I can say anyway that a small battery-powered GPS will not interfere with the aircraft's electronic systems.

 

Which doesn't say that any flight attendant can't still argue that she or he has the right not to allow the use of a GPS. But if you sneak it in, it's at least not that that causes a crash.

 

Anders

 

[This message was edited by Anders on September 17, 2002 at 04:08 AM.]

 

[This message was edited by Anders on September 17, 2002 at 04:14 AM.]

Link to comment

Anders,

 

Very informative - now can you argue for GSM phones to be used on 'planes? icon_smile.gif Mine's got a CE approval icon_wink.gif

 

I would have to argue philosophically against your comment that receivers are not transmitters. Generally, any receiver uses internal oscillators which will radiate - although as you point out the amount can be negligable.

 

Small point, did you mean GHz?

 

L1 = 1575.42MHz (1.57542GHz)

 

"Since the GPS frequency is about 1.5 MHz, there must be oscillators in the unit with a higher frequency than 1 MHz."

 

Nil Satis Nisi Optimum

Link to comment

Anders,

 

Very informative - now can you argue for GSM phones to be used on 'planes? icon_smile.gif Mine's got a CE approval icon_wink.gif

 

I would have to argue philosophically against your comment that receivers are not transmitters. Generally, any receiver uses internal oscillators which will radiate - although as you point out the amount can be negligable.

 

Small point, did you mean GHz?

 

L1 = 1575.42MHz (1.57542GHz)

 

"Since the GPS frequency is about 1.5 MHz, there must be oscillators in the unit with a higher frequency than 1 MHz."

 

Nil Satis Nisi Optimum

Link to comment

Yes, it's GHz, not MHz. Sorry. The test span for EMC is 150 MHz to 1 GHz (nowdays, used to end at 500 MHz). For FCC it's 450 MHz to 1 GHz. You're right about the GPS frequency, too. I just wasn't thinking. icon_frown.gif

I corrected my post above, and also corrected a few other errors and typos.

 

I still put my foot down firmly and state that a receiver is not any transmitter. By transmitter, I mean one that is an intentional transmitter. You hardly call a desktop computer a radio transmitter, in spite of the fact that it radiate significantly more than your GPS does, do you?

 

You can't argue that the GSM phone should be allowed, just because of the CE mark. A phone, which is an intentional transmitter, isn't tested against the same standard as a computer, GPS or similar. If it was, none would be allowed.

 

Finally, I'm happy you found the post informative (if you aren't ironic?). I happen to manage an Electric Systems Design department within a R&D facility at a company that manufactures machinery for computerised printing, in rather close cooperation with IBM, Océ and Xerox, to mention the larger of them. So this is my line of work, so to speak.

 

Anders

 

[This message was edited by Anders on September 17, 2002 at 04:15 AM.]

Link to comment

Yes, it's GHz, not MHz. Sorry. The test span for EMC is 150 MHz to 1 GHz (nowdays, used to end at 500 MHz). For FCC it's 450 MHz to 1 GHz. You're right about the GPS frequency, too. I just wasn't thinking. icon_frown.gif

I corrected my post above, and also corrected a few other errors and typos.

 

I still put my foot down firmly and state that a receiver is not any transmitter. By transmitter, I mean one that is an intentional transmitter. You hardly call a desktop computer a radio transmitter, in spite of the fact that it radiate significantly more than your GPS does, do you?

 

You can't argue that the GSM phone should be allowed, just because of the CE mark. A phone, which is an intentional transmitter, isn't tested against the same standard as a computer, GPS or similar. If it was, none would be allowed.

 

Finally, I'm happy you found the post informative (if you aren't ironic?). I happen to manage an Electric Systems Design department within a R&D facility at a company that manufactures machinery for computerised printing, in rather close cooperation with IBM, Océ and Xerox, to mention the larger of them. So this is my line of work, so to speak.

 

Anders

 

[This message was edited by Anders on September 17, 2002 at 04:15 AM.]

Link to comment

Wow, I go off and do some actual work and look what happens:

 

"I still put my foot down firmly and state that a receiver is not any transmitter. By transmitter, I mean one that is an intentional transmitter."

 

Like I said, my point was philosophical - A transmitter is a transmitter, intentionally or otherwise.

I was trying to stay a bit with the thread; ejmct had said GPS device wasn't a receiver, then HD-Man and Family said it was and that it was also a transmitter, then you said..then I said. But as you said, and I agreed with, it transmits at too low a level to be significant. But it does transmit.

 

"You hardly call a desktop computer a radio transmitter, in spite of the fact that it radiate significantly more than your GPS does, do you?"

 

Umm, actually I could. There used to be something called Tempest standards. Men in dark glasses could sit outside your building and receive data from your computer. These data were "transmitted" from the computer.

 

"You can't argue that the GSM phone should be allowed, just because of the CE mark. A phone, which is an intentional transmitter, isn't tested against the same standard as a computer, GPS or similar. If it was, none would be allowed."

 

My point, which I didn't express too well, is that you made such a good argument for allowing GPS devices to be used, that you could do it for mobile phones too. However, reading my post again I can see how my comment could be interpreted as sarcastic but the icon_smile.gif and icon_wink.gif are meant to imply a certain whimsical nature to the question.

 

"Finally, I'm happy you found the post informative (if you aren't ironic?). "

 

I am ironic, but I much prefer sarcasm icon_wink.gif. However, neither was implied in my post!

 

Nil Satis Nisi Optimum

Link to comment

Wow, I go off and do some actual work and look what happens:

 

"I still put my foot down firmly and state that a receiver is not any transmitter. By transmitter, I mean one that is an intentional transmitter."

 

Like I said, my point was philosophical - A transmitter is a transmitter, intentionally or otherwise.

I was trying to stay a bit with the thread; ejmct had said GPS device wasn't a receiver, then HD-Man and Family said it was and that it was also a transmitter, then you said..then I said. But as you said, and I agreed with, it transmits at too low a level to be significant. But it does transmit.

 

"You hardly call a desktop computer a radio transmitter, in spite of the fact that it radiate significantly more than your GPS does, do you?"

 

Umm, actually I could. There used to be something called Tempest standards. Men in dark glasses could sit outside your building and receive data from your computer. These data were "transmitted" from the computer.

 

"You can't argue that the GSM phone should be allowed, just because of the CE mark. A phone, which is an intentional transmitter, isn't tested against the same standard as a computer, GPS or similar. If it was, none would be allowed."

 

My point, which I didn't express too well, is that you made such a good argument for allowing GPS devices to be used, that you could do it for mobile phones too. However, reading my post again I can see how my comment could be interpreted as sarcastic but the icon_smile.gif and icon_wink.gif are meant to imply a certain whimsical nature to the question.

 

"Finally, I'm happy you found the post informative (if you aren't ironic?). "

 

I am ironic, but I much prefer sarcasm icon_wink.gif. However, neither was implied in my post!

 

Nil Satis Nisi Optimum

Link to comment

Since we now say, philosophically, that the shelter at a bus stop is a hangar, because a plane that's small enough can go in there. icon_eek.gif

 

Cars kill people, but they aren't (usually) called weapons just because of that.

 

But if you want some kind of argumentation to make it easier to get a GPS inside a commercial aircraft, I would recommend the traditional, technical viewpoint: A transmitter is a transmitter (by semantic definition) if it's intended to transmit. If not, it's a thing. Things do transmit, too, but they aren't called transmitters just because of that.

 

I have a reputation around here (not in the forum, but where I live), that if you want something sarcastic written, ask me. icon_wink.gif But I'm somewhat obstructed here (in this forum) by English not being my language, so the more subtle meanings may sometimes elude me.

icon_rolleyes.gif

 

Anders

Link to comment

Since we now say, philosophically, that the shelter at a bus stop is a hangar, because a plane that's small enough can go in there. icon_eek.gif

 

Cars kill people, but they aren't (usually) called weapons just because of that.

 

But if you want some kind of argumentation to make it easier to get a GPS inside a commercial aircraft, I would recommend the traditional, technical viewpoint: A transmitter is a transmitter (by semantic definition) if it's intended to transmit. If not, it's a thing. Things do transmit, too, but they aren't called transmitters just because of that.

 

I have a reputation around here (not in the forum, but where I live), that if you want something sarcastic written, ask me. icon_wink.gif But I'm somewhat obstructed here (in this forum) by English not being my language, so the more subtle meanings may sometimes elude me.

icon_rolleyes.gif

 

Anders

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...