MACpa Posted September 17, 2002 Share Posted September 17, 2002 Don't give the crew a hard time ListenThis is your Captain Speaking Quote Link to comment
dave and jaime Posted September 17, 2002 Share Posted September 17, 2002 anders, considering your background can you correct me if im wrong? considering that any device using electrical power gives off some background noise wouldn't that also make a digital watch a transmitter when one considers the physics? i believe that the thresholds are in place to give some limit as to how much noise a device can give off before it is classed as a transmitter by the fcc and like organizations. the purpose of the regulations, as i understand them, is to determine what is a transmitter in the real world. the microscopic amounts of noise given of by gps, laptops and the like are insignifant in real world applications. i think that the limits are set such that a device that conforms to said regulations can be considered safe for use in all enviroments. the regulations also say that such devices may not be cause interference and must accept interference that causes undesirable operation. these regulations do not however deal with some idiot who probably who, after reading this, would probably try to make the same argument that a man with a pace maker should turn that off while in flight as well because it to is a transmitter. Quote Link to comment
peter Posted September 17, 2002 Share Posted September 17, 2002 The FAA rules on use of passenger electronics specifically allow watches and pacemakers to be used at all times. Unfortunately, they leave the use of other electronic devices up to the discretion of the operator of the airline, so each airline sets their own policy as shown by the list I referenced earlier in this thread. I would think that a more rational and safer policy would be to set actual limits on the amount of electro-magnetic radiation devices are allowed to emit and still be permitted. A reasonable starting point would be the FCC Part 15 rules for Class B devices which is what most (all ?) GPS rcvrs. are designed to meet. [Look for a symbol with an 'F' follwed by a 'C' inside a second 'C' usually on the back of the GPS - this indicates compliance with the FCC spec.] This specification is also met by most laptops and other typical consumer electronics that are not intentional transmitters. To date the airlines have not been willing to either accept the FCC specification as sufficient or to come up with more stringent specs of their own. The result is that the rules are inconsistent between airlines and don't make much sense from a logical standpoint. One passenger may be using a laptop that isn't even certified as FCC compliant and get no complaint from the flight attendants while the person in the next seat using a GPSR with far lower emissions is asked to turn it off. But regardless of the actual level of emissions from a GPSr, you should certainly turn it off if requested to do so by the flight crew. Attempts to change the policies should be made to the airline management while on the ground - not by arguing with the flight crew. Quote Link to comment
fieldkat Posted September 17, 2002 Share Posted September 17, 2002 ...and smart-a** question. How much electrical radiation is given off by 150 people? You know, from our nervous system. (Sorry, I'm that jerk that says something stupid while all of the brainiacs are talking about curing cancer or cruise-missile guidance systems.) On my next plane ride, I'll ask the flight crew if using my GPS is okay with them. And I'll get the name of the person that gave the okay. If I am confronted by a flight attendant, I'll drop the name. If that doesn't work, I'll turn the GPS off. For the time being, I think we should all try to avoid any sort of negative activity while traveling by air, especially those that don't want hand-held GPS receivers to get any bad press. ... Quote Link to comment
fieldkat Posted September 17, 2002 Share Posted September 17, 2002 ...and smart-a** question. How much electrical radiation is given off by 150 people? You know, from our nervous system. (Sorry, I'm that jerk that says something stupid while all of the brainiacs are talking about curing cancer or cruise-missile guidance systems.) On my next plane ride, I'll ask the flight crew if using my GPS is okay with them. And I'll get the name of the person that gave the okay. If I am confronted by a flight attendant, I'll drop the name. If that doesn't work, I'll turn the GPS off. For the time being, I think we should all try to avoid any sort of negative activity while traveling by air, especially those that don't want hand-held GPS receivers to get any bad press. ... Quote Link to comment
dave and jaime Posted September 17, 2002 Share Posted September 17, 2002 peter you hit the nail on the head. my example of a watch and pace maker were used to simply to show how inconsistant policies or lack there of allows dim wits to screw things up for others. i also thank-you for showing that air canada allows gps use while in flight. Quote Link to comment
Cire Yamel Posted September 17, 2002 Share Posted September 17, 2002 I flew on four United flights yesterday and it was the first time every single one of them announced that GPSr could not be used below 10,000 feet. Quote Link to comment
fig Posted September 17, 2002 Share Posted September 17, 2002 If a watch, a pacemaker, a GPS, or even a cell phone will bring down an airplane, I don't want to be in it.. I find it a little humorous that we are discussing how small of an electronic device can disrupt an airliner's navigational systems. Sorry, but I really think that airplanes should be built to different standards, and should be able to handle a couple of truckers running their illegal 1000 watt CB's talking to each other from first class and coach. Since we are posing questions, how much electronic noise does lightning emit? On my flight a few weeks ago, we were landing in Denver, and there was a lot of lightning in the general area, and a lot close to the plane. I would think if anything would mess with electronics, it would be a nice bolt of high voltage electricity. Or is lightning high current? I can't remember. Fig Quote Link to comment
fig Posted September 17, 2002 Share Posted September 17, 2002 If a watch, a pacemaker, a GPS, or even a cell phone will bring down an airplane, I don't want to be in it.. I find it a little humorous that we are discussing how small of an electronic device can disrupt an airliner's navigational systems. Sorry, but I really think that airplanes should be built to different standards, and should be able to handle a couple of truckers running their illegal 1000 watt CB's talking to each other from first class and coach. Since we are posing questions, how much electronic noise does lightning emit? On my flight a few weeks ago, we were landing in Denver, and there was a lot of lightning in the general area, and a lot close to the plane. I would think if anything would mess with electronics, it would be a nice bolt of high voltage electricity. Or is lightning high current? I can't remember. Fig Quote Link to comment
+DarrenF Posted September 17, 2002 Share Posted September 17, 2002 quote:Originally posted by peter:The FAA rules on use of passenger electronics specifically allow watches and pacemakers to be used at all times. Cool! All I have to do is modify my bike-mount to connect to a wrist strap and my GPS is a fancy watch... then they can't disallow it--the FAA specifically permits watches! I say that in jest, and with a mental image of my eTrex duct taped to my wrist (I wish I had a digital camera...) but seriously... With the pace of development of electronic devices, and the convergence of functions, nowadays it's sometimes hard to tell a watch from a radio from a calculator from a PDA from a phone from a video game from a laptop. Allowing and forbidding specific devices will soon become (already has, to some degree) a silly and pointless practice when PDA-mobile-phone with built-in GPS functionaliy and wireless network capability is released. They currently allow laptops, but make no mention of what 'accessories' the laptop may or may not have. Heck, there's currently nothing stopping people from using their 802.11b cards in their laptops and having an ad-hoc network right there in the plane. I'm sure there are GPS-cards for laptops too--the flight crew has no way of knowing someone with a laptop is using one. The whole thing is somewhat silly, imo, and I expect at least partly continued with greed in mind--to try to make a buck off of plane-to-ground communications by continuing to forbit people from using communications devices on board. df [This message was edited by DarrenF on September 17, 2002 at 04:22 PM.] Quote Link to comment
+Alan2 Posted September 17, 2002 Share Posted September 17, 2002 I realize this might not sound technical to you whiz kids, but a transmitter would seem to need a receiver to be technically a transmitter. It may transmit signals, it may be noisy, but until it has a mate, it's not a transmitter. Alan Quote Link to comment
+apersson850 Posted September 17, 2002 Share Posted September 17, 2002 Obviously, since there are many posts in this thread. First, according to my definition, a transmitter is a transmitter if it's intended to transmit. Even if there is no receiver. Just think about it: When I'm talking to my wife, I'm a speaker, in spite of the fact that she doesn't listen to me at all. Second, a GSM phone, which indeed does transmit, even if you don't speak to someone with it, will not bring a plane down. But it does interfere with the radio communication system of the aircraft, and I can understand that the pilots don't want to hear the typical "bzzz-bzzz-bzzz" in their headphones when they are talking to the tower. Third, a thing (see previous post for definition of "thing") does transmit, even if it's not an intended transmitter. That's why there are emission standards. In the US, you've for a long time been far behind Europe when it comes to radio broadcasting. While virtually no stations in Europe has used anything but FM for many years, AM radio has been popular in the US a long time now. You still use it, I suspect? Since AM radio is far more sensitive to noise than FM radio, this inevitably lead to that the US got a leading position in making emission standards. FCC simply had to, to be able to to some extent guarantee public broadcasting quality. One of the more well known to the public, is FCC Part 15, since it's about IT equipment. Computers do interfere with AM reception (and sometimes with FM too), so they are nasty by nature. Most of these standards (FCC Part 15 too) has two levels, one for industry and one for household/domestic. In the industry (class A devices), a higher level is tolerated, or most of the industries would have to close down. Class B devices emit less, and must be tested by a third party testing facility. Class A devices can be tested by the manufacturer (self certification). Canada has hooked up along the same lines, more or less, with their ICES (Industry Canada Emission Standards), which sometimes are identical to FCC, sometimes not. Part 15 is about the same, but FCC Part 18 (industrial machinery) isn't accepted without modifications in Canada, for example. In Europe, the European union has issued the Electromagnetic Compatibility Directive 89/336/E.E.C., with amendments 92/31/E.E.C. and 93/68/E.E.C. This directive has lead to the formation of different standards, where EN (European Normative) 50081 concerns airborne emissions, while EN55011 is about noise that's sent out to the feeding power supply (not applicable to battery operated equipment, of course). These standards, which also comes in household and industrial versions, are generic standards. For various equipment, there are product specific standards. EN68002 concerns electronic motor drives (still a draft, I think), for example. There are also specific standards for mobile phones (allows more radiation) and for medical equipment (allows virtually nothing at all), to mention a few. Fulfilment of the EMC directive is mandatory within the European Union, just like FCC is in the US. In Japan, there is no mandatory standard, but the VCCI standard (Voluntary Council for Computer Interference) is demanded by most customers. This is basically the European standard straight off, but -3 dBu over the entire frequency range. If anyone even tried reading all this way, you are probably wondering why I'm telling you all this, which has very little to do with GPS or flying? Well, I just want to give some background information to why it may be very difficult to get a worldwide standard for allowed emission in commercial aircrafts, considering that not even the USA and Canada (which are rather like, in several aspects), can unite about the allowed emission levels for household appliances. From the beginning, FCC was only concerned about not disturbing radio broadcasting. Inspired by the EMC directive (and for other reasons, most likely), FCC now also requests a certain immunity in most cases. Fourth, watches and pace makers also transmit. To avoid having to bother with things like that, the EMC directive has a lower power limit, which means that digital watches doesn't have to be approved, for example. But the pace maker has to meet the medical standards, of course. Fifth, the integration of functions in the same device will inevitably make it more difficult to determine according to which standard the device should be tested. As a summary, I think we are still a long way from the moment, when there is a "you can use this in an aircraft" international emission standard, that's accepted world-wide. Anders Quote Link to comment
+apersson850 Posted September 17, 2002 Share Posted September 17, 2002 Obviously, since there are many posts in this thread. First, according to my definition, a transmitter is a transmitter if it's intended to transmit. Even if there is no receiver. Just think about it: When I'm talking to my wife, I'm a speaker, in spite of the fact that she doesn't listen to me at all. Second, a GSM phone, which indeed does transmit, even if you don't speak to someone with it, will not bring a plane down. But it does interfere with the radio communication system of the aircraft, and I can understand that the pilots don't want to hear the typical "bzzz-bzzz-bzzz" in their headphones when they are talking to the tower. Third, a thing (see previous post for definition of "thing") does transmit, even if it's not an intended transmitter. That's why there are emission standards. In the US, you've for a long time been far behind Europe when it comes to radio broadcasting. While virtually no stations in Europe has used anything but FM for many years, AM radio has been popular in the US a long time now. You still use it, I suspect? Since AM radio is far more sensitive to noise than FM radio, this inevitably lead to that the US got a leading position in making emission standards. FCC simply had to, to be able to to some extent guarantee public broadcasting quality. One of the more well known to the public, is FCC Part 15, since it's about IT equipment. Computers do interfere with AM reception (and sometimes with FM too), so they are nasty by nature. Most of these standards (FCC Part 15 too) has two levels, one for industry and one for household/domestic. In the industry (class A devices), a higher level is tolerated, or most of the industries would have to close down. Class B devices emit less, and must be tested by a third party testing facility. Class A devices can be tested by the manufacturer (self certification). Canada has hooked up along the same lines, more or less, with their ICES (Industry Canada Emission Standards), which sometimes are identical to FCC, sometimes not. Part 15 is about the same, but FCC Part 18 (industrial machinery) isn't accepted without modifications in Canada, for example. In Europe, the European union has issued the Electromagnetic Compatibility Directive 89/336/E.E.C., with amendments 92/31/E.E.C. and 93/68/E.E.C. This directive has lead to the formation of different standards, where EN (European Normative) 50081 concerns airborne emissions, while EN55011 is about noise that's sent out to the feeding power supply (not applicable to battery operated equipment, of course). These standards, which also comes in household and industrial versions, are generic standards. For various equipment, there are product specific standards. EN68002 concerns electronic motor drives (still a draft, I think), for example. There are also specific standards for mobile phones (allows more radiation) and for medical equipment (allows virtually nothing at all), to mention a few. Fulfilment of the EMC directive is mandatory within the European Union, just like FCC is in the US. In Japan, there is no mandatory standard, but the VCCI standard (Voluntary Council for Computer Interference) is demanded by most customers. This is basically the European standard straight off, but -3 dBu over the entire frequency range. If anyone even tried reading all this way, you are probably wondering why I'm telling you all this, which has very little to do with GPS or flying? Well, I just want to give some background information to why it may be very difficult to get a worldwide standard for allowed emission in commercial aircrafts, considering that not even the USA and Canada (which are rather like, in several aspects), can unite about the allowed emission levels for household appliances. From the beginning, FCC was only concerned about not disturbing radio broadcasting. Inspired by the EMC directive (and for other reasons, most likely), FCC now also requests a certain immunity in most cases. Fourth, watches and pace makers also transmit. To avoid having to bother with things like that, the EMC directive has a lower power limit, which means that digital watches doesn't have to be approved, for example. But the pace maker has to meet the medical standards, of course. Fifth, the integration of functions in the same device will inevitably make it more difficult to determine according to which standard the device should be tested. As a summary, I think we are still a long way from the moment, when there is a "you can use this in an aircraft" international emission standard, that's accepted world-wide. Anders Quote Link to comment
appletree Posted September 17, 2002 Share Posted September 17, 2002 I have used and enjoyed my Vista on several Delta flights with no problems, so I was surprised and disappointed when an American FA told me to turn it off on a flight to Dallas in June. I complied, and later found the prohibition listed in the magazine. As I was leaving, I asked the pilot about it and he said he thought it was ok. A week later, another American FA asked me to turn it off. I told her what the pilot had said and she offered to check with the captain. She returned and said he had no problem with my using it. A while later, she came back to ask what speed it was registering. The crew had changed the speed and wanted to see if my unit was reading the same as their instruments. Regarding GPSR use by hijackers, since everyone allows passengers to bring GPSRs on board, batteries included, how can passenger use restrictions prevent a hijacker from using one after he or she takes over a plane? If there is a reason for this rule, I fail to see the sense to it. I also like to avoid hassles with FAs, so now I just hang my vista from a suction cup hook on the window, and hang my hat from the same hook, covering the Vista. I have a cable that connects the vista to my laptop running MapSource which shows my position on a full color map and displays the other GPS info, including GPS altitude, in a separate window. Flying is a whole new experience for me now. Finally, I would echo the sentiment that if GPSRs, cell phones, or any other items that can legally be brought into an airplane cabin can pose a genuine hazard to the plane, then there are some design and/or security issues that need prompt attention. If not, please let us have some harmless fun! Quote Link to comment
durandall Posted September 18, 2002 Share Posted September 18, 2002 Good point! I've happend to read several times that in fact no consumer electronic devices can cause interferences with the plane's electronics at all. Not even cell phones or other two-ways radios. I wouldn't be surprised at all if this was true. It can be so hard to convince people that something is wrong when they really believe it. And because in this case almost eveybody does, you have no chance to prove you're right. There's many wrong theories out there. Many of them are scientifical ones and just because they are, everybody believes it. Now would be the right moment to post an example, unfortunately I can't remeber a good one Anyway, I'm sure you got the idea... Quote Link to comment
durandall Posted September 18, 2002 Share Posted September 18, 2002 Good point! I've happend to read several times that in fact no consumer electronic devices can cause interferences with the plane's electronics at all. Not even cell phones or other two-ways radios. I wouldn't be surprised at all if this was true. It can be so hard to convince people that something is wrong when they really believe it. And because in this case almost eveybody does, you have no chance to prove you're right. There's many wrong theories out there. Many of them are scientifical ones and just because they are, everybody believes it. Now would be the right moment to post an example, unfortunately I can't remeber a good one Anyway, I'm sure you got the idea... Quote Link to comment
+apersson850 Posted September 18, 2002 Share Posted September 18, 2002 When flying our company jet, we operate from a small airfield as our home base. It's rather fun to see the pilots sometimes using their GSM phones from the cockpit, calling Göran (the airport maintenance man) to get him out there and turn the landing lights on, if they can't reach him via radio. This happens now and then, if we are ahead of the planned landing time. I asked the pilots about it, and they answered that the only problem with a phone was disturbance to the communication radio, but since he (Göran) didn't answer there anyway, it didn't matter then. When I used my Vista in our plane, the pilots smiled and said "If you are that curious about our whereabouts, why not sit in the cockpit instead?". Remember that this is a private jet... But technically, it's about the same thing, or even worse, since it's smaller (eight passengers), hence all wiring is in a more confined space. Anders Quote Link to comment
Schlags Posted September 18, 2002 Share Posted September 18, 2002 quote:Originally posted by fig: Since we are posing questions, how much electronic noise does lightning emit? On my flight a few weeks ago, we were landing in Denver, and there was a lot of lightning in the general area, and a lot close to the plane. I would think if anything would mess with electronics, it would be a nice bolt of high voltage electricity. Or is lightning high current? I can't remember. Fig I work for a company that provides communication/navigation to the airframers and the government. Planes are designed to dissipate lighting strikes, further ALL "critical" (and virtually all non-critical) flight instruments are designed to withstand lightining strikes (usually through the connectors). Planes are commonly hit by lighting and you never know it. Quote Link to comment
dave and jaime Posted September 18, 2002 Share Posted September 18, 2002 while at radio shack today and looking through their catalogs and they now market a gps/watch unit the retails for $650can. i guess with developments such as these the airlines are eventually going to have to get some uniform policy. Quote Link to comment
fig Posted September 18, 2002 Share Posted September 18, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Schlags:I work for a company that provides communication/navigation to the airframers and the government. Planes are designed to dissipate lighting strikes, further ALL "critical" (and virtually all non-critical) flight instruments are designed to withstand lightining strikes (usually through the connectors). Planes are commonly hit by lighting and you never know it. That's pretty interesting. Is it made easier because the plane is not grounded? My dad was a radar technician for the FAA, so you would think I would know more about this than I actually do. I knew about planes getting struck, but I didn't realize it was quite as often. This last time for me was interesting because we were on final approach, and you could see the lightning hit close by, and then heard it in the plane. I also was extremely close to a lightning strike, it hit a tree that was about 40 feet away from me, and not only did it have everyone's hair standing on end, your mouth had that taste that you get when you put a 9 volt battery on your tongue, only much stronger.My thought would be if the plane electronics can handle a lightning strike, a cell phone or gps should be nothing interference wise. Thanks, Fig Quote Link to comment
ejmct Posted September 25, 2002 Author Share Posted September 25, 2002 This weekend took it on my flights out west. As expected, the Vista's reception wasn't great but if I held it right next to the window it did work. What was very cool was that with Mapsource you could literally tell the name of the street below the plane. This is the kind of useless information that impresses the folks sitting next to you though! Quote Link to comment
continouswave Posted September 26, 2002 Share Posted September 26, 2002 I recently took a flight to Milwaukee, Wi i Took my gps with me and I was allowed to use it only when we were up at 31,000 ft mark and speeds of 650 mph. so on descent and landing it was put up in my carry on bag. I had no problems with mine at all. They acted like they really did not care? Or maybe like the other fellow said clueless !!!FA's ,,,, They will check you out real good at sercurity gates and If you get the wrong person , You will just about have to undress. It's neat to know how high you are up in the bird and going at least 650 mph,,,, The space shuttle flys at 17,000+ MPH so airplanes are slow compared to it. Happy flying with your gps's ,,, and Happy Hunting for Geo-Caching stuff. Continouswave Quote Link to comment
continouswave Posted September 26, 2002 Share Posted September 26, 2002 I recently took a flight to Milwaukee, Wi i Took my gps with me and I was allowed to use it only when we were up at 31,000 ft mark and speeds of 650 mph. so on descent and landing it was put up in my carry on bag. I had no problems with mine at all. They acted like they really did not care? Or maybe like the other fellow said clueless !!!FA's ,,,, They will check you out real good at sercurity gates and If you get the wrong person , You will just about have to undress. It's neat to know how high you are up in the bird and going at least 650 mph,,,, The space shuttle flys at 17,000+ MPH so airplanes are slow compared to it. Happy flying with your gps's ,,, and Happy Hunting for Geo-Caching stuff. Continouswave Quote Link to comment
+Firefishe Posted September 27, 2002 Share Posted September 27, 2002 My solution is simple: I don't fly on commercial flights. I do fly on private flights, where I know the pilots personally, the aircraft all take off from GA (General Aviation) terminals, and the folks know me well enough to understand what I'm about. If I have to travel overseas, I find someone with their own aircraft--jet or otherwise--and make an offer. If they can, they can, and if they can't, they can't. It's that simple. I can go later. If I can't find a private/charter flight, then I travel by water! Glub Glub! <*[[[[[>< Fishe like water, dig it?! Warm regards, Firefishe Quote Link to comment
+Firefishe Posted September 27, 2002 Share Posted September 27, 2002 My solution is simple: I don't fly on commercial flights. I do fly on private flights, where I know the pilots personally, the aircraft all take off from GA (General Aviation) terminals, and the folks know me well enough to understand what I'm about. If I have to travel overseas, I find someone with their own aircraft--jet or otherwise--and make an offer. If they can, they can, and if they can't, they can't. It's that simple. I can go later. If I can't find a private/charter flight, then I travel by water! Glub Glub! <*[[[[[>< Fishe like water, dig it?! Warm regards, Firefishe Quote Link to comment
+Zahrim Posted September 27, 2002 Share Posted September 27, 2002 quote:Originally posted by ejmct: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? 1. I have an aunt who is a 'Flight Attendant', and she has a PHD, so, please do not disparage any group of people because of their job, for you will end up being dead wrong, and just as bad as a raciest, just not race. So, I guess we could call it 'jobist?'. 2. Almost all electronic devices are disallowed on takeoff/landing because they have the potential to interfere with the planes instruments. (Can we say ''I can't see the runway on the scope...'' *Crash*?) 3. 9/11 being taken into account, and even if it was not, a GPS has the potential to give someone enough information to give a ground based So-And-So a ''Target'' in the sky. I LOVE my GPS, and use it every time I am in my truck to watch the map, even when I know where I am going. But, there is just to much at risk these days to even think about raising a stink if I were asked to turn it off. Anyway, I guess I will shut up now. Zahrim.... "There's no need to be afraid of strange noises in the night. Anything that intends you harm will stalk you silently." Quote Link to comment
+Zahrim Posted September 27, 2002 Share Posted September 27, 2002 I have to wonder.... If you was to walk up to 100 people on the street and show them your GPSr, just how many do you think would be able to tell you what it was at a glance? I am betting that it would be a very low number. From my own dealings with a GPS and people who don't use one, I have found that if they have never seen one before, they will not know what one is. If they have been introduced to at least one in the past, then when they see another one, they will see it for what it is in a matter of seconds.... So, all things are relative to what you are dealing with. Zahrim.... "There's no need to be afraid of strange noises in the night. Anything that intends you harm will stalk you silently." Quote Link to comment
+GOT GPS? Posted September 28, 2002 Share Posted September 28, 2002 One thing you can do is to get a GPS 2+,3,3+, or 5, and get a short BNC cable to extend the unit's antenna a couple feet. Suctioncup it to the window, turn the contrast all the way down. Make sure to disable the backlight(that transmits alot of energy). Put the unit in it's case, but ask if you can use the Global Positioning unit during the flight, when putting it in it's case. Would be a bad idea to do this though, on an airline that does not allow it's use period... Laptops could sometimes generate electromagnetic energy, that could effect the electronic compass in the cockpit. Autopilot connects to the electronic compass for navigation. The backlight on alot of devices can be harmful to proper navigation of the aircraft also. ------------------------ My home page about GPS units and information Quote Link to comment
Jsuber Posted September 28, 2002 Share Posted September 28, 2002 I had a nice window seat and pressed my Map 76 against the glass. I got the speed with no problem. I shut it off and listed to my CD player. See ya. Quote Link to comment
RedOne77 Posted September 28, 2002 Share Posted September 28, 2002 We'll i'm new here but this topic was to good to pass up. I fly for an airline and while some of the things said are true, some weren't. 1st. Flight attentdants, well many are very intelligent and nice but then some aren't, nuff' said. 2nd. Usage, each airline is different, so defintely check and if all else fails do what some of you already do, ask the pilots. 3rd. Interference with the a/c, while i've never had a problem with any electronic inteference, i still stress the no electroinc devices below 10,000 feet, (normal for most). but if all else fails ask the pilots. 4th. Altitude with Gps, in my experience with differnt handhelds the altitude will vary greatly sometimes, used to use a G195 in small a/c and was sometimes close but rarely. 5th. Come chat with us, on several occasions i've spoken to people about handhelds vs. the onboard. (which is pretty accurate,great when in the mts. of mexico) note. The spelling and grammar errors in no way reflect flying abilities. "I found the cache, but where's the car?....." Quote Link to comment
RedOne77 Posted September 28, 2002 Share Posted September 28, 2002 We'll i'm new here but this topic was to good to pass up. I fly for an airline and while some of the things said are true, some weren't. 1st. Flight attentdants, well many are very intelligent and nice but then some aren't, nuff' said. 2nd. Usage, each airline is different, so defintely check and if all else fails do what some of you already do, ask the pilots. 3rd. Interference with the a/c, while i've never had a problem with any electronic inteference, i still stress the no electroinc devices below 10,000 feet, (normal for most). but if all else fails ask the pilots. 4th. Altitude with Gps, in my experience with differnt handhelds the altitude will vary greatly sometimes, used to use a G195 in small a/c and was sometimes close but rarely. 5th. Come chat with us, on several occasions i've spoken to people about handhelds vs. the onboard. (which is pretty accurate,great when in the mts. of mexico) note. The spelling and grammar errors in no way reflect flying abilities. "I found the cache, but where's the car?....." Quote Link to comment
+trippy1976 Posted September 30, 2002 Share Posted September 30, 2002 I used a GPS on a plane once with no issue. I fly the route regularly and wondered what this neat little set of islands we fly over were. When i got home, I downloaded my tracks into MapPoint and found out. It was pretty cool, but in all reality - having done it once, I'll probably never do it again -------- trippy1976 Quote Link to comment
+trippy1976 Posted September 30, 2002 Share Posted September 30, 2002 I used a GPS on a plane once with no issue. I fly the route regularly and wondered what this neat little set of islands we fly over were. When i got home, I downloaded my tracks into MapPoint and found out. It was pretty cool, but in all reality - having done it once, I'll probably never do it again -------- trippy1976 Quote Link to comment
+femo Posted February 29, 2004 Share Posted February 29, 2004 BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>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. not entirely true...... sorry for being the wizz kid, but the its all true, except that the windows ore heated for deicing ! they are heated for increased flexibility. glass does not like tempretures arnd minus 40 celsius and colder, thats why they get heated ! just my 2 cents sorry chris Quote Link to comment
Mittellegi Posted February 29, 2004 Share Posted February 29, 2004 I always fly SwissAir SwissAir policy is to allow GPS But in ALL cases follow two very basic rules: 1. Smile sweetly at the stewardess and ask her to check it's OK with the captain (after all, if it's an early morning flight, which it usually is, it's not inconceivable that she didn't spend the previous night in an anonymous hotel bed alone...) 2. Don't act as if you're a plane/train-spotting geek Quote Link to comment
+NightPilot Posted February 29, 2004 Share Posted February 29, 2004 (edited) Unfortunately, they leave the use of other electronic devices up to the discretion of the operator of the airline, so each airline sets their own policy as shown by the list I referenced earlier in this thread. Not precisely true. The Federal Aviation Regulations (Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations) *prohibit* *all* personal electronic devices unless the operator (airline) has determined that the device will not interfere with any aircraft system. FARs often have little relation to reality, and this is one of them. FARs take years to be changed, and this one is way behind the times. Some airlines check some devices, but no airline has checked every conceivable device. Some are more cautious than others about being violated by the FAA. Each airline sets its own policy on each device, but many take the easy way out and just prohibit everything. They have to change the general policy of prohibiting everything in order to approve anything. Can you spell PITA? Personally, I have no problems with a GPS. My aircraft has an approved GPS installed, which I use for navigation all the time, and before it was installed I used a handheld GPS in the cockpit for navigation, and I know that they do not interfere at all. But each captain has the final authority, and it certainly doesn't hurt to ask the FA to ask the captain for permission. You'll likely get it, if the FA really does ask. In reality, I've never seen any PED that causes a problem, but we have to jump through the FAA's hoops to get anything approved, and if an FAA inspector is on board I'm going to be a lot more careful than I would be otherwise, because he can violate me for any idiotic thing he can come up with, and there is no such thing as innocent until proven guilty - it's guilty until proven innocent, because it's an administrative punishment, not a criminal charge. Some FAA inspectors are reasonable, some aren't, and some are absolute idiots. I will not risk my license for your use of a GPS, but if I think I can do it without trouble, I will. Edited February 29, 2004 by NightPilot Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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.