GPS banned on planes

May 5, 2003

I noticed a post below that described a GPS being confiscated by amusement park security. Can anyone explain why GPS are banned on commercial flights? At least on America West, the rules essentially ban all electronics except music and game players. I was caught using mine (you have to place right up against the window), but I continued to sneak it because it is so cool having it tell you a speed of 579 mph. Its ironic that you can bring it on the plane but not use it. I would think that if the airline thought it represented a serious threat, they would require you to leave them in your luggage. Typical sledge hammer to kill a fly approach. Comments?

9.4k · May 5, 2003

Airplanes have sensitive electronics. Interference caused by your portable electronic device has the potential to interfere with the aircraft's systems.

GPSr's only receive data, not transmit. AM/FM radios are the same way. Both CAN transmit interference (regulated by the FCC). If malfunctioning, they can transmit quite a bit.

Banning all such devices is largely an insurance company/lawyer thing. No such device has ever downed a plane, but the potential exists.

BTW, yes it's neat seeing that your max. speed is 648 MPH! (I saved it from my last flight in December)

1.6k · May 5, 2003

A very simplistic explaination would be that most receivers have to generate a frequency at or near the signal it recieves in order to decode it. This frequency "leaks" from the receiver because there is generally no metal shielding.

Now, because airplanes have to be relatively light for fuel savings, they've sacrificed radio interference shielding.

Now combine a leaky receiver with unshielded critical equipment that is sensitive to the frequency being leaked, you have a situation where you could be interferring with the plane's abilities to fly or navigate properly.

That puts you, and everyone else on that plane, at risk.

That's the reason they ask you to not operate certain pieces of electronic gear.

Same goes with hospital equipment.

CR

May 5, 2003

I flew just 2 weeks agao on American Airlines and they do not ban them (except during takeoff and landing) I used mine for quite a while. We were cruising at 33,345 feet and going 556 MPH. The stewardess let me know that it was okay on that flight (from SLC to St. Louis). I had a couple of other people notice it and they came over to take a look.

I didn't wave the thing around, I didn't want anybody to get to nervous.

Where you all at?

20.7k · May 5, 2003

Several airlines do allow their use. We fly on WN pretty often and use it every time.

Somewhat off-topic, does anyone know if Virgin Atlantic allows GPSr usage?

May 5, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Sissy-n-CR:
...Now, because airplanes have to be relatively light for fuel savings, they've sacrificed radio interference shielding...

If anything aircraft wiring and instruments have become more shielded, virtually all critical system wiring is shielded by at least 1 overbraid shield, some have 2, but the increased sensitivity to RF noise, due to black boxes crammed with more and more circuits, have been known to cause problems. Off-hand the only problems I remember reading about are with passenger electronic devices very close to the E&E bay near the front of the aircraft.

I can't think of any example where shielding was reduced.

Was a Flight Test electrician for Boeing for 5 years, flight line electrician for 5 years, airworthiness inspector for 2.5 years upto the year 2000

_________________________________________________________

If trees could scream, would we still cut them down?

Well, maybe if they screamed all the time, for no reason.

Click here for my Geocaching pictures and Here (newest)

38.2k · May 5, 2003

Actually, I was told on an American Airlines flight that I couldn't use it. The attendant saw me using it and made me put it away. It was neat seeing the speed (520 mph) and being able to identify the cities and bodies of water as you passed over them.

Some airlines don't ban them though.

"It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues" -Abraham Lincoln

3.1k · May 5, 2003

We flew on National direct to Maui a few days ago and I had my gps on for the entire flight. No one said a word. They did mention that we needed to turn off any disallowed electronic devices but gps's aren't on the list. I didn't ask.

May 5, 2003

I am in LA now after flying in from Baltimore on Continental. I had my GPSr hooked to my laptop which was running MS MapPoint. Not a problem. Well there was times when I could not get a reading from the sats. But it never raised an eyebrow from any of the airline people. I guess it depends on the airline and always ask if someone on the flight crew can be asked if you can use it, if you are told to turn it off.

1.6k · May 5, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by martmann:

quote:
Originally posted by Sissy-n-CR:
...Now, because airplanes have to be relatively light for fuel savings, they've sacrificed radio interference shielding...

If anything aircraft wiring and instruments have become more shielded, virtually all critical system wiring is shielded by at least 1 overbraid shield, some have 2, but the increased sensitivity to RF noise, due to black boxes crammed with more and more circuits, have been known to cause problems. Off-hand the only problems I remember reading about are with passenger electronic devices very close to the E&E bay near the front of the aircraft.

I can't think of any example where shielding was reduced.

Was a Flight Test electrician for Boeing for 5 years, flight line electrician for 5 years, airworthiness inspector for 2.5 years upto the year 2000

Like I said, a very simplistic explaination. I didn't mean they've taken out shielding to accomodate the aircraft, but more like not built in shielding to take care of any scenerio. As it is obvious if there is adequate shielding against anything this whole conversation wouldn't be taking place. The designs are a give and take. Do they add shielding that may be only extra weight or deal with the problem by eliminating the source?

But as you well know, that's the basic theory, anyway, and instead of having the crew to make decisions on every piece of gear, they make blanket statements that such-n-such is not allowed. It's always better to be safe than sorry.

But I also bow to your expertise. I'm never been any kind of expert on aircraft.

Apparently, the enlightened crews will allow GPS units it appears.

CR

May 5, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by BrianSnat:
Actually, I was told on an American Airlines flight that I couldn't use it. The attendant saw me using it and made me put it away.

When we flew from London to LAX in February on American Airlines, it was printed in the flight magazine that GPS was banned.

A.

---------------------------------------------------

Knights of the Green Shield stamp and shout.....

2.3k · May 5, 2003

I went to Russia on Aeroflot and the pilots actually came back and wanted to borrow mine so they could tell how to get there....just kidding, but I had no problems using it...

9.4k · May 6, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by '68 Dodger:
I flew just 2 weeks agao on American Airlines and they do not ban them (except during takeoff and landing) I used mine for quite a while. We were cruising at 33,345 feet and going 556 MPH. The stewardess let me know that it was okay on that flight (from SLC to St. Louis). I had a couple of other people notice it and they came over to take a look.

I didn't wave the thing around, I didn't want anybody to get to nervous.

Actually, American specifically bans GPS receivers. It's in their in-flight magazine, but if you ask the pilot you may be allowed to use it. I had no trouble on 4 flights last December.

Your experience may vary, see official rules. Not available in all areas

May 6, 2003

Since some of us are relating past experiences...

I also recently flew American Airlines, from Nebraska to Charlotte. I wanted to try my GPSR while in flight. I approached the co-pilot in the boarding area and asked him about using it. He was very courteous and very knowledgeable. He stated that interference IS possible from GPSRs, although fairly unlikely. He elaborated that he knew our little handheld devices are receivers and not transmitters. He said that many of the older aircraft in airline fleets do not have the "interference rejection" (my term) capabilities of newer aircraft. I presume it deals somewhat with less effective shielding, as mentioned previsously in this topic, as well as improved solid state technology in newer aircraft.

One aircraft model he specifically mentioned that has seen some interference effects from on-board consumer electronics are the older McDonnel Douglas MD-80s - just like the one we were about to board. After his explanation, he said that he preferred I not use my GPSR while in flight and I didn't. I'm a firm believer that the flight crew (especially the pilots) are THE bosses while I'm on that aircraft.

If he had said it was okay to use it and I had it turned on in flight, but I later read in the airline magazine not to use it - would I have turned it off? Probably, I can't say for sure.

It does seem that a couple of the responders to this topic took an "I'll turn it on until they tell me to turn it off" approach without asking airline policy from a member of the air crew. That's not right - for their own safety and for the safety of others.

It's an exaggeration, I suppose, but I wonder if those people would turn off their GPSR if the plane were to suddenly do a snap roll and the altimeter on their little machine were to suddenly start rapidly decreasing from 40,000' toward zero?

May 6, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by '68 Dodger:
I used mine for quite a while. We were cruising at 33,345 feet and going 556 MPH.

This is interesting. I've had exeperiences with mine in which it told me the current speed but not the elevation. I'm assuming that this has something to do with cabin pressure. was your gpsr actually reading 33,345ft? I use an etrex vista. Anyway, I started believing that it wouldn't give me the actual elevation unless I was flying in a non pressurized cabin. ????

www.larsenfamily.com

family@larsenfamily.com

May 6, 2003

Since you had a problem with America West, just inform them that their main competitor (Southwest) happily allows GPS units, has similar prices and services many of the same airports. I just used mine on a flight between Columbus and Phoenix and had aprox. 25ft. of accuracy throughout the entire flight.

I also used mine on a Delta flight between Columbus and Minneapolis without a problem.

9.4k · May 6, 2003

It took some time for the altitude to change from 5000 feet (Albuquerque is roughly a mile high) to the actual altitude.

4.5k · May 6, 2003

Fly Iraqi Airlines. I think the allow it.

ALan

May 6, 2003

Although regarding the inflight use of cellular telephones and not having any direct bearing on this (GPSr) discussion, folks may find this 2 May 2003 article posted on the UK's Civil Aviation Authority's website an interesting read. It makes reference to a recent round of testing which confirms the findings of research conducted 3 years ago.

Now, if only they'd conduct a similar study on consumer-grade handheld GPSrs, then maybe the airlines could start singing from the same sheet of music when it comes to our little 'AA' powered bundles of joy...

1k · May 6, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by SuperMadCachers:
...I've had exeperiences with mine in which it told me the current speed but not the elevation. I'm assuming that this has something to do with cabin pressure...Anyway, I started believing that it wouldn't give me the actual elevation unless I was flying in a non pressurized cabin. ????

Depends on your GPSr. If it is equipped with a built-in barometric altimeter and is set up to display elevation from the barometric data, it will show the “cabin altitude”. This will normally be <8,000 ft. The little yellow dixie cup masks will drop from the ceiling if the cabin altitude gets much higher.

Most GPS receivers get their altitude data the same way they get their horizonal data - through triangulation. The altitude reading on these will show actual aircraft altitude regardless of whether the aircraft is pressurized or not.

Worldtraveler

2.7k · May 6, 2003

Cellular is banned more so for the fact that they will 'light up' thousands of cells on the ground than for their potential for interference with the aircraft. That is an FCC rule. Operation of cellular is very poor aboard aircraft because FNE equipment is not designed to do hand-offs to widely separated, non adjacent cells.

Virtually all electronic equipment, especially modern equipment having a microprocessor, generates SOME spurious RF. There is ALWAYS a possibility that this RF could cause a problem to aircraft communications and navigation equipment. Shielding does not matter if the spurious frequency happens to fall on a frequency that is being received (or desired to be received). The undesired signal simply comes in on the antenna with the desired signals.

Filtering and/or shielding requires that the wanted signal can in some way be differentiated from the unwanted signal. In case the unwanted signal is on the same frequency as a wanted signal, its closeness physically can make even a *very small* unwanted signal suficient to override a weaker signal from a distant transmitter (inverse squares law).

Therefore, from a completely technical view, there is good reason for caution in allowing ANY non-essential electronic equipment to be used on an aircraft.

I was once told (pre 911) that my GMRS tranceiver (5Watts) was OK as long as the Captain didn't encounter any problems. (I doubt that that would ever happen again). I 'lit up' about 6 repeaters flying over PA with the same PL code. The plane landed safely. (No problem caused by my 5 Watt TX)

Real incidences of harmful interference are rare, but I wouldn't want to be on the plane when one occurred. Especially during landing- TURN IT OFF!

Anyway, I suspect the primary reason some airlines ban GPSr's is the same reason they ban aircraft scanners- so the passengers don't know what is going on in case there is a problem that might cause panic.

Bio:

Motorola System Technologist- 18 yrs and counting- I especially enjoy hunting (and sometimes curing) interference

Caint never did nothing.

GDAE, Dave

May 7, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Alan2:
Fly Iraqi Airlines. I think the allow it.

ALan

I thought they jam GPS signals

_________________________________________________________

If trees could scream, would we still cut them down?

Well, maybe if they screamed all the time, for no reason.

Click here for my Geocaching pictures and Here (newest)

May 7, 2003

I work for a United Express/Delta Connection carrier and it is an absolute no no on our flights.

May 7, 2003

I just flew on Northwest from Providence to St. Paul and St. Paul to Albuquerque and my return flights were from Phoenix to Detroit and Detroit to Providence and I used my GPS the entire time and never tried to hide it. I just propped it up on my tray pointed it out the window and it worked great. None of the flight attendants said anything about it. It was very cool seeing how high we were and how fast we were going also the route they take to get from point a to point b. (for the record, I didn't have it on during take-off and landing)

Paul

6.4k · May 7, 2003

I documented lots of cases on interference to aircraft a month or 2 back over in this thread.

If you get that far, there is lots of more technical discussion to be found elsewhere in that thread as well.

Is it possible for your GPS/walman/laptop/pda to interfere with aircraft systems. YES.

Is it likely? NO.

Would I want to risk my life and hundreds of others on takeoff/landing if I should be that tiny percentage that might interfere? HELL NO!

Tae-Kwon-Leap is not a path to a door, but a road leading forever towards the horizon.

May 7, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by ChurchCampDave:
"...Anyway, I suspect the primary reason some airlines ban GPSr's is the same reason they ban aircraft scanners- so the passengers don't know what is going on in case there is a problem that might cause panic..."

You can't be serious. If that were really the case, there wouldn't be passenger windows near seats that overlook the engine nacelles (otherwise, we might be able to see them when they start to stream black smoke).

2.3k · May 7, 2003

Not to get off topic, but I was on an America West flight once and looked out at the engine to see honey-colored oil flowing back across the outside of the engine casing. The flight attendant reported it to the pilot, who came back and looked out my window to get a better view. Everyone on the plane was staring. I felt just like Shatner in the Twilight Zone. "Oh, that's normal", the captain said. Yea, right. My truck leaking oil is normal, at least when that happens I am not 32,000 feet above the ground...

2.3k · May 7, 2003

Getting back on topic...I would think that using a GPS or other instrument that could cause interference during takeoff and landing would be less dangerous than when reaching cruise altitude. It's when a plane is on auto-pilot that it would automatically respond to a false signal, right? I mean, if the plane is taking off and the instruments are reading that the plane is upside down and the pilot knows it isn't because he is looking out the window (hopefully), the pilot isn't going to freak out and flip the plane, right? But how would a plane respond if it was on auto-pilot? Would it respond at all? And just what instruments might be affected?

Just thoughts from a non-pilot Joe Schmoe, don't flame me too badly....

6.4k · May 7, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by TEAM 360:
Getting back on topic...I would think that using a GPS or other instrument that could cause interference during takeoff and landing would be less dangerous than when reaching cruise altitude. It's when a plane is on auto-pilot that it would automatically respond to a false signal, right? I mean, if the plane is taking off and the instruments are reading that the plane is upside down and the pilot knows it isn't because he is looking out the window (hopefully), the pilot isn't going to freak out and flip the plane, right? But how would a plane respond if it was on auto-pilot? Would it respond at all? And just what instruments might be affected?

Just thoughts from a non-pilot Joe Schmoe, don't flame me too badly....

Even if a plane is on auto-pilot, it's not like the crew are in the back knocking off a few drinks. They are still there watching everything.

At 40'000 ft, even if the plane drove straight into the ground at 400mph, there would still be over a full minute to react and correct the problem. A problem with navigation would be annoying, but probably not dangerous. If the navigation systems put you off course while you are at 200ft, think of how little time you have to figure the problem and react while traveling at speeds over 500ft per second

Tae-Kwon-Leap is not a path to a door, but a road leading forever towards the horizon.

4.5k · May 7, 2003

I may have missed something here but its hard to believe that airline electronics can be that sensitive to our small devices. If its that critical then we shouldnt even be allowed to bring them aboard! Someone is gonna allways try to be a sneak and turn one on. If i had a transmitter that put out a bit of wattage, then i could possibly see a problem. Even then its really far fetched. Lets put it this way, if a pilot really thought that a little gadget could down his plane, then wouldnt you think he would be demanding that the airline industry do something to curb that threat? If not, i bet he would be changing careers. To me, this is a bunch of bull malarkey!

May 7, 2003

The problem with GPS in the plane is that it's an unknown, that hasn't been tested under all possible senarios. A lot of thought goes into the wiring and electronics of aircraft to prevent, on minimize possible interference and other problems. It's one of those areas where they try to err on the side of safety when possible. The rules against electronics on takeoff and landing are probably overkill, but hey, even being wrong once could be a pretty bad thing.

As far as personal electronics actually causing problems, that's a subject that has been debated by experts for years. Here is a link to some good overview type data on the subject that is fairly easy to understand:

http://www.house.gov/transportation/aviation/hearing/07-20-00/07-20-00memo.html

20.7k · May 7, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by TEAM 360:
Getting back on topic...

...the pilot isn't going to freak out and flip the plane, right? But how would a plane respond if it was on auto-pilot? Would it respond at all? And just what instruments might be affected?

You have to remember that the pilots are flying IFR. Often, you are flying in clouds and must rely completely on your instruments to avoid a 'problem'.

6.4k · May 7, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I may have missed something here but its hard to believe that airline electronics can be that sensitive to our small devices. If its that critical then we shouldnt even be allowed to bring them aboard! Someone is gonna allways try to be a sneak and turn one on. If i had a transmitter that put out a bit of wattage, then i could possibly see a problem. Even then its really far fetched. Lets put it this way, if a pilot really thought that a little gadget could down his plane, then wouldnt you think he would be demanding that the airline industry do something to curb that threat? If not, i bet he would be changing careers. To me, this is a bunch of bull malarkey!

I suggest you go read the thread with the links I posted above. Maybe these 3 stats will put things in perspective:

Out of 69,000 incident reports in the Aviation Safety Reporting Systems (ASRS) database, in only 52 of these (slightly less than .08% of the total), the flight crew suspected that a portable electronic device operated by a passenger was creating interference to aircraft systems.

There were also 40 PED related reports collected by the International Air Transport Association (IATA). The PED most frequently suspected as a source of interference was laptop computers, 16 times out of 40 or 40%. The most frequent aircraft system affected by a suspected PED interference source was navigation, 27 times out of 40 or 68%. In three of these cases, the suspected PED was turned off to verify that the aircraft system anomaly went away and then turned on to confirm that the PED was actually the source of the interference.

Of the 152 passenger air rage incidents reported to NASA’s Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS), 15% were attributed to the prohibition on the use of PEDs. This made prohibited electronic devices the second most likely cause of air rage behind alcohol at 43% but ahead of smoking in lavatories at 9%.

What this means is even when there IS a problem, less then 1% of the time its caused by passenger electronics. Yet, a large percentage of air rage cases stem from the current restrictions in place.

It's a trade off between safty and customer relations. No company wants to piss off it's customers. Restricting the operation of PEDs during critical stages of flight is the best option for everyone.

For what it's worth, AirTran does restrict ALL PEDs during flight, not just take off/landing. I'm sure several other airlines do as well. Legally, even if the company has no rule against it, the pilot may order all devices turned off for the safty of the plane.

The FAA has rules restricting the use of PEDs on commercial airlines. Those rules, at 14 CFR 91.21, 121.306 and 135.144, prohibit the operation of a PED on an aircraft unless the airline has determined that the device will not cause interference with the navigation or communication system of the aircraft. The rule includes eexceptions for portable voice recorders, hearing aids, heart pacemakers, and electric shavers to allow them to be used. The rules do not apply to private planes flying under visual flight rules (VFR).

Additionally, the FAA published Advisory Circular (AC) 91.21-1 in 1993 to help aircraft operators comply with FAA regulations. The AC recommended that the use of PEDs be prohibited during the takeoff and landing phases of flight below 10,000 feet. As justification, the FAA cites both the potential for electronic interference with aircraft systems and the potential for passengers to miss safety announcements.

Tae-Kwon-Leap is not a path to a door, but a road leading forever towards the horizon.

May 7, 2003

Sometimes these forums amaze me. I hadn't taken the time to go through all the references, or look at previous threads to any extent. Taking a little more time to scan through it, it's amazing how much good information is available on topics like this one. It's probably easier and quicker for me to get refernces here than look them up at work. (Aviation industry)

You've done some great research there Mopar. Now if we could just get somone in the legal profession to explain how the data could be twisted into a mega lawsuit should anything ever happen as a result of personal electronics. The way things work legally, even if the passengers were just scared, the airlines could loose big bucks......

May 7, 2003

The very fact that the policy to allow or disallow a GPS receiver is airline specific and not mandated by the FAA has always made me curious. If they genuinely feel that there is a chance that the unit may interfere with the onboard systems, then they should be banned across the board.

This is just my personal observation (and I'm not sure what the rules were pre-9/11), but I am suspicious that some airlines might have changed their rules because they knew that the word got out that commercial GPS receivers played a part in the events of that day and didn't want people to freak out everytime someone turned one on.

edit. Just checked the list and it seems that more of the bigger airlines have moved into the "Approve" column since I last checked. Good for them!!

2.7k · May 7, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Cache Canucks:

quote:
Originally posted by ChurchCampDave:
"...Anyway, I suspect the primary reason some airlines ban GPSr's is the same reason they ban aircraft scanners- so the passengers don't know what is going on in case there is a problem that might cause panic..."

You can't be serious. If that were really the case, there wouldn't be passenger windows near seats that overlook the engine nacelles (otherwise, we might be able to see them when they start to stream black smoke).

Ok that was a joke- at least a half stashed joke. They ARE concerned with the possibility of panic and that HAS BEEN stated (OK I don't know by whom) as one of the reasons for not allowing aircraft radio monitors. The joke plays on the paranoia of the general population- big brother and what not.

On my first flight, my heart nearly jumped out my throat when the thrust reversers were activated. I was sitting right over the engine and I thought it was coming apart! Closing the window would have prevented MY panic.

Caint never did nothing.

GDAE, Dave

May 7, 2003

I was looking over this topic and I'm like "Darn, I was going to hide a cache on a plane".

May 7, 2003

Hi there, I just came back from a trip to New Orleans. I flew with DELTA and used my GPS both ways. There is nothing in the book about not using them. I went as far as asking the Captain and he had no problem with it if you check the book first, and I did. No restrictions. It was really cool looking out the window at 32,500 feet and seeing your arrow moving right along to a new town every few mins. Air speed was kinda neat too. I used MPH not Knots.

Thanks You Delta, my first time and hope not the last. ScurvyDog Lakewood,CA

GPS banned on planes

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Join the conversation