Quite the embarrasing experience for me on Sunday...
May 31, 2013, 10:43 pm
#76
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2012
Programs: A3, AA. Plasticy things! That give me, y'know, Stuff!
Posts: 6,293
If that comment was addressed to me, no, I didn't bother reading the helicopter link, and the Boeing link quotes three examples from the 1990's which couldn't be scientifically verified (and remain anecdotal) and concludes by saying there's no evidence either way. (I"m being charitable in that description, BTW) I honestly suggest you read up on the definition of "factual" for that second link as it does little (at best) to support you. Somewhere along the line you said "it's never been proven there is no effect!" IRL, I laughed out loud and genuinely wondered where you were taught logic and/or science and/or rhetoric. No animosity there: I genuinely wondered it for a second because it's such a basic mistake in reasoning. 
Various people pointed out that Emirates and various airlines in the EU allow calls and other things and their planes aren't falling out of the sky and that maybe it's not all doom & gloom. Rockwhomever then misrepresented what I'd said and ran away.
Does that about sum it up?
Various people pointed out that Emirates and various airlines in the EU allow calls and other things and their planes aren't falling out of the sky and that maybe it's not all doom & gloom. Rockwhomever then misrepresented what I'd said and ran away.Does that about sum it up?
Jun 1, 2013, 5:18 am
#77
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Nashville, TN
Programs: WN Nothing and spending the half million points from too many flights, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 8,043
If that comment was addressed to me, no, I didn't bother reading the helicopter link, and the Boeing link quotes three examples from the 1990's which couldn't be scientifically verified (and remain anecdotal) and concludes by saying there's no evidence either way. (I"m being charitable in that description, BTW) I honestly suggest you read up on the definition of "factual" for that second link as it does little (at best) to support you. Somewhere along the line you said "it's never been proven there is no effect!" IRL, I laughed out loud and genuinely wondered where you were taught logic and/or science and/or rhetoric. No animosity there: I genuinely wondered it for a second because it's such a basic mistake in reasoning. Various people pointed out that Emirates and various airlines in the EU allow calls and other things and their planes aren't falling out of the sky and that maybe it's not all doom & gloom. Rockwhomever then misrepresented what I'd said and ran away.
Does that about sum it up?
Various people pointed out that Emirates and various airlines in the EU allow calls and other things and their planes aren't falling out of the sky and that maybe it's not all doom & gloom. Rockwhomever then misrepresented what I'd said and ran away.Does that about sum it up?
- There is anecdotal evidence of PED's contributing to disruptions of avionics operation.
- Most of these were investigated and in none of them could the anomaly be replicated under laboratory conditions using scientific principles.
- The studies also were not able to prove that the PED's did not cause the anomalies.
- The general conclusion from both articles is we do not know and we can not be sure. So, if we run the risk of being wrong, let's be wrong in the direction of excessive caution.
- The biggest exception are the Blackhawk incidents. For this reason, I have included significant quotes below.
Wahington - The Army, alarmed by new test results showing that radio waves
can shut down the vital hydraulic system of its Black Hawk helicopter, will
shield the system's electronic controls from such interference, Army officials
said Wednesday [November 11, 1987]. Radio waves triggered a ``complete
hydraulic failure'' on a UH-60 Black Hawk by generating false electrical
commands in the system, according to test results. The Army's decision
comes after a series of crashes in which the helicopters nosedived into the
ground. Since 1982, 22 servicemen have been killed in five Black Hawk crashes.
can shut down the vital hydraulic system of its Black Hawk helicopter, will
shield the system's electronic controls from such interference, Army officials
said Wednesday [November 11, 1987]. Radio waves triggered a ``complete
hydraulic failure'' on a UH-60 Black Hawk by generating false electrical
commands in the system, according to test results. The Army's decision
comes after a series of crashes in which the helicopters nosedived into the
ground. Since 1982, 22 servicemen have been killed in five Black Hawk crashes.
In Risks 5.58, Brint Cooper writes about the EMI problems with the Blackhawk and asks why the Seahawk has a shielded control module while the Blackhawk does not.
I suspect that the Seahawk's shielding is a result of the Navy's
stringent testing in the areas of Electromagnetic Vulnerability and EMI.
The Navy's operational environment is generally very "dirty" from the EMI
standpoint with all of the high power radiators aboard the ships. It is
critical that, during the crucial landing phases on a moving deck, the ship-
board transmitters not interfere with the electronics. This could be
accomplished by shutting down the transmitters (EMCON) but this is not
acceptable from an operational standpoint. Therefore, the helo has to
withstand this environment.
I rather suspect that the Army's lack of shielding is a pure and simple
weight vs. benefit issue. If you can save a few pounds in the design of
the system, you have more available payload capacity. Often this translates
into this kind of a problem. In order to meet design (e.g. payload) require-
ments, things like "unnecessary" EMI shielding are done away with. When
delivered, the helo meets requirements for payload and it's only later that
problems like this surface. The shielding is added, the usable payload
reduced, and everyone is happy (well, almost). Conversely, we can have
occurrences where the original system may have satisfactorily performed in
high EMI environments but an upgraded system using computers does not.
The relatively low voltage, rapid response time circuits are sensitive to the
EMI whereas the high voltage, slow response analog circuits did not. This
is a critical issue that has to be addressed in applications where computers
are used to replace analog controls.
I suspect that the Seahawk's shielding is a result of the Navy's
stringent testing in the areas of Electromagnetic Vulnerability and EMI.
The Navy's operational environment is generally very "dirty" from the EMI
standpoint with all of the high power radiators aboard the ships. It is
critical that, during the crucial landing phases on a moving deck, the ship-
board transmitters not interfere with the electronics. This could be
accomplished by shutting down the transmitters (EMCON) but this is not
acceptable from an operational standpoint. Therefore, the helo has to
withstand this environment.
I rather suspect that the Army's lack of shielding is a pure and simple
weight vs. benefit issue. If you can save a few pounds in the design of
the system, you have more available payload capacity. Often this translates
into this kind of a problem. In order to meet design (e.g. payload) require-
ments, things like "unnecessary" EMI shielding are done away with. When
delivered, the helo meets requirements for payload and it's only later that
problems like this surface. The shielding is added, the usable payload
reduced, and everyone is happy (well, almost). Conversely, we can have
occurrences where the original system may have satisfactorily performed in
high EMI environments but an upgraded system using computers does not.
The relatively low voltage, rapid response time circuits are sensitive to the
EMI whereas the high voltage, slow response analog circuits did not. This
is a critical issue that has to be addressed in applications where computers
are used to replace analog controls.
Jun 1, 2013, 8:39 am
#78
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2012
Programs: A3, AA. Plasticy things! That give me, y'know, Stuff!
Posts: 6,293
It's the people that want that position to remain in stasis that annoy me. Well, actually, it's their inability to articulate it for what it actually is these days: a historical position that bears less & less relationship to the reality these days. The position at that point in time was probably the right decision. That doesn't mean it remains the right decision at this point.
Jun 1, 2013, 10:00 am
#79
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Colorado
Programs: *G, AA, UA 1 Million
Posts: 23
OK, now I'm scared.
I often look out my airplane window on landing at they are flying pretty close to some 100,000 watt radio towers.
There are cell towers just about everywhere.
Let's not forget satellite transmissions.
Did you know they sell microwave ovens for use in tractor trailer trucks? Microwaves? In an 80,000 pound vehicle rolling down the highway. What if it interferes with the truck electronics. They use cell phones AND CB radios. I am sure CB radios have radio waves. At least I am pretty sure, not being the engineer type.
And is there any reason to mention On-Star? And GPS?
I am really, really scared.
All of this stray RF interference explains the hundred? tens? of unsolved airplane crashes. It has to be a lot. It sounds sooooooo dangerous.
Did I mention how scared I am?
I often look out my airplane window on landing at they are flying pretty close to some 100,000 watt radio towers.
There are cell towers just about everywhere.
Let's not forget satellite transmissions.
Did you know they sell microwave ovens for use in tractor trailer trucks? Microwaves? In an 80,000 pound vehicle rolling down the highway. What if it interferes with the truck electronics. They use cell phones AND CB radios. I am sure CB radios have radio waves. At least I am pretty sure, not being the engineer type.
And is there any reason to mention On-Star? And GPS?
I am really, really scared.
All of this stray RF interference explains the hundred? tens? of unsolved airplane crashes. It has to be a lot. It sounds sooooooo dangerous.
Did I mention how scared I am?
Commercial broadcast, television and cell antennas are optimized to direct the main lobe "downward". There would be no sense in directing the radiated power up (like where planes fly) as there are few users up there.
So, while your the 100KW transmitter you're spying from above is putting out tons of watts, the direction of the main lobe is towards the ground vs. at you in a plane. Ummmm, I didn't know that...
I'm sure you know that any commercial antenna needs to meet many government imposed standards for ERP, direction of its lobes, and also for most AM stations, adjust their emissions after dark.
Don't be scared, get educated in the ways of broadcasting.
BTW: while you have never seen problems caused by transmitter in vehicles, I can assure you those of us in the business have seen many situations where a trucker installed a 100 watt (or higher) transmitter in the cab and sent his engine into spasms when he hit the PTT. Same issue with most all new vehicles with their electronics. If you'd like to learn more about this you can get information about installing radio gear in most all brands of automobiles from the manufacturer. Doing it correctly requires the installer to carefully run cables away from the computer, direct connections to the vehicle's wiring harness is a no no, and antenna placement must be carefully considered. Proper grounding of the system is a major consideration. Over the past 20 years, or so, automobile manufacturers have become well versed in RFI-EMI issues and take commercially reasonable steps to minimize the problem.
Come on, don't you remember the roadside signs from years ago: Blasting area, turn off radio transmitters? You think that was a joke?
So, while you can cite many examples of what you see on a daily basis, you are seemingly clueless on what's happening behind the scenes to protect you and others.
Jun 1, 2013, 11:37 am
#80
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Nashville, TN
Programs: WN Nothing and spending the half million points from too many flights, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 8,043
You're right, you're not an engineer and your comments support that assertion.
Commercial broadcast, television and cell antennas are optimized to direct the main lobe "downward". There would be no sense in directing the radiated power up (like where planes fly) as there are few users up there.
So, while your the 100KW transmitter you're spying from above is putting out tons of watts, the direction of the main lobe is towards the ground vs. at you in a plane. Ummmm, I didn't know that...
I'm sure you know that any commercial antenna needs to meet many government imposed standards for ERP, direction of its lobes, and also for most AM stations, adjust their emissions after dark.
Don't be scared, get educated in the ways of broadcasting.
BTW: while you have never seen problems caused by transmitter in vehicles, I can assure you those of us in the business have seen many situations where a trucker installed a 100 watt (or higher) transmitter in the cab and sent his engine into spasms when he hit the PTT. Same issue with most all new vehicles with their electronics. If you'd like to learn more about this you can get information about installing radio gear in most all brands of automobiles from the manufacturer. Doing it correctly requires the installer to carefully run cables away from the computer, direct connections to the vehicle's wiring harness is a no no, and antenna placement must be carefully considered. Proper grounding of the system is a major consideration. Over the past 20 years, or so, automobile manufacturers have become well versed in RFI-EMI issues and take commercially reasonable steps to minimize the problem.
Come on, don't you remember the roadside signs from years ago: Blasting area, turn off radio transmitters? You think that was a joke?
So, while you can cite many examples of what you see on a daily basis, you are seemingly clueless on what's happening behind the scenes to protect you and others.
Commercial broadcast, television and cell antennas are optimized to direct the main lobe "downward". There would be no sense in directing the radiated power up (like where planes fly) as there are few users up there.
So, while your the 100KW transmitter you're spying from above is putting out tons of watts, the direction of the main lobe is towards the ground vs. at you in a plane. Ummmm, I didn't know that...
I'm sure you know that any commercial antenna needs to meet many government imposed standards for ERP, direction of its lobes, and also for most AM stations, adjust their emissions after dark.
Don't be scared, get educated in the ways of broadcasting.
BTW: while you have never seen problems caused by transmitter in vehicles, I can assure you those of us in the business have seen many situations where a trucker installed a 100 watt (or higher) transmitter in the cab and sent his engine into spasms when he hit the PTT. Same issue with most all new vehicles with their electronics. If you'd like to learn more about this you can get information about installing radio gear in most all brands of automobiles from the manufacturer. Doing it correctly requires the installer to carefully run cables away from the computer, direct connections to the vehicle's wiring harness is a no no, and antenna placement must be carefully considered. Proper grounding of the system is a major consideration. Over the past 20 years, or so, automobile manufacturers have become well versed in RFI-EMI issues and take commercially reasonable steps to minimize the problem.
Come on, don't you remember the roadside signs from years ago: Blasting area, turn off radio transmitters? You think that was a joke?
So, while you can cite many examples of what you see on a daily basis, you are seemingly clueless on what's happening behind the scenes to protect you and others.
Jun 2, 2013, 5:08 pm
#82
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: ONT
Programs: AA Gold, WN A-, UA S, HH ♦, IHG Spire, Hertz Prez O, TSA Disparager
Posts: 2,159
People who don't turn off their phones and/or put it into airplane mode are simply going to drain their battery. The phone will constantly search for a cellular signal and not find one, so it will continue to search until it completely drains the battery.
Also, the reason why cell phones are not allowed during take-off or landings is because phones emit a signal during the transmission of text messages that can interfere with speakers (or in this case, the speakers in the pilots' headsets). Don't believe me? Put your phone next to a stereo that is powered on, as close to the magnet as possible, and play something that's quiet. Send or receive a text message, and you'll hear the noise loud and clear.
Now imagine hearing that noise in your headset when you're trying to talk to air traffic control.
Also, the reason why cell phones are not allowed during take-off or landings is because phones emit a signal during the transmission of text messages that can interfere with speakers (or in this case, the speakers in the pilots' headsets). Don't believe me? Put your phone next to a stereo that is powered on, as close to the magnet as possible, and play something that's quiet. Send or receive a text message, and you'll hear the noise loud and clear.
Now imagine hearing that noise in your headset when you're trying to talk to air traffic control.
Jun 2, 2013, 9:33 pm
#83
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 93
Shouldn't the argument be whether flight crews' orders are not being respected? Who cares if mobile phones can/do/can't interrupt radio comms- I think the important point is being missed here, and that point is we need to follow the rules whether we like them, agree with them, or whatever. You're told to turn it off. Then turn it off- don't argue.
this is in response to the majority of the circle jerking, and not to the OPs first post.
this is in response to the majority of the circle jerking, and not to the OPs first post.
Jun 3, 2013, 5:21 am
#84
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Nashville, TN
Programs: WN Nothing and spending the half million points from too many flights, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 8,043
Shouldn't the argument be whether flight crews' orders are not being respected? Who cares if mobile phones can/do/can't interrupt radio comms- I think the important point is being missed here, and that point is we need to follow the rules whether we like them, agree with them, or whatever. You're told to turn it off. Then turn it off- don't argue.
this is in response to the majority of the circle jerking, and not to the OPs first post.
this is in response to the majority of the circle jerking, and not to the OPs first post.
Jun 3, 2013, 8:19 am
#85
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Here and there
Programs: General member, former 1P
Posts: 583
When I read the OP my first thought was "I'd love to see this 'form.'" I have a suspicion that the "notice of violation" is a Word document on some FA's laptop somewhere.
Jun 3, 2013, 11:30 am
#86
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: MLB, MCO
Programs: Delta Plat, IHG Plat, Marriott Silver
Posts: 1,315
Also, the reason why cell phones are not allowed during take-off or landings is because phones emit a signal during the transmission of text messages that can interfere with speakers (or in this case, the speakers in the pilots' headsets). Don't believe me? Put your phone next to a stereo that is powered on, as close to the magnet as possible, and play something that's quiet. Send or receive a text message, and you'll hear the noise loud and clear.
Now imagine hearing that noise in your headset when you're trying to talk to air traffic control.
Now imagine hearing that noise in your headset when you're trying to talk to air traffic control.
Jun 3, 2013, 2:26 pm
#87
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2012
Programs: A3, AA. Plasticy things! That give me, y'know, Stuff!
Posts: 6,293
While that is an excellent example of electrical interference, it was only really a problem with old 2G GSM phones. The GSM waveform is TDMA and gave the phone a transmit slot every 200 Hz which caused the buzzing IIRC. 2G CDMA phones as well as 3G and 4G phones don't work that way and don't cause the buzzing.
Oh, and you have to be an engineer before you're allowed to comment. Apparently you don't have to be an electrical engineer. Chemical, civil, or domestic is fine, just so long as you can claim you're an engineer. Otherwise you're not allowed to post at all.
Jun 3, 2013, 3:23 pm
#88
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Nashville, TN
Programs: WN Nothing and spending the half million points from too many flights, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 8,043
We've already established that facts about the current situation & why (or even that) historical situations no longer apply are not allowed in the conversation.
Oh, and you have to be an engineer before you're allowed to comment. Apparently you don't have to be an electrical engineer. Chemical, civil, or domestic is fine, just so long as you can claim you're an engineer. Otherwise you're not allowed to post at all.
Oh, and you have to be an engineer before you're allowed to comment. Apparently you don't have to be an electrical engineer. Chemical, civil, or domestic is fine, just so long as you can claim you're an engineer. Otherwise you're not allowed to post at all.
Jun 3, 2013, 6:48 pm
#89
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2012
Programs: A3, AA. Plasticy things! That give me, y'know, Stuff!
Posts: 6,293
Jun 25, 2013, 6:53 am
#90
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: ewr pbi
Programs: Premier 1K (Former CO Plat)
Posts: 135
Good Rules and Bad Rules
There is more than one issue here.
==>The FCC/FAA do not permit radio transmissions from an aircraft except for a device that has been licensed for that purpose.
==>As a private pilot, I know that when I forget to turn off my cell phone, there is noise through my headset everytime it searches for a tower or it receives a signal (push, email, call, etc).
==>Passengers have an obligation, and a duty, if not to themselves, at least to their fellow passengers and the crew to observe the rules, and in this case, the rules are there to help assure safety in flight for all. Perhaps they will be changed someday as we learn more, but that is no excuse for reckless disregard.
==>I see very many passengers who simply turn off the display or slide their phone into their pockets, instead of turning them off. They obviously believe that they are smarter than the rest of us. They aren't!
==>Related, in a borderline sort of way: I think that frequent fliers, who have memorized the safety speech and talk loudly throughout it are rude and disrespectful to the FAs who are trying hard to smile and make sure that even the dolt sitting next to them learns how to fasten a seat belt. Surely even a FC FF can be quiet for two minutes.
==>The FCC/FAA do not permit radio transmissions from an aircraft except for a device that has been licensed for that purpose.
==>As a private pilot, I know that when I forget to turn off my cell phone, there is noise through my headset everytime it searches for a tower or it receives a signal (push, email, call, etc).
==>Passengers have an obligation, and a duty, if not to themselves, at least to their fellow passengers and the crew to observe the rules, and in this case, the rules are there to help assure safety in flight for all. Perhaps they will be changed someday as we learn more, but that is no excuse for reckless disregard.
==>I see very many passengers who simply turn off the display or slide their phone into their pockets, instead of turning them off. They obviously believe that they are smarter than the rest of us. They aren't!
==>Related, in a borderline sort of way: I think that frequent fliers, who have memorized the safety speech and talk loudly throughout it are rude and disrespectful to the FAs who are trying hard to smile and make sure that even the dolt sitting next to them learns how to fasten a seat belt. Surely even a FC FF can be quiet for two minutes.