radios aboard aircraft - new rules
Brad
today, in regard to the use of personal electronic devices aboard Australian
aircraft at
http://www.casa.gov.au/avreg/newrules/download/CASRdocs/091/091c050.pdf
It covers the use of scanners and specifically mentions Ham radios. Don't
expect special treatment by Security or airline personel just because you
think you are special or harmless.
Brad VK2QQ
Argus Stuffed
When travelling by air, put your hand held etc in your luggage, not cabin
carry-on.
Read a book, or listen to music / movies.
Saves a lot of hassle
--
ARGUS
Replace spam with mail to email me
"Brad" <vk...@w6ir.com> wrote in message
news:3cLIa.306$Ev4....@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
smithxpj
<mike_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I thought it was a load of mealy-mouthed crap.
>
Well...you obviously don't have a friggin' clue about the baseline and
philosophy that is used for the development of technical and
operational doctrine related to aircraft safety.
What *you* happen to *think* has no bearing on the practical outcome.
>it says; Transmitters will cause problems, hearing aids won't
>cause problems and notebook computers might. And it's up
>to the crew to decide if they are and then ask the passenger
>to turn them off - or not, as the case may be.
What's wrong with that? It's a simple case of doing what you are
bloody told; regardless of whether you think you have more radio savvy
than the crew.
>I don't see it makes any changes to the existing situation
>at all -
No...it just reaffirms the existing situation and spells it out
clearly to aircrew...no ifs, no buts.
> anyone with even limited technical knowledge has
>known the above for years.
And *limited* knowledge being the operative word!
Especially when aircraft designers and the US RTCA go to inordinate
lengths to research the effects of electromagnetic radiation on
aircraft systems and develop technical compliance standards that the
average amateur couldn't jump over.
And then to have some smartarse amateur, CB user, or scanner listener
want to use a piece of kit on board an aircraft thinking that he's
above all this PED stuff and believing that he knows best about
whether his bit of kit will cause interference or not.
>Airlines _don't want_ to ban much
>of this stuff mainly because it would annoy Business and First
>Class passengers.
>
>Mike Harding
>
>PS. It doesn't mention scanners from a passenger aspect,
>only as a crew aid for detection.
The crew wouldn't need a conventional scanner receiver. There are
broad-band RF sensor/sniffers available that a hostie would only need
to carry down the aisle to sniff out a patch of leaky local oscillator
from a plastic-cased radio.
Passengers don't need scanner receivers on board an aircraft, anyway.
And finally, I'll let you in on a little secret...the signatory to the
document ain't some ivory tower bureaucrat. He happens to be a fairly
senior pilot now working in a regulatory environment *and* he just
happens to have an amateur radio licence as well!
So I'd suggest that he's well placed to know what's required. And much
better placed than some jumped-up twerp who doesn't like the flavour
of particular aviation directive.
Spiro
LOL!
"smithxpj" <dont...@bother.com.au> tells it how it is in message
news:kvu7fv8l0uu8n7efb...@4ax.com...
s b
Master Switch for power isolation, so they ALL radiate signal akin to
a Local Oscillator.
I agree with the previous poster, it's a load of mumbo jumbo that
aviation authorities have been pushing down Australian's throats for
years under the guise of 'safety' (read, don't question what we say).
Most Australian aviation legislation is written this way. In reality
it will be mostly politely ignored like most of it is now.
It does reinforce current legislative protection.
How a hostie or even a pilot, would have the skills (or time)
necessary to identity potential sources of (electrical) interference
is beyond me. The aircraft is already being subjected to massive
amounts of broad spectrum noise externally.
I agree with with it's intent, but legislating it and expecting 100%
compliance never works. Have you ever left a phone on in a plane? I've
seen pilots do this! Hosties have varying ideas on when you can use
PEDs, laptops down to short final, starting after the seat belt sign
comes off....
RTCA and other standards bodies should consider real life situations.
In reality a 'New" airplane has technology that could be 5-20 years
old on board. Could those designs have forseen the current broad
spectrum environment? If you look at the number and isolation of the
so called 'upsets' that aircraft have had, you would be drawing a long
bow to think they are caused by a PED. IFR Aircraft operations require
cross checks of instruments and if there is interference on one type
of instrument, there are other instuments that can be used. the
spectra for these instuments varies from from 300khz, to 2ghz, so it
is unlikely that an alternate type of landing approach can't be
carried out.
On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 16:32:26 +1000, smithxpj <dont...@bother.com.au>
smithxpj
>Hey smart guy, all PEDs (I have seen in recent times) don't have a
>Master Switch for power isolation, so they ALL radiate signal akin to
>a Local Oscillator.
So what are you saying? That because they all radiate and because
people expect to be able to use them during flight, then the
regulators are obliged to accommodate this and rewrite the rules to
allow them.
I'll tell you what, Sport...I'll play regulator devil's advocate and
we'll fix the problem quick smart. We'll make a new rule that the
batteries or the battery pack has to be removed before the device is
taken into the cabin. The little festers won't radiate one furkin'
picowatt after that, will they!
>I agree with the previous poster, it's a load of mumbo jumbo that
>aviation authorities have been pushing down Australian's throats for
>years under the guise of 'safety' (read, don't question what we say).
>Most Australian aviation legislation is written this way. In reality
>it will be mostly politely ignored like most of it is now.
So aviation regulators around the world spend time, money and effort
developing safety doctrine just for the fun of it do they? Or just to
piss off the occasional scanner freak or mobile phone user who thinks
it's his God given right to use his bit of kit when he sees fit?
The bottom line is that when you travel by air as a passenger you
*are* required to do exactly as the regulator says whether you like it
or bloody not. That's how aviation laws have been framed for quite
some time. And if you decide to politely ignore the legislation and
an airline decides to have a blitz, then you won't mind if they throw
the book at you...as they are perfectly entitled to do, will you?
>
>It does reinforce current legislative protection.
>
>How a hostie or even a pilot, would have the skills (or time)
>necessary to identity potential sources of (electrical) interference
>is beyond me.
Well...you *teach* them!
The same as you teach them to make coffee, use a fire extinguisher,
use a first aid kit, use an in-flight entertainment system, how to
evacuate people in an emergency, how to get people into life-rafts and
how to use the life-raft survival equipment!
You give them a near-field RF sniffer / detector, and teach them how
to use an on/off switch, a sensitivity control, an alarm
threshold...and they clip it to their belt and walk up and down the
aisle in their course of duty. If the alarm goes off, the hostie stops
and looks for the likely suspect or asks all the people in the nearest
seats who has an electronic device and tells whoever it is to turn the
device off. The hostie doesn't have to decide if some smartarse who
wants to listen on a scanner is trying to convince her that it only an
MP3 player or whether device A is OK and device B isn't OK. If her
instruction is that the device is to be turned off, then it's turned
off! If nobody owns up then she tells them that when they arrive at
the destination then they will be searched and if anyone is found with
a device they will be charged for failing to obey the directive of an
aircrew member. Dead simple, really.
>The aircraft is already being subjected to massive
>amounts of broad spectrum noise externally.
The certification of the aircraft is done exactly with that in mind,
in a *known* configuration of hull, antennas, skin penetrations, and
equipment.
Rather than stuff around with the additional effort of modifying the
certification to cater for any number of random transmissions *inside*
the cabin, it's just simpler to put a one-hat-fits-all ban on
particular devices.
>
>I agree with with it's intent, but legislating it and expecting 100%
>compliance never works. Have you ever left a phone on in a plane?
No, I haven't...when I'm coming out of the Qantas club and taking the
phone off my belt and putting it in a brief case, I push a button and
watch the display go blank. I mean...it becomes as routine as pulling
yer doodle out when ya need a piss.
> I've
>seen pilots do this! Hosties have varying ideas on when you can use
>PEDs, laptops down to short final, starting after the seat belt sign
>comes off....
>
>RTCA and other standards bodies should consider real life situations.
Well then you go tell them that they don't know what they are doing,
eh!
>In reality a 'New" airplane has technology that could be 5-20 years
>old on board. Could those designs have forseen the current broad
>spectrum environment?
That's why sometimes modifications have to be made downstream.
> If you look at the number and isolation of the
>so called 'upsets' that aircraft have had, you would be drawing a long
>bow to think they are caused by a PED. IFR Aircraft operations require
>cross checks of instruments and if there is interference on one type
>of instrument, there are other instuments that can be used. the
>spectra for these instuments varies from from 300khz, to 2ghz, so it
>is unlikely that an alternate type of landing approach can't be
>carried out.
>
It's always the case, isn't it? Armchair critics always seem to know
best!
Well, ol' son...you go as far back as you like and research accident
and incident investigation reports from around the world and you'll
find that there are plenty of 'drawn long bows' that just happened to
provide a link in the chain of events that resulted in the accident or
incident. So it ain't exactly rocket science to realise that aviation
processes have gravitated to the side of caution and conservatism.
Even if it seems improbable that any one device would cause a problem,
under a particular set of untested circumstances then you just don't
know what happens to that probability. So rather than wait for a
seemingly improbable situation to ever occur, the regulators prefer to
simply eliminate (or minimise) the contributing factors involved. And
rather than attempt to assess every single electronic device ever
likely to be carried randomly onto an aircraft by passengers, the
easiest solution is to simply ban their use. If it is inconvenient,
then tough shit.
Again, it's dead simple. You want to travel on an aircraft?
Well...then, you do as you're told. I mean...that's the way the laws
are written.
smithxpj
<mike_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>It's Spiro again! In his current guise as smithxpj but this time,
>due to his super huge ego, he even had to post and compliment
>himself on his efforts - well... I don't suppose anyone else would.
Spiro?...who or what is a Spiro?
You've really got some bizarre obsession, I see?
>
>On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 16:32:26 +1000, smithxpj <dont...@bother.com.au>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 09:36:40 +1000, Mike Harding
>><mike_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I thought it was a load of mealy-mouthed crap.
>
>>Well...you obviously don't have a friggin' clue about the baseline and
>>philosophy that is used for the development of technical and
>>operational doctrine related to aircraft safety.
>
>Actually I do, my little possum :) Probably rather more than
>you.
"Probably" is hardly a guarantee of "rather more", given that you
don't know my background from a bar of soap, anyway.
The fact that you come out with an ambit shitcanning of a piece of
aviation safety doctrine seems to suggest that you either ain't aware
of how conservative such doctrine usually is or you are aware, but you
just don't like being told what to do.
>
>>>I don't see it makes any changes to the existing situation
>>>at all -
>>
>>No...it just reaffirms the existing situation and spells it out
>>clearly to aircrew...no ifs, no buts.
>
>That's what I said, dodo! So if it "just reaffirms the existing
>situation" what the hell was the point in publishing it as if
>it were some new piece of inspiration?
What don't you understand about the concept of the simple English word
"reaffirm"?
Government agencies have a habit of reiterating existing doctrine from
time to time as a regular reminder to the industry. It ain't exactly a
novel organisational concept.
>
>>> anyone with even limited technical knowledge has
>>>known the above for years.
>>
>>And *limited* knowledge being the operative word!
>
>Yeah! Especially in your case - never seen you or your
>alter ego, Spiro, post anything technical - just abusive crap
>at others - usually pseudo intellectual put-downs and, in
>your case, pseudo _is_ the operative word.
Well...when you begin with your "mealy mouthed crap" opening line, I
mean...you *are* pinning a target on yourself, Buster.
And currently it's open season!
What incentive is there to devise and post anything technically
useful? Ham radio has degenerated over the last couple of decades to
becoming (for 99-odd percent of the whole palaver) nothing more than a
radio appliance driving exercise where people flap their gums for
little other purpose than flapping their gums. It doesn't take too
much regular listening around the various ham bands to get the
picture.
>
>>Especially when aircraft designers and the US RTCA go to inordinate
>>lengths to research the effects of electromagnetic radiation on
>>aircraft systems and develop technical compliance standards that the
>>average amateur couldn't jump over.
>>
>>And then to have some smartarse amateur, CB user, or scanner listener
>>want to use a piece of kit on board an aircraft thinking that he's
>>above all this PED stuff and believing that he knows best about
>>whether his bit of kit will cause interference or not.
>
>God you're stupid! No tech people are saying that PEDs, especially
>transmitters, won't (might) cause problems with avionics.
>(Spiro - special subject "The Bleedin' Obvious!")
It wasn't slanted at what *techos* think.
I mean...you come out with the "mealy mouth crap" line which tends to
imply that you'd be the sort of drip that thinks that the regulation
isn't applicable to you because you know better. Carry that line onto
the average scanner freak or ham/CB user with the same mentality and
you finish up with my drift.
>>And finally, I'll let you in on a little secret...the signatory to the
>>document ain't some ivory tower bureaucrat. He happens to be a fairly
>>senior pilot now working in a regulatory environment *and* he just
>>happens to have an amateur radio licence as well!
>
>Not your dad by an chance?
Que?
>
>Hey! I thought you said Ham Licences came with a box of cornflakes?
>Yet now you're waving one around telling us how good it is - make up
>(what you like to call) your mind.
You don't understand deductive abstract concepts too well, do you,
fella?
The point about him holding a ham licence for a (good) length of time
is that it would give him a first rate insight into the mentality of a
radio hobbyist who would be likely to want to climb on board an
aircraft with a scanner, busting a gut to listen to the aircraft's
radio transmissions. Or a ham or CB dude eager to see how many
repeaters he can key up from an altitude of 35,000 feet.
Exactly a couple of the target groups to which his regulation is
clearly aimed at curtailing.
>
>>So I'd suggest that he's well placed to know what's required. And much
>>better placed than some jumped-up twerp who doesn't like the flavour
>>of particular aviation directive.
>
>God you're stupid! The document doesn't say anything new! Even you
>conceded that earlier - so, Biggles, what the hell was the point of
>publishing it?
As I said above...a regular doctrinal reminder that Government
departments commonly revisit.
>Now if they brought in a directive banning notebook computers
>with all those nasty oscillators and fast digital state changes I'd
>be impressed - but that would upset high paying passengers so
>they won't do that will they?
>
They banned smoking sometime back at the stroke of a pen. They can do
it just as easily with laptop computers if need be, ol' cock.
Tough shit if people get upset. They soon learn to adapt and make-do.
>Mike Harding
s b
On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 09:29:16 +1000, smithxpj <dont...@bother.com.au>
smithxpj
>You're a wanker.
>
Wow!...how original!
Did you manage to conceive something so profound with your own two
brain cells or did you plagiarise it out of a book?
s b
On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 22:03:08 +1000, smithxpj <dont...@bother.com.au>
wrote:
mke...@powerup.com.au
building a TRF Rx for the 120MHz band - no LO and
no radiation. Listen to the plane and the tower and be
undetected.
Presumably a crystal set would suffice, too.
As to 'why' one would want to there was no comment. :-)
Cheers
Murray
--
**************************
* Murray Kelly vk4aok
smithxpj
>Are you a relative of Rod Speed?
Nope...but I can easily resonate with his style!
s b
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2003-07-15-cell-planes_x.htm
A followup for you to read.
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:01:01 +1000, smithxpj <dont...@bother.com.au>
embedder
how he quickly drops to name calling after you prove he is wrong. I
ran across him once.
Wrong is wrong, is wrong, that’s all there is to it. When proven
wrong there is no intelligence available to put up and argument so
what else could one do but start name calling. So it follows one of
low intelligence outs ones self by reverting to name calling.