frequency counter on airplane
JA Moran
I got a new toy.. It's a frequency counter. took it with me on a recent
road trip and found the frequencies used by people passing who were talking
on their mobile phones or 2-way radios.
On a recent flight, I had the counter with me and found lots of celular
frequencies in the 820-840mhz (mobile side). The towers transmit in the
870-890mhz range
A guy in a row in back of me called his office on his cell phone... My
counter lit up with an 841mhz frequency. someone across the aisle used theirs
and it showed a 843mhz frequency.
There is a conversion table available....showing hte corresponding tower
frequency for a mobile phone
given you know the mobile or phone transmit frequency.
A catering company rep came onboard to check on something..... they used
their radio and I got that frequency too.... something in the 466mhz range.
I did not get the ATC frequencies the plane was transmitting on due to the
metal skin of the aircraft....
I did however come across some HF frequencies that popped in the counter as
the plane was waiting for clearance.
I have a frequency directory and database..... looked up the clearance and
tower frequencies and monitored them while on board.... One of the flight
attendants on the flight is a flight instructor
and instructs at the FBO at the Phoenix airport....... he usually flies in
172's and 210's (Cessna)
JOHN
-
Big Ron
>
>Which place service did you use? Most now don't allow scanners or 2-way
>radios on the flight.
>
It is also illegal to use a cellular phone on anything that flys
(doesn't have to be a commercial flight... just any flight.)
TW
radios on the flight.
JA Moran <jo...@analon.com> wrote in message
news:3988CF1A...@analon.com...
nos...@nospam.com
freqs in the cellular (800 MHz) band, or for one to modify a scanner to
be able to do so.
reebok
I have an Optoelectronics Model 3300 and I don't like it very much at all.
I can stick an antenna right next to it and it will hardly work.
--
John
Webmaster
www.FileFlash.com
AOL: reebok657
ICQ: 13738184
"JA Moran" <jo...@analon.com> wrote in message
news:3988CF1A...@analon.com...
>
Dan Larsen
> It is also illegal to use a cellular phone on anything that flys
> (doesn't have to be a commercial flight... just any flight.)
It's only illegal to use them while airborne :) and actually, the FAA
doesn't take a specific regulatory stance on the use of cellphones. They
may say something about them, but those words of wisdom are not contained
in the big fat book of knowledge that every pilot lives and dies by. The
FCC, OTOH, has plenty to say if they catch you. But that's a whole
different story...
--Dan
Jughead
>It's illegal, at least in the US, for a scanner to be able to pick up
>freqs in the cellular (800 MHz) band, or for one to modify a scanner to
>be able to do so.
I disagree. As already posted by somebody else, it is illegal to sell
scanners capable of picking them up (producing them too) and it's also
illegal to listen to them, but what's done is done - I can easily
listen to cellular activity on my BC220XLT if I really wanted to. I
would have a hard time believing that it's illegal to even own a
BC220XLT just because it is capable of picking up those freqs.
Jughead
John T.
using a frequency counter...NOT a scanner!!
reebok <ree...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:P36i5.12168$FJ4.1...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
TW
Jughead <jugh...@xisp.com> wrote in message
news:78eioskbsqj1r14pg...@4ax.com...
reebok
--
John
Webmaster
www.FileFlash.com
AOL: reebok657
ICQ: 13738184
"John T." <jtb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9kfi5.240$Zo5....@homer.alpha.net...
Dave Sparro
jugh...@xisp.com wrote:
> I disagree. As already posted by somebody else, it is illegal to sell
> scanners capable of picking them up (producing them too) and it's also
> illegal to listen to them, but what's done is done - I can easily
> Jughead
>
The way I interpret the law, it is Ok to sell scanners that can pick up
cell phones, you just can't manufacrure, or import them. This
effectively grandfatheres any scanner you may own so that you can sell
it on the used market.
--
Dave Sparro
http://www.grafix1.com/~kontos/webcam.html
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
TooManyRadios
>It's illegal, at least in the US, for a scanner to be able to pick up
>freqs in the cellular (800 MHz) band, or for one to modify a scanner to
>be able to do so.
So much information, so little time...
The laws as currently written in the United States of America, as per my
interpretation:
-selling a used cellular-capable scanner: legal
-selling a newly-manufactured cellular-capable scanner: illegal
-importing a cellular-capable scanner: illegal
-modifying a scanner to receive cellular signals: illegal
-possessing a cellular-capable scanner which has been previously modified:
legal
-monitoring cellular signals: illegal
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nor an FCC commissioner, so don't take my word
as gospel truth. My opinion and interpretation only is provided herein.
Ken Roberts
covers the cell band unmodified; but it is now illegal for companies to make
them for use or sale in the United States.
Ken
Jughead <jugh...@xisp.com> wrote in message
news:78eioskbsqj1r14pg...@4ax.com...
> nos...@nospam.com wrote:
>
> >It's illegal, at least in the US, for a scanner to be able to pick up
> >freqs in the cellular (800 MHz) band, or for one to modify a scanner to
> >be able to do so.
>
> I disagree. As already posted by somebody else, it is illegal to sell
> scanners capable of picking them up (producing them too) and it's also
> illegal to listen to them, but what's done is done - I can easily
TW
images and not the true freq.
Ken Roberts <ken...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:MZgi5.1232$rm2....@news4.mia...
Mark Rogers
Which big fat book of knowledge are you referring to? Cell phone use is
prohibited under 14 CFR 121.306, which prohibits the use of electronic
devices onboard commercial aircraft. The regulation also allows the
operator to exempt certain types of devices for use either all the time
(pacemakers, watches, calculators, etc.) or only above 10,000 feet
(computers, etc.). Cell phones are not included on any of the lists of
excepted devices, and are therefore prohibited at all times by the FARs.
--Mark Rogers
Dave
conversations, pager conversations, or scrambled or encrypted transmissions.
This means that if your scanner picks up a Cell phone conversation then you
must tell it to move on and keep scanning not listen to it.
--
Dave
- Network Admin.
- Web Master
"TW" <tandb8...@home.com> wrote in message
news:Bkhi5.61089$oj6.5...@news1.rdc1.tx.home.com...
David Steuber
' On 3 Aug 2000 02:31:59 GMT, nos...@nospam.com wrote:
'
' >It's illegal, at least in the US, for a scanner to be able to pick up
' >freqs in the cellular (800 MHz) band, or for one to modify a scanner to
' >be able to do so.
' No, It is illegal to sell or to listen. Not to have one.
I think it is illegal to buy, sell, or record. If you have an older
scanner, or an illegal import (if US Customs could prove it), then it
is perfectly legal to just listen. What you absolutely must not do is
record or repeat what you have heard to anyone.
I see the law prohibiting receiving of cellular phone frequencies as
being a rather silly law. If the parties wish privacy, they should
use digital encryption. The people who do listen must keep everything
they hear in confidence. I'm sure that there are unscrupulous people
out there. I have no problem with the government prosecuting people
who record and then sell or otherwise distribute phone conversations.
Even though I am now a scanner, and I do listen to phone
conversations, I believe in personal privacy. However, privacy should
be protected by the individual too. Personal responsibility is the
price of liberty.
--
David Steuber | Hi! My name is David Steuber, and I am
NRA Member | a hoploholic.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=hoplite&submit=Look+it+up
The problem with AI is that it has a mind of its own
--- Devon Miller
Steve Barnes
always ask permission to use a frequency counter and/or scanner, and
have never been refused. Most pilots state that it's OK provided the
seatbelt sign is not lit, some say that I can listen without
restrictions (albeit not many).
This morning the Captain of my flight to London said that I could listen
'but if the plane turns upside down, would I mind turning my scanner
off, please. If it's not too much trouble'. Haven't the Brits got a
wonderful sense of humor ;-)
The freq counter works reasonably well, provided you get a window seat.
An aisle or a middle row seat is totally dead.
I did get into some 'bother' last year on a flight from Canada. The
stewardess was convinced that my freq counter was a transmitter,
threatened to have me arrested on arrival at London. I told her to go
ahead and tell the Captain. He came out and we had a chat about airband
radio and flying for 20 mins, he then brought me into the cabin,
switched off the autopilot and let me pilot the plane for 10 mins. Not
many people can claim flying a 767 as part of their PPL!!
The bottom line is to keep yourself right: always ask the Captain's
permission.
Steve.
TW wrote:
>
> Which place service did you use? Most now don't allow scanners or 2-way
> radios on the flight.
>
> JA Moran <jo...@analon.com> wrote in message
> news:3988CF1A...@analon.com...
> >
> > I got a new toy.. It's a frequency counter. took it with me on a recent
> > road trip and found the frequencies used by people passing who were
> talking
> > on their mobile phones or 2-way radios.
> >
> > On a recent flight, I had the counter with me and found lots of celular
> > frequencies in the 820-840mhz (mobile side). The towers transmit in the
> > 870-890mhz range
> >
> > A guy in a row in back of me called his office on his cell phone... My
> > counter lit up with an 841mhz frequency. someone across the aisle used
> theirs
> > and it showed a 843mhz frequency.
> >
> > There is a conversion table available....showing hte corresponding tower
> > frequency for a mobile phone
> > I did not get the ATC frequencies the plane was transmitting on due to the
> > metal skin of the aircraft....
> > I did however come across some HF frequencies that popped in the counter
> as
Stephen Barnes,
http://i.am/stephenbarnes/
Tim Shoppa
>
> On Wed, 2 Aug 2000, Big Ron wrote:
>
> > It is also illegal to use a cellular phone on anything that flys
> > (doesn't have to be a commercial flight... just any flight.)
>
> It's only illegal to use them while airborne :) and actually, the FAA
> doesn't take a specific regulatory stance on the use of cellphones. They
> may say something about them, but those words of wisdom are not contained
> in the big fat book of knowledge that every pilot lives and dies by.
This statement reminds me of a reporter responding to the report
of a bomb threat by showing up at the scene and using his cellphone
to file a report. An officer points at the sign clearly pointing
out "Bomb Danger, no Radio Transmissions Allowed", but the reporter
protests "It's not a radio transmitter, it's a cellphone".
Of course, this story is probably wasted on you, since you never
realized that a cellphone *is* a radio transmitter and probably
refuse to acknowledge it still.
Tim.
Stephen Jacobs
More important is that people realize that the pilots use a radio transmitter
to talk to the control towers and they don't cause the plane to crash either.
The ONLY reason cell phones aren't allowed on planes is that your cell phone
will be able to transmit to cell sites all across the country at the same
time. A handheld walkie-talkie on a plane over Texas talked to me on my
walkie-talkie on the ground in Illinois. No cell phone, cd player, or any
other consumer device is going to affect or cause any plane to crash or
terrorists would not have to try and sneak bombs onto planes, they could just
bring a cell phone on board, and when the plane is off the ground, turn on the
cell phone and crash the plane.
To date, no plane has ever crashed due to a cell phone or cd player.
TW
----------------------------------------------------------------------
markv <markv at telerama.com> wrote in message
news:mdvjos8a7l6dft96b...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 03 Aug 2000 16:45:21 GMT, "TW" <tandb8...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >I disagree with Ken. THere is no way. It's either modified or it picks
up
> >images and not the true freq.
>
> Nope, my AOR100 XLT picks up it all up....
Will Nichols
him play with my game boy. ; )
"Craig Welch" <cr...@pacific.net.sg> wrote in message
news:q24kossmtohef0t83...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 03 Aug 2000 22:10:30 +0100, Steve Barnes
> <stephen@REMOVE_ME.barnes1.force9.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >I did get into some 'bother' last year on a flight from Canada. The
> >stewardess was convinced that my freq counter was a transmitter,
> >threatened to have me arrested on arrival at London. I told her to go
> >ahead and tell the Captain. He came out and we had a chat about airband
> >radio and flying for 20 mins, he then brought me into the cabin,
> >switched off the autopilot and let me pilot the plane for 10 mins. Not
> >many people can claim flying a 767 as part of their PPL!!
>
> Yes they can. Anyone can claim so. It's easy to tell porkies from
> your keyboard.
>
> -- Craig
John
Craig Welch wrote a message On Thu, 03 Aug 2000 18:10:42 -0500,
> As far as we know. But there is 'reasonable suspicion' that cell
> phones might interfere with nav or other systems. And on that basis,
> airlines prohibit their use. So that's it.
Another possible scenario is that cell phones represent too much competition
with on-board telephone systems; and the airlines simply cannot have that.
Dan Larsen
> Dan Larsen wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 2 Aug 2000, Big Ron wrote:
> >
> > > It is also illegal to use a cellular phone on anything that flys
> > > (doesn't have to be a commercial flight... just any flight.)
> >
> > It's only illegal to use them while airborne :) and actually, the FAA
> > doesn't take a specific regulatory stance on the use of cellphones. They
> > may say something about them, but those words of wisdom are not contained
> > in the big fat book of knowledge that every pilot lives and dies by. The
> > FCC, OTOH, has plenty to say if they catch you. But that's a whole
> > different story...
>
> Which big fat book of knowledge are you referring to? Cell phone use is
> prohibited under 14 CFR 121.306, which prohibits the use of electronic
> devices onboard commercial aircraft. The regulation also allows the
> operator to exempt certain types of devices for use either all the time
> (pacemakers, watches, calculators, etc.) or only above 10,000 feet
> (computers, etc.). Cell phones are not included on any of the lists of
> excepted devices, and are therefore prohibited at all times by the FARs.
Mark, the big fat book of knowledge I was referring to was 14 CFR 121.306
and the "counterpart" found under 14 CFR 91.21. Since the original post
made it clear the poster was not referencing Part 121 flights only, 14 CFR
91 stuff was fair game.
The way Part 91 is written, I can operate a cell phone under VFR period,
or, if operating IFR, I'll be fine if I have "determined" (whatever that
means) it won't cause harm to the nav/com system. Likewise, under Part
121, if you determine that a cell phone is safe to use in flight, it can
be used.
AFAIK, the bottom line is that the FAA can't unilaterally bust somebody
for cell phone usage unless they've double checked with that operator in
regards to "approved" electronic devices on that aircraft. I know I'm
stretching it slightly with the Part 121 references, but I'm sure the FAA
can't bust me on a Part 91 flight.
--Dan
M. Schneider
"John" <dc2da...@home.com> wrote in message
news:l0si5.19177$k5.1...@news1.rdc1.mb.home.com...
I wish I still had the references, but they are lost in the mists of time
(anything more than a year ago :<) ). It concerned several instances where
non-certified electronic equipment being used by a passenger on board a
trans-atlantic flight may have interferred with the flight deck instruments,
navigation and communication. In at least one incident, such interference
was alleged to have been a key factor in the loss of the aircraft, crew and
passengers. These incidents occured in the 60's or early 70's as I recall,
and advances in flight avionics have rendered them less susceptable to
interference, which is why some airlines are more willing to allow the
onboard use of passenger equipment. This may have been in an article in
Monitoring Times magazine. I do know that, when I was traveling back and
forth to Europe in the 70's, TWA, Pan Am, and BOAC (now BA) would not allow
the inflight use of any electrical/electronic devices brought onboard by a
passenger. A stewardess on a TWA flight to London wouldn't even give me
permission to use my cordless Norelco shaver, instead supplying a special
corded unit that would plug into the aircraft's electrical system (this was
a 707).
As to why inflight use of a transmitter of ANY kind is prohibited, consider
that the onboard avionics which are heavily tested and certified to be
non-interfering are located inside the metal shell of the plane, which
protects the equipment from interference from the OUTSIDE. If the
non-certified equipment is located INSIDE the aircraft, the primary line of
defense (the fuselage) has been bypassed. Think your equipment can't affect
other radios or instruments? I use to have a BC-100XLT that, if I turned it
on within 10 feet of somebody using a cordless phone, the phone would hang
up. These rules were in place long before airlines started installing
inflight phones.
Like the man said, ALWAYS ask the Captain of the plane. FAA regs give him
the final say.
Mark K5MAR
Steve Barnes
Andy in RI
roaming charges! :)
I've brought scanner and 2m HT's on board airplanes before, keyed the HT's and
listened to the scanners... I'm still here. :)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
To reply, remove "spamsux" from the email address.
Andy in RI
>scanners capable of picking them up (producing them too) and it's also
>illegal to listen to them, but what's done is done
After a certian date a few years ago (don't remember the actual date), the
manufacture, monitoring or modification of a scanner to pick up cellular phone
calls is illegal (it's also illegal to listen to cordless phone calls under the
same law). I have a scanner that was made prior to the ban, so it could monitor
cell phones if I wanted to, but it's illegal to listen... it's not illegal to
possess it (unless your state has anti-scanner laws) as long as it was made
before the ban... actually, I modified my scanner and it picks up somewhere
from 800 - 940 without any pauses... (forget the exact range). Unfortunately
the scanner is busted - the keypad and display don't work - $184 worth of
repairs according to Radio Shack! :(
Bruce Tyler
wrote:
>Tim Shoppa wrote:
>
>
>More important is that people realize that the pilots use a radio transmitter
>to talk to the control towers and they don't cause the plane to crash either.
>The ONLY reason cell phones aren't allowed on planes is that your cell phone
>will be able to transmit to cell sites all across the country at the same
>time. A handheld walkie-talkie on a plane over Texas talked to me on my
>walkie-talkie on the ground in Illinois. No cell phone, cd player, or any
>other consumer device is going to affect or cause any plane to crash or
>terrorists would not have to try and sneak bombs onto planes, they could just
>bring a cell phone on board, and when the plane is off the ground, turn on the
>cell phone and crash the plane.
>
>To date, no plane has ever crashed due to a cell phone or cd player.
>
>
Just in my humble opinion I think that some of the above is not totally
correct....
I am no electronic wiz but I do know enough about simple transmitter
circuitry to realize that a huge amount of electronics equipment, be it a
cellphone, CD player or a childs toy, can and usually does emit many
unnoticed spurries, tones and other transmitted frequencies simply by the
sometimes cheap and nasty circuitry they have in them... There is no such
animal as a totally shielded device (either shielded from transmitting or
receiving unwanted frequenices).... By their nature, almost any combination
of electronics components will emit some sought of transmitted frequency
once a current is passed through it....
It is these unwanted frequencies that can be picked up by sensitive
equipment in the plane that you may be seated in... Now maybe it wont cause
a plane to drop out of the sky BUT it may cause some equipment to give a
false reading or even malfunction or fail which could induce further action
by other instruments or one or more of the crew....
No, it may not be the entire cause of an air accident but it may not do any
good to enhance a trouble free flight....
Do you ever listen to HF radio? If so... how many washing machines, TV's,
phones, neon lamps, microwave ovens, vacuum cleaners, car ignitions, badly
connected wires and a multitude of other electronics devices do you pick up
with your receiver.... I'll tell you - MILLIONS.... It's all the same
principle... They are all emitted from electronics devices and cause
interference in the device which is purpose designed/built and more
sensitive to radio frequency...
So much of a planes circuitry too is designed around anti-static buildup
whilst in flight. Stray emissions can upset these too....
I have spoken only to a few pilots in the past and every one of them knows
absolutely nothing about radio or electronics but they do know their stuff
about planes..... and their word is good enough for me.
It would be of little consulation to know that is wasn't my cellphone that
made a pilot deviate from his heading and bump into another plane, as we
fall from the skies... 35,000 ft is a little too high to dice with danger
or ignorance...
Rain McClelland
> More important is that people realize that the pilots use a radio transmitter
> to talk to the control towers and they don't cause the plane to crash either.
Well sir, that just isn't good enough. Why do you think that avionics must be
TSO'd to be used on airplanes? And that goes for all of the transmitters, such
as TACAN DME and transponders, not just AM voice comm. It doesn't take much
interference to cause accuracy degradation on some VHF navigation equipment. Some
of the systems on today's transport aircraft are highly automated and may be
susceptible to some interference. No, turning on a cell phone may not cause the
plane to fall out the sky, but it represents a risk that the airlines are not
willing to impose.
> The ONLY reason cell phones aren't allowed on planes is that your cell phone
> will be able to transmit to cell sites all across the country at the same
> time.
Negative. That statement is the ONLY reason why the FCC bans cell phones per se,
not the FAA FARs and operator rules.
> A handheld walkie-talkie on a plane over Texas talked to me on my
> walkie-talkie on the ground in Illinois.
But what kind of plane was it? What electronics was it relying on? Was it
operating under IFR?
> No cell phone, cd player, or any
> other consumer device is going to affect or cause any plane to crash or
> terrorists would not have to try and sneak bombs onto planes, they could just
> bring a cell phone on board, and when the plane is off the ground, turn on the
> cell phone and crash the plane.
Your knowledge appears to be quite lacking with respect to transport avionics
systemes for a statement which you express so strongly.
> To date, no plane has ever crashed due to a cell phone or cd player.
Where did you find this statistic?
Rain McClelland
> Dan Larsen wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 2 Aug 2000, Big Ron wrote:
> >
> > > It is also illegal to use a cellular phone on anything that flys
> > > (doesn't have to be a commercial flight... just any flight.)
> >
> > It's only illegal to use them while airborne :) and actually, the FAA
> > doesn't take a specific regulatory stance on the use of cellphones. They
> > may say something about them, but those words of wisdom are not contained
> > in the big fat book of knowledge that every pilot lives and dies by.
>
> This statement reminds me of a reporter responding to the report
> of a bomb threat by showing up at the scene and using his cellphone
> to file a report. An officer points at the sign clearly pointing
> out "Bomb Danger, no Radio Transmissions Allowed", but the reporter
> protests "It's not a radio transmitter, it's a cellphone".
>
> Of course, this story is probably wasted on you, since you never
> realized that a cellphone *is* a radio transmitter and probably
> refuse to acknowledge it still.
I didn't find any evidence in the referenced material above to support your
claim of "never realized" or "refuse to acknowledge." A cell phone is
transeiver, and cell phones are not specifically mentioned in the FAA
regulation mentioned above. Cell phones ARE specifically mentioned in the FCC
regulation which prohibits their use aboard aircraft in the United States.
Rain McClelland
The information you offered is in the subject line of the message. The person
you are referring to specifically mentioned the Optoelectronics Model 3300 which
most certainly is a frequency counter, not a scanner. But surely you knew that.
"John T." wrote:
> What the hell are you guys talking about???? The guy who made the post is
> using a frequency counter...NOT a scanner!!
> reebok <ree...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:P36i5.12168$FJ4.1...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
> > What freq scanner is it?
> > I have an Optoelectronics Model 3300 and I don't like it very much at all.
> > I can stick an antenna right next to it and it will hardly work.
> >
> > --
> > John
> > Webmaster
> > www.FileFlash.com
> >
> > AOL: reebok657
> > ICQ: 13738184
> >
> >
> > "JA Moran" <jo...@analon.com> wrote in message
> > news:3988CF1A...@analon.com...
> > >
> > > I got a new toy.. It's a frequency counter. took it with me on a
> recent
> > > road trip and found the frequencies used by people passing who were
> > talking
> > > on their mobile phones or 2-way radios.
> > >
> > > On a recent flight, I had the counter with me and found lots of celular
> > > frequencies in the 820-840mhz (mobile side). The towers transmit in the
> > > 870-890mhz range
> > >
> > > A guy in a row in back of me called his office on his cell phone... My
> > > counter lit up with an 841mhz frequency. someone across the aisle used
> > theirs
> > > and it showed a 843mhz frequency.
> > >
> > > There is a conversion table available....showing hte corresponding tower
> > > frequency for a mobile phone
> > > given you know the mobile or phone transmit frequency.
> > >
> > > A catering company rep came onboard to check on something..... they used
> > > their radio and I got that frequency too.... something in the 466mhz
> > range.
> > >
> > > I did not get the ATC frequencies the plane was transmitting on due to
> the
> > > metal skin of the aircraft....
> > > I did however come across some HF frequencies that popped in the counter
> > as
Rain McClelland
> Might be true, but what if the FCC found out you had it, then what? Fine
Persuant to what regulation?
Mark Rogers
Dan Larsen wrote:
>
> The way Part 91 is written, I can operate a cell phone under VFR period,
> or, if operating IFR, I'll be fine if I have "determined" (whatever that
> means) it won't cause harm to the nav/com system. Likewise, under Part
> 121, if you determine that a cell phone is safe to use in flight, it can
> be used.
Under FAR Part 121, the "operator" must determine that it is
safe. "Operator" is defined elsewhere in the regulations, and
it's not the flight crew. It is the airline, and each airline
will publish a list of permitted electronic devices in its Flight
Operations Manual. That's why some airlines allow GPS units
while others don't. No airlines allow cell phones. Because it's
not permitted by the operator, they are prohibited under the
FARs.
> AFAIK, the bottom line is that the FAA can't unilaterally bust somebody
> for cell phone usage unless they've double checked with that operator in
> regards to "approved" electronic devices on that aircraft. I know I'm
> stretching it slightly with the Part 121 references, but I'm sure the FAA
> can't bust me on a Part 91 flight.
I'd be careful with that if you're flying IFR under Part 91.
Personally, I'd be hard pressed to argue to the FAA that I had
determined it was "safe", when no other FAR 121 operators agree
with me. What criteria did you use to make that determination?
--Mark Rogers
Andy in RI
>
>There IS a law making it illegal to manufacture a scanner that is
>'easily modifiable' for the U.S. market.
>
Why are you going to modify a scanner to pick up frequencies that you are not
allowed to monitor?! And I'd beg to differ - can someone please pull up the law
and post the part about this. I am sure of the exact law number and don't
really feel like doing all the research.. I'm sure someone's looked into this
in the past.
Skip Sanders
"Andy in RI" <rirad...@aol.comspamsux> wrote in message
news:20000805011752...@ng-cv1.aol.com...
> >There is currently NO LAW making it illegal to modify a scanner.
> >
> >There IS a law making it illegal to manufacture a scanner that is
> >'easily modifiable' for the U.S. market.
> >
>
> Why are you going to modify a scanner to pick up frequencies that you are
not
> allowed to monitor?! And I'd beg to differ - can someone please pull up
the law
> and post the part about this. I am sure of the exact law number and don't
> really feel like doing all the research.. I'm sure someone's looked into
this
> in the past.
The FCC simply 'interprets' manufacture to include ANY modification of a
scanner to receive 'banned' frequencies.
Scanner operate under Part 15 of the FCC Regulations (because of the local
oscillator) In Part 15, we find:
Sec. 15.9 Prohibition against eavesdropping.
Except for the operations of law enforcement officers conducted
under lawful authority, no person shall use, either directly or
indirectly, a device operated pursuant to the provisions of this part
for the purpose of overhearing or recording the private conversations of
others unless such use is authorized by all of the parties engaging in
the conversation.
And, the kicker:
Sec. 15.121 Scanning receivers and frequency converters used with scanning
receivers.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, scanning
receivers and frequency converters designed or marketed for use with
scanning receivers, shall:
(1) Be incapable of operating (tuning), or readily being altered by
the user to operate, within the frequency bands allocated to the
Cellular Radiotelephone Service in part 22 of this chapter (cellular
telephone bands). Scanning receivers capable of ``readily being altered
by the user'' include, but are not limited to, those for which the
ability to receive transmissions in the cellular telephone bands can be
added by clipping the leads of, or installing, a simple component such
as a diode, resistor or jumper wire; replacing a plug-in semiconductor
chip; or programming a semiconductor chip using special access codes or
an external device, such as a personal computer. Scanning receivers, and
frequency converters designed for use with scanning receivers, also
shall be incapable of converting digital cellular communication
transmissions to analog voice audio.
(2) Be designed so that the tuning, control and filtering circuitry
is inaccessible. The design must be such that any attempts to modify the
equipment to receive transmissions from the Cellular Radiotelephone
Service likely will render the receiver inoperable.
(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, scanning
receivers shall reject any signals from the Cellular Radiotelephone
Service frequency bands that are 38 dB or higher based upon a 12 dB
SINAD measurement, which is considered the threshold where a signal can
be clearly discerned from any interference that may be present.
(c) Scanning receivers and frequency converters designed or marketed
for use with scanning receivers, are not subject to the requirements of
paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section provided that they are
manufactured exclusively for, and marketed exclusively to, entities
described in 18 U.S.C. 2512(2), or are marketed exclusively as test
equipment pursuant to Sec. 15.3(dd).
(d) Modification of a scanning receiver to receive transmissions
<---
from Cellular Radiotelephone Service frequency bands will be considered
<---
to constitute manufacture of such equipment. This includes any
<---
individual, individuals, entity or organization that modifies one or
<---
more scanners. Any modification to a scanning receiver to receive
<---
transmissions from the Cellular Radiotelephone Service frequency bands
<---
voids the certification of the scanning receiver, regardless of the date
<---
of manufacture of the original unit. In addition, the provisions of
<---
Sec. 15.23 shall not be interpreted as permitting modification of a
<---
scanning receiver to receiver Cellular Radiotelephone Service
<---
transmissions.
(e) Scanning receivers and frequency converters designed for use
with scanning receivers shall not be assembled from kits or marketed in
kit form unless they comply with the requirements in paragraph (a)
through (c) of this section.
(f)(1) Scanning receivers shall have a label permanently affixed to
the product, and this label shall be readily visible to the purchaser at
the time of purchase. The label shall read as follows:
WARNING: MODIFICATION OF THIS DEVICE TO RECEIVE CELLULAR RADIOTELEPHONE
SERVICE SIGNALS IS PROHIBITED UNDER FCC RULES AND FEDERAL LAW.
(2) ``Permanently affixed'' means that the label is etched,
engraved, stamped, silkscreened, indelibly printed or otherwise
permanently marked on a permanently attached part of the equipment or on
a nameplate of metal plastic or other material fastened to the equipment
by welding, riveting, or permanent adhesive. The label shall be designed
to last the expected lifetime of the equipment in the environment in
which the equipment may be operated and must not be readily detachable.
The label shall not be a stick-on, paper label.
Me
over an RS-232 port, enter a password and some codes and presto, everything is unblocked.
Stephen Jacobs
> On Fri, 04 Aug 2000 10:37:08 +1000, Craig Welch <cr...@pacific.net.sg>
> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 03 Aug 2000 18:10:42 -0500, Stephen Jacobs
> ><sja...@horsecock.net> wrote:
>
> >>To date, no plane has ever crashed due to a cell phone or cd player.
> >
> >As far as we know. But there is 'reasonable suspicion' that cell
> >phones might interfere with nav or other systems. And on that basis,
> >airlines prohibit their use. So that's it.
Incorrect. They prohibit them because a cell phone that high in the sky
will transmit to every cell site in the country and interfere with the
cellular system, NOT the airplane. The pilots themselves use radio to
talk to the control towers! That doesn't interfere with navigation
systems either. Why not ban those too?
M. Schneider
You keep confusing equipment DESIGNED and CERTIFIED for use in aircraft that
have antennas on the OUTSIDE of the aircraft with consumer-grade equipment
that is NOT designed for use in aircraft, being used INSIDE the aircraft.
FAA regulations don't give a hoot about tying up cellular systems, their
concern is the safety of the aircraft, it's systems, and the occupants. The
regulations regarding consumer electronics on board a civil aviation
aircraft were in place long before cellular systems were established. All
avionics (aviation electronics) have to go through a stringent testing
procedure to certify that they won't cause an interference problem with any
other aviation system before they can receive certification that allows them
to be installed in aircraft. That is why aviation radios are so much more
expensive then their commercial-grade counterparts. Compare the price of a
GPS unit you can use in your automobile with one that is certified for use
in aircraft. And while current consumer equipment might not cause an
aircraft to crash (as you say), the FAA rules state that non-certified
equipment can't be used while in flight. Why is that so hard to understand?
Like the commercial on TV says: "It's the LAW!".
And speaking of law, the captain of the plane, command pilot, pilot in
charge, whatever term you wish to use, has the final say on the usage of
any, repeat, ANY consumer electronics on board a commercial flight. His
word is LAW. That is FAA rules, and also the rules in many other countries.
Remember the Concorde crash a couple of weeks ago, where the pilot refused
to fly the plane until the thrust reverser was repaired, even though the
plane was certified by the airline as safe to fly? The plane didn't fly
until the problem was repaired. (And this has pretty well been shown not to
have had anything to do with the fire and crash.) Refusing to obey a
captain's orders on board an airliner is a federal crime. If he (or his
representative such as first officer or flight attendant) tells you to turn
the off your cellphone, CD player, or whatever, and you refuse, you will
likely be arrested and jailed for the federal crime of interference with a
flight crew. And the argument in court won't center on whether or not it
was safe to operate the equipment. It will be on whether or not you refused
to obey the captain's lawful command. In this type of case, the FAA regs
say the captain is right, his is the final word on aircraft safety.
Got it?
Mark K5MAR
"Stephen Jacobs" <sja...@mailco.net> wrote in message
news:398CDCB3...@mailco.net...
Dan Larsen
>
> > Dan Larsen wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 2 Aug 2000, Big Ron wrote:
> > >
> > > > It is also illegal to use a cellular phone on anything that flys
> > > > (doesn't have to be a commercial flight... just any flight.)
> > >
> > > It's only illegal to use them while airborne :) and actually, the FAA
> > > doesn't take a specific regulatory stance on the use of cellphones. They
> > > may say something about them, but those words of wisdom are not contained
> > > in the big fat book of knowledge that every pilot lives and dies by.
> >
> > This statement reminds me of a reporter responding to the report
> > of a bomb threat by showing up at the scene and using his cellphone
> > to file a report. An officer points at the sign clearly pointing
> > out "Bomb Danger, no Radio Transmissions Allowed", but the reporter
> > protests "It's not a radio transmitter, it's a cellphone".
> >
> > Of course, this story is probably wasted on you, since you never
> > realized that a cellphone *is* a radio transmitter and probably
> > refuse to acknowledge it still.
Tim, please explain how my post suggested that I don't have a f*cking clue
about how cell phones work, cause I'm interested to hear your reasoning.
--Dan
Dan Larsen
> > AFAIK, the bottom line is that the FAA can't unilaterally bust somebody
> > for cell phone usage unless they've double checked with that operator in
> > regards to "approved" electronic devices on that aircraft. I know I'm
> > stretching it slightly with the Part 121 references, but I'm sure the FAA
> > can't bust me on a Part 91 flight.
>
> I'd be careful with that if you're flying IFR under Part 91.
> Personally, I'd be hard pressed to argue to the FAA that I had
> determined it was "safe", when no other FAR 121 operators agree
> with me. What criteria did you use to make that determination?
I haven't, I was just being facietious. Using 121 operators as a
benchmark isn't always appropriate. IFR minimum take off
visibilities/cielings apply to commercial operators but do not apply to
Part 91 operations. For instance, I can take off under 0/0 vis and you
can't. Yes, we're told, "if it's not safe for commercial ops to do it,
neither should you." But the fact remains that we can legally (it's not
the same as safe, I know) get away with stuff that you can't.
--Dan
David Steuber
in this thread. Consumer electronics from walkmans to laptops are
allowed on planes. The new planes all have outlets for you to plug
your computer into!
I don't know what the deal is with cellular phones. If there really
are concerns by the FAA and NTSB that low powered EF emmisions could
bring down an aircraft, I think they would be screening these items
out of you carry on baggage. They don't do this.
Stephen Jacobs
> On Sat, 05 Aug 2000 22:34:11 -0500, Stephen Jacobs
> <sja...@mailco.net> wrote:
>
> >> >>To date, no plane has ever crashed due to a cell phone or cd player.
> >> >
> >> >As far as we know. But there is 'reasonable suspicion' that cell
> >> >phones might interfere with nav or other systems. And on that basis,
> >> >airlines prohibit their use. So that's it.
>
> >Incorrect. They prohibit them because a cell phone that high in the sky
> >will transmit to every cell site in the country and interfere with the
> >cellular system, NOT the airplane.
>
> Every cell site in the country? Apart from line of site issues,
> there are distance limits to cellular communications. How high do
> you think passenger aeroplanes fly?
with a walkie talkie, I talked with someone using a walkie talkie on a plane
over Texas while I was in Chicago. A cellphone would have interfered with
every cell site for at least that distance in every direction from a plane.
Also note, the plane never crashed from using that walkie talkie on that
plane.
> >The pilots themselves use radio to
> >talk to the control towers! That doesn't interfere with navigation
> >systems either. Why not ban those too?
>
> You seem to be suggesting that items that *don't* interfere with
> navigation systems should be banned. Your logic is rather hard to
> follow.
Sorry sarcasm is beyond your level of understanding.
Stephen Jacobs
> have antennas on the OUTSIDE of the aircraft with consumer-grade equipment
> that is NOT designed for use in aircraft, being used INSIDE the aircraft.
No consumer grade equipment has the ability to affect any equipment aboard any
aircraft.
> FAA regulations don't give a hoot about tying up cellular systems,
They must abide by the law whether they give a hoot about it or not. I don't
give a hoot about people like you, but the law still doesn't let me kill you.
> And speaking of law, the captain of the plane, command pilot, pilot in
> charge, whatever term you wish to use, has the final say on the usage of
> any, repeat, ANY consumer electronics on board a commercial flight. His
> word is LAW.
No one disputes this, NOR does it even closely relate to the issue that
cellphones do not interfere with any navigation equipment, only the cellular
system.
> Mark K5MAR
You should know better having a Tech Ham License, but then again, if you did,
you wouldn't be posting your call sign on a newsgroup so everyone knows your
home address. Not a very wise thing to do nowadays on a newsgroup.
Rain McClelland
Dan, I was agreeing with you. You just responded to my message, not Tim's. Tim
appears to be an idiot.
Rain McClelland
> I just want to point out that computers were mentioned at some point
> in this thread. Consumer electronics from walkmans to laptops are
> allowed on planes. The new planes all have outlets for you to plug
> your computer into!
>
> I don't know what the deal is with cellular phones. If there really
> are concerns by the FAA and NTSB that low powered EF emmisions could bring down an
> aircraft, I think they would be screening these items
> out of you carry on baggage. They don't do this.
There are two separate issues here.
One: The FCC has banned cell phone use on aircraft in the sky, per the phone
industry's request. This issue has nothing to do with aviation safety, nor the FAA.
Two: Scheduled airlines operate under Part 121 of the federal aviation
administration's chapter of the CFR. A section in 121 states that passengers may not
use devices which are not approved by the operator of the aircraft, and the operator
has taken responsibility that the device will not cause interference to the aircraft
systems. A non aviation approved transmitter has a non acceptable level of
probability that it will cause interference to systems. Some of the systems are
highly susceptible to interference, especially that navigation system. Anyone who
understands how critical and sensitive the VHF navigation receivers are, and how a
unwanted image on a frequency that they are using causes problems realizes this.
Airlines have determined that laptops do not cause problems with systems. Quite
understandedly that they have not made this determination for transmitters, including
cell phones. As for cellphones, it wouldn't matter if they did; refer to point one
above.
As an addendum, there are many things that can bring down an aircraft that are not
screened.
Rain McClelland
That's because the FAA doesn't care that much if you go out and care yourself.
But once you take somebody's money and take them or their property in the sky,
you bet they suddenly care a whole lot more.
Rain McClelland
> Stephen,
> You keep confusing equipment DESIGNED and CERTIFIED for use in aircraft that
> have antennas on the OUTSIDE of the aircraft with consumer-grade equipment
> that is NOT designed for use in aircraft, being used INSIDE the aircraft.
> FAA regulations don't give a hoot about tying up cellular systems, their
> concern is the safety of the aircraft, it's systems, and the occupants. The
> regulations regarding consumer electronics on board a civil aviation
> aircraft were in place long before cellular systems were established. All
> avionics (aviation electronics) have to go through a stringent testing
> procedure to certify that they won't cause an interference problem with any
> other aviation system before they can receive certification that allows them
> to be installed in aircraft. That is why aviation radios are so much more
> expensive then their commercial-grade counterparts. Compare the price of a
> GPS unit you can use in your automobile with one that is certified for use
> in aircraft. And while current consumer equipment might not cause an
> aircraft to crash (as you say), the FAA rules state that non-certified
> equipment can't be used while in flight.
You can use a non certified GPS while in flight. But you can't use it say, for
a primarly means of IFR navigation. Laptops are not certified either.
> Why is that so hard to understand?
> Like the commercial on TV says: "It's the LAW!".
> And speaking of law, the captain of the plane, command pilot, pilot in
> charge, whatever term you wish to use, has the final say on the usage of
> any, repeat, ANY consumer electronics on board a commercial flight. His
> word is LAW. That is FAA rules, and also the rules in many other countries.
That's not quite what the law says. Here, the context is scheduled airlines,
which operate under Part 121 in the regulations. To be sure, operators are not
pilots in command. Let's take a look:
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may
operate, nor may any operator or pilot in command of an aircraft allow the
operation of, any portable electronic device on any U.S.-registered civil
aircraft operating under this part.
(b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to--
(1) Portable voice recorders;
(2) Hearing aids;
(3) Heart pacemakers;
(4) Electric shavers; or
(5) Any other portable electronic device that the part 119 certificate
holder has determined will not cause interference with the navigation or
communication system of the aircraft on which it is to be used.
(c) The determination required by paragraph (b)(5) of this section shall be
made by that part 119 certificate holder operating the particular device to
be used.
--------------------
(2) "Commercial operator" means a person, other than an air carrier, who
conducts operations in air commerce carrying persons or property for
compensation or hire.
M. Schneider
> > You keep confusing equipment DESIGNED and CERTIFIED for use in aircraft
that
> > have antennas on the OUTSIDE of the aircraft with consumer-grade
equipment
> > that is NOT designed for use in aircraft, being used INSIDE the
aircraft.
>
any
> aircraft.
Since I seriously doubt that you have the background, training, or
experience to make the above statement with any degree of accuracy, we can
forget it. Blanket statements like the above are worthless.
>
> > Mark K5MAR
>
> You should know better having a Tech Ham License, but then again, if you
did,
> you wouldn't be posting your call sign on a newsgroup so everyone knows
your
> home address. Not a very wise thing to do nowadays on a newsgroup.
>
It always amazes me that people seem to think that a willingness to identify
yourself and stand behind your statements is bad. My word is my bond, I'm
proud of my name, and I'm proud of my license. I've worked hard to acquire
my knowledge of electronics over the past 35 years. I don't pretend to know
it all, and I don't make blanket statements. As for them knowing my home
address, what is going to happen? Are you going to come hunt me down? I've
got a trashcan for junk mail, that's not a problem. And an answering
machine to screen calls.
Mark Schneider
K5MAR
Grid Sq. EM16ld
Standing by on 145.35 (-600)
Stillwater, Okla. Anything further you need can be found at any callsign
database such as QRZ.com
Dan Larsen
something :) Thanks, though, Rain.
Dan Larsen
> Dan Larsen wrote:
>
> > I haven't, I was just being facietious. Using 121 operators as a
> > benchmark isn't always appropriate. IFR minimum take off
> > visibilities/cielings apply to commercial operators but do not apply to
> > Part 91 operations. For instance, I can take off under 0/0 vis and you
> > can't. Yes, we're told, "if it's not safe for commercial ops to do it,
> > neither should you." But the fact remains that we can legally (it's not
> > the same as safe, I know) get away with stuff that you can't.
>
> That's because the FAA doesn't care that much if you go out and care yourself.
> But once you take somebody's money and take them or their property in the sky,
> you bet they suddenly care a whole lot more.
It is possible to operate flights under Part 91 where passengers exchange
money with the pilot in exchange for flight. You can show up to my
airplane, pay me half of the operating costs of that flight, take off
under said conditions, and we'll be quite legal. Correct me if I'm wrong,
but that situation fits your scenario :)
--Dan
BAP
"sharing of expenses." Otherwise, you just became a charter operator...
Dan Larsen <bad...@seas.gwu.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.10.100080...@hobbes.seas.gwu.edu...
> On Mon, 7 Aug 2000, Rain McClelland >
ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com
Rain McClelland <dr...@use.net.nospam> wrote:
[snip]
> Two: Scheduled airlines operate under Part 121 of the federal aviation
> administration's chapter of the CFR. A section in 121 states that
passengers may not
> use devices which are not approved by the operator of the aircraft,
and the operator
> has taken responsibility that the device will not cause interference
to the aircraft
> systems. A non aviation approved transmitter has a non acceptable
level of
> probability that it will cause interference to systems.
The definition fo "nonacceptable" being amazing low
in this case however.
> Some of the systems are
> highly susceptible to interference, especially that navigation
system. Anyone who
> understands how critical and sensitive the VHF navigation receivers
are, and how a
> unwanted image on a frequency that they are using causes problems
realizes this.
Yes, but we also realize that if there was any real
credible threat, the systems would be hardened to address the
problem. They are not because there is not.
>
> Airlines have determined that laptops do not cause problems with
systems. Quite
> understandedly that they have not made this determination for
transmitters, including
> cell phones. As for cellphones, it wouldn't matter if they did; refer
to point one
> above.
But this is the crucial point of the subthread. They
are prohibited because of the FCC. Without that, the FAA would
have little proof of risk.
>
> As an addendum, there are many things that can bring down an aircraft
that are not
> screened.
In this case, they are not particularly concerned because
the credibility of the threat is weak, very weak. If there was
any real risk to the aircraft, the aircraft systems would be
hardened to deal with it.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Jake Brodsky
<sja...@mailco.net> wrote:
>No consumer grade equipment has the ability to affect any equipment aboard any
>aircraft.
Your statement is incorrect. Consumer grade equipment is certified
under FCC part 15, for RF interference. Part 15 is all about
interference mitigation and limitation --it does not guarantee that
any given device will not interfere with other licensed services. It
merely limits the potential for interference.
That interference can still be substantial, despite testing and
certification. Further, part 15 is all about *design* certification.
It does not *prevent* unintentional radiation from any given unit.
So contrary to your assertions, there really have been cases of
aircraft going off course due to portable electronic devices. For an
example see
http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/callback_issues/cb_201.htm
>> And speaking of law, the captain of the plane, command pilot, pilot in
>> charge, whatever term you wish to use, has the final say on the usage of
>> any, repeat, ANY consumer electronics on board a commercial flight. His
>> word is LAW.
>
>No one disputes this, NOR does it even closely relate to the issue that
>cellphones do not interfere with any navigation equipment, only the cellular
>system.
Forget cell-phones for a minute: The citations provided by Mark, Dan
Larson, and others were quite appropriate. These laws apply to ALL
portable electronic devices you might carry aboard an aircraft.
Would a cell phone cause interference to an airliner's navigation
systems? Not likely --but likely or not, there is no guarantee. In
any case, how do you know the phone is working as well as it did in
the factory? How would you *prove* the phone is safe? Let's face
facts: anything unnecessary operating in an aircraft while it's on an
instrument approach is unwanted. Would you take the chance that
everybody's cell phone is working as designed while screaming toward
the runway at 180 knots on a dark, foggy night?
If you really think you are right about this issue, go get yourself a
private pilot certificate, buy your own airplane and then you can use
whatever you want to your heart's desire. Until then, live by the
rules everybody else does. The FAA doesn't hand out exceptions just
because you think you know something.
>You should know better having a Tech Ham License, but then again, if you did,
>you wouldn't be posting your call sign on a newsgroup so everyone knows your
>home address. Not a very wise thing to do nowadays on a newsgroup.
...Nor was the ignorance you displayed this post.
Jake Brodsky
Amateur Radio Station AB3A
Private Pilot, Instrument Airplane
BSEE, Johns Hopkins University, 1990.
Jake Brodsky, AB3A mailto:fru...@erols.com
"Beware of the massive impossible!"
David Steuber
' As an addendum, there are many things that can bring down an aircraft that are not
' screened.
Thanks, I'll drive.
David Steuber
' > home address. Not a very wise thing to do nowadays on a newsgroup.
'
' It always amazes me that people seem to think that a willingness to identify
' yourself and stand behind your statements is bad. My word is my bond, I'm
' proud of my name, and I'm proud of my license. I've worked hard to acquire
' my knowledge of electronics over the past 35 years. I don't pretend to know
' it all, and I don't make blanket statements. As for them knowing my home
' address, what is going to happen? Are you going to come hunt me down? I've
' got a trashcan for junk mail, that's not a problem. And an answering
' machine to screen calls.
Ditto.
But what are your counter-sniper defenses? I use a series of orbiting
space defense platforms that can target a human sized target once they
are over the horizon.
Please, tie up your robe when you fetch the morning paper.
Dan Larsen
legal. "Money changing hands" was his stipulation, IIRC.
--Dan
wayn...@my-deja.com
Steve Barnes <stephen@REMOVE_ME.barnes1.force9.co.uk> wrote:
> I regularly fly from Belfast to London (and often on from there). I
> always ask permission to use a frequency counter and/or scanner, and
> have never been refused. Most pilots state that it's OK provided the
> seatbelt sign is not lit, some say that I can listen without
> restrictions (albeit not many).
>
> This morning the Captain of my flight to London said that I could
listen
> 'but if the plane turns upside down, would I mind turning my scanner
> off, please. If it's not too much trouble'. Haven't the Brits got a
> wonderful sense of humor ;-)
>
> The freq counter works reasonably well, provided you get a window
seat.
> An aisle or a middle row seat is totally dead.
>
> I did get into some 'bother' last year on a flight from Canada. The
> stewardess was convinced that my freq counter was a transmitter,
> threatened to have me arrested on arrival at London. I told her to go
> ahead and tell the Captain. He came out and we had a chat about
airband
> radio and flying for 20 mins, he then brought me into the cabin,
> switched off the autopilot and let me pilot the plane for 10 mins.
Not
> many people can claim flying a 767 as part of their PPL!!
>
> The bottom line is to keep yourself right: always ask the Captain's
> permission.
>
> Steve.
>
> TW wrote:
> >
> > Which place service did you use? Most now don't allow scanners or
2-way
> > radios on the flight.
> >
> > JA Moran <jo...@analon.com> wrote in message
> > news:3988CF1A...@analon.com...
> > >
> > > I got a new toy.. It's a frequency counter. took it with me on
a recent
> > > road trip and found the frequencies used by people passing who
were
> > talking
> > > on their mobile phones or 2-way radios.
> > >
> > > On a recent flight, I had the counter with me and found lots of
celular
> > > frequencies in the 820-840mhz (mobile side). The towers transmit
in the
> > > 870-890mhz range
> > >
> > > A guy in a row in back of me called his office on his cell
phone... My
> > > counter lit up with an 841mhz frequency. someone across the aisle
used
> > theirs
> > > and it showed a 843mhz frequency.
> > >
> > > There is a conversion table available....showing hte
corresponding tower
> > > frequency for a mobile phone
> > > I did not get the ATC frequencies the plane was transmitting on
due to the
> > > metal skin of the aircraft....
> > > I did however come across some HF frequencies that popped in the
counter
> > as
> Stephen Barnes,
> http://i.am/stephenbarnes/
>
Hey Steve, what was the name of that airline again???
Stephen Jacobs
> "Stephen Jacobs" <sja...@mailco.net> wrote in message
> news:398E2E7C...@mailco.net...
> > > You keep confusing equipment DESIGNED and CERTIFIED for use in aircraft
> that
> > > have antennas on the OUTSIDE of the aircraft with consumer-grade
> equipment
> > > that is NOT designed for use in aircraft, being used INSIDE the
> aircraft.
> >
> > No consumer grade equipment has the ability to affect any equipment aboard
> any
> > aircraft.
>
> Since I seriously doubt that you have the background, training, or
> experience to make the above statement with any degree of accuracy, we can
> forget it. Blanket statements like the above are worthless.
It is a FACT, which you would realize if you had not just memorized the answers
for your multiple choice tech ham license. I have an Extra, and a GROL
commercial license. I also fly with 2 pilot friends and use 5 watt HTs on board
all the time without any problems to flight instruments.
Stephen Jacobs
> >> there are distance limits to cellular communications. How high do
> >> you think passenger aeroplanes fly?
>
> >with a walkie talkie, I talked with someone using a walkie talkie on a plane
> >over Texas while I was in Chicago. A cellphone would have interfered with
> >every cell site for at least that distance in every direction from a plane.
>
You OBVIOUSLY don't have the knowledge to even be debating this!
Ed Velez
Lets also put this into perspective. Cell sites normally do not point
their antennas UP, but moreso they do downtilts to cut down on
co-channel and adjacent channel interference. So even if the FCC did
approve them, at 30,000 ft, you would be hard pressed to find a signal
up there and moving at 500 mph, just imagine the handover success rate
you would have from cell to cell or carrier to carrier...
On Mon, 07 Aug 2000 02:03:39 GMT, Rain McClelland
<dr...@use.net.nospam> wrote:
>David Steuber wrote:
>
>> I just want to point out that computers were mentioned at some point
>> in this thread. Consumer electronics from walkmans to laptops are
>> allowed on planes. The new planes all have outlets for you to plug
>> your computer into!
>>
>> I don't know what the deal is with cellular phones. If there really
>> are concerns by the FAA and NTSB that low powered EF emmisions could bring down an
>> aircraft, I think they would be screening these items
>> out of you carry on baggage. They don't do this.
>
>There are two separate issues here.
>
>One: The FCC has banned cell phone use on aircraft in the sky, per the phone
>industry's request. This issue has nothing to do with aviation safety, nor the FAA.
>
>Two: Scheduled airlines operate under Part 121 of the federal aviation
>administration's chapter of the CFR. A section in 121 states that passengers may not
>use devices which are not approved by the operator of the aircraft, and the operator
>has taken responsibility that the device will not cause interference to the aircraft
>systems. A non aviation approved transmitter has a non acceptable level of
>probability that it will cause interference to systems. Some of the systems are
>highly susceptible to interference, especially that navigation system. Anyone who
>understands how critical and sensitive the VHF navigation receivers are, and how a
>unwanted image on a frequency that they are using causes problems realizes this.
>
>Airlines have determined that laptops do not cause problems with systems. Quite
>understandedly that they have not made this determination for transmitters, including
>cell phones. As for cellphones, it wouldn't matter if they did; refer to point one
>above.
>
M. Schneider
> It is a FACT, which you would realize if you had not just memorized the
answers
> for your multiple choice tech ham license. I have an Extra, and a GROL
> commercial license. I also fly with 2 pilot friends and use 5 watt HTs on
board
> all the time without any problems to flight instruments.
>
>
double scotchs at happy hour and drives home. Never had any problems, so it
must be alright. Just because you haven't had any problems doesn't mean
they can't happen.
Here is the report mentioned earlier from the NASA website.
A General Aviation pilot navigating by normally reliable VOR receivers
wandered off-course, and discovered that an unexpected culprit was the cause
of the navigation discrepancy.
After departing VFR, I picked up an IFR flight plan, and was given a
clearance. Abeam one intersection, Approach advised that I was 7 miles south
of course and provided a heading to reintercept. I began course correction
and configured the Loran for course guidance. On further comparison, it was
determined that both VOR receivers were suspect as they both indicated 8
degrees off. This prompted a query of the two passengers, children ages 7
and 12, after which it was found that both were using portable tape players.
Both units were turned off, and the VOR receivers returned to normal
operation.
Air carrier aircraft are not the only ones susceptible to the effects of
portable electronic equipment. Small aircraft, too, can experience
interference with potentially serious results, particularly in IMC
conditions.
Since I don't expect an Extra to admit he might be wrong, even when given
evidence to the contrary, I'll just put you on my block sender file.
73 (NOT!)
Mark K5MAR
Ash Nallawalla (Don't e-mail here)
> > > No consumer grade equipment has the ability to affect any equipment aboard
> > > any aircraft.
What a sweeping statement.
> > Since I seriously doubt that you have the background, training, or
> > experience to make the above statement with any degree of accuracy, we can
> > forget it. Blanket statements like the above are worthless.
> It is a FACT, which you would realize if you had not just memorized the
answers
> for your multiple choice tech ham license. I have an Extra, and a GROL
> commercial license. I also fly with 2 pilot friends and use 5 watt HTs on
board
> all the time without any problems to flight instruments.
I thought I'd crosspost this one to rec.radio.amateur.misc.
- Ash
ex VK3CIT/ZL4LM
Simple Simon
generation and transmitted frequency, do they?
Stephen Jacobs <sja...@mailco.net> wrote in message
news:398F604A...@mailco.net...
Stephen Jacobs
>
> A General Aviation pilot navigating by normally reliable VOR receivers
> wandered off-course, and discovered that an unexpected culprit was the cause
> of the navigation discrepancy.
>
> After departing VFR, I picked up an IFR flight plan, and was given a
> clearance. Abeam one intersection, Approach advised that I was 7 miles south
> of course and provided a heading to reintercept. I began course correction
> and configured the Loran for course guidance. On further comparison, it was
> determined that both VOR receivers were suspect as they both indicated 8
> degrees off. This prompted a query of the two passengers, children ages 7
> and 12, after which it was found that both were using portable tape players.
> Both units were turned off, and the VOR receivers returned to normal
> operation.
It was just a coincidence that the equipment returned to normal after "tape
players" were turned off. What "tape player" has any sort of rf generating
device in it? And don't even start with the miniature motor that runs off of 2
AA batteries. I can guarantee you the problem had nothing to do what-so-ever
with the tape players! They show movies aboard planes you know? Pre-recorded
movies on TAPE players.
> Air carrier aircraft are not the only ones susceptible to the effects of
> portable electronic equipment. Small aircraft, too, can experience
> interference with potentially serious results, particularly in IMC
> conditions.
Any one who flies aboard aircraft using 5 watt ham radio equipment can tell you
that this is a bunch of bull. It amazes me that people really like to believe
fairy tales like this, yet choose to believe that it is perfectly ok to put a
microwave generating device like a cell phone next to one's head and that THAT
does not cause any problems.
> Since I don't expect an Extra to admit he might be wrong, even when given
> evidence to the contrary, I'll just put you on my block sender file.
I have no problem admitting I am wrong, but that rarely happens. You know WHY?
Because I don't make statements unless I know what I am talking about! If I am
unsure of something, I don't make ANY statements on the matter. How are YOU on
admitting you are wrong???
Stephen Jacobs
> On Mon, 07 Aug 2000 20:20:10 -0500, Stephen Jacobs
> <sja...@mailco.net> wrote:
>
> >> >with a walkie talkie, I talked with someone using a walkie talkie on a plane
> >> >over Texas while I was in Chicago. A cellphone would have interfered with
> >> >every cell site for at least that distance in every direction from a plane.
> >>
> >> No, it would not. Cellular communications are distance limited.
> >
> >You OBVIOUSLY don't have the knowledge to even be debating this!
>
> Over a certain distance, TDMA signalling fails because of the time
> required to reply. Do you not believe this to be true?
Each cell site has receivers. A cell phone transmitting at high altitudes in an
airplane will be received by hundreds more cell sites than on the ground. The cell
sites have to determine which site the cell phone is closer to. This is nearly
impossible under this situation, especially since the system was not designed for a
situation like this as it would not occur on the ground.
Stephen Jacobs
Quite the opposite, only mentioned it since you were under the impression I had
no background to be qualified to know what I am talking about. I am actually
one of the few Extras that is against the code requirement. As a matter of
fact, I have never once used code on the air at all, I prefer to use a
microphone and don't understand why I had to learn code in order to get a
license to TALK below 6 meters. I didn't have to learn how to drive a Horse
Surrey to get my automobile drivers license.
> You sound like a guy I know who drinks 5-6
> double scotchs at happy hour and drives home.
I don't know what that means, but I rarely ever drink, perhaps a tasty cocktail
2 or 3 times a year.
> Never had any problems, so it
> must be alright. Just because you haven't had any problems doesn't mean
> they can't happen.
That's not how I judge it. Technically and Physically it can not happen, the
fact that it has never happened to me is just more repeated evidence to back up
that fact.
> Here is the report mentioned earlier from the NASA website.
NASA is part of the government. The same government that tried prohibition once
and did not learn from it and did it again, and back come all the gangs and
crime we had during the first prohibition. NASA told us that there could be no
other life on other planets, and that Mars was a red hot planet with no water,
the story changes often. Government makes laws and restricts freedom, they
need to change science to their own propaganda to fit their goals. Cigarettes
are more harmful than Marijuana, yet which one is legal and which one is
outlawed?
Stephen Jacobs
Cellular phones, often called Cellphones in the US and Handy's in Germany, are a
particular source of
problems because, regardless of whether they may interfere with aircraft systems,
the technology on which
cellular telephones are based precludes their effective use on aircraft. This
applies to all cellular phones,
including the analogue technology in the US and the digital GSM technology in
Europe. It may be worthwhile
first to explain the known problems associated with attempted use of cellular
phones while flying.
The technology of cellular phones is based on small local ground-based reception
areas called `cells'. A
cellphone user is served by just one cell, and when reaching the boundary of a
cell, will be `handed over' to
another cell which (s)he is about to enter. The topology of coverage is based on
the assumption that the user is
on or near the ground, and it is a technical assumption on which the entire
system is based that a user will be
within `sight' of just one cell except when nearing a cell boundary. When in an
aircraft, however, a user is within
radio `sight' of many cells, simply because (s)he is way off the ground. An
attempted call or reception from an
aircraft would activate many if not all cells in the local area, which `breaks'
the technology -- it causes many
transmission problems and the system is disturbed. Therefore the various
communication authorities, such as
the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC), ban the attempted use of cellular
phones while on board
aircraft. However, such attempted use is not ipso facto rendered dangerous. It is
technically inappropriate and
antisocial, as well as mostly futile.
Norman Litsche
>players" were turned off. What "tape player" has any sort of rf generating
>device in it? And don't even start with the miniature motor that runs off
of 2
>AA batteries. I can guarantee you the problem had nothing to do
what-so-ever
>with the tape players! They show movies aboard planes you know?
Pre-recorded
>movies on TAPE players
If either of those 'tape players' had an FM radio in them the local
oscillator could account for the VOR discrepancy described.
There was a terrible mid-air collision accident in NYC in the early sixties.
The cause was found to be an FM radio whose LO affected the VOR in one of
the planes.
NEL KA2TYT
Norman Litsche
>Each cell site has receivers. A cell phone transmitting at high altitudes
in an
>airplane will be received by hundreds more cell sites than on the ground.
The cell
>sites have to determine which site the cell phone is closer to. This is
nearly
>impossible under this situation, especially since the system was not
designed for a
>situation like this as it would not occur on the ground.
>
NEL KA2TYT
Jake Brodsky
<sja...@mailco.net> wrote:
>> Here is the report mentioned earlier from the NASA website.
>>
>> A General Aviation pilot navigating by normally reliable VOR receivers
>> wandered off-course, and discovered that an unexpected culprit was the cause
>> of the navigation discrepancy.
>>
>> After departing VFR, I picked up an IFR flight plan, and was given a
>> clearance. Abeam one intersection, Approach advised that I was 7 miles south
>> of course and provided a heading to reintercept. I began course correction
>> and configured the Loran for course guidance. On further comparison, it was
>> determined that both VOR receivers were suspect as they both indicated 8
>> degrees off. This prompted a query of the two passengers, children ages 7
>> and 12, after which it was found that both were using portable tape players.
>> Both units were turned off, and the VOR receivers returned to normal
>> operation.
>
>It was just a coincidence that the equipment returned to normal after "tape
>players" were turned off. What "tape player" has any sort of rf generating
>device in it? And don't even start with the miniature motor that runs off of 2
>AA batteries. I can guarantee you the problem had nothing to do what-so-ever
>with the tape players! They show movies aboard planes you know? Pre-recorded
>movies on TAPE players.
Mr. Jacobs, have you considered that the "tape players" may also have
had an active FM receiver inside? Care to guess what frequency the LO
was on? Now, think about where the VOR antenna is. It's not just
plausible, it's *likely* that these "tape players" were the cause.
>> Air carrier aircraft are not the only ones susceptible to the effects of
>> portable electronic equipment. Small aircraft, too, can experience
>> interference with potentially serious results, particularly in IMC
>> conditions.
>
>Any one who flies aboard aircraft using 5 watt ham radio equipment can tell you
>that this is a bunch of bull. It amazes me that people really like to believe
>fairy tales like this, yet choose to believe that it is perfectly ok to put a
>microwave generating device like a cell phone next to one's head and that THAT
>does not cause any problems.
I am an extra class ham, an electrical engineer, and an instrument
rated pilot. I have used a handheld radio while flying my airplane.
YOUR SPECIFIC INSTALLATION may work just fine. Another one may not.
This is not a fairy tale. The reason for the regulations is not to
keep people from using their RF toys. The reason for this regulation
is to keep the aircraft on course so that they won't become a hazard
to everyone else nearby. The flight crew has no way of knowing for
certain that you won't interfere with their gear somehow. So by
default, it is prohibited.
>> Since I don't expect an Extra to admit he might be wrong, even when given
>> evidence to the contrary, I'll just put you on my block sender file.
>
>I have no problem admitting I am wrong, but that rarely happens. You know WHY?
>Because I don't make statements unless I know what I am talking about! If I am
>unsure of something, I don't make ANY statements on the matter. How are YOU on
>admitting you are wrong???
You are wrong. You don't know what you're talking about. We're
talking about ALL electronic devices and you're whining that "MY stuff
won't interfere." Why should a flight attendant believe YOU? How do
they know that YOU are blessed with this holy knowledge that your
equipment really does not interfere with the avionics?
The answer is that they don't know, they can't know, and they can't
take chances. So the common denominator applies to everyone, EVEN
YOU!
See 47CFR97.11 and 14CFR91.21 for details.
The bottom line: go buy your own airplane, get your own license, and
then you can use whatever toys you want while toodling around in the
sky. It will be your neck at risk (along with any passengers who have
the misfortune to fly with someone as arrogant as you). Until then,
get a clue.
DALing
routinely use cell phones in the air (not much to go wrong in what is a
basic manual aircraft) and they system doesn't seem to be much affected by
speeds up to about 200mph or so. Over that you begin jumping between cells
too fast for the computer to keep up and would enter the twilight zone of
"untracked call". In reality, the ban on airline cell phone calls was
instigated by the network operators to prevent "free" calls (cell links once
open stay open until closed by the computer; however, the actual billing
portion needs to have a smooth transition from cell to cell and not from
cell to another cell 35 miles away. The transmission doesn't automatically
activate all cells within transmission range, it just works with the cell
it's hooked to and then the system determines what the next cell link should
be based on transmission (reception to the cell tower) and connects them in
a "hand off". If there is a number of cells activated at the same time, the
system thinks that they are dealing with a cloned phone (which is why phase
linear amplifiers would cause more problems for a user than they would
solve) and either cut off the call or log the intrusion into a "look up
later" file.
Ain't networks fun?
Stephen Jacobs <sja...@mailco.net> wrote in message
news:3990B5CC...@mailco.net...
Stephen Jacobs
> had an active FM receiver inside? Care to guess what frequency the LO
> was on?
Not important, important is how much OUTPUT we are talking about here, and the fact
that it would never show up on in the cockpit on a receiver MADE to receive this,
let alone professional equipment used by planes that is really not going to be
affected by something as trivial as this.
> Now, think about where the VOR antenna is. It's not just
> plausible, it's *likely* that these "tape players" were the cause.
No. Try taking a tape recorder and go into the next room with a receiver
specifically TRYING to receive anything from the tape player. After you give up
trying, then realize that the aircraft equipment isn't even LOOKING for this in the
first place.
Jamie Hanrahan
wrote:
>> Have you considered that the "tape players" may also have
>> had an active FM receiver inside? Care to guess what frequency the LO
>> was on?
>
>Not important, important is how much OUTPUT we are talking about here, and the fact
>that it would never show up on in the cockpit on a receiver MADE to receive this,
>let alone professional equipment used by planes that is really not going to be
>affected by something as trivial as this.
>
>> Now, think about where the VOR antenna is. It's not just
>> plausible, it's *likely* that these "tape players" were the cause.
>
>No. Try taking a tape recorder and go into the next room with a receiver
>specifically TRYING to receive anything from the tape player. After you give up
>trying, then realize that the aircraft equipment isn't even LOOKING for this in the
>first place.
Hmmm. I think you're mistaken in a few ways:
One, you keep saying "tape player". Granted that's what the NASA report
said, but most portable "tape players" have FM radios too. I agree with
you that a "tape player" by itself has no reason to contain any
RF-generating components, but assume for a moment that these had an "FM
radio" function and were being used as such.
Now realize that the IF frequency of FM radios is 10.7 MHz, and they use
high-side injection. The VOR band is, it says here, 108 to 117.95 MHz.
So if the FM radio is tuned between about 97 and 107 MHz, its LO frequency
*is* in the VOR band, and the aircraft equipment IS looking for that
frequency...
Next, distance: The receiving antenna is on the outside of the hull. Not
near the cockpit (those are just readouts) but near the receivers, which
are in the belly of the aircraft. We're on the inside... maybe fairly
close to the antenna. The distance might be far less than "the next
room". It just has to go out the window.
That incident is from quite some time ago; you'll find that older
equipment consumes quite a bit more power and so generates more stray RF
than current digital-FM-receiver-on-a-chip designs. Running the test you
describe with modern FM radios isn't meaningful.
Sure, it's still just stray RF and weak. Then again, the VOR transmitter
is many miles farther away. Maybe up to 100 miles away.
As a ham, you are concerned with not interfering with neighbors' radio and
tv reception, so you know perfectly well that a wire (such as a headphone
lead) that runs out from a gadget like an FM radio can act as a
transmitting antenna for any stray RF generated inside the case. These
wires are of course supposed to be bypassed to shunt any such RF to
ground. What if the bypass caps were open? You seem to be generally
assuming that all consumer equipment behaves correctly at all times.
Finally -- VOR isn't a simple radio receiving system. If we were talking
about voice comms, I'd agree with you, there's no way that the weak LO
signal from an FM radio could blot out an AM voice channel.
But VOR is much more subtle than that; it does it rely on conventional RDF
(signal strength) techniques. You can read for yourself a capsule
description of how it works at
http://www.spiceisle.com/homepages/george-er/VOR.html . Briefly the
receiver is measuring the phase difference between two signals transmitted
on the same frequency; this phase difference varies according to the
bearing from the VOR to the aircraft. It does not seem to me to be at all
farfetched to believe that a weak signal near the receiving antenna, on or
even NEAR the VOR carrier frequency, could cause false readings.
It would be really interesting to find out where that a/c was, the freq of
the VOR transmitter in question, and the freqs of any nearby FM stations
those radios might have been tuned to.
Here's another URL you might check out:
http://amulation.com/md-l-archive/199708/msg00020.html
--- jeh
Jamie Hanrahan
But VOR is much more subtle than that; it does not rely on conventional
Rain McClelland
> Quite true, but the way the poster phrased he scenario, it was quite
> legal. "Money changing hands" was his stipulation, IIRC.
Negative, that's not what I said. I said, "once you take somebody's money..." If
you are sharing flight expenses, you are not taking somebody's money, and you [the
pilot] are also paying for a portion of the flight's cost. That is not the same
as a flight operated for hire. Now, of course there are ops where a pilot takes
money for hire under 14 CFR 91, and excercises privileges granted by a commercial
pilot certificate (or better) and a second class medical certificate (or better).
But I submit to you that these ops do not take place under conditions where take
off minimums (originally a subject earlier in this thread) would apply.
Rain McClelland
> There is also the matter of speed - I know of some private pilots who
> routinely use cell phones in the air (not much to go wrong in what is a
> basic manual aircraft) and they system doesn't seem to be much affected by
> speeds up to about 200mph or so. Over that you begin jumping between cells
> too fast for the computer to keep up and would enter the twilight zone of
> "untracked call". In reality, the ban on airline cell phone calls was
> instigated by the network operators to prevent "free" calls (cell links once
> open stay open until closed by the computer; however, the actual billing
> portion needs to have a smooth transition from cell to cell and not from
> cell to another cell 35 miles away. The transmission doesn't automatically
> activate all cells within transmission range, it just works with the cell
> it's hooked to and then the system determines what the next cell link should
> be based on transmission (reception to the cell tower) and connects them in
> a "hand off". If there is a number of cells activated at the same time, the
> system thinks that they are dealing with a cloned phone (which is why phase
> linear amplifiers would cause more problems for a user than they would
> solve) and either cut off the call or log the intrusion into a "look up
> later" file.
Locally, cell phones were used in the early 90's aboard our private planes,
before the FCC implemented the ban. This was never done under IFR. It caused
havoc on the network, and this got worse as more cells were being added per sq
mile. It wasn't a matter of handoffs too quickly, it was more that the cells
were getting lit up all over the place. The AMPS standard allows for a channel
to be repeated on non adjacent cells, so airborne use was clogging a large
amount of cells, and preventing the provider from providing service. Today, it
would be much worse as cells are much smaller, less powerful, and much more
numerous.
Ken Roberts
than one cell site at a time. Even if that isn't accurate, a cell phone
being used on the ground is likely to access more than one cell site at a
time. But ultimately, the site with the best signal is chosen to complete
the call, so the number of sites it accesses initially should not matter.
--
Ken Roberts
ken...@bellsouth.net
Rain McClelland <dr...@use.net.nospam> wrote in message
news:39922E15...@use.net.nospam...
DALing
(the tower IS the "cell") The phone arbitrates to receive from a maximum of
1 cell at a time with some swapping during the hand-off itself. (figures
out which signal is increasing and which is decreasing and shifts back and
forth until the signal is established on the higher signal site) When some
people transmit from mountains, they undoubtedly light up several cells at
once (not a problem in Kansas or Oklahoma, though). Cell phones assume
ground level operation, for some reason ;-)
Ken Roberts <ken...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:fDzk5.47$cl.2...@news2.mia...
Jake Brodsky
<sja...@mailco.net> wrote:
>> Have you considered that the "tape players" may also have
>> had an active FM receiver inside? Care to guess what frequency the LO
>> was on?
>
>Not important, important is how much OUTPUT we are talking about here, and the fact
>that it would never show up on in the cockpit on a receiver MADE to receive this,
>let alone professional equipment used by planes that is really not going to be
>affected by something as trivial as this.
Yes, tell me, how much OUTPUT are we talking about here. That's
governed by 47CFR15. And by the way, 47CFR15 only sets design limits.
It doesn't guarantee that any given FM receiver will not interfere.
>> Now, think about where the VOR antenna is. It's not just
>> plausible, it's *likely* that these "tape players" were the cause.
>
>No. Try taking a tape recorder and go into the next room with a receiver
>specifically TRYING to receive anything from the tape player. After you give up
>trying, then realize that the aircraft equipment isn't even LOOKING for this in the
>first place.
You'd better seek further education before you discuss this any
further. Avionics radios aren't really that sophisticated and they
don't know to how to "LOOK" for a signal.
The LO frequencies of most FM broadcast radios are right in the middle
of the band used by the VOR navigation beacons. You can't filter a
leaky LO from the pass-band of a VOR receiver because it is a real
on-frequency signal --not some IMD product.
Did you know that VORs transmit a 30 Hz rotating cardioid antenna
pattern with a reference subcarrier on 9960 Hz +/- 480 Hz FM ? Now,
take a carrier, even a weak carrier from an LO, and mix it together
with a distant VOR signal and what happens?
VOR technology is not as robust as you might first think. It dates to
the early 1950's when "portable" radios were heavy tube powered
affairs. The notion of accidental interference from on-board
entertainment devices probably wasn't on the minds of the engineers.
The standard became quite a success in its day. Since then it has
been deployed all over the world. Now it's really too late to change.
Yes, as a matter of fact, a VOR is highly susceptible to interference.
Did you know the FAA has a small fleet of aircraft which periodically
recertifies each and every instrument approach in the US? That's one
reason why.
Mr. Jacobs, I'm going to reiterate this fact to you one last time
before this thread goes to the kill file:
The decision to use any portable electronic device on board an
aircraft of any type is not yours to make. That use is prohibited by
default and permitted only at the discretion of the pilot in command.
Regardless of what you may know or believe of your own radio gear, and
of the capabilities of the avionics on board, the word of the pilot in
command is final.
I agree with you that it is unlikely your cell-phone would interfere
with the avionics on board. But even having said that, I'll be damned
if I would let you use it while descending on an ILS in low IFR
conditions. And if you poll a reasonable sample of instrument rated
pilots, I think you'll discover widespread agreement with this
position. The additional risk just isn't worth it.
73,
Osama/bin/login
Stephen Jacobs <sja...@mailco.net> wrote:
>That's not how I judge it. Technically and Physically it can not
>happen, the fact that it has never happened to me is just more repeated
>evidence to back up that fact.
OK, show the ng where this "FACT" is.
PROVE what you say. I want references to what you claim as "FACT".
NOT an opinion stated more loudly, but "FACT" as you say.
Cortland Richmond
to bias the heads so they don't record in the tape's non-linear region. A harmonic of
this oscillator COULD interfere with reception of a non-directional beacon.
Cortland Richmond
Jamie Hanrahan wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Aug 2000 19:18:51 -0500, Stephen Jacobs <sja...@mailco.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> Have you considered that the "tape players" may also have
> >> had an active FM receiver inside? Care to guess what frequency the LO
> >> was on?
> >
> >Not important, important is how much OUTPUT we are talking about here, and the fact
> >that it would never show up on in the cockpit on a receiver MADE to receive this,
> >let alone professional equipment used by planes that is really not going to be
> >affected by something as trivial as this.
> >
> >> Now, think about where the VOR antenna is. It's not just
> >> plausible, it's *likely* that these "tape players" were the cause.
> >
> >No. Try taking a tape recorder and go into the next room with a receiver
> >specifically TRYING to receive anything from the tape player. After you give up
> >trying, then realize that the aircraft equipment isn't even LOOKING for this in the
> >first place.
>
Jamie Hanrahan
<Cortland...@usa.alcatel.com> wrote:
>Tape recorders have a high frequency (supersonic, anyhow) bias oscillator to erase and
>to bias the heads so they don't record in the tape's non-linear region.
That's true; I do my own maintenance on my equipment and I've looked at
and adjusted these signals with scopes many times.
> A harmonic of
>this oscillator COULD interfere with reception of a non-directional beacon.
IMO this is much more unlikely than the FM LO theory. The LO fundamental
could be *on* the VOR carrier freq. You're talking about an oscillator
that's normally around 200 kHz and which is applied to the head in amounts
measured in tens of millivolts; furthermore, it's generated as a fairly
pure sine wave! The output at the 540th harmonic and beyond just isn't
going to be detectable.
Also, if we're talking about Walkman-style units, "tape players" with FM
radios are fairly common, but "tape players" with a record function are
like hen's teeth.
Now if it's a "boombox" style, *most* of those *do* include a record
function, but I still don't believe the output at 108 MHz and up would be
measurable above the background noise.
--- jeh
Stephen Jacobs
> In article <3990AB42...@mailco.net>,
> Stephen Jacobs <sja...@mailco.net> wrote:
>
> >That's not how I judge it. Technically and Physically it can not
> >happen, the fact that it has never happened to me is just more repeated
> >evidence to back up that fact.
>
> OK, show the ng where this "FACT" is.
>
> PROVE what you say. I want references to what you claim as "FACT".
> NOT an opinion stated more loudly, but "FACT" as you say.
Is it a FACT that you are a human being? Show the newsgroup where THAT fact
is! Try to PROVE that! Not such an easy or light task, is it? I do not
need to waste hours of time finding the research and retyping it here just
to satisfy you in order for the fact to remain true.
If you choose not to believe this, although I can't understand why, since if
you knew anything about radio and rf you could not possibly take the
defense you are, that will not affect me in the least. I am not going to
waste an hour finding the material for you. Why don't YOU do some research
yourself on this subject and see what you find? Could prove interesting!
Stephen Jacobs
> >> had an active FM receiver inside? Care to guess what frequency the LO
> >> was on?
> >
> >Not important, important is how much OUTPUT we are talking about here, and the fact
> >that it would never show up on in the cockpit on a receiver MADE to receive this,
> >let alone professional equipment used by planes that is really not going to be
> >affected by something as trivial as this.
> >
> >> Now, think about where the VOR antenna is. It's not just
> >> plausible, it's *likely* that these "tape players" were the cause.
> >
> >No. Try taking a tape recorder and go into the next room with a receiver
> >specifically TRYING to receive anything from the tape player. After you give up
> >trying, then realize that the aircraft equipment isn't even LOOKING for this in the
> >first place.
>
> Hmmm. I think you're mistaken in a few ways:
>
> One, you keep saying "tape player". Granted that's what the NASA report
> said, but most portable "tape players" have FM radios too. I agree with
> you that a "tape player" by itself has no reason to contain any
> RF-generating components, but assume for a moment that these had an "FM
> radio" function and were being used as such.
>
> Now realize that the IF frequency of FM radios is 10.7 MHz, and they use
> high-side injection. The VOR band is, it says here, 108 to 117.95 MHz.
> So if the FM radio is tuned between about 97 and 107 MHz, its LO frequency
> *is* in the VOR band, and the aircraft equipment IS looking for that
> frequency...
OK, let us assume all of this... My answer is the same as above. I will paste it here
for you to read again CAREFULLY...
>that it would never show up on in the cockpit on a receiver MADE to receive this,
>let alone professional equipment used by planes that is really not going to be
>affected by something as trivial as this.
>
>Try taking a FM RADIO RECEIVER and go into the next room with a receiver
>specifically TRYING to receive anything from the FM RADIO RECEIVER. After you give up
Stephen Jacobs
> >to bias the heads so they don't record in the tape's non-linear region.
>
> That's true; I do my own maintenance on my equipment and I've looked at
> and adjusted these signals with scopes many times.
Try "looking" at those signals on a radio receiver 10 feet away. (with another desired
signal on that same frequency) You won't be able to SEE it at all.
> > A harmonic of
> >this oscillator COULD interfere with reception of a non-directional beacon.
ABSOLUTELY NOT.
Another important thing to note. even if you brought a high powered transmitter aboard a
plane that you built to specifically transmit on the frequencies in question and to cause
massive interference.... guess what... the plane would STILL NOT CRASH!!! A pilot surely
knows how to fly and land a plane with interference to these receivers! They could get
interference from lighting or could go out at any time.
So... there is no way any consumer device (other than perhaps an electric razor) will cause
any interference to the aircraft receivers, AND if there was, it would still not matter.
If you have a GPS receiver in your car, and you have a rule that no passengers can bring any
plastic cups in your car. Even if the plastic cup caused interference to your GPS receiver,
you would not crash your car.
CASE CLOSED.
Cortland Richmond
Cortland
(ka...@saber.net)
Jamie Hanrahan wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Aug 2000 15:51:23 -0700, Cortland Richmond
> <Cortland...@usa.alcatel.com> wrote:
>
> >Tape recorders have a high frequency (supersonic, anyhow) bias oscillator to erase and
> >to bias the heads so they don't record in the tape's non-linear region.
>
> That's true; I do my own maintenance on my equipment and I've looked at
> and adjusted these signals with scopes many times.
>
> > A harmonic of
> >this oscillator COULD interfere with reception of a non-directional beacon.
>
Jamie Hanrahan
wrote:
This isn't at all the same thing.
The LO output from an FM radio is a dead carrier and it is damned
difficult to detect a weak dead carrier with another FM radio. It has to
do with the minimum signal level needed for quieting.
The VOR receiver, on the other hand, is looking for phase differences
between two signals using the same center frequency. One of them using
amplitude modulation. This is MUCH more sensitive to interference from
weak local signals your FM receiver will be.
>> then realize that the aircraft equipment isn't even LOOKING for this in the
>>first place.
I'll repeat THIS, so you can read THIS again: On the contrary -- the VOR
receiver IS tuned to a frequency which is right in the middle of the range
commonly emitted by your FM receiver.
I notice you also didn't bother quoting the rest of my post, regarding
older FM portables having more leakage; the possibility of defective
bypass capacitors or shields; etc., etc... couldn't rebut that part, eh?
Go read the article at
http://amulation.com/md-l-archive/199708/msg00020.html . You'll find
quotes from a number of folks (with considerably more credentials in this
field than your Amateur Extra Class certificate) who believe you're wrong.
It also cites an incident in which the correlation between FM radio use in
the passenger cabin and VOR errors seemed very, very high.
--- jeh
Rain McClelland
> I read that cellphones contain circuitry to prevent them from accessing more
> than one cell site at a time. Even if that isn't accurate, a cell phone
> being used on the ground is likely to access more than one cell site at a
> time. But ultimately, the site with the best signal is chosen to complete
> the call, so the number of sites it accesses initially should not matter.
That's all well and good, but the problem is that an airborne transmitter has a
huge line of sight compared to a transmitter on the ground. This great line of
sight translates into greater radiated power at higher distances. So the
airborne cell phone might be automatically _assigned_ a close cell, but other
cells farther away will receive the airborne cell's signal. So now, the remote
cells with similar frequencies are effectively jammed by the superior signal of
the airborne transmitter. The cell tower would command the airborne transmitter
to reduce power, but the radiated power would still be enough to create a mess
all over the cells within the great range of the airborne transmitter that
operate on the same frequency as the cell that the airborne transmitter is
legitimately talking to. .
Rain McClelland
> On Wed, 09 Aug 2000 19:18:51 -0500, Stephen Jacobs
> <sja...@mailco.net> wrote:
>
> >> Have you considered that the "tape players" may also have
> >> had an active FM receiver inside? Care to guess what frequency the LO
> >> was on?
> >
> >Not important, important is how much OUTPUT we are talking about here, and the fact
> >that it would never show up on in the cockpit on a receiver MADE to receive this,
> >let alone professional equipment used by planes that is really not going to be
> >affected by something as trivial as this.
>
> Yes, tell me, how much OUTPUT are we talking about here. That's
> governed by 47CFR15. And by the way, 47CFR15 only sets design limits.
> It doesn't guarantee that any given FM receiver will not interfere.
>
> >> Now, think about where the VOR antenna is. It's not just
> >> plausible, it's *likely* that these "tape players" were the cause.
> >
> >No. Try taking a tape recorder and go into the next room with a receiver
> >specifically TRYING to receive anything from the tape player. After you give up
> >trying, then realize that the aircraft equipment isn't even LOOKING for this in the
> >first place.
>
> You'd better seek further education before you discuss this any
> further. Avionics radios aren't really that sophisticated and they
> don't know to how to "LOOK" for a signal.
>
> The LO frequencies of most FM broadcast radios are right in the middle
> of the band used by the VOR navigation beacons. You can't filter a
> leaky LO from the pass-band of a VOR receiver because it is a real
> on-frequency signal --not some IMD product.
>
> Did you know that VORs transmit a 30 Hz rotating cardioid antenna
> pattern with a reference subcarrier on 9960 Hz +/- 480 Hz FM ? Now,
> take a carrier, even a weak carrier from an LO, and mix it together
> with a distant VOR signal and what happens?
>
> VOR technology is not as robust as you might first think. It dates to
> the early 1950's when "portable" radios were heavy tube powered
> affairs. The notion of accidental interference from on-board
> entertainment devices probably wasn't on the minds of the engineers.
> The standard became quite a success in its day. Since then it has
> been deployed all over the world. Now it's really too late to change.
I agree with everything you are saying except for that last statement. At least in the
U.S. it is likely that VOR's will be phased out. Perhaps not in the 10-20 years that
the FAA was originally calling for, but someday. It's a shame, and GPS is more
susceptible to jamming b/c of the lower power progatated to your receiver from a
satellite that has limited operating power and is several hundred miles away.
___
As an aside, it wouldn't take very much interference at all to cause a plane to be say
500 ft off course of the glide slope. Which sucks if there is a hill at 300 ft.
M. Schneider
A very impressive article, thanks for posting the link. It answers every
one of SJ's statements with the facts. Of course, since it is based in part
on government reports, he'll undoubtedly assert his superior knowledge,
including his recent multiple-choice upgrade from advanced to extra (or was
it a rubber stamp upgrade?). You know, if I didn't have a print-out from
the FCC with his name and callsign, I'd swear it was mackey posting. He's
even using mackey's trick of changing his posted email address to get past
those of us who've used block sender on him. Anyway, the information listed
in your link is really fabulous. I used to be a print photo-journalist, and
this tempts me to try and develop a story for Mon. Times or Pop. Com. Have
you got anymore great links like this? Please post them or email them to
me. Even if I don't do a story (work is pretty hectic right now, spare time
is limited), I'd sure like to read them.
Thanks a lot,
Mark K5MAR
"Jamie Hanrahan" <j...@cmkrnl.com> wrote in message
news:39ae51bc....@nntp.cts.com...
> On Thu, 10 Aug 2000 20:00:30 -0500, Stephen Jacobs <sja...@iname.com>
> wrote:
>snip<
Ken Roberts
where ever that site might be located. True, cell sites might be affected
at greater distances than from a ground level phone, but in the end only one
cell site at a time will be handling the call.
Ken
Rain McClelland <ra...@use.net.nospam> wrote in message
news:399359CB...@use.net.nospam...
DALing
the antennas. Ever look at the antenna capability of those little heads?
We're not talking quality equipment here, but receivers pretty well
attenuate a constant frequency (unmodulated) signal.
Jamie Hanrahan <j...@cmkrnl.com> wrote in message
news:39ac33ee....@nntp.cts.com...
M. Schneider
http://amulation.com/md-l-archive/199708/msg00020.html
"DALing" <DALing4...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Fz4w8...@news.boeing.com...
Cortland Richmond
My apologies. I wasn't very clear in my posting what system was vulnerable to interference.
I'll be more specific. An NDB is a non-directional low frequency beacon in the range 190-400
KHz -- on the ground. What the AIRCRAFT carries is a receiver tuning to its frequency. By
use of a loop antenna and a sense antenna, the receiver will drive an instrument to point
towards the ground transmitter. This system is an Automatic Direction Finder, or ADF. A
nearby generator such as a bias oscillator can overwhelm the signal picked up by the airborne
system; the antennas carried on the aircraft intercept very little signal. How little? Vacuum
tube ADF receivers (I've worked on 'em) used to even have trouble with noise generated inside
the tubes - and this, at frequencies AM broadcast and below. That's how weak an NDB signal is
by the time it reaches the aircraft.
The bias oscillator operates in the same band as the ADF receiver, and so is a direct threat
to it.
Not to be alarmist, and I understand ADF approaches are the exception these days. But that's
a plausible way for a tape recorder to interfere with one aircraft navigation system.
Cheers,
Cortland
(ka...@saber.net)
Cortland Richmond
presence in passenger's seat area of a portable FM radio during an approach that did crash. The
supposition was that the local oscillator of the FM radio had interfered with the ILS signal,
causing the aircraft to be in the wrong piece of sky during its descent to the runway. This is
not improbable, and even more so with a vacuum tube portable whose oscillator is more powerful
than those in modern FM portable receivers.
There are unanswered questions. The ILS flag should come up if the ILS signal was interfered
with. Did it? Who knows? It IS possible for the flag circuit to malfunction; I've seen it
happen. The pilot SHOULD take over visually. Did he? Apparently not.
In any case, I wasn't talking about harmonics of the recorder's bias oscillator, but its
fundamental frequency, to which ADF receivers are sensitive. And it's not difficult to
interfere with a radio signal with a receiver LO. I've seen it done to great effect on a
barracks-mate with an bad sense of timing. (12 PM on a week night). As to the operation of a
transmitter, I can tell you of the effect rectified nearby VHF signals have on logic boards. No
flag on those, either. Just "oops."
Regards,
Cortland
(ka...@saber.net)
Stephen Jacobs wrote:
> > >Tape recorders have a high frequency (supersonic, anyhow) bias oscillator to erase and
> > >to bias the heads so they don't record in the tape's non-linear region.
> >
> > That's true; I do my own maintenance on my equipment and I've looked at
> > and adjusted these signals with scopes many times.
>
> Try "looking" at those signals on a radio receiver 10 feet away. (with another desired
> signal on that same frequency) You won't be able to SEE it at all.
>
> > > A harmonic of
> > >this oscillator COULD interfere with reception of a non-directional beacon.
>
K0HB
Stephen Jacobs <sja...@mailco.net> wrote:
> You should know better having a Tech Ham License, but then again, if
you did,
> you wouldn't be posting your call sign on a newsgroup so everyone
knows your
> home address. Not a very wise thing to do nowadays on a newsgroup.
Take your thinly veiled threat and stuff it where the sun neglects to
shine.
73, Hans, K0HB
Osama/bin/login
That's EXACTLY what I thought.
As a rule, a childish, strawman response like that occurs when someone
has no basis for their position.
If what you claim was such common knowledge, and evident to anyone who
does ANY research, you could have included at least ONE URL to anything
of substance much more easily than posting yet another tantrum (or your
opinion stated more loudly, which I explicitly asked to avoid).
And, yes, I have researched this, and find nothing to support your
claim.
Neither can the FCC.
Neither can the FAA.
Neither can any pilot who isn't tripping on LSD.
God help anyone affected by your thinking.
Jamie Hanrahan
wrote:
You're not getting it.
The problem is that the cell system -- even good old analog cell -- uses
the same channel for many different calls at the same time -- physically
separated by distance. This is what the "cells" are all about. Different
groups of channels (designated group A, B, ..., through G) are used by
different cells. The channel you're on might be in use by some other
phone, at the same time, in some other cell in your city. However that
other cell will never be physically adjacent to yours. (In fact, not only
are cells using the same channel groups never physically adjacent, cells
using *adjacent* channel groups are never physicaly adjacent either. For
example, all the channels in group B are one notch up from those in group
A; therefore a "group B" cell will never be adjacent to a "group A" cell.)
Now, because of the way channel groups are assigned to cells, the cell
system can assume that if a phone has been assigned a given channel, that
phone's signal will be stronger in its cell than in any adjacent cell, and
FAR stronger in its cell than in the "next nearest" cell that also uses
the same or an adjacent channel group. The cell system's handoff
mechanism utterly depends on this assumption.
A phone operating from an overhead location, where many cells are
essentially equidistant from the phone, breaks this assumption. The phone
might be lighting up several cells in the same channel group, EACH of
which might ALREADY be handling a *different* call, but all using the same
channel. At best, this will "merely" cause interference for those other
calls. More likely, it will greatly confuse the cell system. It will
appear that the phone travelled from one cell to another, non-adjacent
cell in the same channel group, while somehow avoiding the cells in
between; the handoff mechanism isn't prepared for this. The system will
likely think that the same phone is in many cells at once, and so assume
that it's been cloned.
Note that it isn't the cells out near the horizon that are the problem;
it's the large number of cells that are more or less right under the
airplane.
--- jeh
Rain McClelland
> IIRC, the original rulemaking prohibiting untested electronics operation was based on the
> presence in passenger's seat area of a portable FM radio during an approach that did crash. The
> supposition was that the local oscillator of the FM radio had interfered with the ILS signal,
> causing the aircraft to be in the wrong piece of sky during its descent to the runway. This is not
> improbable, and even more so with a vacuum tube portable whose oscillator is more powerful than
> those in modern FM portable receivers.
>
> There are unanswered questions. The ILS flag should come up if the ILS signal was interfered with.
> Did it? Who knows? It IS possible for the flag circuit to malfunction; I've seen it happen. The
> pilot SHOULD take over visually. Did he? Apparently not.
The flag probably wouln't appear unless the interference was so strong that it overpowered the bona
fide ILS signal, causing the receiver to stop receiving the signal it recognizes. A worse case
would be if the interference was more subtle and affected the signal slightly. Even a car too close
to the glideslope or localizer antenae (inside the critical area) can cause accuracy problems with
the signal, and it is possible that a stray signal near the receiver could do this too.