View Single Post
Old 01-09-2013, 10:46 AM   #61
jbjb
Somewhat clueless
jbjb ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jbjb ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jbjb ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jbjb ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jbjb ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jbjb ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jbjb ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jbjb ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jbjb ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jbjb ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.jbjb ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 739
Karma: 7747724
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Device: Kindle Oasis, iPhone 6 Plus
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward M. Grant View Post
Uh, yes. But it's nowhere near the amount that an electronic device from the 80s would radiate.
Depends on the device and depends on where in the spectrum you're looking. Clock speeds are generally much, much higher now than in the 80s, so unintended radiation at those higher frequencies will often be greater than in the 80s.

Quote:
Then someone really screwed up.
Guess what - people do screw up. Designs can be suboptimal, and even good designs can suffer failures. There are some old planes flying today - I wouldn't want to bet my life on all their systems being adequately screened.

Quote:
The simple reality is that, on any flight, there are probably half a dozen people who forgot to turn off their cell phone or other device and it's sitting in their bag or pocket doing its thing despite all the rules. So if your avionics can't handle that, you've got big problems.
As I've pointed out elsewhere, experience has shown that avionics can indeed cope with the existing levels of device usage (within acceptable safety margins). However, we don't have the same historical data to give us confidence that 400 people using random devices is also safe.

/JB
jbjb is offline   Reply With Quote