View Single Post
Old 04-24-2010, 02:55 PM   #83
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: 772
Karma: 9999999
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Device: Kindle Oasis
Quote:
Originally Posted by DawnFalcon View Post
Right. And you know what the identified issue is? That the shielding systems on aircraft, which are important (indeed, critical) for protecting their electronics against thunderstorms, are not maintained or replaced nearly enough in current aviation maintenance schedules.
I've never claimed that things couldn't be arranged such that they are safe for cellphones etc., but they currently are not. Hence it makes sense to follow the rules.

Incidentally, the type of protection mechanisms required for resilience to lightning strikes etc. are not all the same as those required for EM immunity.

Quote:
It's an important safety issue, and just incidentally it would also eliminate the issues with devices. A mobile phone in active use is VERY active in the EM spectrum, banning /calls/ might still be necessary during takeoff but just electrical devices from being on? Um...

(And you know that most pilot headsets have mobile phone adaptors, right? Really claiming pilots never make calls in the air? Ha!)
There's a big difference (in terms of radiated power) between a pilot or two making a call and 400 passengers making calls. Again, it's all a judgement about "acceptable risks".

/JB
jbjb is offline   Reply With Quote