01-10-2013, 06:44 PM | #76 |
tec montage
Posts: 435
Karma: 544444445
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: harsh unforgiving places
Device: kindles, lenovo, chromebook, mobiles
|
could plug cellphone jack into plug on arm of seat on phone
no RF required |
01-10-2013, 09:04 PM | #77 | |
Grand Sorcerer
Posts: 7,149
Karma: 39600000
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: near Philadelphia USA
Device: Kindle Kids Edition, Fire HD 10 (11th generation)
|
Quote:
Blood alcohol level 0.040 percent -- fit to fly Blood alcohol level 0.041 percent -- no way partner Does anyone really believe there is a limit below which impairment is, for every pilot, always zero? You could say -- only hire and retain those with no measurable blood alcohol. But then you would lose many unusually outstanding pilots. What is the maximum crosswind allowed for takeoff or landing? That's a lot more complicated than the blood alcohol limit, but, again, the thinking is matter of degree, not safe/unsafe. It's a balancing act where if the runway is a little bit slushy, the maximum allowed crosswind for that aircraft type goes down. Everything is a tradeoff. No risk is zero. Reducing risks of RF interference is not all or nothing, just like many other air safety measures. Here's a quick PDF that, in how it is worded, gives a feel for the idea that reducing risks, rather than eliminating them, is normal air safety practice: http://www.usbr.gov/ssle/damsafety/j.../19Azevedo.pdf Last edited by SteveEisenberg; 01-10-2013 at 09:24 PM. |
|
01-11-2013, 06:27 AM | #78 |
The Dank Side of the Moon
Posts: 35,872
Karma: 118716293
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Denver, CO
Device: Kindle2; Kindle Fire
|
Yes the potential for disastrous posts is strong in this one.
|
01-11-2013, 06:28 AM | #79 |
The Dank Side of the Moon
Posts: 35,872
Karma: 118716293
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Denver, CO
Device: Kindle2; Kindle Fire
|
Yep, I haven't flown since prior to that actually...
|
01-11-2013, 06:29 AM | #80 | |
The Dank Side of the Moon
Posts: 35,872
Karma: 118716293
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Denver, CO
Device: Kindle2; Kindle Fire
|
Quote:
. |
|
01-11-2013, 08:14 AM | #81 |
Somewhat clueless
Posts: 744
Karma: 9545975
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Device: Kindle Oasis, iPhone 6 Plus
|
|
01-11-2013, 09:38 AM | #82 |
Fanatic
Posts: 513
Karma: 2644386
Join Date: Apr 2012
Device: iPhone, Kindle Touch
|
|
01-11-2013, 11:18 PM | #83 |
loving the books
Posts: 374
Karma: 18825402
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: DFW
Device: Rooted Nook, Galaxy Tab Pro 8.4, Galaxy Note 5, 2 Fire 7s Note 8
|
|
01-13-2013, 01:08 AM | #84 |
Addict
Posts: 239
Karma: 1280000
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: USA
Device: None
|
Not according to the Airbus and Boeing engineers and executives I worked with on projects in this area - devices that generate EM radiation, including RF, on commercial aircraft. Both companies conduct many many tests on every aircraft model, both for new designs and old ones, to try to avoid future incidents.
Both companies have found issues with outside EMI affecting their aircrafts' systems, sometimes dangerously. The most common problem was interference with in-flight entertainment systems; that merely irritates some passengers. More serious issues were interference with air-to-ground communication, and interference with instrumentation and flight control systems. I can assure you that pilots have had issues during landing due to consumer electronics in use by passengers. For some insight into how hard it is to test for problems, consider these machines are crammed with wiring of all sorts running though many places, including below and above the passenger areas. A particular device may interfere only when in use around the area of a single seat, or a dozen seats scattered seemingly at random throughout the aircraft. A device may interfere only when in a specific orientation. A device may interfere only after it has been damaged in use, altering its EMI characteristics (even though it still works). The device may only interfere when signals are being send over a specific bus - not everything is in constant use. Those are reasons why the guy who said 200 iPods are the same as 2 is wrong; and, given his job, should know better, unless he was quoted out of context. Somene mentioned plugging into some onboard system. This involves a wire. Wires are basically antennae, and they both receive and transmit. Mouse cords, USB cables, etc. all generate potentially problematic noise. The specific limitation on takeoff and landing is because those are the most dangerous times in flying. A malfunction then gives the crew very little time, just a few seconds, to solve the problem or work around it. Once you are at 30k+ feet, you have more time to get things sorted out, so the risk is less. If you know what you are doing, you can consistently cause real issues on at least some models of commercial aircraft, using only items that you are allowed to carry on board (I'm not talkng about someone's iPhone). Most of the time, the things people argue over in life have no safety consequences. Having and espousing an uninformed opinion is fairly harmless. I wish people would pause to think: Do I really know anything about this subject? and: Are people's lives possibly at risk? And when the answers are "No" and "Yes", just say nothing - keep your opinion to yourself. But people of course won't do that. The blog author showed extremely poor judgement. On a practical level, though, the answer is different. Commercial flight is very safe, at least in most countries. People ignore the rules and nothing permanently bad happens on almost every flight, thousands of times a day. So the risk, although present, is very small. |
01-13-2013, 08:36 AM | #85 | |
Somewhat clueless
Posts: 744
Karma: 9545975
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Device: Kindle Oasis, iPhone 6 Plus
|
Quote:
Sadly, we live in a culture where understanding of a topic is no longer a prerequisite for having and announcing an opinion. There are areas where the right answer is down to personal taste, and where everyone's opinion is of equal merit, but in a deeply technical subject such as this one, expressing an opinion without an understanding of EM emissions and immunity, electronics and avionics systems is simply wrong and it genuinely surprises me how many people feel that ignorance of these areas doesn't limit the value of their opinions. /JB |
|
01-13-2013, 08:43 AM | #86 |
The Dank Side of the Moon
Posts: 35,872
Karma: 118716293
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Denver, CO
Device: Kindle2; Kindle Fire
|
Yes so very true. As an Electrical Engineer and Amateur and Commercial licensee for over 40 years I'm appalled at all the ignorant posts and intentionally misleading krap that gets air time.
|
01-13-2013, 09:25 AM | #87 | |
Somewhat clueless
Posts: 744
Karma: 9545975
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Device: Kindle Oasis, iPhone 6 Plus
|
Quote:
As a qualified engineer, if you believe that free-for-all use of consumer electronics on an aircraft is safe, I assume you'll be able to provide technical arguments and references to tests which have shown it to be safe. As I've said before - I suspect that it can be made safe, and at some point in the not too distant future enough work will have been done to allow more freedom. Until that work is done, however, I've spent far too much time in EM test chambers to just accept that it's safe because Joe Public feels like it should be. In short - I'm willing to be convinced, but convincing me will require a technical argument and evidence of testing, rather than a series of unsubstantiated assertions with no reasoning to back them up. Convince me! What is your reasoning, and where is your evidence! /JB |
|
01-13-2013, 09:37 AM | #88 | |
Grand Sorcerer
Posts: 27,903
Karma: 198500000
Join Date: Jan 2010
Device: Nexus 7, Kindle Fire HD
|
It appears something new has come from this latest round of dead-horse-flogging:
Quote:
"Interference?!? What interference? It's never been about the interference!" I'm glad I finally perused this thread. Last edited by DiapDealer; 01-13-2013 at 09:43 AM. |
|
01-13-2013, 10:08 AM | #89 |
loving the books
Posts: 374
Karma: 18825402
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: DFW
Device: Rooted Nook, Galaxy Tab Pro 8.4, Galaxy Note 5, 2 Fire 7s Note 8
|
My comments are based merely on common sense. If there were even a remote chance why would the faa let you even have any electronic devices on an airplane at all?
|
01-13-2013, 10:27 AM | #90 | |
The Dank Side of the Moon
Posts: 35,872
Karma: 118716293
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Denver, CO
Device: Kindle2; Kindle Fire
|
Quote:
My PROOF is in the science. If you really are an electrical engineer then you know it. You're just making excuses for your BELIEFS and for remote possibilities -- such as being hit by a meteor. |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
E-reading on planes | FJames | Kobo Reader | 17 | 12-23-2011 06:25 AM |
Reading on planes | SageTracey | Kobo Reader | 25 | 11-23-2010 07:30 AM |
Short Fiction Fitzgerald, F. Scott: Three Hours Between Planes. v1. 06 Jan 09 | Dr. Drib | BBeB/LRF Books | 0 | 01-06-2009 08:28 AM |
Planes and e-books | Sibby | Lounge | 19 | 10-12-2008 11:42 AM |
Gadgets Books and Planes = A bad cocktail | Stuart Young | Lounge | 7 | 08-16-2006 03:30 AM |