FAA to discuss Electronics Use on Planes

[carltonplace]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/27/travel/faa-electronics/index.html?hpt=hp_c3

By popular demand, the Federal Aviation Administration is forming a group to study policies governing the use of consumer electronics in the sky.

The review could lead to increased use of iPads, portable DVD players and other consumer electronics in aircraft cabins.

I've always thought the Airlines fear of my music player or E-reader interfering with their electronics systems was akin to believing in magic.

[godboko71]

They should watch Myth Busters.

[nathanm]

I don't really have a problem keeping my electronics off for landing and takeoff. The incidence of personal electronics interfering with navigation is apparently pretty uncommon, but the cost is high. I'm pretty sure the usual problems have more to do with communications than the ILS system or whatever.

What annoys me more are certain airlines that get pissy when you use your GPS.

[DolfanBob]

Back in the late 80s. Tulsa Cable issued all Techs with a electronic box called a "Sniffer" We had a frequency sound that was on all the time and when we were done with our regular work. We would turn on the sniffer and drive through our area or locator as they called it, once we located a leak. We were to get out and try and get as close to the source and log that for another department to come and do the repair.

This was all due to the FAA filing complaints about the leakage index from cable companies interfering with radio transmissions from incoming flights.

[carltonplace]

If my e-book leaks I might lose the last few pages of my book.

[Red Arrow]

I don't really have a problem keeping my electronics off for landing and takeoff. The incidence of personal electronics interfering with navigation is apparently pretty uncommon, but the cost is high. I'm pretty sure the usual problems have more to do with communications than the ILS system or whatever.

The risk mitigation is more likely to be concerned with the navigation and autopilot. (No passenger electronic devices allowed during take off and landing.)  Coming down an autopilot coupled ILS approach to minimums (or autoland) is not the time to find out the person sitting in 11B has an electronic device emitting radio frequencies that could interfere with your landing.  I'm not so sure there are "usual problems" or the devices would be prohibited at all times.  Even at altitude, the autopilot is doing most of the flying.

What annoys me more are certain airlines that get pissy when you use your GPS.

Might have something to do with consumer GPS maybe not being as well shielded against emitting internal RF.  They are operating on the same frequencies as the aircraft GPS.

[Red Arrow]

If my e-book leaks I might lose the last few pages of my book.

Don't get any of those pages on you.

[nathanm]

The risk mitigation is more likely to be concerned with the navigation and autopilot. (No passenger electronic devices allowed during take off and landing.)  Coming down an autopilot coupled ILS approach to minimums (or autoland) is not the time to find out the person sitting in 11B has an electronic device emitting radio frequencies that could interfere with your landing.  I'm not so sure there are "usual problems" or the devices would be prohibited at all times.  Even at altitude, the autopilot is doing most of the flying.

Oh, I agree that it's not worth the risk of interfering with ILS, but the pilot reports of interference I've read are almost all related to interference with comms. I did read one report of interference with a navaid, but I don't think ILS uses those frequencies. I could be wrong, but I think ILS is up at 1030MHz with the radar.

Might have something to do with consumer GPS maybe not being as well shielded against emitting internal RF.  They are operating on the same frequencies as the aircraft GPS.

If they emitted significant RF, they wouldn't be able to get FCC certification. I get what you're saying, though.

[carltonplace]

Don't get any of those pages on you.

Why? I won't be reading Rush Limbaugh's book.

[Ed W]

I've seen just one instance of a piece of radio gear causing interference with a navaid. Back in the early 90s, I had a Bearcat crystal controlled scanner in the shop for listening to the Owasso police and some local amateur repeaters.  The AA club had one on 147.000 MHz, and whenever the scanner locked up on that frequency, it caused some electrical noise on a nearby DME.  The DME pulses had 'fuzz' on them whenever that scanner found a transmission on 147.  It was driving the technician crazy until he figured it out, and then he was pissed at me for having the scanner!  Believe me, this was not deliberate on my part.

You'd think that will all the cellular phones and computers in the shop, we'd see more interference.  But that's not the case.  Then again, we're not testing for it, either.  In the case of my EGPWS computer, an unexpected failure that didn't repeat would simply be considered an anomaly. 

[Red Arrow]

Oh, I agree that it's not worth the risk of interfering with ILS, but the pilot reports of interference I've read are almost all related to interference with comms. I did read one report of interference with a navaid, but I don't think ILS uses those frequencies. I could be wrong, but I think ILS is up at 1030MHz with the radar.

I looked up the frequencies:

Localizer 108-112 MHz
Glideslope 329.15-335 MHz

Transponder 1030 & 1090 MHz