Digital Photography On Aircraft Not Permitted on Take Off or Landing

Ilya Zakharevich wrote:
[A complimentary Cc of this posting was NOT [per weedlist] sent to
Jürgen Exner
], who wrote in article :
One last remark on this note: once we reach about 3000 feet I usually
encourage my passengers to take over the yoke and fly a little bit on their
own, even and in particular when it is their first flight. It really
releases tension and makes them more comfortable. Totally save, no danger at
all

Tell this to families of passangers on Aeroflot Flight 593.

Which only proves that an airliner is much more complex than a C-172 (big
surprise there) and if you don't want to mess around in a C-172 during
takeoff and landing, then you really, really don't want to take any chances
at all during those flight phases in a heavy.

jue

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 05:27:09 GMT, Jürgen Exner
wrote:

Ilya Zakharevich wrote:
[A complimentary Cc of this posting was NOT [per weedlist] sent to
Jürgen Exner
], who wrote in article :
One last remark on this note: once we reach about 3000 feet I usually
encourage my passengers to take over the yoke and fly a little bit on their
own, even and in particular when it is their first flight. It really
releases tension and makes them more comfortable. Totally save, no danger at
all

Tell this to families of passangers on Aeroflot Flight 593.

Which only proves that an airliner is much more complex than a C-172 (big
surprise there) and if you don't want to mess around in a C-172 during
takeoff and landing, then you really, really don't want to take any chances
at all during those flight phases in a heavy.

In case Ilya isn't aware of what a "C-172" is, it's a Cessna 172
small, high-wing personal aircraft.
http://www.kareliacopters.ee/en/Cessna%20172-9.jpg
The passenger in a C-172 has yoke and rudder controls in front of him
if he's sitting in the front right seat. It can be flown from that
seat. It's not a matter of going forward to the flight deck in an
Airbus A310-304 like the Aeroflot aircraft.



--

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

[A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
tony cooper
], who wrote in article :
own, even and in particular when it is their first flight. It really
releases tension and makes them more comfortable. Totally save, no danger at
all

Tell this to families of passangers on Aeroflot Flight 593.

Which only proves that an airliner is much more complex than a C-172 (big
surprise there) and if you don't want to mess around in a C-172 during
takeoff and landing, then you really, really don't want to take any chances
at all during those flight phases in a heavy.

In case Ilya isn't aware of what a "C-172" is, it's a Cessna 172
small, high-wing personal aircraft.
http://www.kareliacopters.ee/en/Cessna%20172-9.jpg
The passenger in a C-172 has yoke and rudder controls in front of him
if he's sitting in the front right seat. It can be flown from that
seat. It's not a matter of going forward to the flight deck in an
Airbus A310-304 like the Aeroflot aircraft.

IMO, what AF 593 shows is that one should consider a possibility of
"the second party" initiating a maneuver with so high-g that the pilot
has no physical possibility to intercept the controls. I do not know
how agile C-172 is (comparing to A310 ;-), so can't comment more.

Yours,
Ilya

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 08:23:30 +1100, "wb" wrote:


"Barry Lennox" wrote in message
Contrary to popular opinion, there is a
number of reported interference problems with such devices.

Where?


See Do portable electronics endanger flight? The evidence mounts
Perry, T.S.; Geppert, L.
Spectrum, IEEE Sep 1996

This is only available FOC to IEEE members

Also, see the special report issued by RTCA SC-177 That has several
confirmed correlation cases between PEDs and AC interference.

See also
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/archi...l/aviation.htm

There has been many articles in "Avionics" magazine over the years.
I'm not about to search through them all without payment. but the
following should get you started:

http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/cate...ary/12611.html

On Jan 17, 2:39*am, "wb" wrote:
"Podge" wrote in ...

"wb" wrote in message
...

"Paul Saccani" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 14:42:25 +1300, "Podge" wrote:

About 5 years ago, nobody cared when I used my camcorder or digital
still
camera during take-offs or landings, and there were no reports then of
interference with the aircrafts' navigation systems! So what has changed
during the last 5 years?

Confirmed cases of interference by such devices, including replication
under test conditions.

So there is no risk to use once we are in-flight. We can get out our
laptops (which has wireless transmitters) and use them. Why is it less
dangerous airbourne?

A good point, but you can't use your laptop or digital cameras until the
fasten seat belt sign goes off, or when an announcement is made (usually
about 10 minutes after take-off). About 10 minutes before landing the
restriction goes back on again. The only explanation given in this thread
is that, because of the pilot intensive critical maneuvers that are made
during the first and last 10 minutes of a flight, if any interference from
laptops etc. did occur, the cabin crew would not have time to locate /
deal with the problem because they are fully occupied either taking off or
landing. But of course, with cellphones, for example, you can't make calls
or send text messages at any time during a flight.

I was assuming that all this is about the safety of loose objects during
take-off and landing. The electronics interfearance is very old rubbish.

There is still plenty of scope for electronics to make mischeif. It is
quite common. Some car electronics locks suffered from being jammed by
bluetooth enabled kit when it was fairly new. The trick was to put
your key fob up against the antenna on the car and retry. AA issued
guidelines to hapless motorists to avoid multiple callouts. Several
cars suffered EMI induced ABS failures of a non-trivial kind near
powerful transmitters. See for example:

http://www.emcuk.co.uk/awareness/Pag...Automotive.htm

(and link therin)

My car is electronic, even to start is pushing a button. I carry a lot of 2
way radio equipment for my work as well as MDT equipment. So why does it not
stop my car from working? Or are is a $50K car electronics far superior than
a $300m aircraft?- Hide quoted text -

There are plenty of examples of RF interference shutting down or
locking users out of cars. The most amusing was some high end Jaguars
driving across the moors where I live would suffer catastrophic engine
management failure and stop dead. Mostly they just would not start if
they parked in the wrong layby. The phased array radar at Fylingdales
did for them. There is a bit more on the story interference with car
electronics (which is a lot more common than you might think).
Fortunately it usually means the car won't start.

http://www.whitbygazette.co.uk/news/...gle.1787090.jp

As for similar things happening in avionics the only one I found
online in a quick search was a mobile phone ringing that induced a
signal into a fire in the hold sensor. Not surprisingly the aircraft
ad to make an emergency landing.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/01...own_slovenian/

There is a bit more about it on comp.risks

If you want to see how bad a mobile phone ringing is for disrupting
nearby electronics place one near a classic CRT based TV or computer
monitor and then make a call to the phone. When it wakes up the screen
will jump!

Regards,
Martin Brown

John Navas wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 13:39:53 +1100, "wb" wrote:

My car is electronic, even to start is pushing a button. I carry a
lot of 2 way radio equipment for my work as well as MDT equipment.
So why does it not stop my car from working? Or are is a $50K car
electronics far superior than a $300m aircraft?

No, just far simpler. That is unless you've got a similar multi-million

Simpler? In my car: 60+ processors and a dozen separate, unshielded
comms buses. In a vehicle length of about 4.5 metres. Still some km
of cabling, according to the manufacturer.

dollar load of sensitive navigation and communication equipment. Let me
guess: the only thing you've got in that area is OnStar (very primitive)
and GPS, neither of which is a critical system. It's a wildly invalid
analogy.

Lots of stuff in cars is now done by data bus. The protocols and
paranoid diagnostics built into each subsystem seem to be immune to
really heavy, broad spectrum radio "illumination". The only thing
that seems to stop working in my car is the AM radio reception.

Critical systems such as ABS, airbags, pyrotechnic seatbelt
tensioners, etc, etc don't suffer. Despite being built down to a
price.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | Great minds discuss ideas;
X against HTML mail | Average minds discuss events;
/ \ and postings | Small minds discuss people. -- Eleanor Roosevelt

Everybody particating has been in an airplane.
Everybody owns a digital camera and other electronic devices.
Ergo everybody is an expert.

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 22:57:10 +0900, Bernd Felsche
wrote in
:

John Navas wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 13:39:53 +1100, "wb" wrote:

My car is electronic, even to start is pushing a button. I carry a
lot of 2 way radio equipment for my work as well as MDT equipment.
So why does it not stop my car from working? Or are is a $50K car
electronics far superior than a $300m aircraft?

No, just far simpler. That is unless you've got a similar multi-million

Simpler? In my car: 60+ processors and a dozen separate, unshielded
comms buses. In a vehicle length of about 4.5 metres. Still some km
of cabling, according to the manufacturer.

Simpler. Orders of magnitude different.

dollar load of sensitive navigation and communication equipment. Let me
guess: the only thing you've got in that area is OnStar (very primitive)
and GPS, neither of which is a critical system. It's a wildly invalid
analogy.

Lots of stuff in cars is now done by data bus. The protocols and
paranoid diagnostics built into each subsystem seem to be immune to
really heavy, broad spectrum radio "illumination". The only thing
that seems to stop working in my car is the AM radio reception.

Critical systems such as ABS, airbags, pyrotechnic seatbelt
tensioners, etc, etc don't suffer. Despite being built down to a
price.

Again, wildly different. The Airbus 380 has 500 km of cabling. Not
that it matters in this context. Learn something about advanced
avionics systems.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

On 17 Jan 2008 21:43:09 +1100, GB
wrote in :

"wb" wrote in :
My car is electronic, even to start is pushing a button. I carry a lot
of 2 way radio equipment for my work as well as MDT equipment. So why
does it not stop my car from working? Or are is a $50K car electronics
far superior than a $300m aircraft?

My car is far from electronic. The only electronic things in it are
a (heavily shielded) EFI computer, and a remote controlled alarm/
locking setup.

I cannot unlock my car in line of site of any of the three TV/Radio
transmission towers on Sydney's lower north shore.

Or are is a $35K car's electronics far inferior to a $300M aircraft's?

They are. Orders of magnitude.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:


I'm sure you will find these numbers useless and add
a few more ad hominem attacks, but here they are.

They are indeed pretty much useless.


That's what I expected you to say when confronted by somebody
who actually DOES know what they are talking about.

However, they are what they are.

If you don't understand that numbers that are obtained in
the near field of an antenna cannot be converted to field
strength values like far field measurements can, your
opinion really doesn't matter. Yes, that's an ad-hominem
counterattack.

Just because an analyzer stops at 1.8 GHZ says nothing about
its quality. The uses we put them to stop at well below that.
And, for those uses, we **ARE** the state of the art, by quite a bit!
Hint: no antennas are involved.

Doug McDonald