Why can't CD/MP3 players be used while flying?

Benjamin Dover wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Mr. Travel writes:

If it is sending a signal on an Radio Frequency, how is it not a radio
transmitter?
MP3 players don't send signals.

Try looking at a schematic,

As a practical test, I put my shortwave radio on airband and held it in
turn next a nanopod, a laptop and a mobile phone.

The mobile phone produced a totally deafening clacketyclack buzzing
noise loud enough to blow a pilot's ears out of his headphones.

The laptop produced at close range a reasonably loud white noise.

The nanopod produced- nothing. Not a trace of interference whatsoever.

That means for me, nanopods are totally harmless on aircraft.

T.

(Tom P) wrote in
:

As a practical test, I put my shortwave radio on airband ...

That means for me, nanopods are totally harmless on aircraft.

You're falsely assuming that the only concern is with voice traffic on
the frequencies you listened to.

On the other hand, I've never heard of any airline other than the
cited "Island Air" which has a policy banning MP3 players.

--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN |

Bert Hyman wrote:
(Tom P) wrote in
:

As a practical test, I put my shortwave radio on airband ...

That means for me, nanopods are totally harmless on aircraft.

You're falsely assuming that the only concern is with voice traffic on
the frequencies you listened to.


I am not falsely assuming anything. I am saying that the RF emissions
from nanopods are negligible. I understand that the concern is that
electronic devices like mobiles can interfere with navigation equipment.
However, as VHF navigation uses the same VHF band as voice, and the test
shows that nanopods produce zero interference in this band, please
explain what the problem is supposed to be.
T.


T.


On the other hand, I've never heard of any airline other than the
cited "Island Air" which has a policy banning MP3 players.

On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 23:21:04 +0200, Tom P
wrote:

Bert Hyman wrote:
(Tom P) wrote in
:

As a practical test, I put my shortwave radio on airband ...

That means for me, nanopods are totally harmless on aircraft.

You're falsely assuming that the only concern is with voice traffic on
the frequencies you listened to.

I am not falsely assuming anything. I am saying that the RF emissions
from nanopods are negligible. I understand that the concern is that
electronic devices like mobiles can interfere with navigation equipment.
However, as VHF navigation uses the same VHF band as voice, and the test
shows that nanopods produce zero interference in this band, please
explain what the problem is supposed to be.

So, then, your premise is that the VHF band is the only part of
the radio spectrum of concern to modern sophisticated aircraft?

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Hatunen wrote:
On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 23:21:04 +0200, Tom P
wrote:

Bert Hyman wrote:
(Tom P) wrote in
:

As a practical test, I put my shortwave radio on airband ...

That means for me, nanopods are totally harmless on aircraft.
You're falsely assuming that the only concern is with voice traffic on
the frequencies you listened to.

I am not falsely assuming anything. I am saying that the RF emissions
from nanopods are negligible. I understand that the concern is that
electronic devices like mobiles can interfere with navigation equipment.
However, as VHF navigation uses the same VHF band as voice, and the test
shows that nanopods produce zero interference in this band, please
explain what the problem is supposed to be.

So, then, your premise is that the VHF band is the only part of
the radio spectrum of concern to modern sophisticated aircraft?

Would care to name one?

In any case, get real. Exactly how much RF interference do you think a
nanopod radiates? Megawatts?

On Tue, 08 Apr 2008 06:48:28 +0200, Tom P
wrote:

Hatunen wrote:
On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 23:21:04 +0200, Tom P
wrote:

Bert Hyman wrote:
(Tom P) wrote in
:

As a practical test, I put my shortwave radio on airband ...

That means for me, nanopods are totally harmless on aircraft.
You're falsely assuming that the only concern is with voice traffic on
the frequencies you listened to.

I am not falsely assuming anything. I am saying that the RF emissions
from nanopods are negligible. I understand that the concern is that
electronic devices like mobiles can interfere with navigation equipment.
However, as VHF navigation uses the same VHF band as voice, and the test
shows that nanopods produce zero interference in this band, please
explain what the problem is supposed to be.

So, then, your premise is that the VHF band is the only part of
the radio spectrum of concern to modern sophisticated aircraft?

Would care to name one?

In any case, get real. Exactly how much RF interference do you think a
nanopod radiates? Megawatts?

did you test it near any equipment that uses spectrum other than
VHF?

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Hatunen wrote:
On Tue, 08 Apr 2008 06:48:28 +0200, Tom P
wrote:


Hatunen wrote:

On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 23:21:04 +0200, Tom P
wrote:


Bert Hyman wrote:

(Tom P) wrote in
:


As a practical test, I put my shortwave radio on airband ...

That means for me, nanopods are totally harmless on aircraft.

You're falsely assuming that the only concern is with voice traffic on
the frequencies you listened to.


I am not falsely assuming anything. I am saying that the RF emissions

from nanopods are negligible. I understand that the concern is that

electronic devices like mobiles can interfere with navigation equipment.
However, as VHF navigation uses the same VHF band as voice, and the test
shows that nanopods produce zero interference in this band, please
explain what the problem is supposed to be.

So, then, your premise is that the VHF band is the only part of
the radio spectrum of concern to modern sophisticated aircraft?


Would care to name one?

In any case, get real. Exactly how much RF interference do you think a
nanopod radiates? Megawatts?


did you test it near any equipment that uses spectrum other than
VHF?

Of course not, because I am not paranoid. Which frequency spectrum do
you propose to test?

If you believe that a device that is undetectable in the VHF band is
a risk to aircraft systems, then you should really be concerned that
aircraft systems could be at constant risk of being disrupted by the
much higher levels of RF background noise that are present all the time.

Although celluar phones produce EXTREMELY high levels of RF
interference in the VHF band, they are now approved for use in aircraft
(EU directive).
How do you explain that?

T.

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 13:35:15 +0200, Tom P
wrote:

Hatunen wrote:
On Tue, 08 Apr 2008 06:48:28 +0200, Tom P
wrote:


Hatunen wrote:

On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 23:21:04 +0200, Tom P
wrote:


Bert Hyman wrote:

(Tom P) wrote in
:


As a practical test, I put my shortwave radio on airband ...

That means for me, nanopods are totally harmless on aircraft.

You're falsely assuming that the only concern is with voice traffic on
the frequencies you listened to.


I am not falsely assuming anything. I am saying that the RF emissions

from nanopods are negligible. I understand that the concern is that

electronic devices like mobiles can interfere with navigation equipment.
However, as VHF navigation uses the same VHF band as voice, and the test
shows that nanopods produce zero interference in this band, please
explain what the problem is supposed to be.

So, then, your premise is that the VHF band is the only part of
the radio spectrum of concern to modern sophisticated aircraft?


Would care to name one?

In any case, get real. Exactly how much RF interference do you think a
nanopod radiates? Megawatts?


did you test it near any equipment that uses spectrum other than
VHF?

Of course not, because I am not paranoid. Which frequency spectrum do
you propose to test?

You're the one who tok the smallest piece of electronics you
could find, did a 'test" on a single RF band and then to
extrapolate your results to a generality about all mp3 players
and all equipment on a plane.

If you believe that a device that is undetectable in the VHF band is
a risk to aircraft systems, then you should really be concerned that
aircraft systems could be at constant risk of being disrupted by the
much higher levels of RF background noise that are present all the time.

Again you make the assumption that the VHF band is the only band
involved.

Frankly, I don't know one way or the other whether any MP3 player
could affect any bit of aircraft electonics, but I'm reasonably
sure that the UHF, at a minimum, may be involved.

Although celluar phones produce EXTREMELY high levels of RF
interference in the VHF band, they are now approved for use in aircraft
(EU directive).
How do you explain that?

I don't have to. You're the one making claims.

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

In Tom P
wrote:

In any case, get real.

The only "real" consideration here is what the regulating agency says
and then what the airline says beyond that, if anything.

Your expert analysis doesn't mean anything at all.

--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN