|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > GPS > July 2006 > Re: Clarification from Continental confirms GPS friendly policy
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Re: Clarification from Continental confirms GPS friendly policy
|
|
|
| Not sure if anyone will read this since the original posts were so long
ago, but thought I'd relate the story I just got from a flight attendant
on a US Airway flight. "Sir, is that a GPS?" to which I answered "yes"
and she said, "You'll have to turn that off. It can be tracked by people
on the ground who may have a surface-to-air missile." I kid you not,
that's what she said. I turned it off and tried to keep from laughing.
flydog wrote:
> Looks like you can do the same with Delta as long as you are at
> cruising altitude.
>
> from www.delta.com:
> 'You may not operate the following devices when the airplane is at the
> gate and the boarding door is closed. This restriction also applies
> during taxi, takeoff, initial climb, approach, or landing.
>
> Personal computers
> Personal computer peripheral devices
> Personal digital assistants, except when taxiing to the gate
> Personal computer games, except when taxiing to the gate
> Compact disc players
> Digital cassette tape player/recorders
> Video recorder/playback systems
> Calculators
> GPS (global positioning satellite) systems, except when taxiing to the
> gate
> "
>
| |
| Gregg Townsend 2006-07-17, 10:33 pm |
| I flew Continental in June and verified that, indeed, use of a GPS is
now explicitly *permitted* by the fine print in the company magazine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gregg Townsend Staff Scientist The University of Arizona
gmt@cs.arizona.edu Computer Science Tucson, Arizona, USA
| |
|
| But is it safe to do so? Can it interfere with operation of the aircraft? I
have yet to see a factual report on the subject.
| |
| Mike Lane 2006-07-19, 10:33 am |
| On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 14:16:14 +0100, Papa wrote
(in article <ygqvg.1346$bP5.161@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net> ):
> But is it safe to do so? Can it interfere with operation of the aircraft? I
> have yet to see a factual report on the subject.
>
>
See here:
http://gpsinformation.net/airgps/gpsrfi.htm
--
Mike Lane
To contact me replace invalid with mike underscore lane
| |
| Lizard@Lair.com 2006-07-19, 10:33 am |
| A GPSR is a receiver only with very little output of any type of
frequency.
It will not interfere with the electronics on a plane.
PS-Look into the cockpit as you board planes. Lots of pilots have
their personal GPS units sitting in plain view in the cockpit.
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 13:16:14 GMT, "Papa" <bikingis@my.fun> wrote:
>But is it safe to do so? Can it interfere with operation of the aircraft? I
>have yet to see a factual report on the subject.
>
| |
|
| Thanks, Mike. Good article, and gives me much pause regarding using a GPS on
board a commercial aircraft.
| |
|
| Papa wrote:
> Thanks, Mike. Good article, and gives me much pause regarding using a GPS on
> board a commercial aircraft.
>
>
I confirmed with US Airways that GPS receivers are NOT allowed once the
cabin doors are closed. Here's an excerpt from the online version of
their inflight magazine. (http://usairwaysmag.com/inflightinfo02.asp)
- - - - - - -
Electronic Equipment
Approved Usage:
At the gate (while aircraft door is open):
Cell phones GPS receivers Pagers (including two-way) PDAs TVs
Radios Transmitters and transceivers Remote-control devices
Computers Calculators Electronic games Shavers Entertainment
devices (CD, DVD, MP3) Video cameras
During flight (announcement authorizes use):
Computers Calculators Electronic games Shavers
Entertainment devices (CD, DVD, MP3) Video
cameras Two-way communication devices as long as the transmitting
capabilities are disabled (airplane, game, safe, etc. mode)
After landing (announcement authorizes use):
Cell phones
- - - - -
GPS are not part of the approved "during flight" devices.
Bob J
| |
| St. John Smythe 2006-07-19, 12:33 pm |
| Papa wrote:
> Thanks, Mike. Good article, and gives me much pause regarding using a
> GPS on board a commercial aircraft.
Delta allows them. Following from their web site (http://www.delta.com):
================== Begin quote ==================
You can use these while the plane is at the gate with the doors open,
after the plane has taken off and reached its cruising altitude and
before it begins to descend for landing, and after the plane has landed
and is taxiing to the gate.
* Personal digital assistants
* Personal computer games
* GPS (global positioning satellite) systems
Your flight attendant will announce when it is safe to use these devices.
================== End quote ==================
There's an awful lot of bad science, folklore and assumptions about the
risks of handheld GPS receivers in flight.
--
St. John
"I had to censor everything my sons watched ... even on the Mary Tyler
Moore show I heard the word 'damn'!"
-Mary Lou Bax
| |
|
| I should add: Why would a passenger even need to use a GPS while onboard a
commercial aircraft? Just as a form of entertainment? If so, it's silly -
and perhaps even dangerous.
| |
| Cynicor 2006-07-19, 3:33 pm |
| Papa wrote:
> I should add: Why would a passenger even need to use a GPS while onboard a
> commercial aircraft? Just as a form of entertainment? If so, it's silly -
> and perhaps even dangerous.
No worse than using a DVD viewer or laptop. Or inflight movies and
audio. Or a sky phone.
| |
| JF Mezei 2006-07-19, 3:33 pm |
| Lizard@Lair.com wrote:
>
> A GPSR is a receiver only with very little output of any type of
> frequency.
>
> It will not interfere with the electronics on a plane.
I really liked the excuse that it will allow terrorist missiles to track
the plane :-)
How is one to react when an FA says this ? Initial reaction would be to
laugh really loud, and say "oh, this is a really good one, I never heard
that joke before". But that might lead you to jail.
| |
| JF Mezei 2006-07-19, 3:33 pm |
| Papa wrote:
>
> I should add: Why would a passenger even need to use a GPS while onboard a
> commercial aircraft? Just as a form of entertainment? If so, it's silly -
> and perhaps even dangerous.
If you are on a long flight over clouds, the GPS can tell you where you
are, time left to destination etc.
One very lolng trans pacific overnight flights, I left my GPS running
(antenna stuck under window shade), and whenever I woke up, i could just
press a button and the display lights up with all the info I needed to
know (where we are, how manyt hours to destination, current speed,
altitude etc). Then go back to sleep.
Note that with aircraft now having more and more TVs on seatbacks, it
becomes quite possible to leave that TV on the "map display" which gives
you that information. But the light from the TV might disrupt your sleep
if you are in a darkened aircraft cabin.
| |
| JF Mezei 2006-07-19, 3:33 pm |
| Cynicor wrote:
> No worse than using a DVD viewer or laptop. Or inflight movies and
> audio. Or a sky phone.
Consider how much power is used by a GPS: it can run on 2 AAs for about
12 hours, or 4 AAs for 24. A laptop can run at best 6 hours on a large
battery pack that dispenses so much power that it warms up.
The less power a unit consumes, the less emissions it can produce that
could affect the aircraft.
| |
| St. John Smythe 2006-07-19, 3:33 pm |
| Papa wrote:
> I should add: Why would a passenger even need to use a GPS while onboard a
> commercial aircraft? Just as a form of entertainment? If so, it's silly -
It is, frankly, none of my or your business what another passenger does
for entertainment as long as it's not disruptive to the other passengers.
--
St. John
"Comes the revolution, you VILL read magazines on the airplane."
| |
|
|
"Cynicor" < jt__rup__i_n@speak__
easy.net> wrote in message
news:atKdnfw478l66CP
ZnZ2dnUVZ_oGdnZ2d@sp
eakeasy.net...
> Papa wrote:
>
> No worse than using a DVD viewer or laptop. Or inflight movies and audio.
> Or a sky phone.
No worse if as safe. Is it?
| |
| St. John Smythe 2006-07-19, 10:33 pm |
| Papa wrote:
> "Cynicor" < jt__rup__i_n@speak__
easy.net> wrote in message
> news:atKdnfw478l66CP
ZnZ2dnUVZ_oGdnZ2d@sp
eakeasy.net...
>
>
> No worse if as safe. Is it?
What would it take to convince you that it is?
--
St. John
The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of an expanding
bureaucracy.
| |
|
|
"St. John Smythe" <sinjen@n4vu.com> wrote in message
news:e9lujf$rmn$23@n
4vu2.n4vu.com...
> Papa wrote:
>
> It is, frankly, none of my or your business what another passenger does
> for entertainment as long as it's not disruptive to the other passengers.
>
Which is as good a way as any to while away the time, I guess. So it is fine
with me - assuming it being turned on does not present a danger to the
aircraft occupants. Frankly, I would ask the person to turn it off because
the jury is not yet in on the subject of safe GPS use aboard aircraft. At
the present time those that should be in the know seem to be arguing both
points of view.
| |
|
|
"St. John Smythe" <sinjen@n4vu.com> wrote in message
news:e9m61v$rmn$27@n
4vu2.n4vu.com...
> Papa wrote:
>
> What would it take to convince you that it is?
An engineering report containing lab analyses. Opinions are never credible.
>
> --
> St. John
> The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of an expanding
> bureaucracy.
| |
| kashe@sonic.net 2006-07-19, 10:33 pm |
| On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 14:11:51 -0400, Cynicor
< jt__rup__i_n@speak__
easy.net> wrote:
>Papa wrote:
>
>No worse than using a DVD viewer or laptop. Or inflight movies and
>audio. Or a sky phone.
Wanna start an argument? Just begin by saying, "What need is
there for anyone to use/possess <whatever>?" Some people take it as a
personal affront when they find that someone else uses/posseses
<whatever> which does not fall within their range of interests.
Try it, make <whatever> equal to motorcycles, GPSRs,
contraceptives, assault rifles, cigarettes, paintballs, boomboxes,
pot, hair coloring, pain pills -- anything you can think of.
When you get answers stating that such things are silly or
possibly dangerous (especially regarding children or national
security) you know you've latched onto a narrow-minded person who
thinks himself to be the measure of all men.
| |
| kashe@sonic.net 2006-07-19, 10:33 pm |
| On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 20:54:24 GMT, "Papa" <bikingis@my.fun> wrote:
>
>"St. John Smythe" <sinjen@n4vu.com> wrote in message
> news:e9lujf$rmn$23@n
4vu2.n4vu.com...
>Which is as good a way as any to while away the time, I guess. So it is fine
>with me - assuming it being turned on does not present a danger to the
>aircraft occupants. Frankly, I would ask the person to turn it off
If that person were me, you'd be told to stuff it. I would
then report you to a crew mwmber as one who was interfering with my
allowable enjoyment of the flight.
> because
>the jury is not yet in on the subject of safe GPS use aboard aircraft.
It isn't in on the safety of eating ice cream inflight either,
so you're in no position to appoint your self as either captain or
arbiter.
If there is no official report verifying the safety of ice
cream, I would be equally justified in asking you to stop consuming
it.
> At
>the present time those that should be in the know seem to be arguing both
>points of view.
>
| |
| kashe@sonic.net 2006-07-19, 10:33 pm |
| On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 14:34:50 -0400, JF Mezei
<jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote:
>Lizard@Lair.com wrote:
>
>
>I really liked the excuse that it will allow terrorist missiles to track
>the plane :-)
>
>How is one to react when an FA says this ? Initial reaction would be to
>laugh really loud, and say "oh, this is a really good one, I never heard
>that joke before". But that might lead you to jail.
Ask for an opinion of a member of the flight crew. After
asking the FA to spell his/her name slowly.
| |
|
|
<kashe@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:llitb2hh1tp3qii
ahgh99fe0fuus275ieu@
4ax.com...
> On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 14:11:51 -0400, Cynicor
> < jt__rup__i_n@speak__
easy.net> wrote:
>
>
> Wanna start an argument? Just begin by saying, "What need is
> there for anyone to use/possess <whatever>?" Some people take it as a
> personal affront when they find that someone else uses/posseses
> <whatever> which does not fall within their range of interests.
>
> Try it, make <whatever> equal to motorcycles, GPSRs,
> contraceptives, assault rifles, cigarettes, paintballs, boomboxes,
> pot, hair coloring, pain pills -- anything you can think of.
>
> When you get answers stating that such things are silly or
> possibly dangerous (especially regarding children or national
> security) you know you've latched onto a narrow-minded person who
> thinks himself to be the measure of all men.
Oops. Looks like I hit a nerve. ;> ) Sorry. didn't mean to stir up your sense
of rightousness.
>
| |
|
|
>
> If that person were me, you'd be told to stuff it. I would
> then report you to a crew mwmber as one who was interfering with my
> allowable enjoyment of the flight.
>
That's your right. My right is to ASK you to turn it off.
> so you're in no position to appoint your self as either captain or
> arbiter.
>
It is my right to be nervous about something that can possibly effect
whether I live or die. I am NOT acting as a captain or arbiter. I am acting
as someone who is entitled to express their concerns.
> If there is no official report verifying the safety of ice
> cream, I would be equally justified in asking you to stop consuming
> it.
Using the analogy of "ice cream" is just a way of trivializing something
that should be carefully examined until the facts are really known and
verified..
| |
| JF Mezei 2006-07-19, 10:33 pm |
| Papa wrote:
> That's your right. My right is to ASK you to turn it off.
Do you also have the opinion that it is your right to ask someone to
stop reading a book ?
As long as the activity performed by a seatmate does not emit sounds or
undue lighting, and does not take up undue space or generate vibrations,
I am not sure that you have a right to ask them to stop.
A GPS is far less dirruptive than some MP3 player with the volume/bass
set to maximum and which you can hear. It is less disruptive than some
guys with a laptop playing games.
| |
| kashe@sonic.net 2006-07-20, 4:33 am |
| On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 02:20:45 GMT, "Papa" <bikingis@my.fun> wrote:
>
>
>That's your right. My right is to ASK you to turn it off.
>
>
>It is my right to be nervous about something that can possibly effect
>whether I live or die.
We already have too much of our lives constrained for the
comfort of the "nervous". If you're that nervous, consult wit the
flight crew before bothering me. If it's OK with them, then, by
definition, it's OK with you.
> I am NOT acting as a captain or arbiter. I am acting
>as someone who is entitled to express their concerns.
>
>
>Using the analogy of "ice cream" is just a way of trivializing something
>that should be carefully examined until the facts are really known and
>verified..
>
As due.
| |
| Cynicor 2006-07-20, 10:33 am |
| kashe@sonic.net wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 14:11:51 -0400, Cynicor
> < jt__rup__i_n@speak__
easy.net> wrote:
>
>
> Wanna start an argument? Just begin by saying, "What need is
> there for anyone to use/possess <whatever>?" Some people take it as a
> personal affront when they find that someone else uses/posseses
> <whatever> which does not fall within their range of interests.
>
> Try it, make <whatever> equal to motorcycles, GPSRs,
> contraceptives, assault rifles, cigarettes, paintballs, boomboxes,
> pot, hair coloring, pain pills -- anything you can think of.
But enough about my typical carry-on bag.
| |
| S. Caro 2006-07-20, 12:33 pm |
| Papa wrote:
> I should add: Why would a passenger even need to use a GPS while onboard a
> commercial aircraft? Just as a form of entertainment? If so, it's silly -
> and perhaps even dangerous.
I did so *with permission* on the last flight I took.
WestJet in Canada officially approves the use of GPS. Despite
being listed as OK in the site below, I obtained permission from
my flight attendant before setting things up.
http://gpsinformation.net/airgps/airgps.htm
I used my laptop with MS Streets and trips and a USB mouse type
receiver. It has a suction cup that I used to stick it to the window.
I found it very interesting to put names to the bodies of water
roads and small towns I could see out the window. I think any
little amusement that will pass the time on a long flight is
worthwhile.
| |
|
|
<kashe@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:fb5ub29e7jui8q3
ol730u01k6ituf16p68@
4ax.com...
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 02:20:45 GMT, "Papa" <bikingis@my.fun> wrote:
>
>
With all due respect, this is something you "Think" can possibly effect
whether you live or die. The flight crew operates GPS. Boeing checked out
the operation of devices in the cabin, and found no problems. The flight
crew does not rely on ANY single navigation input.
> We already have too much of our lives constrained for the
> comfort of the "nervous". If you're that nervous, consult wit the
> flight crew before bothering me. If it's OK with them, then, by
> definition, it's OK with you.
>
Express away. Do not expect action from people who do not feel your
nervousness.
[color=darkred]
>
> As due.
The captain is the final authority as to the operation of the flight. He/She
also accepts final responsibility for the safety of that flight. As a
captain, (I hold an Airline Transport Pilot certificate), I have no problem
with operation of GPS's, or cell phones, or lap tops. (Please note that a
cell phone can reach alot more towers from altitude than from the ground,
thus tieing up MANY channels that would otherwise be useable, hence the FCC
rules against this).
Al G ATP 2069297
| |
| Bert Hyman 2006-07-20, 3:33 pm |
| bikingis@my.fun (Papa) wrote in
news:Nruvg.6969$vO.1131@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> I should add: Why would a passenger even need to use a GPS while
> onboard a commercial aircraft? Just as a form of entertainment?
Yes.
> If so, it's silly
So what?
> - and perhaps even dangerous.
If it's allowed by regulation and by the flight crew, presumably not.
--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | bert@iphouse.com
| |
|
| Anything you say, Al - after all, you are obviously the expert - as was
Boeing regarding their early denials of a possible spark inside the fuselage
fuel tank of TWA Flight 800.
| |
|
|
>
>
> If it's allowed by regulation and by the flight crew, presumably not.
>
"Presumably" is the key word here. Commercial aviation is ruled by the
almighty dollar. Where safety is concerned, the bean counters work up
statistics that tell them how much is the cost per aircraft accident
fatality, and the FAA adds those statistics into the laws governing safety,
quality control, and the like.
| |
| St. John Smythe 2006-07-20, 3:33 pm |
| Papa wrote:
> Anything you say, Al - after all, you are obviously the expert - as was
> Boeing regarding their early denials of a possible spark inside the fuselage
> fuel tank of TWA Flight 800.
Please let us know when you've succeeded in igniting a closed tank of
jet fuel (i.e., kerosene, not gasoline) with a spark from within.
Just to put it in perspective: Our automobile gas tanks have potential
spark-producing components (electric pump, gauge sender) within. When
is the last time you heard of a spontaneous explosion of an automobile
gas tank? Then, consider that 1)kerosene has a much higher flash point
than gasoline, and 2)there are ever so many more automobiles than
jetliners.
(Those'd be "paraffin" and "petrol" for folks on the other side of the
pond.)
--
St. John
Those who educate children well are more to be honored than parents,
for these only gave life, those the art of living well.
-Aristotle
| |
| JF Mezei 2006-07-20, 3:33 pm |
| Al wrote:
> whether you live or die. The flight crew operates GPS. Boeing checked out
> the operation of devices in the cabin, and found no problems. The flight
> crew does not rely on ANY single navigation input.
There is a caveat here. Boeing would approve a fixed list of GPS units
that have been tested/evaluated. The FAA then asks the airline to
essentially ban anything/everything unless the airline tests it. A lot
of loose interpretations were madd to allow laptops because it was
deemed critical to lure business travellers. But airlines cannot
possibly test every laptop there is.
So pedantically, if the airline has not tested your specific model of
GPS, they can decide to prevent you from using it. However, business
pressures tend to push certain airlines to be less pedantic about
electronic toys because restricting them may cause them loss of
passengers who would go to other airlines. (for instance, nobody would
pay business class fares on airline X if airline X didn't allow laptops
on board).
Note that they have recently tested mobile phones on board aircraft, and
the biggest irony is that providing on-board mobile phone service
actually reduces the risk because by having a GSM microcell inside the
fuselage, any mobile phone in the aircrtaft will now "see" service that
is very nearby and reduce its transmitted to low output. When phones
don't see service, they boost the output to maximum in case they can
then find some service from a far away tower.
So i think that the issue of a tiny AA battery operated GPS generating
too much interference will soon become quite moot, at least for recent aircraft.
What remains is the issue of the GPS allowing terrorists in the middle
east to track your aircraft over IOWA and sending missiles to it :-) ;-)
:-) :-) That would require education of flight attendants.
| |
| JF Mezei 2006-07-20, 3:33 pm |
| Papa wrote:[color=darkred
]
[color=darkred]
I'll tell you what is silly: DVD players with THX surround sound in USA
minivans. Talk about distracting the driver.
A GPS used by a passenger on a plane is just a neat tool to either
providd data on flight progress, or help unddrstand the geography below
you. There are many people who would spend 5 hours of a flight with the
head glued to the window to watch the ground below to recognise
features, cities, rivers.
But there are areas, such as northern ontario where it is really hard to
get a mental fix of where you are, and the GPS greatly helps there.
Do you NEED a GPS ? No. Nor do you need a book to pass the time. But if
a GPS can help you better understand/admire the scenery out the window,
then it is a very worthwile toy which gives you a much more valuable
experience of learning about our planet than just watching some stale
movie on a 15cm screen on a seatback in front of you.
| |
|
| >
> A GPS used by a passenger on a plane is just a neat tool to either
> providd data on flight progress, or help unddrstand the geography below
> you. There are many people who would spend 5 hours of a flight with the
> head glued to the window to watch the ground below to recognise
> features, cities, rivers.
>
> But there are areas, such as northern ontario where it is really hard to
> get a mental fix of where you are, and the GPS greatly helps there.
>
> Do you NEED a GPS ? No. Nor do you need a book to pass the time. But if
> a GPS can help you better understand/admire the scenery out the window,
> then it is a very worthwile toy which gives you a much more valuable
> experience of learning about our planet than just watching some stale
> movie on a 15cm screen on a seatback in front of you.
I'm with you. I'll take a window seat every time, and watch the
continent go by. Love it.
| |
|
|
>
> Please let us know when you've succeeded in igniting a closed tank of
> jet fuel (i.e., kerosene, not gasoline) with a spark from within.
That is exactly what happened with TWA flight 800. The tank was nearly
empty, full of fumes, then a low current wire came in contact with a high
current cable because of defective insulation. Whammo!!
To quote the NTSB:
"The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause
of the TWA flight 800 accident was an explosion of the center wing fuel tank
(CWT), resulting from ignition of the flammable fuel/air mixture in the
tank. The source of ignition energy for the explosion could not be
determined with certainty, but, of the sources evaluated by the
investigation, the most likely was a short circuit outside of the CWT that
allowed excessive voltage to enter it through electrical wiring associated
with the fuel quantity indication system."
| |
| St. John Smythe 2006-07-20, 3:33 pm |
| Papa wrote:
> That is exactly what happened with TWA flight 800.
To be fair, you'd have to say that that is exactly what you were told
happened with TWA 800. (A tank full of kerosene vapor is not flammable.)
--
St. John
In a museum in Havana, there are two skulls of Christopher Columbus,
"one when he was a boy and one when he was a man."
-Mark Twain
| |
|
|
>
> To be fair, you'd have to say that that is exactly what you were told
> happened with TWA 800. (A tank full of kerosene vapor is not flammable.)
>
True, but I (and everyone else) were told by some very ethical engineers at
the NTSB. I believe them. No one is arguing that a completely filled fuel
tank cannot be sparked into ignition, but fuel tanks are rarely completely
full.
| |
| St. John Smythe 2006-07-20, 3:33 pm |
| Papa wrote:
> True, but I (and everyone else) were told by some very ethical engineers at
> the NTSB. I believe them. No one is arguing that a completely filled fuel
> tank cannot be sparked into ignition, but fuel tanks are rarely completely
> full.
http://twa800.com/pages/fuel.htm
--
St. John
The more we disagree, the more chance there is that at least one of us
is right.
| |
|
|
"St. John Smythe" <sinjen@n4vu.com> wrote in message
news:e9op8m$5sk$5@n4
vu2.n4vu.com...
> Papa wrote:
>
> http://twa800.com/pages/fuel.htm
>
> --
The "Associated Retired Aviation Professionals" are a fringe group of people
with philosophies similar to those who are always talking about the
so-called mysteries of "Area 52" out in the New Mexico dessert, or those who
claim they have actually photographed the Loch Ness monstor, or those who
say they have seen "Big Foot". Not credible at all.
The NTSB are the professionals.
| |
| JF Mezei 2006-07-20, 10:33 pm |
| "St. John Smythe" wrote:
>
> Papa wrote:
>
> To be fair, you'd have to say that that is exactly what you were told
> happened with TWA 800. (A tank full of kerosene vapor is not flammable.)
In fairness to Papa, he is right. The tank was almost empty. Air
conditioning packs had been running under the tanks for a few hours on
the tarmac on a hot day, heating the tank and the little bit of fuel
left in it. Electrical spark in wiring exposed to the fumes ignited the fumes.
| |
| St. John Smythe 2006-07-21, 4:33 am |
| JF Mezei wrote:
> In fairness to Papa, he is right. The tank was almost empty. Air
> conditioning packs had been running under the tanks for a few hours on
> the tarmac on a hot day, heating the tank and the little bit of fuel
> left in it. Electrical spark in wiring exposed to the fumes ignited the fumes.
That would be a lot more credible if someone had been able to duplicate
it. Have they? The opposite (couldn't make it happen) has certainly
been demonstrated.
--
St. John
For perfect happiness, remember two things:
(1) Be content with what you've got.
(2) Be sure you've got plenty.
| |
| Wolfgang S. Rupprecht 2006-07-21, 4:33 am |
|
> The tank was almost empty. Air conditioning packs had been running
> under the tanks for a few hours on the tarmac on a hot day, heating
> the tank and the little bit of fuel left in it. Electrical spark in
> wiring exposed to the fumes ignited the fumes.
And worse, the tanks were close to dry so there was little fuel vapor
pressure to keep the air out.
A wet tank with a few gallons of gas splashing around the bottom is
lots safer than one that is mostly dry and has only enough vapors to
fill the tank partially. A tank with liquid gas still in it would
eventually drive out any air, making the tank perfectly safe as far as
explosions went. The worst case is of course the vapors and air filing
the tank in the stoichiometic ratio. Do that and stick a red-hot wire
in it and you are going to get one loud bang.
-wolfgang
--
Wolfgang S. Rupprecht http://www.wsrcc.com/wolfgang/
| |
| kashe@sonic.net 2006-07-21, 4:33 am |
| On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 17:57:28 GMT, "Papa" <bikingis@my.fun> wrote:
>Anything you say, Al - after all, you are obviously the expert - as was
>Boeing regarding their early denials of a possible spark inside the fuselage
>fuel tank of TWA Flight 800.
>
Take your smarmy, passive-aggressive crap home.
You were too dim to Google this group for the interminable
number of threads on this very topic over the past few years. Yet, you
feel qualified, with no background on the subject, to come into the
group with your Nervous Narvis guesswork that something "might" go
wrong and expect the group to cater to your ignorance. Give up and do
your homework before starting your fatuous BS.
| |
| kashe@sonic.net 2006-07-21, 4:33 am |
| On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 14:34:44 -0400, JF Mezei
<jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote:
>
>What remains is the issue of the GPS allowing terrorists in the middle
>east to track your aircraft over IOWA and sending missiles to it :-) ;-)
>:-) :-) That would require education of flight attendants.
A. A little observation would allow them to roughly interpolate where
a flight was, given takeoff time.
B. Or they could just use one of the free online flight tracking
services.
C. Or they could sit in my backyard and have their way with any
aircraft near SFO.
| |
| kashe@sonic.net 2006-07-21, 4:33 am |
| On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 18:05:01 GMT, "Papa" <bikingis@my.fun> wrote:
>
>"Presumably" is the key word here. Commercial aviation is ruled by the
>almighty dollar.
Wow -- you're sharp as a golf ball.
> Where safety is concerned, the bean counters work up
>statistics that tell them how much is the cost per aircraft accident
>fatality, and the FAA adds those statistics into the laws governing safety,
>quality control, and the like.
i.e. -- far better actuaries than you have determined that the
risk is so minuscule that you shouldn't be "nervous". And certainly
shouldn't be bothering other passengers because of your temerity.
You're like a dog with a bone. Just bury it.
| |
| St. John Smythe 2006-07-21, 7:33 am |
| kashe@sonic.net wrote to Papa:
> i.e. -- far better actuaries than you have determined that the
> risk is so minuscule that you shouldn't be "nervous".
Correct spelling of "minuscule" noted. Refreshing.
--
St. John
Emerson's Law of Contrariness:
Our chief want in life is somebody who shall make us do what we
can. Having found them, we shall then hate them for it.
| |
|
| "St. John Smythe" <sinjen@n4vu.com> wrote in message
news:e9pjo0$5sk$12@n
4vu2.n4vu.com...
> JF Mezei wrote:
>
> That would be a lot more credible if someone had been able to duplicate
> it. Have they? The opposite (couldn't make it happen) has certainly
> been demonstrated.
>
See:
http://www.flightglobal.com/Article...+727+blast.html
| |
|
|
| JF Mezei 2006-07-21, 3:33 pm |
| "St. John Smythe" wrote:
> That would be a lot more credible if someone had been able to duplicate
> it. Have they? The opposite (couldn't make it happen) has certainly
> been demonstrated.
Yes, Boeing and NTSB took an old aircraft and were able to duplicate it.
Remember that at the time of TWA800, it was just before the Atlanta
olympics and the FBI was constantly on the media talking about the
possibility of terrorism, so there was a big incentive to work through
the scientific data to come to this conclusion that it was not a bomb,
but rather centre fuel tank epxlosion due to faulty wiring igniting the
hote fumes of an almost empty fuel tank.
This also helped review another accident, a United 747 that lost a cargo
door (and part of fuselage include a row of passengers) near hawaii. The
initial findigs have blamed faulty door mechanism, but it turns out that
once it was agreed that older wiring can be faulty, they reaslised that
the door had not been faulty, but that aelectrical fault caused the
motors to unlock the door sufficiently for it to blow off along with
part of the fuselage to which it was attached to at the hinges.
| |
| JF Mezei 2006-07-21, 10:33 pm |
| kashe@sonic.net wrote:
> B. Or they could just use one of the free online flight tracking
> services.
Since 9-11, the USA FAA system introduces a delay in sending the data to
the flight tracking services. This means that you cannot track a flight
"live". It is over 10 minutes delayed.
Since a GPS on boartd an aircraft provides "live" data, I guess it could
be judged illegal if the public have access to live data when the
government has decided that they should not. Of course, the "Public"
inside an aircraft can't do much to harm the aircraft just based on
their knowledge of its position.
On the other hand, a terrosist might use a GPS and then phone his
friends on the ground to provide a precise waypoint (poosition, time,
course), at which point the terrorists could then program their missile
to track that position, assuming the aircraft does not change
course/speed during that time.
Or terrorists could just setup their own little radar station and shoot
down anything that moves.
In the end, you cannot prevent terrorists who are determined. But you
can prevent people from becoming determined terrorists. The USA has
chosen the former philosophy which cannot succeed.
| |
| kashe@sonic.net 2006-07-21, 10:33 pm |
| On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 16:36:59 -0400, JF Mezei
<jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote:
>kashe@sonic.net wrote:
>
>Since 9-11, the USA FAA system introduces a delay in sending the data to
>the flight tracking services. This means that you cannot track a flight
>"live". It is over 10 minutes delayed.
>
>Since a GPS on boartd an aircraft provides "live" data, I guess it could
>be judged illegal if the public have access to live data when the
>government has decided that they should not. Of course, the "Public"
>inside an aircraft can't do much to harm the aircraft just based on
>their knowledge of its position.
>
>On the other hand, a terrosist might use a GPS and then phone his
>friends on the ground to provide a precise waypoint (poosition, time,
>course), at which point the terrorists could then program their missile
>to track that position, assuming the aircraft does not change
>course/speed during that time.
>
>Or terrorists could just setup their own little radar station and shoot
>down anything that moves.
>
>In the end, you cannot prevent terrorists who are determined. But you
>can prevent people from becoming determined terrorists. The USA has
>chosen the former philosophy which cannot succeed.
Agreed with all, especially the last.
| |
| kashe@sonic.net 2006-07-21, 10:33 pm |
| On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 08:18:45 -0400, "St. John Smythe"
<sinjen@n4vu.com> wrote:
>kashe@sonic.net wrote to Papa:
>
>
>Correct spelling of "minuscule" noted. Refreshing.
A few of us still care.
| |
|
|
Papa wrote:
> "St. John Smythe" <sinjen@n4vu.com> wrote in message
> news:e9op8m$5sk$5@n4
vu2.n4vu.com...
> The "Associated Retired Aviation Professionals" are a fringe group of people
> with philosophies similar to those who are always talking about the
> so-called mysteries of "Area 52" out in the New Mexico dessert, or those who
> claim they have actually photographed the Loch Ness monstor, or those who
> say they have seen "Big Foot". Not credible at all.
>
> The NTSB are the professionals.
You are developing the reputation of someone who holds an opinion so
strongly that he is unwilling to be shaken of no matter how sound the
argument presented to him.
Or you are a troll.
Jack Walker
| |
|
|
>
> You are developing the reputation of someone who holds an opinion so
> strongly that he is unwilling to be shaken of no matter how sound the
> argument presented to him.
>
> Or you are a troll.
>
>
It may be hard for you to deal with, but all I am doing is expressing what I
believe to be the facts.
And please don't resort to name-calling. (" Or you are a troll"). So far
this has been a fairly civilized and intelligent thread.
| |
| kashe@sonic.net 2006-07-22, 4:33 am |
| On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 23:48:28 GMT, "Papa" <bikingis@my.fun> wrote:
>
>It may be hard for you to deal with, but all I am doing is expressing what I
>believe to be the facts.
>And please don't resort to name-calling. (" Or you are a troll"). So far
>this has been a fairly civilized and intelligent thread.
>
Wannabe net-nanny. How superior.
| |
| Kevin Agard 2006-07-22, 10:33 pm |
| JF Mezei wrote:
> kashe@sonic.net wrote:
>
> Since 9-11, the USA FAA system introduces a delay in sending the data to
> the flight tracking services. This means that you cannot track a flight
> "live". It is over 10 minutes delayed.
>
> Since a GPS on boartd an aircraft provides "live" data, I guess it could
> be judged illegal if the public have access to live data when the
> government has decided that they should not. Of course, the "Public"
Actually, it can't. Unless there is a law or administrative regulation
with the force of law specifically prohibiting it, it is, by definition,
not illegal.
| |
| kashe@sonic.net 2006-07-22, 10:33 pm |
| On 22 Jul 2006 08:23:11 -0700, ericsmith3d@charter.net wrote:
>"temerity" is defined by Encarta as:
>
>"boldness, reckless confidence that might be offensive"
>
>i.e. it's a lack of fear.
Sorry, I meant to type timidity.
| |
| Ted Edwards 2006-07-25, 3:33 pm |
| Papa wrote:
> An engineering report containing lab analyses. Opinions are never credible.
Including yours. Quit blathering and get busy looking for official
reports from the FAA and FCC.
Ted
| |
| Ted Edwards 2006-07-25, 3:33 pm |
| Papa wrote:
> It is my right to be nervous about something that can possibly effect
> whether I live or die.
So it is my right to ask you to remove your after shave lotion(or
logical equivalent) or move to another seat since I am asthmatic and
perfumes are well known to be a common trigger. Note that there is far
more evidence on this than on any potential interference from a GPSR.
In fact the wearing of any oder releasing substance should be prohibited
on all aircraft.
Ted
| |
| Cynicor 2006-07-25, 3:33 pm |
| Ted Edwards wrote:
> Papa wrote:
>
> So it is my right to ask you to remove your after shave lotion(or
> logical equivalent) or move to another seat since I am asthmatic and
> perfumes are well known to be a common trigger. Note that there is far
> more evidence on this than on any potential interference from a GPSR. In
> fact the wearing of any oder releasing substance should be prohibited on
> all aircraft.
I know where you're coming from. I have been banned from three airlines
now. And for WHAT? I swear, you get loaded and crap on one drinks cart,
and they're all over you for the rest of your life.
| |
| Ted Edwards 2006-07-25, 3:33 pm |
| Papa wrote:
> Anything you say, Al - after all, you are obviously the expert - as was
> Boeing regarding their early denials of a possible spark inside the fuselage
> fuel tank of TWA Flight 800.
It has become clear that you are an anal fool with no technical
knowledge. Do you know how many nanowatts of pwer are radiated by a
GPSR. Do you know what frequencies ILS, DME, VOR or, for that matter,
GPS operates at? All I have seen you write in this thread is ignorant
bleating not worthy of any further discussion - no references, no
calculations.
Bye.
Ted
| |
|
|
| Ted Edwards 2006-07-25, 3:33 pm |
| Lizard@Lair.com wrote:
> PS-Look into the cockpit as you board planes. Lots of pilots have
> their personal GPS units sitting in plain view in the cockpit.
A pity the crew on an airliner that crashed off South America didn't
have and use such. The cause of the crash was determined to be duct
tape over the static vent. It had been put there to avoid getting
anything into the tubing but was forgotten. It was a night flight and
the pilots brief walk-around failed to notice the grey tape it against
the bare aluminum. The resultant conflicting information caused a great
deal of confusion.
Ted
| |
|
|
"Ted Edwards" <Ted_Espamless@telus.net> wrote in message
news:USuxg.174547$771.113015@edtnps89...
> Lizard@Lair.com wrote:
>
> A pity the crew on an airliner that crashed off South America didn't have
> and use such. The cause of the crash was determined to be duct tape over
> the static vent. It had been put there to avoid getting anything into the
> tubing but was forgotten. It was a night flight and the pilots brief
> walk-around failed to notice the grey tape it against the bare aluminum.
> The resultant conflicting information caused a great deal of confusion.
>
> Ted
But shouldn't have. EVERY beginning instrument pilot is taught how to fly
Partial Panel, (instruments not working), and they are taught to recognize
which instruments have failed. If at any time either pilot had resorted to
controlling the aircraft by reference to the attitude indicator, this
accident need not have happened.
Forget the computer, fly the airplane.
Al G
| |
| Cynicor 2006-07-25, 10:33 pm |
| Al wrote:
> Forget the computer, fly the airplane.
And then when you do that, you won't need to worry about a GPS device
interfering with the computer at all!
| |
| Cynicor 2006-07-25, 10:33 pm |
| Al wrote:
> Forget the computer, fly the airplane.
And then when you do that, you won't need to worry about a GPS device
interfering with the computer at all!
| |
|
|
"Ted Edwards" <Ted_Espamless@telus.net> wrote in message
news:XUtxg.174534$771.46053@edtnps89...
> Papa wrote:
>
> Including yours. Quit blathering and get busy looking for official
> reports from the FAA and FCC.
>
> Ted
Of course. And what action do you suggest? I've been looking, and have not
seen anything definitive yet.
| |
|
|
"Ted Edwards" <Ted_Espamless@telus.net> wrote in message
news:Qbuxg.135860$I61.31325@clgrps13...
> Papa wrote:
>
> It has become clear that you are an anal fool with no technical knowledge.
> Do you know how many nanowatts of pwer are radiated by a GPSR. Do you
> know what frequencies ILS, DME, VOR or, for that matter, GPS operates at?
> All I have seen you write in this thread is ignorant bleating not worthy
> of any further discussion - no references, no calculations.
>
> Bye.
>
> Ted
Sorry if I upset you. Sometimes the truth is hard to accept.
| |
|
|
"Ted Edwards" <Ted_Espamless@telus.net> wrote in message
news:X%txg.174536$771.5661@edtnps89...
> Papa wrote:
>
> So it is my right to ask you to remove your after shave lotion(or logical
> equivalent) or move to another seat since I am asthmatic and perfumes are
> well known to be a common trigger. Note that there is far more evidence
> on this than on any potential interference from a GPSR. In fact the
> wearing of any oder releasing substance should be prohibited on all
> aircraft.
>
> Ted
And your technical point is??
| |
| St. John Smythe 2006-07-25, 10:33 pm |
| Papa wrote to Ted:
> Sorry if I upset you. Sometimes the truth is hard to accept.
You can't *handle* the truth.
--
St. John
Apologies to Jack Nicholson
| |
|
|
"St. John Smythe" <sinjen@n4vu.com> wrote in message
news:ea6d42$5sk$25@n
4vu2.n4vu.com...
> Papa wrote to Ted:
>
>
> You can't *handle* the truth.
That was a very good movie.
| |
| kashe@sonic.net 2006-07-26, 4:33 am |
| On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 21:57:31 GMT, "Papa" <bikingis@my.fun> wrote:
>
>"Ted Edwards" <Ted_Espamless@telus.net> wrote in message
>news:X%txg.174536$771.5661@edtnps89...
>
>And your technical point is??
>
Clearly too deep for you to grasp.
| |
|
|
"Roy" <roybassist@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1153886204.076944.145200@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Papa wrote:
>
> While I can't offer you the sort of engineering report you would like
> to see, the following article explains why such a report would be of
> little value.
>
> <http://www.issues.org/issues/19.2/strauss.htm>
>
> For those who don't want to read the entire article, I'll quote:
>
> "In addition, devices that individually test as reliable may exhibit
> problems when operated together. RF interference with aircraft systems
> can often involve very subtle interactions among a number of different
> system components, and such interference may be difficult or impossible
> to detect through routine testing and preflight checkout procedures."
>
> So even if GPS receivers were tested as you would like, it still
> wouldn't conclusively prove whether they are safe to use on aircraft,
> because of the possibility of interactions with other electronics.
> Please note, that this is equally true of all other portable electronic
> devices, including those that are universally allowed to be used
> (except during takeoff and landing) on commercial flights.
>
> One of your previous posts in this thread included this exchange:
>
>
>
>
> Well, how about this quote from the previously referenced article:
>
> "The FCC currently does not confer with the FAA when establishing RF
> emission standards for consumer devices."
>
> So the other portable electronic devices that are allowed have not been
> tested for their safety of use on aircraft (except by repeated
> real-world experience. More on that later.) So testing is not a basis
> to believe that other portable electronic devices are safer than GPS
> receivers.
>
> Please note that even though this article is copyrighted in 2006, the
> only mention of GPS is in connection with portable electronic devices
> possibly interfering with the system built into the aircraft. Handheld
> GPS receivers are not even mentioned in the discussion of devices that
> might pose a risk to aircraft operation. That could be just because GPS
> receivers are less commonly used, but the author is a technical person
> who I would expect to at least be aware of them. He is, however,
> obviously concerned about the other portable electronic devices which
> *are* currently allowed.
>
> Here is another article for you to consider. It is by the Boeing
> corporation:
>
> <http://www.boeing.com/commercial/ae...e_textonly.html>
>
>
> This article is from April, 2000. You can confirm that here:
>
> <http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/>
>
> Note that although the article includes three reports of suspected
> interference from portable electronic devices, the devices in question
> were again among the group that is universally permitted by airlines.
> No mention of GPS receivers, even though they had been allowed by many
> airlines and used by passengers for many years before this article was
> written.
>
> Notice the statement in the second paragraph: "However, PEDs are not
> subject to these same equipment qualification and certification
> processes." Again, this shows that the devices routinely permitted
> by most airlines have not passed any test for safety of use on
> commercial aircraft, same as GPS receivers.
>
> Boeing makes the distinction between portable electronic devices which
> are intentional transmitters and those which are non-intentional
> transmitters. GPS receivers are unintentional transmitters, along with
> laptop computers, PDAs, electronic games and toys, CD players and DVD
> players. Look at Boeing's recommendations:
>
> "Use of non-intentional transmitters should be prohibited during
> takeoff and landing (critical stages of flight).
>
> "Operation of non-intentional transmitters should be allowed for use
> during noncritical stages of flight unless the operator of the airplane
> has determined otherwise."
>
> So operation of GPS receivers when permitted by the airline is in
> compliance with Boeing's recommendation. Of course, not all
> aircraft are made by Boeing, but such use also is in compliance with
> the recommendations of the RTCA.
>
> So far, I've presented evidence to substantiate:
> Testing GPS units for safety of use on aircraft would prove nothing.
> Other portable electronic devices almost universally allowed have not
> been tested for safety of use on commercial aircraft.
> The FAA, the RTCA and Boeing all allow/permit/recommend allowing the
> use of unintentionally transmitting portable electronic devices, which
> includes GPS receivers, except during critical phases of flight.
> Devices which are routinely allowed by most airlines to be used during
> flight *have* been suspected of causing interference with aircraft
> systems, but no mention of GPS receivers has been made.
>
> I have spent hours with Google, trying to find *any* reports of GPS
> interference with aircraft operation. I haven't been able to find so
> much as a rumor of it. This despite the fact that many airlines have
> allowed passengers to operate GPS receivers when other portable
> electronic devices may be operated for at least 10 years. That is
> real-world testing; exactly the same kind of testing that other
> portable electronic devices have undergone. Presumably, this
> experience is with many types of GPS receivers and many types of
> aircraft, of different ages. Yet not a single documented report have I
> been able to find of any interference with aircraft systems caused by
> passenger use of GPS.
>
> Does this *prove* that GPS use on commercial aircraft is safe? No.
> The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But I'll take
> that huge body of real-world experience, together with the findings of
> the FAA, RTCA and Boeing, over any other kind of testing.
>
> In another post, you wrote:
>
>
> And in another:
>
>
> I'm not sure who you meant by "those that should be in the know".
> The airlines? Keep in mind that decisions such as whether to allow
> GPS receivers to be operated during flight ultimately may not be made
> by someone with a technical background. I would hope that such a
> person was at least consulted, but I suspect that the airline's legal
> department has a lot to do with it. It may simply be that the airlines
> which approve the use of GPS had a technical person who was a better
> communicator and made a better case to the attorneys. But I don't
> accept that just because some airlines prohibit GPS use the jury is
> still out on its safe use aboard aircraft.
>
> If the arguments I've presented here still don't convince you, then
> I doubt that anything ever will. If that is the case, I recommend that
> you fly on American Airlines or one of the other minority of airlines
> that continue to prohibit GPS use on their flights. We'll all be
> happier that way.
>
> And just because I thought it was an extremely well-written post that
> seems to have received little attention in this discussion, I include
> the following:
>
> Jason Durbin wrote:
>
>
Excellent post Roy, I concur.
Al G
| |
| Charlie Sorsby 2006-07-26, 3:33 pm |
| In article <X%txg.174536$771.5661@edtnps89>,
Ted Edwards <Ted_Espamless@telus.net> wrote:
= Papa wrote:
= > It is my right to be nervous about something that can possibly effect
= > whether I live or die.
=
= So it is my right to ask you to remove your after shave lotion(or
= logical equivalent) or move to another seat since I am asthmatic and
= perfumes are well known to be a common trigger. Note that there is far
= more evidence on this than on any potential interference from a GPSR.
= In fact the wearing of any oder releasing substance should be prohibited
= on all aircraft.
Amen! Or in any other confined space!
--
Charlie Sorsby
crs@swcp.com
Edgewood, NM 87015
USA
| |
|
| Thanks for the info, Roy. Appreciated. I'll give it a thorough read - as
your post deserves.
|
|
|
|
|