User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 7:42:33 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Outdated rule. Tillman is probably "that guy" on his HOA board.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 7:59:36 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Pilots may do that in a line environment but I wouldn't do it. TCAS wouldn't be a problem as it's always on for the most part. ACARS uses the #3 VHF for transmitting and receiving and don't understand what your airlines SOP is during refueling. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
1) Power is secured on all radio transmitting antennas and radar antennas and power switches are tagged. Maybe things are different today? To help put you at ease the fuel truck and aircraft are both grounded during refueling operations. Also, no communications, especially HF will not be used during refueling and for obvious reasons the radar will not be on. Edit: This is for airport ops, not ship borne ops. HF isn't used on ground, but comms and radios are constantly used during fueling. I just had an aircraft return to gate for a bleed air problem yesterday; the pilots called for more fuel while I was deferring it. TCAS was on, ACARS was being used to get an updated W&B and they were talking on the VHF while the plane was being fueled. This is done everyday. Pilots may do that in a line environment but I wouldn't do it. TCAS wouldn't be a problem as it's always on for the most part. ACARS uses the #3 VHF for transmitting and receiving and don't understand what your airlines SOP is during refueling. Understood, my point is radio transmissions are common while an aircraft is being fueled, regardless of antenna location or signal type. The rampers loading the bellies use motorola radios to communicate with each other within 20 feet of the wing vents and fuel truck. If you had to cease all radio transmissions for fueling, it would be impossible to turn an airplane in an hour. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 8:02:36 AM EDT
[#3]
My iPhone makes an obnoxious noise in my Bose headset, can't imagine 100 of them at once.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 8:03:44 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Has anyone EVER turned off their electronic devices? I don't even bother to put mine in Airplane mode now  I only turn off the radios to save battery power. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 8:07:13 AM EDT
[#5]
I never turn off my cell phone on a plane. I put it on airplane mode to save power, but that's it. And if the flight has Wi-Fi I don't even do that.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 8:15:38 AM EDT
[#6]
Most planes have onboard WiFi, and with that I've heard the crews say any device in airplane using the WiFi connection can stay powered up and connected during takeoff and landing.
This story is stupid and busy body passenger can choke on a bag of airplane peanut shaped dicks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 8:18:07 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Understood, my point is radio transmissions are common while an aircraft is being fueled, regardless of antenna location or signal type. The rampers loading the bellies use motorola radios to communicate with each other within 20 feet of the wing vents and fuel truck. If you had to cease all radio transmissions for fueling, it would be impossible to turn an airplane in an hour. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
1) Power is secured on all radio transmitting antennas and radar antennas and power switches are tagged. Maybe things are different today? To help put you at ease the fuel truck and aircraft are both grounded during refueling operations. Also, no communications, especially HF will not be used during refueling and for obvious reasons the radar will not be on. Edit: This is for airport ops, not ship borne ops. HF isn't used on ground, but comms and radios are constantly used during fueling. I just had an aircraft return to gate for a bleed air problem yesterday; the pilots called for more fuel while I was deferring it. TCAS was on, ACARS was being used to get an updated W&B and they were talking on the VHF while the plane was being fueled. This is done everyday. Pilots may do that in a line environment but I wouldn't do it. TCAS wouldn't be a problem as it's always on for the most part. ACARS uses the #3 VHF for transmitting and receiving and don't understand what your airlines SOP is during refueling. Understood, my point is radio transmissions are common while an aircraft is being fueled, regardless of antenna location or signal type. The rampers loading the bellies use motorola radios to communicate with each other within 20 feet of the wing vents and fuel truck. If you had to cease all radio transmissions for fueling, it would be impossible to turn an airplane in an hour. Those radios are intrinsically safe. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 8:20:34 AM EDT
[#8]
You really don't get any signal after a few thousand feet of altitude. Put it in airplane mode and save your battery.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 8:22:47 AM EDT
[#9]
Mythbusters busted this myth.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 8:30:53 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Those radios are intrinsically safe. Intrinsically safe has to do with the electronics and the switches. It can't do anything about static electricity as the poster used as the reason why phones shouldn't be used during fueling. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 8:34:27 AM EDT
[#11]
Tillman needs to mind his fucking own business....what a fuck face and douche bag.
I have flown 71 flights this year and I text all the time while on the ground.....we all know people just like Tillman.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 8:38:11 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Mythbusters busted this myth. Actually the it was done earlier in NASA and FAA tests studies. First in 2003 and then in 2012. From 2004 NASA paper about the 2003 study: Abstract This report compiles and analyzes tests that were conducted to measure cell phone spurious emissions in the Global Positioning System (GPS) radio frequency band that could affect the navigation system of an aircraft. The cell phone in question had, as reported to the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration), caused interference to several GPS receivers on-board a small single engine aircraft despite being compliant with data filed at the time with the FCC by the manufacturer. NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) and industry tests show that while there is an emission in the 1575 MHz GPS band due to a specific combination of amplifier output impedance and load impedance that induces instability in the power amplifier, these spurious emissions (i.e., not the intentional transmit signal) are similar to those measured on non-intentionally transmitting devices such as, for example, laptop computers. Additional testing on a wide sample of different commercial cell phones did not result in any emission in the 1575 MHz GPS Band above the noise floor of the measurement receiver. The real issue from the 2003 study was that the device (phone) radio jumps from tower to tower too fast for the cell companies to charge you for roaming (the phone is in line of sight - straight up - and moving at hundreds of miles per hour). The devices had bo effect on the aircraft systems. The 2012 study was study use of cellular devices on foreign carrier aircraft that had cell base stations on the aircraft. No issues. The FAA does not forbid it. They leave it up to the airline. The FCC does. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 8:38:58 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Intrinsically safe has to do with the electronics and the switches. It can't do anything about static electricity as the poster used as the reason why phones shouldn't be used during fueling. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Those radios are intrinsically safe. Intrinsically safe has to do with the electronics and the switches. It can't do anything about static electricity as the poster used as the reason why phones shouldn't be used during fueling. Understood. I was replying to his point about radios being used. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 9:12:53 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Those radios are intrinsically safe. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
To help put you at ease the fuel truck and aircraft are both grounded during refueling operations. Also, no communications, especially HF will not be used during refueling and for obvious reasons the radar will not be on. Edit: This is for airport ops, not ship borne ops. HF isn't used on ground, but comms and radios are constantly used during fueling. I just had an aircraft return to gate for a bleed air problem yesterday; the pilots called for more fuel while I was deferring it. TCAS was on, ACARS was being used to get an updated W&B and they were talking on the VHF while the plane was being fueled. This is done everyday. Pilots may do that in a line environment but I wouldn't do it. TCAS wouldn't be a problem as it's always on for the most part. ACARS uses the #3 VHF for transmitting and receiving and don't understand what your airlines SOP is during refueling. Understood, my point is radio transmissions are common while an aircraft is being fueled, regardless of antenna location or signal type. The rampers loading the bellies use motorola radios to communicate with each other within 20 feet of the wing vents and fuel truck. If you had to cease all radio transmissions for fueling, it would be impossible to turn an airplane in an hour. Those radios are intrinsically safe. The beat to shit Motorolas? Why are they safer than a cellphone? I don't see what the argument is here. Cobra is worried about pax using cellphones in the cabin while refuel is in progress. All I'm saying is radios and cellphones are used on the ramp everyday, around aircraft being fueled. This is real world experience, not theory. There is nothing to be concerned about. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 9:36:52 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Mythbusters busted this myth. Mythbusters...that's some Oracle of Delphi shit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 9:43:42 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Having your crap turned off was more about not being distracted during the times it was most critical you receive and follow instructions. (Crash on takeoff or landing.) The "interference" was always secondary, but it scared enough people into compliance. Now that we are a society that lives our lives glued to a 4-6 inch screen, there is no way to get compliance, so I think the FAA and airlines just conceded. As to the interference, yes, certain cell phones ATT, Tmobile for example, will cause interference in headsets and make it hard to hear ATC through the clicking they cause when actively transmitting. I've actually heard a voicemail being left for a "Dan" through my headset before. Potentially dangerous? Yes, but try telling the guy in 1st class he has to do anything that his all too important ass doesn't want to do and see what happens. (I don't think too highly of self-important pricks.) Just put the darn things in airplane mode for the short time you're asked to. And if you ever have to evac...leave your friggin bags behind. This. GSM phones cause interference in RF ranges much lower than their advertised carrier frequencies, due to how the GSM signal 'pulses' while transmitting. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 9:47:15 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The beat to shit Motorolas? Why are they safer than a cellphone? I don't see what the argument is here. Cobra is worried about pax using cellphones in the cabin while refuel is in progress. All I'm saying is radios and cellphones are used on the ramp everyday, around aircraft being fueled. This is real world experience, not theory. There is nothing to be concerned about. In addition to the radio, the batteries for intrinsically safe radios are designed differently, so if the battery and radio are separated (like when dropped) don't create a spark. This assumes the radios were ordered correctly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 9:47:15 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Has anyone EVER turned off their electronic devices? I don't even bother to put mine in Airplane mode now It's not a bullshit rule. Do we know this plane didn't have wifi? The cell signal can and does interfere with navigational instruments. It's a certain frequency range and not all phones mess with them, but given there's a chance they say turn them all off and you should. To be more specific it has to do with VOR/ILS freqs and not so much GPS IIRC, but do you really want to take a chance of drifting a little too far left or right when simultaneous runways are being used for takeoff and the airport is busy? Turn it off FFS. lol |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 10:09:55 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This. GSM phones cause interference in RF ranges much lower than their advertised carrier frequencies, due to how the GSM signal 'pulses' while transmitting. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Having your crap turned off was more about not being distracted during the times it was most critical you receive and follow instructions. (Crash on takeoff or landing.) The "interference" was always secondary, but it scared enough people into compliance. Now that we are a society that lives our lives glued to a 4-6 inch screen, there is no way to get compliance, so I think the FAA and airlines just conceded. As to the interference, yes, certain cell phones ATT, Tmobile for example, will cause interference in headsets and make it hard to hear ATC through the clicking they cause when actively transmitting. I've actually heard a voicemail being left for a "Dan" through my headset before. Potentially dangerous? Yes, but try telling the guy in 1st class he has to do anything that his all too important ass doesn't want to do and see what happens. (I don't think too highly of self-important pricks.) Just put the darn things in airplane mode for the short time you're asked to. And if you ever have to evac...leave your friggin bags behind. This. GSM phones cause interference in RF ranges much lower than their advertised carrier frequencies, due to how the GSM signal 'pulses' while transmitting. I've never heard headset interference. The test I saw conducted was with cellphones and VOR, ILS and ADF navigational equipment. A host of different cell phones were used. Some of them actually caused the equipment to move the needle in the instruments. Just to be clear if I didn't say it before, it's a rare thing. The test only showed a few phones out of a bunch that interfered, but given there's a chance of it messing with instruments it's better to have it off during critical phases of flight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 10:31:51 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
With small radios you can easily light a fluorescent lightbulb (incidentally this is why radio geeks are such great fun at parties). HF radios can put out several hundred watts of power - this makes them more likely to generate a spark that can jump the gap between say a refueling nozzle and the refueling port/tank, igniting fuel vapors and ruining everyone's day. HF antenna designs which use the aircraft itself to radiate part of the energy can further increase the chance of a spark  https://youtu.be/gct1BmKNvU0You got the tank icon, you should know that, the instances are rare
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I was delayed one time, for some reason the back doors were open for the service trucks, we were refueling, every friggin pax was on their phone. It is pretty unsafe to be using "radio type" devices during refueling. there have been cases of static discharge from radios. I always cringe when I see people running their engines, talking on the cellphone while gassing up 
You think a cell phone is going to set jet fuel on fire? HF antenna designs which use the aircraft itself to radiate part of the energy can further increase the chance of a spark https://youtu.be/gct1BmKNvU0You got the tank icon, you should know that, the instances are rare
I'm not a pilot but I have a pretty good understanding of electricity. You don't. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 10:36:28 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Tillman needs to mind his fucking own business....what a fuck face and douche bag. I have flown 71 flights this year and I text all the time while on the ground.....we all know people just like Tillman.... I flew back a few months ago next to these two diamond members on Delta (which shoot me in the face I got stuck on Delta), and they were both carrying on about how they want to knock people out who are using their phones on the plane and this new rule is going to kill us all. I was just flabbergasted that two people who fly so much could be so damn dumb about the stupid electronics rules. Note that both of them still did their due diligence and turned their phones off.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 10:47:52 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I flew back a few months ago next to these two diamond members on Delta (which shoot me in the face I got stuck on Delta), and they were both carrying on about how they want to knock people out who are using their phones on the plane and this new rule is going to kill us all. I was just flabbergasted that two people who fly so much could be so damn dumb about the stupid electronics rules. Note that both of them still did their due diligence and turned their phones off.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Tillman needs to mind his fucking own business....what a fuck face and douche bag. I have flown 71 flights this year and I text all the time while on the ground.....we all know people just like Tillman.... I flew back a few months ago next to these two diamond members on Delta (which shoot me in the face I got stuck on Delta), and they were both carrying on about how they want to knock people out who are using their phones on the plane and this new rule is going to kill us all. I was just flabbergasted that two people who fly so much could be so damn dumb about the stupid electronics rules. Note that both of them still did their due diligence and turned their phones off.
I just flew SouthWest yesterday for work on WiFi planes. It was great with live and recorded TV on devices up to two pounds you could have on from gate to gate. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 11:17:42 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's bullshit if there was a chance of a cellphone putting a plane in the drink they wouldn't let them on. That's what I'm thinking. And TSA gives people shit over chapstick and hand sanitizer...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 11:18:38 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You heard a voicemail from someone's phone on your headset? Unless it was an ancient analog set that's not possible. Everything from GSM forward has been digital and encrypted. It was from the cockpit of an E145, in 2006 or 2007. I heard it, don't know what else to tell ya. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 11:27:52 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Having your crap turned off was more about not being distracted during the times it was most critical you receive and follow instructions. (Crash on takeoff or landing.) The "interference" was always secondary, but it scared enough people into compliance. Now that we are a society that lives our lives glued to a 4-6 inch screen, there is no way to get compliance, so I think the FAA and airlines just conceded. As to the interference, yes, certain cell phones ATT, Tmobile for example, will cause interference in headsets and make it hard to hear ATC through the clicking they cause when actively transmitting. I've actually heard a voicemail being left for a "Dan" through my headset before. Potentially dangerous? Yes, but try telling the guy in 1st class he has to do anything that his all too important ass doesn't want to do and see what happens. (I don't think too highly of self-important pricks.) Just put the darn things in airplane mode for the short time you're asked to. And if you ever have to evac...leave your friggin bags behind. I've never understood the "OMG I'M SO IMPORTANT I HAVE TO BE ON MY PHONE MR BIG BUSINESS" folks at all. I'm connected constantly. I actually look forward to hitting airplane mode once the door shuts so I get a few minutes of peace and quiet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 11:32:54 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hasn't been done that way for 20 years that I know of. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
1) Power is secured on all radio transmitting antennas and radar antennas and power switches are tagged. Maybe things are different today? Hasn't been done that way for 20 years that I know of. A simple question about cell phones on airplanes and now we're arguing about how the Navy does underway replenishment...ARFCOM!!!* Per that guy who used to have Leonidas yelling "ARCOM!!!" in his avatar. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 11:34:17 AM EDT
[#27]
They are forbidden during take off and landing but 100,000 people inside the airport and driving down the freeways around the airport can use them with no problems to the aircraft.
How many other signals do you think are in the air around an airport? I have no idea, but I bet it is a bunch. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 11:46:07 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hey somebody's gotta keep those terminal window gawkers warm and tingly
I suspect he's talking about running radar during ship to ship refueling operations. Bingo! |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 11:51:21 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's not a bullshit rule. Do we know this plane didn't have wifi? The cell signal can and does interfere with navigational instruments. It's a certain frequency range and not all phones mess with them, but given there's a chance they say turn them all off and you should. To be more specific it has to do with VOR/ILS freqs and not so much GPS IIRC, but do you really want to take a chance of drifting a little too far left or right when simultaneous runways are being used for takeoff and the airport is busy? Turn it off FFS. lol Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Has anyone EVER turned off their electronic devices? I don't even bother to put mine in Airplane mode now It's not a bullshit rule. Do we know this plane didn't have wifi? The cell signal can and does interfere with navigational instruments. It's a certain frequency range and not all phones mess with them, but given there's a chance they say turn them all off and you should. To be more specific it has to do with VOR/ILS freqs and not so much GPS IIRC, but do you really want to take a chance of drifting a little too far left or right when simultaneous runways are being used for takeoff and the airport is busy? Turn it off FFS. lol Cell phones providing interference in VHF?? No. The aircraft has VHF radios that provide *FAR* more interference than a cell phone could ever hope to create, if a cell phone were capable of transmitting in that range (they're not), or had an antenna that could do anything in that range (they don't). |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 11:52:25 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It was from the cockpit of an E145, in 2006 or 2007. I heard it, don't know what else to tell ya. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You heard a voicemail from someone's phone on your headset? Unless it was an ancient analog set that's not possible. Everything from GSM forward has been digital and encrypted. It was from the cockpit of an E145, in 2006 or 2007. I heard it, don't know what else to tell ya. You didn't hear a cell phone. I don't know what it was, maybe a cordless phone on the ground or something else really weird, but you didn't hear a cell phone in your headset. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 11:58:43 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As I understand it, Cell phones and other things emit signals that have potential to cause error. As the FAA can't verify every single device to confirm whether or not that particular device will do that, so they paint the subject with a huge brush. Aka _ not for take off or landing. In reality, I've never, ever seen it to be an issue, and I 've been flying for over a decade, 7 professionally. But still, I don't want you to think I'm advocating disobeying the FAA.
It really is in the best interest for everyone if you just airplane mode it. Pretty much this. We've all heard interference when our phone is near a speaker and we get a message/call, etc. Obviously communications in the busy airport environment can be critical, but instrument landing systems (ILS) also operate off of radio frequencies to transmit very precise lateral and vertical location to landing airplanes. They're the navigation systems that allow pilots to fly an aircraft completely blind through the weather down to 200 feet (or in some cases, 100 feet or even all the way to the runway, depending on how advanced the equipment at the airfield and on the aircraft is.) So any interference with those signals could potentially cause a crash. I doubt phones would ever interfere with an ILS, or even significantly interfere with any communications, but none of them are flight tested to demonstrate that they won't. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 12:00:09 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This. Unless they went back and checked cell activity, how does the "witness" know what someone else is actually doing with their phone? Most of the people I see using them during taxi/takeoff are playing games. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The passenger could have had their cellphone in airplane mode which is fully compliant with airline rules now. Not defending the narcing just offering a possibility that doesn't seem as derpy. This. Unless they went back and checked cell activity, how does the "witness" know what someone else is actually doing with their phone? Most of the people I see using them during taxi/takeoff are playing games. Do you not see the contradiction here? You can see somebody send a text message as easily as you can see them playing a game. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 12:00:45 PM EDT
[#33]
Personally I've always enjoyed the thought that I couldn't be reached while flying.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 12:01:23 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You didn't hear a cell phone. I don't know what it was, maybe a cordless phone on the ground or something else really weird, but you didn't hear a cell phone in your headset. I used to have external speakers on my computer that would make a buzz just before I received a call on my cell phone, but i would also occasionally hear people either on a CB or two-way radio when they drove down the highway in front of my office. That hasn't happened since I dumped those cheap ass speakers. How in the world was that happening? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 12:02:26 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I just flew SouthWest yesterday for work on WiFi planes. It was great with live and recorded TV on devices up to two pounds you could have on from gate to gate. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Tillman needs to mind his fucking own business....what a fuck face and douche bag. I have flown 71 flights this year and I text all the time while on the ground.....we all know people just like Tillman.... I flew back a few months ago next to these two diamond members on Delta (which shoot me in the face I got stuck on Delta), and they were both carrying on about how they want to knock people out who are using their phones on the plane and this new rule is going to kill us all. I was just flabbergasted that two people who fly so much could be so damn dumb about the stupid electronics rules. Note that both of them still did their due diligence and turned their phones off. I just flew SouthWest yesterday for work on WiFi planes. It was great with live and recorded TV on devices up to two pounds you could have on from gate to gate. I wish my work would pay for a yearly gogo inflight pass.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 12:03:31 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
the rules exist so you cannot video airline employees. Like you can't video a Chicago cop. You can use the camera/record feature of your phone all you want on an airplane during any phase of flight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 12:09:14 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Most planes have onboard WiFi, and with that I've heard the crews say any device in airplane using the WiFi connection can stay powered up and connected during takeoff and landing. This story is stupid and busy body passenger can choke on a bag of airplane peanut shaped dicks. The wifi on all of those flights is disabled below 10,000 feet, per FCC requirements. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 12:09:54 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Understood, my point is radio transmissions are common while an aircraft is being fueled, regardless of antenna location or signal type. The rampers loading the bellies use motorola radios to communicate with each other within 20 feet of the wing vents and fuel truck. If you had to cease all radio transmissions for fueling, it would be impossible to turn an airplane in an hour. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
1) Power is secured on all radio transmitting antennas and radar antennas and power switches are tagged. Maybe things are different today? To help put you at ease the fuel truck and aircraft are both grounded during refueling operations. Also, no communications, especially HF will not be used during refueling and for obvious reasons the radar will not be on. Edit: This is for airport ops, not ship borne ops. HF isn't used on ground, but comms and radios are constantly used during fueling. I just had an aircraft return to gate for a bleed air problem yesterday; the pilots called for more fuel while I was deferring it. TCAS was on, ACARS was being used to get an updated W&B and they were talking on the VHF while the plane was being fueled. This is done everyday. Pilots may do that in a line environment but I wouldn't do it. TCAS wouldn't be a problem as it's always on for the most part. ACARS uses the #3 VHF for transmitting and receiving and don't understand what your airlines SOP is during refueling. Understood, my point is radio transmissions are common while an aircraft is being fueled, regardless of antenna location or signal type. The rampers loading the bellies use motorola radios to communicate with each other within 20 feet of the wing vents and fuel truck. If you had to cease all radio transmissions for fueling, it would be impossible to turn an airplane in an hour. Good point, I would like to see any data concerning interference with the aircraft's electrical system and cell phones. I'm curious where the airlines adopted this rule. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 12:10:08 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You think we turn off our radios and radars?
You realize I run those radars, right? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I was delayed one time, for some reason the back doors were open for the service trucks, we were refueling, every friggin pax was on their phone. It is pretty unsafe to be using "radio type" devices during refueling. there have been cases of static discharge from radios. I always cringe when I see people running their engines, talking on the cellphone while gassing up
You think a cell phone is going to set jet fuel on fire? You think we turn off our radios and radars?
You realize I run those radars, right? You should write an article for duffleblog about 2 Navy ships sinking with this premise. It could be glorious. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 12:38:08 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I used to have external speakers on my computer that would make a buzz just before I received a call on my cell phone, but i would also occasionally hear people either on a CB or two-way radio when they drove down the highway in front of my office. That hasn't happened since I dumped those cheap ass speakers. How in the world was that happening? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You didn't hear a cell phone. I don't know what it was, maybe a cordless phone on the ground or something else really weird, but you didn't hear a cell phone in your headset. I used to have external speakers on my computer that would make a buzz just before I received a call on my cell phone, but i would also occasionally hear people either on a CB or two-way radio when they drove down the highway in front of my office. That hasn't happened since I dumped those cheap ass speakers. How in the world was that happening? Analog vs digital + non-shielded wires. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 12:41:59 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The wifi on all of those flights is disabled below 10,000 feet, per FCC requirements. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Most planes have onboard WiFi, and with that I've heard the crews say any device in airplane using the WiFi connection can stay powered up and connected during takeoff and landing. This story is stupid and busy body passenger can choke on a bag of airplane peanut shaped dicks. The wifi on all of those flights is disabled below 10,000 feet, per FCC requirements. That's news to me. I just used it yesterday gate to gate twice. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 12:44:22 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's news to me. I just used it yesterday gate to gate twice. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Most planes have onboard WiFi, and with that I've heard the crews say any device in airplane using the WiFi connection can stay powered up and connected during takeoff and landing. This story is stupid and busy body passenger can choke on a bag of airplane peanut shaped dicks. The wifi on all of those flights is disabled below 10,000 feet, per FCC requirements. That's news to me. I just used it yesterday gate to gate twice. Might depend on airline, USAir/American shuts it off below 10k and I *think* I recall Delta making the same announcement. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 12:45:23 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I used to have external speakers on my computer that would make a buzz just before I received a call on my cell phone, but i would also occasionally hear people either on a CB or two-way radio when they drove down the highway in front of my office. That hasn't happened since I dumped those cheap ass speakers. How in the world was that happening? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You didn't hear a cell phone. I don't know what it was, maybe a cordless phone on the ground or something else really weird, but you didn't hear a cell phone in your headset. I used to have external speakers on my computer that would make a buzz just before I received a call on my cell phone, but i would also occasionally hear people either on a CB or two-way radio when they drove down the highway in front of my office. That hasn't happened since I dumped those cheap ass speakers. How in the world was that happening? You were hearing GSM establishing the connection to ring the phone. Gsm noise is well known, but you're not going to hear voice from GSM in your headset as interference. It's not possible. As to the other, look at the freq range and type of signal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 12:49:20 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Has anyone EVER turned off their electronic devices? I don't even bother to put mine in Airplane mode now Same, if a cell device was even remotely dangerous to a flight they wouldn't allow them anywhere near the plane. They just don't want you distracted by them during pre-flight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 12:50:29 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Might depend on airline, USAir/American shuts it off below 10k and I *think* I recall Delta making the same announcement. That's the funny thing often when the airline personnel say "In accordance with FAA regulations..." what they really mean is that their operating systems under which they operate (which are approved by the FAA in the course of their certification) state X. For example I'm pretty sure that there isn't actually something written in part 121 that says you can only have one carry on and one personal bag yet they can say with a straight face that FAA regulations limit them to that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 12:51:08 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's the funny thing often when the airline personnel say "In accordance with FAA regulations..." what they really mean is that their operating systems under which they operate (which are approved by the FAA in the course of their certification) state X. For example I'm pretty sure that there isn't actually something written in part 121 that says you can only have one carry on and one personal bag yet they can say with a straight face that FAA regulations limit them to that. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Might depend on airline, USAir/American shuts it off below 10k and I *think* I recall Delta making the same announcement. That's the funny thing often when the airline personnel say "In accordance with FAA regulations..." what they really mean is that their operating systems under which they operate (which are approved by the FAA in the course of their certification) state X. For example I'm pretty sure that there isn't actually something written in part 121 that says you can only have one carry on and one personal bag yet they can say with a straight face that FAA regulations limit them to that. Good point. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 1:13:59 PM EDT
[#47]
That myth has been busted as far as phones interfering with the plane itself. Though it is a good to put it into airplane mode, otherwise your phone will continue to search for a signal and drain the battery pretty fast.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 1:15:06 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's news to me. I just used it yesterday gate to gate twice. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Most planes have onboard WiFi, and with that I've heard the crews say any device in airplane using the WiFi connection can stay powered up and connected during takeoff and landing. This story is stupid and busy body passenger can choke on a bag of airplane peanut shaped dicks. The wifi on all of those flights is disabled below 10,000 feet, per FCC requirements. That's news to me. I just used it yesterday gate to gate twice. Me too about 3 weeks ago. Might me a new exception to the rule? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 1:40:10 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Me too about 3 weeks ago. Might me a new exception to the rule? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Most planes have onboard WiFi, and with that I've heard the crews say any device in airplane using the WiFi connection can stay powered up and connected during takeoff and landing. This story is stupid and busy body passenger can choke on a bag of airplane peanut shaped dicks. The wifi on all of those flights is disabled below 10,000 feet, per FCC requirements. That's news to me. I just used it yesterday gate to gate twice. Me too about 3 weeks ago. Might me a new exception to the rule? Then either the software in the onboard wifi was experiencing a glitch or perhaps your phones/device picked up signal that was ground based, or other. In any event, the policy for my airline is that the wifi will be disabled below 10,000. I do believe that is the normal SOP for all of them |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 1:50:28 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This. Sounds like if you are wanting to go up and dry hump a radar array or radio antenna or go around engine exhaust stacks. Yeah, power should be secured so your nuts or retinas aren't cooked. Doesn't necessarily sound like it's part of the replenishment. Seems kind of out of place in that list actually. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You are correct, only for persons climbing up that high This. Sounds like if you are wanting to go up and dry hump a radar array or radio antenna or go around engine exhaust stacks. Yeah, power should be secured so your nuts or retinas aren't cooked. Doesn't necessarily sound like it's part of the replenishment. Seems kind of out of place in that list actually. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
