«

"Paul Cordes" <late*> wrote in message
news:Bto7b.11017$. net...
>
> "Tom Thackrey" <> wrote in message
> news:Zbo7b.682$.. .
> >
> > You seem to be partly right. The FAA reg
> > 14 CFR - CHAPTER I - PART 121 § 121.306 Portable electronic devices.
> > says that airlines must determine which devices do not interfer with
> > instruments/radios before they can allow their use inflight.

> Thanks for that. That's more of a rule than I thought existed. So the
> airlines do have some authority to decide the issue and thus, you should
not
> attempt to do something they don't want you to do.

Interfering with a flight crew is a serious Federal offense. I assume that
other countries have similar rules. It does not matter if you do not think
you are interfering: if *they* think you are interfering, you are
interfering, and they can (and lately, will) have you arrested when you
reach the ground. You may or may not be prosecuted, but teach you a lesson,
they will.

If they tell you to turn something off, and you won't, you are interfering
with the flight crew, even if there is no FAA or airline policy which says
you have to. They have almost unlimited authority while the plane is in the
air (rather like the captain and crew of a ship.) If you disagree, simply
politely obey their directives and then sue the bejeezus out of them when
you get home. But don't argue with them if they repeat their directive after
you state your objection. Keep in mind also that these are nervous times and
if other passengers think you are fighting with the flight crew, they may
take it into their heads to do something about it.

D

I was on a KLM flight in June, where they announced that any
electronic device **with an antenna** was non-grata during take-off
and landing. Note this would include any laptop with wireless
networking functionality.

/Hans

"Paul Cordes" <late*> wrote in message news:<Bto7b.11017$ .net>...
> "Tom Thackrey" <> wrote in message
> news:Zbo7b.682$.. .
> >
> > You seem to be partly right. The FAA reg
> > 14 CFR - CHAPTER I - PART 121 § 121.306 Portable electronic devices.
> > says that airlines must determine which devices do not interfer with
> > instruments/radios before they can allow their use inflight.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Tom Thackrey
> > www.creative-light.com
>
> Thanks for that. That's more of a rule than I thought existed. So the
> airlines do have some authority to decide the issue and thus, you should not
> attempt to do something they don't want you to do.

"Paul Cordes" <late*> writes:

> My understanding is that this is the airlines equivilent of an urban
> legend. I.e. the airlines believe that consumer electronics will
> interfere with the flight instruments. But there is no evidence.

It is no urban legend. I have personally had a 30-45 degree error induced
into navigation gear by on board electronics.

> The airlines make these rules. Every airline is different. There is no
> evidence that anything you carry and use will cause a problem.

See above.

> The FAA has no rule.

The FAA does have rules, and testing procedures. Got a FAA type aproval
for your camera? And if you do, if the PIC says jump, you jump.

> The FCC has no rule.
> Never the less, turn it off, as the flight crew has no sense of
> humor about this and will have you arrested if you make yourself a
> problem.

See above. I think the penalty is a max of 10 years or so, if you
don't get done over as a terroist by the Arsecroft goons.

--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (0 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.

Jason O'Rourke wrote:

> Don't forget to turn off your digital wristwatch too!
>
Modern film cameras often contain a fair bit of electronics as well. Oh
and if you have a heart pacemaker perhaps you should shut that off as
well. ;o)

The question is not whether a device contains electronics, but whether
it emits a significant amount of radio energy, which might interfere
with the planes systems. I very much doubt that a digital camera does
emit enough radio energy to do any harm.

Of course the airline's security staff might _claim_ such a risk, but
my experience is that security personal are usually minimum wage,
"rent-a-cop" thickos. The other airline staff who might make such
claims are the PR department, who are usually much better turned out
than the security goons, but even dimmer on technical matters.

Brian Rumary, England

http://freespace.virgin.net/brian.rumary/homepage.htm

On 10-Sep-2003, B.Rumary <> wrote:

> Jason O'Rourke wrote:
>
> > Don't forget to turn off your digital wristwatch too!
> >
> Modern film cameras often contain a fair bit of electronics as well. Oh
> and if you have a heart pacemaker perhaps you should shut that off as
> well. ;o)
>
> The question is not whether a device contains electronics, but whether
> it emits a significant amount of radio energy, which might interfere
> with the planes systems. I very much doubt that a digital camera does
> emit enough radio energy to do any harm.
>
> Of course the airline's security staff might _claim_ such a risk, but
> my experience is that security personal are usually minimum wage,
> "rent-a-cop" thickos. The other airline staff who might make such
> claims are the PR department, who are usually much better turned out
> than the security goons, but even dimmer on technical matters.
>
> Brian Rumary, England

I doubt if either PR or Security at any airline has anything to do with the
in-flight portable electronic device rules. I would expect it to be handled
by the Chief Pilot or Flight Operations, neither of whom suffer the problems
you describe.

Pacemakers are specifically allowed by the FAR.

--
Tom Thackrey
www.creative-light.com

Jason O'Rourke wrote:

> Don't forget to turn off your digital wristwatch too!
>
Modern film cameras often contain a fair bit of electronics as well. Oh
and if you have a heart pacemaker perhaps you should shut that off as
well. ;o)

The question is not whether a device contains electronics, but whether
it emits a significant amount of radio energy, which might interfere
with the planes systems. I very much doubt that a digital camera does
emit enough radio energy to do any harm.

Of course the airline's security staff might _claim_ such a risk, but
my experience is that security personal are usually minimum wage,
"rent-a-cop" thickos. The other airline staff who might make such
claims are the PR department, who are usually much better turned out
than the security goons, but even dimmer on technical matters.

Brian Rumary, England

http://freespace.virgin.net/brian.rumary/homepage.htm

Tom Thackrey wrote:

> You are wrong it is an FAA rule.
>
>
http://www.orientaviation.com/pages/...EDSSafety.html

I read that article. Can you point to where it mentions
an FAA rule? I read about a conference in Bangkok
but no existing rule.

"Boomer" <> wrote in message
news:nE-dnQBqI5cbGP2iU-...
> Tom Thackrey wrote:
>
> > You are wrong it is an FAA rule.
> >
> >
>
http://www.orientaviation.com/pages/...EDSSafety.html
>
> I read that article. Can you point to where it mentions
> an FAA rule? I read about a conference in Bangkok
> but no existing rule.


The FAA reg
14 CFR - CHAPTER I - PART 121 § 121.306 Portable electronic devices.
says that airlines must determine which devices do not interfer with
instruments/radios before they can allow their use inflight.

From Tom's reply above. So the rule allows the airlines to make
rules......which probably explains the variation from airline to airline.

PC