1 2 3 4
AngryCorvair
AngryCorvair GRM+ Memberand PowerDork
1/8/13 11:15 a.m.
Datsun310Guy wrote: Debbie, please .......

can't believe we're on page 4 and nobody has said they'd hit that.

Keith Tanner
Keith Tanner GRM+ Memberand MegaDork
1/8/13 11:31 a.m.

They're probably afraid it would raise their rates.

pilotbraden wrote: I beg to differ. While wearing a David Clark or a Bose headset, a cell phone searching for a signal or being used, will make a loud popping or ticking noise in the speakers. One or two phones are bad, I can imagine an airliner full would be awful. This is very distracting and can interfere with communication. I have been told by other pilots that this happens with all headsets and over the cockpit speaker.

I used to keep my phone in a cubby in the dash of my Golf, both circa 2001. You could always tell when the phone was about to ring or an SMS was coming in as there would be a pattern of interference in the radio. Bzzt-bzt-bzzzt-bzzzt. I'd never thought about it doing the same thing on a plane, but that makes perfect sense.

N Sperlo
N Sperlo UltimaDork
1/8/13 11:44 a.m.

In reply to pilotbraden:

Well, the inference is not the reason for the law as it is written. Their actually talking about eliminating that law from what I understand anyway. I believe Myth Busters did a test on the instrumentation and the results showed no interference.

z31maniac
z31maniac PowerDork
1/8/13 11:48 a.m.
AngryCorvair wrote:
Datsun310Guy wrote: Debbie, please .......
can't believe we're on page 4 and nobody has said they'd hit that.

And with the avg SF agent making multiples of the avg household income, you could be her trophy husband while she supports your racing habit.

pres589
pres589 SuperDork
1/8/13 11:57 a.m.

Cell phones making "buggles" sound via interference is horrible on all sorts of intercoms. And the phone's radio would run at max power in a situation like being in a flying aircraft.

I don't think that's the reason this issue exists though, it's having not tested the combination of every phone on a specific airframe. Airframe manufacturer or an STC shop would have to show via many such devices being carried on with no ill effect to allow a general Personal Electronic Device (PED) waiver. A business jet manufacturer or mod shop could do that, and I'm pretty sure Airbus and related have as well. That's why the flight crew can call out in level flight that it's okay to use laptops after a certain point in flight.

1 2 3 4

You'll need to log in to post.

Our Preferred Partners
WuBLhsk0ov9gnAOZ4g6tYYoD8Okr56XPmT0sD4RB1rqsqZXPcUfloBBXa2JCoEAy