Airplanes and scanners

[N_Jay]

. . .This is why the airlines had to come up with a responsible cell phone policy.
. . . .

Another misconception.

The receiver regulation PRE-DATE the existence of cell phones.

In addition, cell phone use from the air is an FCC issue, not an FAA issue.

 

[ind224]

Upon further review

Real testing needed to be and is being done. The same issues that get legal hams in hassles with neighbors cordless phones and stereos; poor sheilding and cheap 20% tol components. But someone else says "No, just ban everything." Hmmm.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/12/21/wired.airlines/index.html

And this from way back in '99 http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-501431.html?legacy=zdnn

I said airlines and that is what I meant.
They will need to work with FCC, FAA and any other "unbiased" no pun intended 3rd party testing group or commitee AND the airline passengers to make this work.

The pilot groups will have something to add; sorry I forgot to mention them.

 

[elk2370bruce]

Hello,Airlines should allow People taking Scanners on board aircraft because anyone can take a laptop or a mobile phone in which anyone off these devices can cause interference with instruments.

Regards Lino (Melbourne Australia)

Forget "should"... for it is just another word for WISH. The reality is that the answer remains NO and is unlikely to change. We can find all kinds of personal reasons for digging around in the pile of poop behind the horse but you're still not gonna find a pony in it.

 

[spiritwolfpr]

Hello Friends;

I travel a lot on American Airlines and a few
years back they gave me a lot of grief for
having my scanner on. the Airline mag
talks about beeper two way pagers cell phones
and things like that,but I could not find anything about
scanners.

 

[N_Jay]

Hello Friends;

I travel a lot on American Airlines and a few
years back they gave me a lot of grief for
having my scanner on. the Airline mag
talks about beeper two way pagers cell phones
and things like that,but I could not find anything about
scanners.

I am VERY SURE that they use the word "RECEIVER" or "RADIO".

Your "SCANNER" is both.

The list is not all inclusive, it is an example of COMMON devices.

 

[elk2370bruce]

Once again, this has become a circular discussion and the decisions have not changed. The airlines are extremely unlikely to modify their policies to suit the minority of us who are scanner and monitoring enthusiasts. As with the myriad of previous threads of this topic are conceptually identical, why not let it die the death that it deserves.

 

[nycrich]

What about the new Ramsey Airband receiver. It is being advertised for $160.00 and claims no interference with aircraft onboard electronics. From the ad it sounds like they are saying that it can be used on-board the aircraft, has no oscillator, etc. Claims that no tuning is required, picks up the strongest signal from the cockpit while you are flying, allowing you to follow your flight.

 

[N_Jay]

What about the new Ramsey Airband receiver. It is being advertised for $160.00 and claims no interference with aircraft onboard electronics. From the ad it sounds like they are saying that it can be used on-board the aircraft, has no oscillator, etc. Claims that no tuning is required, picks up the strongest signal from the cockpit while you are flying, allowing you to follow your flight.

1) It does not say it is legal on a COMMERCIAL aircraft.

2) The law does not have any exemptions for certain devices. (Even those that don't interfere)

3) It was discussed

 

[elk2370bruce]

Why is it that NO is a concept that cannot be comprehended? Whether or not the airlines' decision is "fair" or if a manufacturer makes any claims they wish to publish, they (the airlines) are in total control of this issue and the answer has been, remains, and is likely to continue decidedly in the negative. I doubt if the decision of the aircraft commander or flight attendants will be swayed by any of these points. You can always to try to test and beat the system and have the opportunity to get to know the Air Marshal on your flight on an up-close and personal basis. They (and the judge) will be very impressed by your technical acumen as they lead you to the waiting Durango and those drafty holding cells. The lavatory lawyer "but what if" arguments just don't hold any water nor is there any loophole in the existing policies. This is a waste of effort and has been debated ad nauseum here and elsewhere. Take it from those of who of us who spend a lot of domestic and foreign air miles every year. N Jay is wise... Take his experienced advice.

Nope. Nada. Negat. No Way Jose. No way Hose B. (etc.)

 

[trainman111]

Devices That Cannot Be Used on Board

Radios - AM, FM, VHF, battery or cord operated TV sets, TV cameras
Electronic games or toys with remote control, except those installed on the aircraft
Cordless computer mouse
Portable Global Positioning System (G.P.S.)

-That's right from the American Airlines website. I'm not sure what the other airlines' policies are but if you have some time on your hands feel free to look at the rest. Here's the link in case anyone wants to tell me I made it up. :wink:

http://www.aa.com/content/travelInf...GLIGT1BLEAJJM3U1DEQBFFT4VMD?anchorEvent=false

 

[Scott_PHX_APP]

Hey Nick,
Are you over on Railroad Forums too?

 

[AZScanner]

Now THAT'S cool... anyone here have one? I'd like to know how well they work.

-AZ

 

[musicman476]

Been hashed through about 100 times.
-snip-

Amen to that! Seems like this is definitely one topic that keeps recurring on this forum. Any chance we could get a sticky with just the pertient facts and/or a link to the subject in Wiki? Just a thought....

-DT

 

[Newark777]

http://www.aa.com/content/travelInf...GLIGT1BLEAJJM3U1DEQBFFT4VMD?anchorEvent=false

One line on that sums up the situation quite nicely:

While electronic disruptions in the cockpit are rare, they simply cannot be tolerated at any time.

 

[elk2370bruce]

Excellent closing Cliffnote!!!! Hope this ends the topic for another three or four months.

 

[N_Jay]

Excellent closing Cliffnote!!!! Hope this ends the topic for another three or four months.

You mean 3 to 4 weeks, right??

Or was it 3 to 4 days?:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[trainman111]

Hey Nick,
Are you over on Railroad Forums too?

I sure am!

 

[Scott_PHX_APP]

Who? Same Name?

 

[elk2370bruce]

You mean 3 to 4 weeks, right??

Or was it 3 to 4 days?:lol: :lol: :lol:

Well, I was trying to be kind and positive for a change. Perhaps we should save our answers and re-post them in their entirety for those who can't figure out how to find a Wiki, have not bothered to look for similar topics, don't get the message or hoped that it changed from last time, or just trolling. Actually, I'm surprised that there isn't a new thread on the topic appearing already. Quien sabe?

 

[ind224]

No science (degree) required

So for all the "knowledge" the flapping lips have had in this thread,the FCC says they lack the technical "proof" on anything and will reinvestigate. Amazing. Who is supposed to fund this witch hunt or set the parameters. I say all the ones who just say "let it die" "just take no for an answer" etc.
But they (FCC) release the comments the public makes about having to listen to someone else on a phone. Yawn. Perhaps they use the same intelligence gathering used in Iraq. Oh wait, they are not DOING ANY FACT FINDING.
Our tax dollars at work yet again.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TRAVEL/04/03/cell.phones.airplanes.ap/index.html