Scanners Aboard Commercial Aircraft

[AerialEars]

All the commercial airlines I've flown prohibit the use of radio receivers during the entire flight. Anyone know of any airlines that permit radio receivers?

I'm assuming that the airlines are concerned, in this instance, about controling information more than intereference. I can't imagine a scanning or any other type of receiver being near as dirty RF-wise as a laptop computer. And what about passengers who forget to turn off their cellphones-that's actually a transmitter!

I guess it would cause sheer pandemonium if the passengers found out about mechanical trouble or other in-flight emergencies because of a scanner listener.

Will appreciate conformation on my theory from those in the know.

Thanks, Greg

 

[N_Jay]

All the commercial airlines I've flown prohibit the use of radio receivers during the entire flight. Anyone know of any airlines that permit radio receivers?

I'm assuming that the airlines are concerned, in this instance, about controling information more than intereference. I can't imagine a scanning or any other type of receiver being near as dirty RF-wise as a laptop computer. And what about passengers who forget to turn off their cellphones-that's actually a transmitter!

I guess it would cause sheer pandemonium if the passengers found out about mechanical trouble or other in-flight emergencies because of a scanner listener.

Will appreciate conformation on my theory from those in the know.

Thanks, Greg

It has been well discussed. (MANY MANY TIMES)

It IS about interference.

It IS NOT about controlling information.

 

[bwhite]

Try setting your handheld next to an AM radio, your reception will deterioate (spelling).

 

[N_Jay]

What, local oscillators leak?:wink:

No way, its a conspiracy so we don't here anything about the very rare problem.

It is such a big issue that the rule predates scanners, even.

:roll: :roll: :roll:

 

[bwhite]

If 1 scanner messes up my radio that thoroughly who knows what 120 call phones and a half-dozen scanner junkies could do to the avionics.
From what I last heard they've never proven one way or another.
They seem to have the resources to do controlled testing of much more mundane stuff with a much smaller group of interested parties.
A piece of it may relate to AirPhone revenue which can't be that much, I've never seen anyone use one.

 

[Dispatrick]

here's a story

I went to the bahamas i kept my scanner in my carry on listened to it on the plane (descreatly) went thru all security points and walked right thru customs with it. then on the way back thru 2 metal dectors and a hand search and still not a word said to me. in a way this was good but security never said a word to me who knows it could have been just the outer shell with a weapon or somethin in it.

 

[N_Jay]

A piece of it may relate to AirPhone revenue which can't be that much, I've never seen anyone use one.

The restriction predates the existence of air-phones, so toss that rumor out also.

 

[N_Jay]

here's a story

I went to the bahamas i kept my scanner in my carry on listened to it on the plane (descreatly) went thru all security points and walked right thru customs with it. then on the way back thru 2 metal dectors and a hand search and still not a word said to me. in a way this was good but security never said a word to me who knows it could have been just the outer shell with a weapon or somethin in it.

OK, as has been said in other threads:

SECURITY (yes I am yelling) does not give a ****!

It is an FAA issue, not a TSA issue.

 

[loumaag]

The RR Wiki ( like Google ) is your friend:

Scanning on an Airplane

and

Scanners and Airport Security

 

[n4voxgill]

there has been several incidents recently where passengers have reported people acting suspiciously and demanding they be removed from the flight. Now would be the wrong time to try and sneak a listen to a scanner on an aircraft. Its a new world when you have to worry about passengers more than the crew catching you.

 

[bwhite]

The restriction predates the existence of air-phones, so toss that rumor out also.

Not entirely, probably a part of the reason not perform difinitive testing to allow cell usage.

 

[N_Jay]

Not entirely, probably a part of the reason not perform difinitive testing to allow cell usage.

Explain????

Besides, Cell phone usage is an FCC issue on top on a FAA issue.

And the restriction predates cellphones.

 

[bwhite]

"Explain????"
Why let people use their cell phones if the carrier can collect big-buck per minute for AirPhone use. If testing to prove cell phones are OK to use on planes the AirPhones will join the Do-Do bird (extinct).

 

[N_Jay]

"Explain????"
Why let people use their cell phones if the carrier can collect big-buck per minute for AirPhone use. If testing to prove cell phones are OK to use on planes the AirPhones will join the Do-Do bird (extinct).

OK,
Lets apply logic.

The FAA restriction is PRIOR to cellphones existence.
The FAA restriction is PRIOR to Air-phone existence.
It applies to transmitters and receivers (because they are unintended transmitters).
It has not been updated since either cellphones or air-phones came into existence.

The FCC restriction has to do with the design of a cellular system and applies to all aircraft, private and commercial.
The restriction is PRIOR to cellphone popularity, or even the existence of commercially available portable cellphones.
It has not been updated.

The testing would be irrelevant, as you would have to test almost every model against almost every aviation system, and that still would not address the FCC issue which is based on a phone in the air interfering with too many ground based cells.

 

[bwhite]

Jay,
If you can't see the connection between doing away with the cell phone restriction IF cell phones are proven not to adversely affect avionics I can't help you.
You've made up your mind and I'm not going to be the one to change it.

 

[N_Jay]

Jay,
If you can't see the connection between doing away with the cell phone restriction IF cell phones are proven not to adversely affect avionics I can't help you.
You've made up your mind and I'm not going to be the one to change it.

I love this logic.:evil:

I guess inflight movies are why the restriction of TV's is still there?

Yep, and inflight drink services is why you can't bring your own booze to drink on board?

Yep, its all a conspiracy between the FCC, FAA and "Big Airlines" to keep you down and take your money! :roll: :roll: :roll:

 

[KB8UYC]

Here is the funny thing about this:

1) Cell phones can interfere with avionics
2) Scanners cannot interfere with anything, they are only a reciever
3) It has been proven that Cell phones cannot be used on a aircraft, cant get a signal(do a google search on it)
4) Why do the airlines allow cell phones but cring at the site of a scanner?-If you ask me all of it is hyped up anyway, the scanner is no more dangerous than a piece of paper in your carry on bag.

All of this is just hyped up because of security....I think they all need to come back down to their level and stop this crap that a scanner is a bad thing at an airport or on an aircraft.

 

[davidd2957]

Just flew back to New York from San Francisco today. There was way more concern about a bottle of water instead of my scanner inside my carry-on. With a set of ear-buds,
I listened to my scanner when the Captain permitted the use of laptops in flight, no problems. Discretion is the key.

David D.

 

[bwhite]

Here is the funny thing about this:

1) Cell phones can interfere with avionics
2) Scanners cannot interfere with anything, they are only a reciever
3) It has been proven that Cell phones cannot be used on a aircraft, cant get a signal(do a google search on it)
4) Why do the airlines allow cell phones but cring at the site of a scanner?-If you ask me all of it is hyped up anyway, the scanner is no more dangerous than a piece of paper in your carry on bag.

All of this is just hyped up because of security....I think they all need to come back down to their level and stop this crap that a scanner is a bad thing at an airport or on an aircraft.

2. See earlier mssg #3 about local oscillator interferance.
3. Lots of people made final calls from their cell phones aboard doomed aircraft on 9/11
Hey guys, I'd like to have both operational on my flights.

 

[N_Jay]

1) Cell phones can interfere with avionics

True

2) Scanners cannot interfere with anything, they are only a reciever

WRONG: Receivers leak IF and CAN (and do) interfere with other systems.

3) It has been proven that Cell phones cannot be used on a aircraft, cant get a signal(do a google search on it)

Partially incorrect.
They may work, they usually don't work well, and when they are working they usually cause excessive interference to the system below.

4) Why do the airlines allow cell phones but cring at the site of a scanner?

They don't. The rules for the two are exactly the same, except for some (most) airlines that have allowed cellphone use on the ground, off of active runways.

If you ask me . . .

From the above information, we now know why we should not ask you!:roll:

If you ask me all of it is hyped up anyway, the scanner is no more dangerous than a piece of paper in your carry on bag.

Wrong, as discussed above.

All of this is just hyped up because of security....I think they all need to come back down to their level and stop this crap that a scanner is a bad thing at an airport or on an aircraft.

As has been mentioned, NONE of it has anything to do with security.

It all predates the recent security increases and the TSA could care less about your cellphone or your scanner.