fcc Bullys little old lady

[Shioda]

Come back when you actually know something based on facts. Your status is zero.

You know nothing about me, but I know it is BS to claim that the woman's amplified antenna might cause interference to a plane passing overhead. The FCC is only interested in the case because Verizon pays big licensing fees.

 

[Sonwatcher]

BS on a hazard to navigation. Maybe if the unit is on the plane and 10 feet from the cockpit, but it is not going to interfere with navigation while being operated in someone's house.

What's confusing is that any other case that involves an amplified TV antenna the person was told to send it in to the FCC and it was in a warning notice not a citation given in 7 days from finding the erring antenna.

 

[Shioda]

Well, I can speculate that one of two things happened. The woman was told to get rid of it and she either refused or she said she would but continued using it so they immediately cited her. Other possibility is that the LA office of the FCC has its head up its ass and improperly issued the citation. The second possibility is more likely.

 

[mackmobile43]

Originally Posted by HiDef
Come back when you actually know something based on facts. Your status is zero.

You know nothing about me, but I know it is BS to claim that the woman's amplified antenna might cause interference to a plane passing overhead. The FCC is only interested in the case because Verizon pays big licensing fees.

Hey Shioda, common sense is an option with the purchase of an amateur license..lol

 

[KingCobra_CDX882]

This Particular thread is getting a bit out of hand with mud slinging..
There is No need for it..

The lady in question Obviously did not willfully cause the interference..
Neither did the lady in question do anything wrong in the product she bought..

Obviously the FCC over stepped their bounds and authority..
The FCC could of ( and should have) taken steps with the maker of the product..
and or given her more then a crazy 7 days to comply for a happening un-known and innocently caused by her..

 

[Captain Kilowatt]

Based on common sense and based on testimony of FCC engineers. Common sense, we know that cell phones can interfere with planes, but you don't see planes crashing everytime they fly over a cell tower. FCC engineers admitted in the Ranger case that you have to be on the plane to interfere with navigation unless you have about a 1000 watts of power and you are sitting under the flight path. I don't think that the woman's antenna had a 1000 watts of power.

In the Ranger case you are talking about spurious emmissions from a 27 MHz fundamental and not about VHF parasitics. They are two COMPLETELY differant things.Even cable companies are not permitted to downconvert to the VHF airband because leakage from the supposed closed cable system can and has caused interferance to air communications and navigation. I know this as fact because when I was getting approval for a new FM broadcast transmitter I was getting my nickel's worth by asking the guy from Nav Canada all sorts of questions.

 

[Shioda]

In the Ranger case you are talking about spurious emmissions from a 27 MHz fundamental and not about VHF parasitics. They are two COMPLETELY differant things.Even cable companies are not permitted to downconvert to the VHF airband because leakage from the supposed closed cable system can and has caused interferance to air communications and navigation. I know this as fact because when I was getting approval for a new FM broadcast transmitter I was getting my nickel's worth by asking the guy from Nav Canada all sorts of questions.

Sorry, but in the Ranger case the FCC was claiming the second, third and fourth harmonics, which are in the VHF, could cause interference to airline navigation. There has never been a confimed, duplicated case of airline interference by any consumer product.

"The airlines are misleading the traveling public," says John Sheehan,
who headed the RTCA study and says he has often used his own cell
phone in the sky. "There is no real connection between cell-phone
frequencies and the frequencies of the navigation" or communications
systems.

"Using cell phones aloft on commercial and private aircraft is banned
not by the FAA but by the Federal Communications Commission, which
regulates telephone use. In prohibiting airborne use in 1991, the FCC
was mainly concerned about cell phones' potential to interfere with
ground-to-ground cellular transmission."

Cell phones on planes

It seems that when you use your cell in a plane, you can connect to multiple cell towers at the same time, rather than being sequentially handed off from one tower to the next, as happens when you are on the ground. Cell companies don't like this because if you connected to multiple cell towers at once, less people can connect. Money talks, so the FCC bans their use on airplanes and hot air balloons.

See also Boeing's website itself:
Aero 10 - Interference from Electronic Devices

"Electromagnetic interference (EMI) from passenger-carried portable electronic devices (PED) on commercial airplanes has been reported as being responsible for anomalous events during flight. The operation of PEDs produces uncontrolled electromagnetic emissions that could interfere with airplane systems. Airplane systems are tested to rigorous electromagnetic standards to establish and provide control of the electromagnetic characteristics and compatibility of these systems. However, PEDs are not subject to these same equipment qualification and certification processes. Though many cases of EMI have been reported over the years, with PEDs suspected as the cause, it has proven almost impossible to duplicate these events." (emphasis added)

As I said before, unless you have about 1000 watts of power and are sitting under an approach to the airport you are not going to interfere with airline navigation. The FCC just uses interference as an excuse to justify their actions.

 

[Captain Kilowatt]

Just because an event cannot be duplicated in a controlled environment does not mean that it cannot happen at all.

AG RVS - Electromagnetic Interference with Aircraft Systems: why worry?

 

[Shioda]

Just because an event cannot be duplicated in a controlled environment does not mean that it cannot happen at all.

AG RVS - Electromagnetic Interference with Aircraft Systems: why worry?

Old article calling for testing, which Boeing did and was unable to replicate any claim of intereference. Further, in one instance Boeing bought and tested the same laptop that was suspected of causing intereference, flew the same plane on the same route in the same weather and was able to detect no intereference at all from the laptop.

Is intereference possible under some circumstances? Yes, it is possible. But to have a possibility of intereference to an airline the equipment must either be on the plane itself or have a lot of power. This woman's amplified TV antenna had zero possibility of causing intereference to an airline.

 

[Moleculo]

I don't know how we got sidetracked on cell phones in planes, but this primary topic of this thread is exactly what I was talking about happening in the previous thread about the FCC claiming they could come into your home to inspect anything you buy that is wireless. Most people don't know that the every day products that they buy could be subject to FCC inspection and possibly citations.

 

[Moleculo]

But to have a possibility of intereference to an airline the equipment must either be on the plane itself or have a lot of power. This woman's amplified TV antenna had zero possibility of causing intereference to an airline.

As a side note, a while back I personally talked to an avionics engineer who worked in flight test at one of the main U.S. airplane plants that manufacturers military fighters about this cell phone interference thing. He said it was all "bullshit". Now, I don't know his credentials, but I do know he knows a lot more about this stuff than I do and had to deal with the testing and fixing of the stuff inside the cockpit of military planes every day. He said that there is no way cell phones, ipods, PSP, Gameboys, or notebook computers are ever going to cause a plane to crash because all of the "critical stuff" that is used to fly, land, take-off, etc. is shielded up the wazzooo from external RF exposure. I'll take his word over any government agency.

Anyway, can we get back on topic of what the FCC is trying to do with this poor lady?

 

[KingCobra_CDX882]

Quote:
As a side note, a while back I personally talked to an avionics engineer who worked in flight test at one of the main U.S. airplane plants that manufacturers military fighters about this cell phone interference thing. He said it was all "bullshit". Now, I don't know his credentials, but I do know he knows a lot more about this stuff than I do and had to deal with the testing and fixing of the stuff inside the cockpit of military planes every day. He said that there is no way cell phones, ipods, PSP, Gameboys, or notebook computers are ever going to cause a plane to crash because all of the "critical stuff" that is used to fly, land, take-off, etc. is shielded up the wazzooo from external RF exposure. I'll take his word over any government agency.

I saw a test once that actually showed that a cell phone..laptop or a walkman can actually interfere with the safe flight of the plane and actually cause it to crash..

The catch though....was a private lane with nearly or absolutely no shielding of vital plane equipment..

Everybody knows in this day and age the way the FAA is now ( and of recent years) they require lots and lots of shielding and that is in commercial as well as private planes ( likely not in kit planes)..

Military planes are often so well shielded that they even can survive and operate after being subject to an EMP..

So in todays age...in any type of plane except perhaps a home built or kit plane...RF interference from cell phones or laptops or any other electronic device is NOT something to worry about..

( have you noticed that many commercial aircraft allow or rather have their own pay cellular phones...that are quoto un quote safe for airline use.....those phones are simply a method the commercial planes get away being able to charge very high fee's for talking on the phone while plane is in operation)

Anyway, can we get back on topic of what the FCC is trying to do with this poor lady? ( i 2ed this )