To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 9405
9404  |  9406
Subject: 
Re: AIR FUD, or, Cellphone makers liable for air crashes?
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Fri, 16 Feb 2001 18:16:07 GMT
Viewed: 
272 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
Sproaticus wrote:
How hard can it be, really, to shield or otherwise electromagnetically
isolate the flight-critical systems on a 737 from typical personal
electronic devices?  (Not hard at all methinks.)
It can be devilishly difficult to properly shield devices. This
difficulty is why some electronic products aren't licensed for home use
because the manufacturer doesn't want to pay the expense of shielding it
properly and then testing it.

True, but how about the FCC's current strategy of restricting EM emissions
to certain frequency ranges?  Does the noise that spills out of a Palm Pilot
or even a cell phone really cover a wide range of frequencies?

However, I believe that the shielding really belongs with the avionics --
the standards for an on-board radar are much easier to control than the
standards for a cell phone.  (Plus, the radar is more likely to give you
cancer, oh wait, another unrelated topic. :-)  The same can be said for the
radio, altimeters, GPS receivers, gyroscopes, smoke detectors, or any other
on-board device which would significantly impair a flight upon failure.

[snip]
Beyond all of the above, I think the problem of inteference is actually
way overstated.

Good point, one which I believe but unfortunately failed to raise in my
initial post (but alluded to in the topic title).  There's simply not enough
evidence to convince me that there is a threat from these devices during a
flight.  But, as examplified in the breat implant lawsuits, the quality of
evidence for litigation or even legislation can be much lower than you expect.

IOW, the threat of actual catastrophic failure in the air may be minimal,
but the threat of litigation due to that certainly is not.

Cheers,
- jsproat



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: AIR FUD, or, Cellphone makers liable for air crashes?
 
(...) I don't have any strong opinions in this matter, but I'll just toss out my main reaction when I read your post. I think that there is quite a qualitative difference between phasing in wireless phone technology (1) and revamping the (...) (23 years ago, 16-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: AIR FUD, or, Cellphone makers liable for air crashes?
 
(...) It can be devilishly difficult to properly shield devices. This difficulty is why some electronic products aren't licensed for home use because the manufacturer doesn't want to pay the expense of shielding it properly and then testing it. (...) (23 years ago, 16-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

4 Messages in This Thread:

Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR