>>
>> If you shield a navigation system, such as VOR, it no longer works,
>> because its entire purpose is to receive navigation signals via RF.
>>
>> Though anecdotal, the incidents in the cite below (mind the line break)
>> should cause anyone to take pause about using their gadgets. That said,
>> a part of the ban is behavioral; the flight crew prefers that you pay
>> attention to THEM, not your toys or hobby, during takeoff and landing,
>> where by far the majority of flight incidents occur.
>>
>>
http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Incidents/DOCS/Research/Rvs/Article/EMI...>
> "an electric garage door opener, activated from the road by a small radio
> device carried in my car. The door would occasionally open by itself,
> early in the morning, on some rainy days when SFO was using RWY 19 for
> arrivals, and the flight path came more-or-less overhead"
>
> right... yawn...
>
> "An overview of the technical issues may be found in (Hel96)."
>
http://bluecoat.eurocontrol.fr/reports/Helfrick_96_PED.pdf
> "Firefox can't find the server at bluecoat.eurocontrol.fr."
>
> "There have been to my knowledge no reports so far of interference with
> electronic flight control on the Airbus A320/330/340 series or the Boeing
> B777. These systems are shielded very well against electronic signals,
> because they have to fly through radar beams and other electromagnetic
> fields that may be occasionally very strong. There is nevertheless some
> experience with electromagnetic interference with electronic flight
> controls. Five crashes of Blackhawk helicopters shortly after their
> introduction into service in the late 1980's"
>
> OK Hmmmm sounds fine.
>
> "Special Committee 177 was formed in 1992 to look into the possibility of
> interference with aircraft systems from electronic devices operated by
> passengers during flight. Such devices include laptop computers, Gameboys
> and, more insidiously, portable personal telephones employing cellular
> technology."
>
> I don't see cameras listed there.
>
> "Nordwall reported the RTCA advisory group to be worried that no group was
> testing or systematically tracking the potential effect of passenger
> electronics"
>
> yawn....
>
> "The hull of a metal aircraft forms an effective electromagnetic boundary
> between the outside and the inside of an aircraft. Electromagnetic signals
> find it hard to get in, or to get out. That is why the navigation and
> radio antennae on an aircraft need to be placed outside the aircraft hull.
> But while outside they must be sensitive, the navigation electronics
> inside the hull can be in principle just as well and securely shielded as
> control avionics, because there is no reason at all for navigation systems
> to be sensitive to electromagnetic signals coming from inside the
> aircraft -- indeed, very good reasons for these systems to be very
> insensitive, namely, that there is lots of other electronics working there
> as well."
>
> Doh!
>
> blah blah blah
> blah blah blah
>
> "[...] One day departing Portland Oregon we noted that the FMC [Flight
> Management Computer] Map display showed a disagreement with the "raw data"
> VOR position. Our training is such that we would normally immediately
> switch over to "raw data" and assume the FMC was in error.
>
> We would have done that except that it was a beautifully clear day and I
> looked out the window and was able to determine that the FMC seemed to be
> right on. I called back to the cabin and asked the flight attendants to
> check for someone using a cell phone or computer. A few minutes later they
> called back to say that a man had been using his cell phone and it was now
> off. Strangely (?) our VOR and FMC map now agreed."
>
> OK, still not a camera and *very* anecdotal. And frankly, there is always
> going to be someone text messaging on their cell phone so it'd be best to
> to find another solution to this susspected/potential/maybe problem if it
> was really a serious concern at all.
>
> "He emphasises, as do the RTCA and the other correspondents, that more
> research and systematic methods of testing are urgently to figure this
> situation out."
>
> Lol, and it's dated 2003
>
> "[My experience suggests to me that] it is nearly impossible to
> predict/replicate an EMI event on an aircraft when the event involves a
> portable carry-on device (PED). Location, orientation, power output,
> modulation, inconjunction with ALL the other
> PED's/electronics/electrics/avionics active at that time all play a role
> in the EMI event. And we must not exclude the terrestial based emitters
> (radars, etc). ..."
>
> Luddite!!!
> Give me a break!
> None of this was ever enforced prior to 2001 btw. And nothing suggests
> cameras could cause any problem.
For some reason, in its verbal announcements while in flight, Air New
Zealand refers specifically to portable video recorders being turned off
during take-offs and landings, but they don't mention digital still cameras.
However, on its web site, Air NZ says that portable video recorders AND
CAMERAS may be used after take-off and before landing, when the seatbelt
sign is off.
http://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/travelinfo/ontheplane/electronicequipment/default...
