> In news:hamishxyz-AFFDDF.19154517092008@sn-indi.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net,
> Hamish Reid typed:

>> In article <48d1016e$0$31805$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>,
>> B J Foster yahoo.com> wrote:
>>

>>> Paul Saccani wrote:

>>>> On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 08:38:45 +1000, B J Foster yahoo.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>

>>>>> Mobile phones use UHF frequencies and do *not* interfere with
>>>>> aircraft navigation systems. The issue is that whilst the
>>>>> interference is infinitesmally small it cannot be entirely
>>>>> dismissed - so the rule remains. In practice it is ridiculous.

>>>>
>>>> I've actually seen mobile phones interfere with VOR, the needle
>>>> swinging from side to side until they are turned off.

>>>
>>> I find this very hard to believe.
>>>
>>> The VOR band is 108MHz to 118Mhz (VHF). The lowest mobile band (UHF)
>>> is 900Mhz. If the VOR system has such a poor filter then it is going
>>> to be affected by *every* *other* system between VOR and GSM.

>>
>> I've also seen it, albeit with a 1970's era VOR receiver in an even
>> older Arrow, where the OBS needle deflected hard right (IIRC) as soon
>> as my passenger used his phone on the ground as we were taxiing to the
>> ramp. As someone with RF design experience, I don't find it all that
>> hard to believe, especially given expectations when the avionics in
>> question were originally designed...
>>
>> Hamish

>
> The law apparently making it a serious criminal offence to use a mobile
> phone in flight because it endangers the plane, is not based on 1970's
> era gear, is it?
>
>