In news:gasu7b$1gv$1@
aioe.org,
atec77
hotmail.com> typed:> TomTom wrote:
>>> 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?
>>
>>
> Do you have a cite ?
See the start of this thread in aus.aviation. The media report indicated
that the police were going to use the provision about endangering the plane,
not disobeying flight crew.
> or maybe the offense is disobey flight crew ?
Apparently not, according to the media report in the thread.
