|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: SnapperSnapper Date: Feb 6, 2008 23:59
I just thought of something (yeah, yeah, I know, something new...). With
all this dicussion on using electronic equipment during takeoff and
landing and how bad it is for the aircraft's electronics, how is it that
the aircrew can get away with it?
What I mean is that we're constantly seeing videos from U-Tube being
posted here, or rather their links, and these were taken from the flight
deck. Now, wouldn't they be a greater risk of creating interference with
the aircrafts avionics than someone sitting in seat 55A or 43J filming the
takeoff through the window?
--
A little knowledge is dangerous. So is a lot.
|
| |
|
| | 12 Comments |
|
|
Author: Sylvia ElseSylvia Else Date: Feb 7, 2008 00:15
Snapper wrote:
> I just thought of something (yeah, yeah, I know, something new...). With
> all this dicussion on using electronic equipment during takeoff and
> landing and how bad it is for the aircraft's electronics, how is it that
> the aircrew can get away with it?
>
> What I mean is that we're constantly seeing videos from U-Tube being
> posted here, or rather their links, and these were taken from the flight
> deck. Now, wouldn't they be a greater risk of creating interference with
> the aircrafts avionics than someone sitting in seat 55A or 43J filming the
> takeoff through the window?
>
>
>
Well, at least if something seems to be going wrong with the avionics
the potential electronic culprit is readily available to be turned off...
.... if one believes that mostly digital avionics really have such a low
noise immunity, but don't interfere with each other.
Sylvia.
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: SnapperSnapper Date: Feb 7, 2008 23:51
GB wrote...
> JB answered that question some years ago with a statement to
>the effect that if it's on the flight deck and you know about it,
>you can have it switched off as soon as you suspect any form of
>interference. It's the random unknowns up the back that are
>difficult to address.
Yep, that's fine, I s'pose. But if there is a risk of interference
occuring, why do it in the first place?
--
A little knowledge is dangerous. So is a lot.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: PodgePodge Date: Feb 7, 2008 23:54
"GB" kickindanuts.threefiddy.com> wrote in message
news:13qlq3k46olv35f@corp.supernews.com...>> I just thought of something (yeah, yeah, I know, something new...).
>> With all this dicussion on using electronic equipment during takeoff
>> and landing and how bad it is for the aircraft's electronics, how is
>> it that the aircrew can get away with it?
>
> JB answered that question some years ago with a statement to
> the effect that if it's on the flight deck and you know about it,
> you can have it switched off as soon as you suspect any form of
> interference. It's the random unknowns up the back that are
> difficult to address.
But if there was any suspected interference from video recording, perhaps a
quick look around the cabin would find the person who was filming out the
window (or the person who had left the camera on by mistake). Anyway, after
today's New Zealand events, I'm more concerned about the lack of security at
certain airports:
|
| Show full article (1.18Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: PodgePodge Date: Feb 8, 2008 00:10
"Snapper" yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:02eca48f$1$21899$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...> GB wrote...
>
>> JB answered that question some years ago with a statement to
>>the effect that if it's on the flight deck and you know about it,
>>you can have it switched off as soon as you suspect any form of
>>interference. It's the random unknowns up the back that are
>>difficult to address.
>
> Yep, that's fine, I s'pose. But if there is a risk of interference
> occuring, why do it in the first place?
>
|
| Show full article (1.20Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
Author: QansetQanset Date: Feb 12, 2008 23:59
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
Author: QansetQanset Date: Feb 13, 2008 00:05
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
Author: KwyjiboKwyjibo Date: Feb 13, 2008 04:06
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: PitsPits Date: Feb 13, 2008 19:05
On Feb 14, 6:38 am, Craig Welch pacific.net.sg> wrote:> "Podge" flight.com> said:
>
>
>
>
>>>"GB" kickindanuts.threefiddy.com> wrote in message
>>news:13qlq3k46olv35f@corp.supernews.com...>>> Snapper yahoo.com.au> wrote in
>>>news:01f5c7af$1$17207$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com:>
>>>> I just thought of something (yeah, yeah, I know, something new...).
>>>> With all this dicussion on using electronic equipment during takeoff
>>>> and landing and how bad it is for the aircraft's electronics, how is
>>>> it that the aircrew can get away with it?
>
>>> JB answered that question some years ago with a statement to
>>> the effect that if it's on the flight deck and you know about it,
>>> you can have it switched off as soon as you suspect any form of ...
|
| Show full article (2.50Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: RTRT Date: Feb 13, 2008 21:57
> On another tack have you noticed the recent detection of certain crews
> from at least 2 Asian carriers bringing offensive and awful stuff into
> Adelaide airport ?
> This begs the question - why are they suddenly checking contents of
> tech crews laptops upon arrival ?
Grass(ed)
|
| |
| no comments |
|
RELATED THREADS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
