Scanner on Board Flight

[Mark_space]

If you are looking for a confrontation, you will get it...

I bring my scanner on every flight. Always get a window seat, and have my BC235XLT, AR8000, BC245XLT, BC296D tucked discreetly beside me...

A little ear bud snaking up to my left/right ear...maybe with my head leaning in that direction to feign sleepy-time...

Our fearless Flight Attendant Shock Troops have better things to do than yank ear buds out, as long as you arent too obvious.

I have yet to experience my monitoring activities forcing a/c through a series of barrel rolls or Cuban Eights. I can only hope this will continue.

[iflyforpie]

Cell phones do interfere with the VHF comms on my planes. Ringing makes a buzzing sound, and searching makes a repeating static sound. I'm not too concerned because I am VFR in a low traffic area but it does have an effect.

My hangar radio will also pick up AM comm radio transmissions. Just because the frequency and modulation is wrong doesn't mean you can't have interference.

Better safe than sorry.

[Rockie]

If you are looking for a confrontation, you will get it...

I bring my scanner on every flight. Always get a window seat, and have my BC235XLT, AR8000, BC245XLT, BC296D tucked discreetly beside me...

A little ear bud snaking up to my left/right ear...maybe with my head leaning in that direction to feign sleepy-time...

Our fearless Flight Attendant Shock Troops have better things to do than yank ear buds out, as long as you arent too obvious.

I have yet to experience my monitoring activities forcing a/c through a series of barrel rolls or Cuban Eights. I can only hope this will continue.

Ok I'll bite.

I guess you're one of those people who believe rules and regulations are for other people, but why are you so inconsistent? In all likelihood you've also never experienced an incident where your lapbelt saved your life in an airplane yet you put that on just like you're told. You also probably put your seat back up even though you've never had to evacuate an airplane. Do you smoke on board and drink your own alcohol? I mean c'mon...if you're going to be a rebel why hide your scanner in the corner like you have something to be afraid of?

The electromagnetic gurus have not yet cleared transmitters and receivers for use on board aircraft for reasons that for us are basically irrelevant. Neither you or I have more expertise in this area than they do, so until they say otherwise I'm inclined to just do what they say.

The shock troops as you put it are simply doing their job. If they catch you listening to your scanner when you shouldn't then they must compel you to turn it off which makes their already difficult job unnecessarily harder. If you continue to defy simple regulations then they have to get me involved which takes my attention away from what I should be doing. If that happens I would not lose a minutes sleep after removing you from the flight. Is it worth it?

Just turn the thing off like you're supposed to.

[Beefitarian]

The electromagnetic gurus have not yet cleared transmitters and receivers for use on board aircraft for reasons that for us are basically irrelevant. Neither you or I have more expertise in this area than they do, so until they say otherwise I'm inclined to just do what they say.

can't help it...

First it's probably not hand held but I bet they are using a transmitter and receiver up front. Second he has the expertise gained via trial but if there was error I guess he's probably not aware.

I lean toward Rockie's side. The rules are there I can handle following them. Even if it's just because the flight crew is shy about being on the radio.

[True North]

All electrical transmitters and receivers are certified for use within certain frequency ranges. Aircraft equipment is certified in a different frequency range than commercial electronics. There won't be interference.

Dead wrong.

[Mark_space]

I vaguely recall this subject being discussed on this forum a few years ago....

The subject of radiation given off by consumer electronics has been discussed (...and beaten to death!) elsewhere on the web....Google TEMPEST or RF-shielded equipment. The RF radiation generated by the BFO (beat frequency ocscillator) of modern receivers is measurable, and minimal. Although I have some small experience in this area, I trust the "electromagnetic gurus". A few years ago, AETE (Aerospace Engineering Test Establishment) in Cold Lake, Alberta tested dozens of different consumer electronics items and the effect they had on aircraft communications. Laptops, portable printers, cellphones, and at least one hand-held scanner were tested. The scanner did not affect aircraft communications.

Okay, my comment about FA "Shock Troops" was probably over the line...they do have a tough, thankless job, and I do turn off my gadgets (ereader, iphone, etc) when everyone is instructed to do so. I certainly wouldn't advocate listening to a scanner (or Ipod, or laptop...) when safety instructions are given. However, I will continue listen to my scanner any other time it suits me to do so.

Please feel free to turf me off the flight if you catch me, Cap'n!

[Rockie]

Please feel free to turf me off the flight if you catch me, Cap'n!

Consider it done.

I've had this kind of problem with a thankfully very small percentage of people many times over the years. This kind of person doesn't think beyond themselves and consider there are other people besides them on the airplane. You're likely the first one to get upset when somebody else thinks they're above the regulations and decides to smoke in the lavatory because they know how to dispose of the butt without starting a fire. Or maybe they recline their seatback into your face after the FA's sit down for landing because really, what could happen? Your superior intellect tells you that drunk won't be able to open the door in flight no matter now hard he tries, but you still would like him to stop trying wouldn't you?

It doesn't matter if you're the world's foremost expert on electromagnetic interference and aircraft shielding. The rule is there so follow it until it's changed because you are required to. If you don't like it drive or take the bus.

[boogs82]

Ever hear a buzzing noise in speakers when a cell phone is about to ring? That's interference that can happen on an aircraft as well. Imagine this happening during important communications between pilots and whoever they're talking with? Could cause problems.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kArzbztP7i0

[cdnpilot77]

The rule is there so follow it until it's changed because you are required to. If you don't like it drive or take the bus.

Just like accepting when a minority conservative government gets toppled then earns a majority government after a non-confidence vote eh Rockie . Sorry buddy, had to get a shot in!

fly safe! And keep you scanners off, that buzzing is f'ing annoying!

[burhead1]

I think will order 4 brandy's and fall asleep

Sorry you are only allowed two now.

[Lost Lake]

Like every other phase in commercial aviation, "if we don't know the proper answer, just say no".I still can't figure out after being raped and pilaged by at least 4 CATSA police, I still have to show the boarding people my picture. Will it change my seat assignment. Then I have to show the flight attendant my boarding ticket, like I can't count to 45 or know the alphabet, although obviously some passengers don't even after being shown by the FA. All hand held luggage in the overhead, except the asshole in front of you was allowed 5 pieces (true) so there's no room for you. No headsets on during take off and landing, cause I'm too stupid to know the wheels/engine/wing just came through the fuselage, turbulence, so the seat belt sign comes on (disrupting my movie) cuze I'm too stupid to keep my seat belt on. It just continues.

The most violent thing that has happened to me inflight is the asshole in front of me who didn't know the difference between the seat recline lever and my tray, resulting in a f&*%ing spilt beer.

Like I said, cell phones don't receive above 6,000 or so feet. Recieve only electronics do not transmit sufficient x-rays, xenon or kryptonite rays to affect the guys tv in front, let alone the cockpit.

"Sorry sir, you'll have to turn off your pacemaker during take off and landing".

Keep the public stupid, feed them with fear and then you can have them do whatever you want. Just ask any dictator or US president.

[Mark_space]

Just so we're clear....the original poster referred to "my little scanner", which I assumed meant something like one of the handheld scanner models I mentioned. A passive scanning receiver, not something that transmits a signal like a cell phone, amateur radio transciever, HERF-gun, etc....

I definitely wouldn't do something that places my life or that of my fellow passengers in jeopardy. I have an open mind, and I could be convinced of the danger of using a scanner in flight if given credible evidence. However, none the responses I've read exhibit anything more than someone's prickly response to a percieved challenge to their authority.

I propose this, Cap'n: In concert with CATSA , a secret protocol be devised where all consumer electronic devices carried by your customers, whoops! I mean passengers, are identified at the point of entry on to the air side of the terminal. Using the information generated by CATSA's Shock Troops (...and in this case that title is well-deserved...), a list of devices shall be generated, broken down by make and model number, sorted by flight number and cross-referenced with passenger manifests. This may require that self-loading freight, oopsie! I mean passengers, pass the security checkpoint no less than 3 hours prior to boarding, but I believe this list could be presented to you concurrent with your weather briefing.

Using this information, you would be able to confer with Air-Marshal's to identify those passengers that might try to circumvent your authority, I mean, use those items at non-approved times. Overt and covert use of these items will be identified, and a hearing shall be convened while still in flight under the authority of the Obergruppenfuhrer, or I should say, Pilot in Command. Swift punishment will be meted out on the spot by the Air-Marshal. I am thinking the appropriate sanction would be summary execution...of the offenders device. A handheld Taser does an excellent job on micro-circuits...

...or, alternatively, you could just do your job and drive the bus.

Anyhow, in my experience very few readers change what they believe based on what they read on internet forums. I think we tend to gravitate towards opinions that reflect our pre-concieved notions. The original poster was asking a question "what", and I just gave him my interpretation of "how" and "why". I am the first to admit that I do not have the benefit of multiple-thousands of posts on this forum. Switching back into "Lurk" mode...

Oh yeah, "superior intellect"...good one! Let my wife know, would you...?

[wan2fly99]

Just a $120 hand held scanner that picks up aircraft frequencies. Use it all the time t home and airport to listen.

Won't bother, just sit there for 4.5 hrs miserably wishing I was at my destination already.

Damn bastards that ruined everything on sept 11

[Rockie]

...or, alternatively, you could just do your job and drive the bus.

I'll start with this first since you clearly do not understand some basic things. This is the Captain's job taken directly from the Aeronautics Act:

“pilot-in-command”

“pilot-in-command” means, in relation to an aircraft, the pilot having responsibility and authority for the operation and safety of the aircraft during flight time;

Safety of the aircraft includes (but is certainly not limited to) ensuring compliance with Canadian Air Regulations by all crew and passengers. There are not 200 different versions of those regulations including a special one labelled "Mark_space"...there is only one version. Like it or not "Mark_space" is required to comply with those regulations along with everyone else.

I have an open mind, and I could be convinced of the danger of using a scanner in flight if given credible evidence. However, none the responses I've read exhibit anything more than someone's prickly response to a percieved challenge to their authority.

It doesn't matter how open your mind is or whether or not you're convinced of the danger of using the scanner in flight. Nobody asked for your opinion. You buy a ticket on an airplane you are required to comply with the regulations, and the crew is required to ensure you do. Why is that so difficult to understand?

You also cannot possibly constitute a threat to my authority or anybody else's unless you can override the Aeronautics Act, which I'm reasonably certain you can't. Rather to me you are an unnecessary threat to the aircraft because if you cannot be trusted to follow this simple regulation then I can't trust you to follow any of them. It's as simple as that.

Over the years I've had to deal with many people like you who lack the maturity to follow a few simple regulations. Since a pilot in command has the aircraft and every other person on board that aircraft to consider it's a no-brainer. Off you go.

Try to remember that if you ever get removed from a flight for refusing to comply with the regulations.

[jump154]

Although not designed to transmit, any Super Heterodyne radio reciever uses an Intermediate Frequency as part of the demodulation - and that IF oscillator can and often does radiate RF power into the surrounding area. This has a capability of interfering with another RF device. As there is this possibility, use of certain personal electronics is not allowed by regulation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superheterodyne_receiver

Solution is simple - just leave the scanner off during flight. Rules is rules - not all of them make sense, some are flawed, but they are still the rules and will be until changed, no matter what you may feel about them. Kind of like the people who drive at 120 kph on the 401 because that is the 'unofficial speed limit' and then get upset when they get a ticket. Like it or not the rule is 100 kph, so if you choose to break it you also choose to take the risk of getting a ticket.

Yes, rules are written to protect the ignorant. We cannot be expected to understand the physics of every hazard out there - sometimes it's best to just say "don't do that".

Jump154. BEng, CEng, MIET

[cdnpilot77]

...or, alternatively, you could just do your job and drive the bus.

What an ignorant arrogant attitude. You seem like the kind to file a lawsuit if they forget to serve you your cookies offering in both English and French.

The original poster was asking a question "what", and I just gave him my interpretation of "how" and "why".

There is no "interpretation". You are breaking the LAWS of the air, plain and simple as it is clearly stated in black and white, no grey. If you believe you're not, then why be so shady in using your device and not just use it openly?

[iflyforpie]

Any device that consumes electricity has the potential to cause RF interference. Whether it is 'passive' or not. Whether it is Industry Canada/FCC approved not to cause interference or not. Whether it uses the same frequency and modulation or not.

[CD]

As discussed earlier, the limitations associated with the use of most portable electronic devices is actually a regulatory requirement applied to commercial air operators. The information posted from the AIM is to the general operating and flight rule in Part VI. Part VII of the regulations is where you find additional regulatory detail for compliance.

As we have discussed in previous threads on this topic, the basic regulations in play are:

602.08 - Portable Electronic Devices
602.86 - Carry-on Baggage, Equipment and Cargo
705.40 - Passenger and Cabin Safety Procedures
725.40 - Passenger and Cabin Safety Procedures (subsection 3 - Use of Portable Electronic Devices)
705.42 - Carry-on Baggage
725.42 - Carry-on Baggage

In general, the limitations are similar to those of the US:

91.21 - Portable electronic devices
91.523 - Carry-on baggage
121.306 - Portable electronic devices
121.589 - Carry-on baggage

If someone was seriously interested in having the regulations changed, here is the process to follow:

REQUESTS FOR REGULATORY ACTION (INVOKING CARAC)

Anyone may request CARAC to consider issuing, amending or revoking a regulation, standard or advisory material. Accordingly, the following details the procedures for “Invoking CARAC”. These procedures are illustrated in Appendix 11.

Anyone wishing to “Invoke CARAC” shall do so, in writing, to

Transport Canada - Civil Aviation
330 Sparks Street
Ottawa, ON K1A 0N5
Attn.: Chief, Regulatory Affairs (AARBH)

Requests may also be submitted electronically to the following web address: services@tc.gc.ca

Requests are to be accompanied by appropriate documentation in order to ensure a prompt and concise review of the proposal. The template contained in Appendix 12 must be used in the submission. The following details the information that should be provided:

• historical and technical background;
• the advantages and disadvantages of the proposal containing any information, views or arguments available to the petitioner to support the action sought, including reasons why the granting of the request would be in the interest of aviation safety or the public;
• the expected impact on aviation safety and the environment;
• where possible, consideration of the approach of other aviation authorities to the same issue;
• the anticipated economic impact; and
• any other related material.

Link to CARAC Management Charter...

Here are links to some industry documents related to electronic device use:

DO-233 - Portable Electronic Devices Carried on Board Aircraft

This document addresses the potential interference to installed aircraft electrical and electronic systems from Portable Electronic Devices (PEDs) carried aboard by passengers. It defines the potential interference phenomena; outlines the risk potential from interference events; provides test methods to determine whether or not a potential for interference exists for certain PEDs, aircraft and combinations thereof; and addresses acceptable levels of interference. The report also recommends modification of Federal Aviation Regulation 91.21, continued PEDs testing to identify and better define the possibility of interference to aircraft electronic systems, increased public awareness of the potential for interference from PEDs, and the development and use of devices to detect spurious PEDs emissions.

Purchase your own copy here...

DO-294C - Guidance on Allowing Transmitting Portable Electronic Devices (T-PEDS) on Aircraft

DO-294C completes the work of Special Committee (SC) -202 and provides the results of work on dialog with consumer electronics manufacturers’ associations on consensus recommendations for facilitating safe use of PEDs onboard aircraft. Further, the document incorporates the previously released Change 1 to DO-294B, and addresses changes to align with the work done for DO-307. Changes were made to introductory materials in Appendix 5.B, Appendix 5.C, Appendix 6.D, and Appendix 10.

The document addresses near-term T-PED technologies such as existing devices enabled with cellular technologies, wireless local area networks (WLANS), and wireless personal area networks (WPANS) as well as emerging PED technologies, for example active RF Identification (RFID) tags, transmitting medical devices, and picocells for devices enabled by cellular technologies for use on board aircraft. The document defines and recommends a process by which aircraft operators and/or manufacturers may assess the risk if interference due to a specific T-PED technology within any aircraft type and model. It also provides a means for aviation authorities and others to determine acceptable and enforceable policies and processes for passenger and crew use of T-PEDs.

Purchase your own copy here...

DO-307 - Aircraft Design and Certification for Portable Electronic Device (PED) Tolerance

This document recommends aircraft design and certification criteria to tolerate the operation of PEDs. These aircraft design and certification recommendations, when implemented in an aircraft design, would reduce the need for restricting the use of PEDs.

Purchase your own copy here...

It will be interesting to see the outcome of the following ARAC work in the U.S., as it will impact other areas of the world as well (including Canada):

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Date: August 27, 2012
Contact: Brie N. Sachse
Phone: (202) 267-3883

FAA Announces Plans for Industry Working Group to Study Portable Electronics Usage

WASHINGTON – Given the widespread consumer use of portable electronic devices (PEDs), the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is forming a government-industry group to study the current PED policies and procedures aircraft operators use to determine when these devices can be used safely during flight. Current FAA regulations require an aircraft operator to determine that radio frequency interference from PEDs are not a flight safety risk before the operator authorizes them for use during certain phases of flight.

“With so many different types of devices available, we recognize that this is an issue of consumer interest,” said Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. “Safety is our highest priority, and we must set appropriate standards as we help the industry consider when passengers can use the latest technologies safely during a flight.”

The government-industry group will examine a variety of issues, including the testing methods aircraft operators use to determine which new technologies passengers can safely use aboard aircraft and when they can use them. The group will also look at the establishment of technological standards associated with the use of PEDs during any phase of flight. The group will then present its recommendations to the FAA.

The group will not consider the airborne use of cell phones for voice communications during flight.

“We’re looking for information to help air carriers and operators decide if they can allow more widespread use of electronic devices in today’s aircraft,” said Acting FAA Administrator Michael Huerta. “We also want solid safety data to make sure tomorrow’s aircraft designs are protected from interference.”

The government–industry group, established through an Aviation Rulemaking Committee, will be formally established this fall and will meet for six months. It will include representatives from the mobile technology and aviation manufacturing industries, pilot and flight attendant groups, airlines, and passenger associations.

As the first step in gathering information for the working group, the FAA is seeking public input on the agency’s current PED policies, guidance and procedures for operators. The Request for Comments, which will appear in the Federal Register on August 28th, is part of a data-driven agency initiative to review the methods and criteria operators use to permit PEDs during flights.

The FAA is seeking comments in the following areas:

* Operational, safety and security challenges associated with expanding PED use.
* Data sharing between aircraft operators and manufacturers to facilitate authorization of PED use.
* Necessity of new certification regulations requiring new aircraft designs to tolerate PED emissions.
* Information-sharing for manufacturers who already have proven PED and aircraft system compatibility to provide information to operators for new and modified aircraft.
* Development of consumer electronics industry standards for aircraft-friendly PEDs, or aircraft-compatible modes of operation.
* Required publication of aircraft operators’ PED policies.
* Restriction of PED use during takeoff, approach, landing and abnormal conditions to avoid distracting passengers during safety briefings and prevent possible injury to passengers.
* Development of standards for systems that actively detect potentially hazardous PED emissions.
* Technical challenges associated with further PED usage, and support from PED manufacturers to commercial aircraft operators.

The request for comments will go on display later this week at the Federal Register. Comments can be filed up to 60 days after the Federal Register publish date. View the document at: http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/media/P ... 7-2012.pdf

[FL410]

I tried to bring one onboard a few years ago for the same reasons but security wouldn't allow it through.

[Mark_space]

My apologies for resurrecting this post, but...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ottawa- ... -1.2654277

At last I needn't worry about the hand o' the Cap'n clamping down on my shoulder and.... "Alright laddy, the jigs up!"

[dave_091]

My apologies for resurrecting this post, but...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ottawa- ... -1.2654277

At last I needn't worry about the hand o' the Cap'n clamping down on my shoulder and.... "Alright laddy, the jigs up!"

Finally!!! It's only a matter of time before we will be able to use our phones in flight. As an avionics tech. I'll tell ya that you have NOTHING to worry about with regards to interference or crossover from cell phones when flying in aircraft. Safety is not jeopardized.

I put this in the same bogus category as talking on your cell phone while fuelling your car.

[complexintentions]

Uh...we've allowed cell phone use on our aircraft for years, it's part of the IFE system from Panasonic with picocells that re-transmit over satcom. It switches on above 10,000 feet and off below. No drama. Any restrictions of usage over the USA, for example, are purely regulatory, not technical. The EU has allowed inflight cellphone use since 2008, ffs.

http://www.emirates.com/english/flying/ ... ected.aspx

To the original poster, I say take your scanner along. If you get it by security, listen discreetly and enjoy. Any slight radiation it may emit will be far surpassed by the many pax around you who didn't turn off their cell phones, the bluetooth in their tablets, their GPRS/EDGE dongles in their laptops. If you get caught, smile politely and put it away. I promise no one will die.

[CFR]

Interesting that ATC's take on this is that if you don't answer a radio call, they will try to call you on your cell phone. They assume its on!