Spoks
Well-known
I have a GPS in my car and my cell phone. But you have to be outdoor to make it read the satelites. In some road tunnels here in Norway they have 'slaves' which helps the GPS find it's way.
Chris101
summicronia
There's a common misconception, similar to phones on airplanes, that cellular phones interfere with certain surgical equipment. I've gotten phone calls several times from surgery from an anesthesia guy about mundane things like 'Hey what was the final score of that yankees game last night... Oh, so they swept the Sox.. Good. Alright talk to you later.' No doubt within 2 feet of all the equipment. Go Yankees
My major concern would be that while idly chit-chatting away,the respiration monitors would start beeping but the anesthesiologist would be too engrossed in his mundane conversation to notice in time. If they have me splayed open, I want everybody in the room to be paying attention!
But you are correct that this is not the same concern that rfi may cause instrument malfunction. But when the instrument in question is vital to survival, err on the side of safety please. I don't use a cell phone in a blasting area either (but make fun of the highway signs when ever I see them.)
FrozenInTime
Well-known
Here's a link to RFI effects of TETRA and GSM on medical equipment.
Both of these radio systems use bursted data frames.
http://www.hfs.scot.nhs.uk/publications/PSAN0110.pdf
The interference is pretty much limited to near field AM blocking effects - conducted susceptibility as opposed to spurious radiation.
On aircraft, other than the ability of airlines to extract revenue form a on aircraft pico-cell system, from a safety viewpoint : it also means they can optimize the signal levels seen and transmitted from the handsets thus controlling any potential interference.
Plus it also gives them the means to prevent calls to and from your mobile when ever they want once you are registered to their cell.
For Wi-Fi, I don't think there is a power control mechanism written into the standards to reduce power transmitted from the mobile units.
Both of these radio systems use bursted data frames.
http://www.hfs.scot.nhs.uk/publications/PSAN0110.pdf
The interference is pretty much limited to near field AM blocking effects - conducted susceptibility as opposed to spurious radiation.
On aircraft, other than the ability of airlines to extract revenue form a on aircraft pico-cell system, from a safety viewpoint : it also means they can optimize the signal levels seen and transmitted from the handsets thus controlling any potential interference.
Plus it also gives them the means to prevent calls to and from your mobile when ever they want once you are registered to their cell.
For Wi-Fi, I don't think there is a power control mechanism written into the standards to reduce power transmitted from the mobile units.
wgerrard
Veteran
If cell phone use during flight is ever allowed by U.S. carriers, I will fly the airline that requires inflight users to wear soundproof bags over their heads.
charjohncarter
Veteran
Olympus Trip 35 used just after landing:
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
No planes have ever crashed from my cell phone being on, though I usually lose signal just after takeoff
Does this really prove anything? I think there is a logical fallacy lurking here someplace. If the plane had crashed, you wouldn't be telling about it. Dead men (passengers) tell no tales.
David Murphy
Veteran
Usage of personal electronic devices (such as cell phones) in the USA is not banned on aircraft, but only on flights conducted under instrument flight rules (aka IFR). However nearly all airlines operate on instrument flight rules. The operators can make exceptions. Instrument flying is, by nature, radio navigation intensive as opposed to visual flying.
As pointed out above these things will not cause planes to start dropping out of the sky because of the resilience of navigation systems, ATC support, and crew training, but they could become a nuisance (or worse) at times -- particularly if allowed to proliferate.
Olsen
Well-known
A few pictures taken with my EOS3 when flying a sailplane. I have many 'sailplane pictures' that I have taken up through the years. Most of them with my Canon A1 and a small 35 - 70 mm zoom. But I have also taken a film with my SWC, but i can't find the film. A drag because these pictures turned out quite spectacular. Well, I am still looking. The SWC is the only Hasselblad camera I have dared to carry with me when flying sail planes. It is neither comfortable nor safe to have heavy and bulky items in the cockpit.
I am no scanner specialist. I find it both boring and frustrating to scan film. So,I don't do that much of a job of it. The hard contrast, dust and scratches are on me, folks.
I am no scanner specialist. I find it both boring and frustrating to scan film. So,I don't do that much of a job of it. The hard contrast, dust and scratches are on me, folks.
Attachments
Olsen
Well-known
Some more 'sailplane pictures'. From the same film taken with my EOS3 and a 28-70 mm 2,8L - which is way too bulky to carry in a cockpit. The pictures are from 2003, only months before I bought my first digital camera, the 1Ds. The scene is outside a small village in Värmland, Sweden.
To get the tow plane in the picture I had to first go up a little and then dive and give max rudder pedal and wag the tail of the sail plane, so i can see the tower out on the side. All this maneuvering is felt by the tower and is not that comfortable for the pilot, and would promt an angry voice on the com radio; 'stop that crap!'
To get the tow plane in the picture I had to first go up a little and then dive and give max rudder pedal and wag the tail of the sail plane, so i can see the tower out on the side. All this maneuvering is felt by the tower and is not that comfortable for the pilot, and would promt an angry voice on the com radio; 'stop that crap!'
Attachments
Last edited:
Spoks
Well-known
Interesting pictures pictures, Olsen. Do you still fly gliders? Are these scanned with your Nikon 8000 ED?
Olsen
Well-known
Spoks,
I have not been flying since 2005. I want to fly towed gliders with which you can do simple aerobatics. But the gliders available around Oslo is only 'combi's', with a small engine to get up with. - Like flying a bomber. I have to travel far and wide to find the right type of gliders.
Then the season is very short here in Norway. Last time I flew it was minus 10 C up there. So, I simply havn't had the time - nor lust for it lately. It is only us old guys, like myself flying gliders. Next generation wants to fly hang-gliders.
I went through a lot of CDs and negatives to find these pictures. These pictures I had scanned myself, but a lot of glider pictures I have on 'Kodak CD's' (PCD-files) which neither of my PCs can read, one with Vista the other with Windows XP w/Photoshop CS. None of them seems to be able to read the PCD files. How do I fix this?
I have not been flying since 2005. I want to fly towed gliders with which you can do simple aerobatics. But the gliders available around Oslo is only 'combi's', with a small engine to get up with. - Like flying a bomber. I have to travel far and wide to find the right type of gliders.
Then the season is very short here in Norway. Last time I flew it was minus 10 C up there. So, I simply havn't had the time - nor lust for it lately. It is only us old guys, like myself flying gliders. Next generation wants to fly hang-gliders.
I went through a lot of CDs and negatives to find these pictures. These pictures I had scanned myself, but a lot of glider pictures I have on 'Kodak CD's' (PCD-files) which neither of my PCs can read, one with Vista the other with Windows XP w/Photoshop CS. None of them seems to be able to read the PCD files. How do I fix this?
Olsen
Well-known
I would reckon that flying towed gliders will cost you 'as much as golf', which is regarded as an expensive hobby here in Norway. A membership in a club would cost $ 200 per year and you can buy 10-flight packages for $ 500 - and so on. It is fairly easy to keep your certificate valid. Like at this club: http://www.nlf.no/seilfly/Sider/Klubber.aspx
Not so with powered flights. Helicopter flying is 'very expensive' over here. And restricted. As for simple powered flights: It costs you several thousand $ per year just to keep your simplest one engine/day time flying certificate. After having spent thousands you will find it monotonous, boring - and expensive. - Unless you end up in the US Navy and can fly Tomcats on the expense of the US tax payers, of cause.
But now it is the hang gliders (and parachute jumping) that is 'in'. I have no idea of the cost keeping up certificates for these activities.
Not so with powered flights. Helicopter flying is 'very expensive' over here. And restricted. As for simple powered flights: It costs you several thousand $ per year just to keep your simplest one engine/day time flying certificate. After having spent thousands you will find it monotonous, boring - and expensive. - Unless you end up in the US Navy and can fly Tomcats on the expense of the US tax payers, of cause.
But now it is the hang gliders (and parachute jumping) that is 'in'. I have no idea of the cost keeping up certificates for these activities.
Mephiloco
Well-known
And pilots don't communicate with flight control, and there aren't black boxes. Every plane that crashes leaves us with no insight or clues as to why the plane just fell from the sky. Also, there have been survivors of plane crashes on several occasions.
Spleenrippa
Yes, Right There
Yeah, but the black box (and pilot) only records what is happening to the aircraft's systems- not what caused the interference. ie, your cellphone.
Olsen
Well-known
I found a solution to my problems with opening the Kodak Photo CD files. It works on my old PC with Windows XP and Photoshop CS - after a little fumbling.
What strikes me is the quality of the scanned files. These are films which I sent to Kodak Norway (who sent them on to Kodak Sweden, for some reason) for 'development and scanning'. I will never come close to this scanning quality, ever. Very little dust and scratches. They obviously have scanned the films immediately after development. At first the files seems to be a bit low on contrast, which is easy to correct in PS. But they are of very high resolution and holds a lot of detail. Simply impressive. If only Kodak could have offered this high quality Photo CD service to a reasonable price there would not be that much demand for digital cameras.
What strikes me is the quality of the scanned files. These are films which I sent to Kodak Norway (who sent them on to Kodak Sweden, for some reason) for 'development and scanning'. I will never come close to this scanning quality, ever. Very little dust and scratches. They obviously have scanned the films immediately after development. At first the files seems to be a bit low on contrast, which is easy to correct in PS. But they are of very high resolution and holds a lot of detail. Simply impressive. If only Kodak could have offered this high quality Photo CD service to a reasonable price there would not be that much demand for digital cameras.
Spoks
Well-known
What I have heard is that doing the Kodak Photo CD was manual work which took a lot if time and was very expensive. I have a few films which I have had scanned to Kodak Photo CD which I was very much satisfied with. Then suddenly Kodak decided not to offer this service any more.
Olsen
Well-known
I have been going through several CDs with Kodak Photo CD the last week. - I had close to a hundred CDs scanned in this format. Very interesting work! The quality of the scanning is far above what I can reproduce on my Nikon 8000 ED. Really impressive. A pity that Kodak no longer offer this service.
Spoks,
How do you read your PCD files?
Spoks,
How do you read your PCD files?
Last edited:
climbing_vine
Well-known
So, you're asserting that airplanes are designed to be vulnerable to a level of EMR that is below that which can happen because of natural events or airplane system failures? They're designed for cascading failures, you're saying?
No offense, but this is a load of junk.
Here's a link to an ICAO document regarding reported aircraft problems suspected to have been caused by PEDs:
http://www.icao.int/anb/panels/scrsp/Meetings/0104/WPA1-26.doc[/QUOTE]
With only one strong correlation found in eight years, and not enough detail on that to make one trust it given the, um, unconvincing-at-best nature of the rest of the document.
Olsen
Well-known
I took off from Singapore recently, in a Boeing 747 fully loaded with passengers and fuel bound for Europe. The plane made a full circle around the city before going north-west, up the Malacca Strait, in a thunderstorm turning the night into day. Some sight. I would not worry about a 2 kw cell phone.
Spoks
Well-known
Olsen,
I use PS on a Windows XP equipped PC. I also have an old PC with Windows 98. On this I have a dedicated program that either was included on one of the CDs - or could be loaded down from Kodak's web site.
These PCD files are very good, but it was quite expensive to have the films scanned. I have problems reading one of the CDs. Which is a problem with CDs; they don't last forever. I am going through my PCD - CDs now and load the files to my HD. Olsen: You should do the same!