gardner@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Mike Gardner) (08/21/89)
>> ...As a result of this >> event, the aircraft companies may have to redesign a lot of sensors. >No. The only sensor that has to be implemented is the one that scans >the passenger baggage. >It is ILLEGAL to use electronic devices such as cellular telephones >or even Walkman-sized portable receivers on board commercial >aircraft. It is also ILLEGAL to operate such devices on other >aircraft unless the pilot of the aircraft has determined that the >device in question does not interfere with the aircraft systems. > >This part of the federal aviation regulations is chiefly aimed at >reducing the risk of interference with the navigation or >communications systems, in the interest of flight safety. While >interference with the file alarm system may have been unexpected, >the passenger who carried a powered-up portable electronic device >aboard that aircraft is in violation of the law. What will probably So, after the pilot makes a mistake trying to get his airplane back to a runway before it explodes, you can drag this guy's body out of the reckage and throw the book at him.8^} You don't design something as complicated as an airliner, which depends on a remote system over which you have NO CONTROL to keep the airliner safe. Yes, fix the baggage checking system AND realize that compact electronic devices are becomming very common. All the planes systems should be able to either function properly despite interference or identify that they are being interferred with rather than giving a faulty indication. What if there had been a fire and the telephone, radio, etc kept the fire alarm from working? mgg >result from this incident is not a major re-design of aircraft >systems, but better enforcement of the existing regulations.