john@hp-pcd.UUCP (06/03/83)
#N:hp-pcd:6200021:000:1363
hp-pcd!john Jun 2 09:26:00 1983
The following question was in the July PlayBoy:
Because I fly a lot in my job, I often find myself working
on the airplane. It occurred to me that I might save myself
a lot of grief if I had a portable computer to work with.
Can you give me any suggestions on buying such a machine? I
use one in my office, but it is far to bulky to take on a
plane.
S.T. New York,New York
While there are any number of good portable computers on the
market,there are none that you can use on an airplane.
Unfortunately, all of them give off radio signals that can
interfere with the plane's instruments. Even if you could use
them on an airliner, most current models would be too heavy and
too cumbersome to fit in the small amount of space available,
unless you left half of the peripherals at home. Sorry, but if
you were counting on a computer, we're afraid you're still
stuck with your fngers.
I would like to know if airlines are banning the use of calculators and other
portable computers during flights. Has anyone had any experiences where they
were told they couldn't use these. I know that they have always banned radios
because the Local Oscillator could be transmitted out the antenna, but I have
never seen this rule applied to calculators.
John Eaton
...hplabs!hp-pcd!johnjay@hp-pcd.UUCP (06/04/83)
#R:hp-pcd:6200021:hp-pcd:6200022:000:632 hp-pcd!jay Jun 3 07:43:00 1983 My understanding is that the FAA has a very general rule which forbids just about every electrical appliance except electric shavers (those busy executives must freshen up before their big meeting). The one exception to this rule is the HP-41C. Apparently pilots like it so much for their navigational calculations, they convinced the FAA to grant it special permission. As I understand it, anyone can apply to have their product okayed for flight use, but either nobody has bothered or nobody can pass the required tests. Jay Phillips ...hplabs!hp-pcd!jay P.S. If I'm totally out in left field, somebody please correct me.
mark@cbosgd.UUCP (06/06/83)
I once saw a kid playing one of those hand-held vidio games on an airplane. (This was around 1980.) It was beeping up a storm and driving everybody crazy. The stewardess immediately told him to stop - she said "it's not because of the noise; it's because it might interfere with the plane's navigational equipment". Actually, I think it was really because of the noise, and she just didn't want any argument, but I never asked. There's another problem with portables - where are you going to plug the thing in? I haven't seen much that's battery operated (yet), although I assume they are just around the corner.
mkg@whuxlb.UUCP (06/06/83)
#R:cbosgd:-3100:whuxlb:7300011:000:255 whuxlb!mkg Jun 6 12:39:00 1983 It's interesting to note that in almost every ad I've seen for a "portable" computer, there is a picture of someone using in on an airplane. I guess the manufacturers don't feel compelled to present "realistic" advertising. Marsh Gosnell BTL whippany
jlg@lanl-a.UUCP (06/06/83)
The FAA regulations allow operation of any electronic device that has been approved by the pilot of the flight. This is true at any rate for private aircraft. I don't think there are any additional regs which apply to commercial carriers. However, the airlines probably set policy on this issue instead of leaving it up to the individual pilots. In addition, there may be some informal guidelines from some government branch or other to insure uniformity across airlines. What this means to the people with a battery powered Osbourne is unclear. The vibration and movement on a plane is bad for floppies and hard disks anyway. My own experience is that no one complains when I use my pocket calculator on a plane (even me -- it has never screwed up my nav radios). In fact, there are several calculators for sale these days which are specifically made for aircraft navagation and such.
hsplab@tucc.UUCP (06/07/83)
I have a Norelco dictation recorder with a MIL certification number for "interference free." I have also seen notices on airplanes that dictation recorders are permitted (and I have used this one without any problems or comments.) Apparently, Jay Phillips is correct in saying that some testing for interference does grant a product for use on airlines. I do not know what is required to obtain this certification. D. Chou Univ of NC-Chapel Hill ...duke!unc!tucc!hsplab
steveg@tekecs.UUCP (06/07/83)
One of the design criteria for the Grid Systems portable computer was that if be usable on an airplane. I haven't seen one of them, or verified that they in fact made that spec. FAA interference rules are rather strict. Steve Glaser, tektronix!steveg
dmmartindale@watcgl.UUCP (06/07/83)
I remember reading of a case of a commercial airliner losing its navigation radios because of someone playing a handheld electronic game. I don't know whether it was just the VHF/UHF stuff (VOR/DME) or whether the low-frequency equipment (LORAN/OMEGA) was also affected.
SHOLAR@cmu-cs-c@sri-unix.UUCP (06/08/83)
Aircraft navigation receivers are much more sensitive than any television receiver (which is why the navigation receivers start at several thousand dollars, and typically cost tens of thousands of dollars), so an RFI test using a TV receiver is not a very good measure of what is safe for use on airliners. Suppose your view through automobile windshield were a projected image, and that one of your back seat passengers was using a device that caused your image to be shifted a few degrees to one side -- but you didn't know it. How long before you have an accident? You might think a bit before you avoid asking a pilot about using your portable computer just because you think he might refuse arbitrarily. At cruise altitudes and speeds, think about what even 1 degree of error in radio navigation indications might imply -- when headed for Hawaii, for example. When landing -- not the best time for hacking -- the matter becomes even more interesting. Next time you ride an airliner, watch for signs along the taxiway before you take off. Quite a distance before you get to the end of the taxiway, there will be a sign saying "ILS Critical Hold Area". Beyond this point, the "passive" electronics on an aircraft on the ground are sufficiently active as to cause disturbances to the instrument landing systems on incoming aircraft. If a different aircraft's receivers, a half mile or more away, are sufficient to deflect the needles on instruments of a landing aircraft, an Osborne or Kaypro in seat 13D might be expected to do interesting things to the instruments. Imagine the thrill of barrelling along at 140 miles per hour, approaching the ground at 1000 feet per minute, and discovering when you emerge from the clouds and fog at only 200 feet above the ground that your flight path is perpendicular to the runway! Bill Sholar -------
wall@fortune.UUCP (06/08/83)
A friend of mine is one of the designers of the new Gavilan Portable computer (3 1/4 inch floppy, 64k ram, touch mouse, 300 baud modem, completely battery powered, and only weighs 9 pounds) anyway, I know that they are trying to get their unit approved for airplanes by the FAA. The problem is that the FAA doesn't know what to do about the portable computers. They admit that there is a level of radiated emmissions that would be acceptable on airplanes, but they don't know what it is. Some of the FAA officials are even saying that it will be up to the indivigual airlines to specify the limits. The airlines are saying that they don't understand the question. Unfortunately, knowing federal agencies, the FAA will want to establish their own limits, and their own testing agencies, their own enforcement,.... it will never end. The funny thing is that most all battery powered CMOS computers that use LCD displays have very little radiated noise due to slow rise times and slow clocks. It will be nice when some standards are established, but untill then.... !fortune!wall P.S. I understand that the HP is allowed due to some very heavy political action by David Packard when he was Secretary of Defense to get that inclusion in the FAA guidelines.
arl@mb2c.UUCP (06/09/83)
For, what it's worth, I ran into Scott Mace from Infoworld at the Press booth at CES in Chicago. He was using an RS100 and we discussed it at length. He said he had been using it on airlines for over a month and had never been asked to cease and desist. His last flight to Des Moines did end up in Carson City, Nevada, though.
pdl@root44.UUCP (06/10/83)
Over here in the U.K. we have a piece of legislation (called, I believe, the Trades Descriptions Act) which prohibits such things as false advertising claims. Is there no such thing in the USA ?? (Maybe due to your wonderful free market economy). Dave Lukes (...!vax135!ukc!root44!pdl)
MDP@SU-SCORE.ARPA (06/13/83)
From: Mike Peeler <MDP@SU-SCORE.ARPA> We do have Truth in Advertising laws. -------
ron%brl-bmd@sri-unix.UUCP (06/13/83)
From: Ron Natalie <ron@brl-bmd> It's not surprising the FAA can't decide on the details of the interference Regulation. They can't and won't interpret any of their regulations. They just write 'em and let them be clarified the the accident investigation. -Ron
bj@yale-com.UUCP (06/15/83)
The FAA regulations allow operation of any electronic device that has
been approved by the pilot of the flight. This is true at any rate
for private aircraft. I don't think there are any additional regs
which apply to commercial carriers. However, the airlines probably
set policy on this issue instead of leaving it up to the individual
pilots. In addition, there may be some informal guidelines from some
government branch or other to insure uniformity across airlines.
Please, don't respond to messages unless you *know* the answer.
This topic was discussed on the net several months ago and at
that time someone posted the relevant section of the regulations.
Maybe someone with archives could dig it out again.
The pilot of a commercial craft does not have the legal power to
allow equiptment on the plane, that requires the owner of the plane
(the company). [This is how the law was explained to me.]
B.J.
Herbison-BJ@Yale
decvax!yale-comix!herbison-bjwmb@sun.UUCP (06/15/83)
A previous article suggested that the Grid Compass is designed so that it may be used on an airplane. This may be true, but it's not there yet. A friend of mine is a hardware designer at Grid, and she gave me a demo today. The machine is very compact and quite impressive, but ... Right now, it takes about 60 watts to operate. They apparently have or are working on a battery pack for it. I was told that it is good for about 2 hours of operation right now, which is clearly not enough for a long flight. It does have bubble memory, so you can carry it around without losing data, but you can't actually operate it for very long on batteries. I don't want to detract from what I believe is a very fine product, only to clarify the current state of affairs regarding battery-powered operation. The Radio Shack Model 100, on the other hand, seems well- suited to airplane operation, apart from interference considerations. I have used one at home, and I find it especially convenient for calling up work and reading my mail. Of course the display is a bit small ... I haven't actually tried to do any real work on the RS100, and I'm afraid I would find that frustrating, but it still is nice for remote access. One interesting problem is the way it connects to the phone. The modular plug/jack that is provided is great for when you're at home, but what about at hotels, which hardwire phones into the wall (so they won't walk away)? The RS100 manual acknowledges this and mentions that they will sell you little rubber acoustic coupler cups to stick on the handset. But what about hotels that have different shape phones (trimline, princess, or whatever)? ... I never go anywhere without a screwdriver.x Mitch Bradley