Something you may wish to consider. Some years ago the U.S.
army and navy both contracted for similar helicopters, but to
separate specs. The army version was the "blackhawk", as I
recall.
The navy version was required to be far more immune to EMI,
as the navy was well aware of EMI problems due to their
experiences with severe EMI congestion of shipboard electronics.
Namely lots of emitters and receivers within a small area.
The army spec was less rigorous in this regard. As a result,
the army version could, and did ocassionally, crash due to
the EMI from a mere TV or radio tower in the vicinity.
MORAL: Beware of EMI from devices operated within commercial
aircraft, whose EMS is far worse than aircraft designed for
military battle conditions.
George Alspaugh
Lexmark International Inc.
duncan.hobbs%snellwilcox....@interlock.lexmark.com on 11/10/99 10:14:59 AM
Please respond to duncan.hobbs%snellwilcox....@interlock.lexmark.com
To: emc-pstc%majordomo.ieee....@interlock.lexmark.com
cc: (bcc: George Alspaugh/Lex/Lexmark)
Subject: EMC and Safety of equipment used in aircraft
Group,
What safety and EMC standards would I have to consider for a piece of
equipment initially intended for use in a TV studio, but that is requested to be
able to be used in a helecopter or plane? I am also interested in what other
requirements and standards there may be for shock and vibration, temperture and
humidity and for acoustic noise in such an application. I am also sure that the
creepage and clearance distances in the product safety standards do not hold
true at elevated altitudes so what happens here?
any info would be greatly recieved.
Regards, Duncan.
---------
This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list.
To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.org
with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the
quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com,
jim_bac...@monarch.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or
roger.volgst...@compaq.com (the list administrators).
