Here are the problems with that, from my original post., dated 18 March: But even given all that work, how do we know that all iPads (not picking on them, but just a name with which I'm familiar) are all the same? Do they all have exactly the same processors/RAM/what have you running at all the same frequencies? If a clock changes from one in which harmonics were out-of-band to a radio but now they are in-band, there could be a problem. Or if an IC has its internals modified, but is a form/fit /function drop-in equivalent, that can change the emission profile as well, and the device manufacturer wouldn't even know, because the IC manufacturer didn't change a part number.
The fix here is EMI qualification testing of every variant that is sold, as longs as the manufacturer is aware of any and all changes to his internals. But even that isn't enough, because unlike regular aircraft avionics, these PEDs are not under the control of the airline. They have likely been dropped, immersed in or at least come in contact with liquids and the bottom line is that an initial qualification of one unit does not necessarily qualify all units sold over their usable lifetimes. One would have to look at the design to see what specific EMI reduction methods were used, and how they might be affected by ordinary misuse over a typical life. We have to remember here that while ordinary EN55022 type qualification protects the turf of licensed broadcasters, and thus their means of making a living, with the aircraft COMM and NAV systems, we are putting lives and property at risk. Ken Javor Phone: (256) 650-5261 > From: "Grasso, Charles" <[email protected]> > Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 21:51:35 +0000 > To: Ken Javor <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" > <[email protected]> > Conversation: [PSES] New immunity testing by the FAA in the future? > Subject: RE: [PSES] New immunity testing by the FAA in the future? > > Wouldn't it be safer to have manufacturers of portable devices pass the DO160 > requirements? > > Best Regards > Charles Grasso > Compliance Engineer > Echostar Communications > (w) 303-706-5467 > (c) 303-204-2974 > (t) [email protected] > (e) [email protected] > (e2) [email protected] > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ken Javor > Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 2:24 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [PSES] New immunity testing by the FAA in the future? > > Well, that's a humorous take on it, but it wouldn't have to be that way. > > Also, it wouldn't take a scanner for every row. It takes a sensor (antenna) > for every few rows (recall we are looking primarily at 108-152 MHz, and that > means an antenna of significant length) to get usable sensitivity with a 50 > Ohm input scanner). But a lot of sensors could be multiplexed into a single > scanner, with the scanner switching between different sensors continuously. > When a level in the problem frequency range is registered above some limit, > the system would check if that particular signal was at a frequency that was > going to be used on that approach or take-off. If not, it is a false alarm > and doesn't matter. If the signal frequency is close to that being used by > the various comm/nav devices, only then would the crew have to interact with > a scofflaw passenger. > > With this system, it can be made clear that the problem isn't just a > bureaucratic snafu, but is a clear and present danger. As in, "Ladies and > Gentlemen, in violation of aircraft safety rules, a personal electronic > device is a being operated in row 15, and it is interfering with our > navigation homing device, which guides the aircraft to a safe landing." We > must delay/abort our approach until this device is secured by the crew until > the aircraft has safely landed." > > And "shaming" a passenger by delaying a take-off or landing could be a > powerful incentive for both the guilty party to never let it happen to > him/her again and the other passengers to resolve that they don't want to it > to happen to them, either. > > Ken Javor > Phone: (256) 650-5261 > > >> From: "ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen" <[email protected]> >> Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 21:00:33 +0100 >> To: John Woodgate <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> >> Conversation: [PSES] New immunity testing by the FAA in the future? >> Subject: RE: [PSES] New immunity testing by the FAA in the future? >> >> This scanner thing might be possible technically, >> but not possible to implement in the organizational structure >> the flight crew is working. >> >> "Please Ladies and Gentleman, someone in this row >> might have a PED operating. Please stand-up so our >> lovely flight attendant can help you switch off >> the device. " No it's not the kindle, but may be your galaxy >> or your camera, oh no is can see, it's your Ipad. >> >> And that for 40 rows on a total of 80 or so. >> >> Just before takeoff.. >> >> " Sorry ladies and gentleman, but our flight has delayed another 10 >> minutes >> because on row 57 a operating PED has been detected." >> >> Or while landing: >> >> " Ladies and Gentlemen, here is your Captain speaking; normally we would >> have landed >> on Luton Airport. Unfortunately our scanner has detected a working >> Personal Electronic Device, so we have to postpone our landing for 34 >> minutes. >> Please be patient while our crew throws the owner out of the window..." >> >> >> And after a few tries: >> >> ....captain speaking: In spite of a potential interference problem with >> one of the passengers >> Personal Electronic Devices operating, due to lack of fuel >> we are obliged now to initiate a possible failing landing procedure >> Please adopt the official crash position as instructed...brace brace" >> >> Gert Gremmen >> >> >> >> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- >> Van: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Namens John Woodgate >> Verzonden: maandag 19 maart 2012 18:12 >> Aan: [email protected] >> Onderwerp: Re: [PSES] New immunity testing by the FAA in the future? >> >> In message <cb8cca2f.1c27e%[email protected]>, dated Mon, 19 >> Mar 2012, Ken Javor <[email protected]> writes: >> >>> Broadband rf detectors can see a signal on the order of 1 V/m, which is >> >>> good enough to catch an intentional transmission. Unintentional >>> emissions are controlled to levels between 24-60 dBuV/m, in order to >>> protect aircraft radios, and those levels cannot be measured with a >>> cheap and reliable rf detector. >> >> Sure, that's why I wrote: >> >> The 'detector' would need to be a scanner, to get enough signal-to-noise >> >> ratio. >> >> I should think scanners these days are quite reliable and not too >> costly. How about 1 per row, rather than 1 per aisle seat? >> -- >> OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk >> John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK >> If 'QWERTY' is an English keyboard, what language is 'WYSIWYG' for? >> >> - >> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society >> emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your >> e-mail to <[email protected]> >> >> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: >> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html >> >> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site >> at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in >> well-used formats), large files, etc. >> >> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ >> Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html >> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html >> >> For help, send mail to the list administrators: >> Scott Douglas <[email protected]> >> Mike Cantwell <[email protected]> >> >> For policy questions, send mail to: >> Jim Bacher: <[email protected]> >> David Heald: <[email protected]> >> >> - >> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >> This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc >> discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to >> <[email protected]> >> >> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: >> http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html >> >> Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at >> http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used >> formats), large files, etc. >> >> Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ >> Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html >> List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html >> >> For help, send mail to the list administrators: >> Scott Douglas <[email protected]> >> Mike Cantwell <[email protected]> >> >> For policy questions, send mail to: >> Jim Bacher: <[email protected]> >> David Heald: <[email protected]> > > - > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc > discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to > <[email protected]> > > All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: > http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html > > Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at > http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used > formats), large files, etc. > > Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ > Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html > List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html > > For help, send mail to the list administrators: > Scott Douglas <[email protected]> > Mike Cantwell <[email protected]> > > For policy questions, send mail to: > Jim Bacher: <[email protected]> > David Heald: <[email protected]> > > - > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc > discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to > <[email protected]> > > All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: > http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html > > Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at > http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used > formats), large files, etc. > > Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ > Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html > List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html > > For help, send mail to the list administrators: > Scott Douglas <[email protected]> > Mike Cantwell <[email protected]> > > For policy questions, send mail to: > Jim Bacher: <[email protected]> > David Heald: <[email protected]> - ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <[email protected]> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas <[email protected]> Mike Cantwell <[email protected]> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: <[email protected]> David Heald: <[email protected]>
