There ARE problems with some devices, but the ipad may not be a problem.
USMC aviators have been using ipads in helicopters for almost two years
(that I know). In same squadrons' aircraft, there have been reports of
interference from other external-use cockpit devices. Marine combat
aviation is a
All,
I happened to have my iPad at work today and ran a scan to 1GHz with a video
playing (didn't bring my charger though). There's a minimum of 20dB margin.
However, the processor runs at 1GHz so I think data above 1GHz would be more
interesting, but my chamber is tied up at the moment.
An interesting situation I ran into; a 10's of kilohertz system with lots of
harmonics that faded fast, got into a 915 MHz radio which then amplified a wide
range of the kHz harmonics to levels notably above the FCC limits.
Broadcasting on all frequencies for your listening enjoyment!
Are you saying that the problem, for this incident, is with the immunity
part of the standard?
-Original Message-
From: Bill Owsley [mailto:wdows...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 2:20 PM
To: oconne...@tamuracorp.com; emc-p...@ieee.org
Subject: Re: [PSES] New immunity testing by
Yes and no. Both devices continued to function correctly. And both passed
emissions. But when near each other, the immune nature one amplified the
emissions of the other. A bit of a surprise for the hf radio guys, they said
something about way out of band... I figure the kHz is modulating the
A couple of years use, of multiple units of a similar model, in multiple
aircraft, by multiple users, in actual operating conditions, makes for a
strong argument of compatibility. Not conclusive, and it doesn't establish
any safety margins, but still a strong argument. Apple owes somebody a
Jar aviators are a sub-species of Naval Aviation - and once off FOB or off
the ship are left to their own devices where the NATOPS is 'optional'. Many
marine aviators have technical degrees, so it is not uncommon for decent
ideas to emanate from the field. It was a jarhead who used his personal
Hi, Derek (and group).
Many of us have over a long career had the chance to work on aircraft
systems (or others) for which immunity standards are imposed. In most
cases the signals emitted from properly functioning,
non-intentional-emitter PED do not ever reach the levels the subject
HI All,
I've watched may people speculate about PED's and what they MAY do, so I
decided to go in the lab and make some measurements on my new iPad.
Obviously conducted is not an option, there's no power cord.
For radiated emissions to 1 GHz, the device is as quiet as a mouse. It
was only a
In message 97e9fcc6-a09c-4571-b4bd-7ada0369b...@emc-seminars.com,
dated Sat, 24 Mar 2012, Ken Wyatt k...@emc-seminars.com writes:
Glad to hear someone is actually making measurements, rather than
speculating.
True, but an Apple product might be expected to be beyond reproach or
nearly so.
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) 3032042...@vtext.com
(e) charles.gra...@echostar.com
(e2) chasgra...@gmail.com
-Original
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
We had this discussion on linkedIn before, with other
participants. The essential questions that logically
follow what Ken writes (anyone switches PEDS off during taxi, take-off
and landing) are of course:
1.
How to enforce that anyone switches off their PED on a plane with up to
853 passengers
-Original Message-
From: Ken Javor [mailto:ken.ja...@emccompliance.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2012 5:28 PM
To: EMC-PSTC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [PSES] New immunity testing by the FAA in the future?
Given the above issues, it makes much more sense for the flying public to
remain
If we set aside the aircraft interference issues, MHO is that for the
take off and landing you really need folks in a state of get me the
heck out of here should a problem arise, and part of that is being
aware of surroundings and listening to the crew. Distracted by any means
maybe not a good
In message 4f673370.1080...@aol.com, dated Mon, 19 Mar 2012, Derek
Walton lfresea...@aol.com writes:
As for Ed, I wonder, had the lady fallen into your basket, what they
would have said at the check out... Or is that par for the course in
California?
BOGOF? (;-)
--
OOO - Own Opinions Only.
Yeah Ed, I get it - I'm an out-of-touch old fogey. But in a sense it
doesn't matter as long as the FAA enforces a level playing field and all
airlines have the same rules. The flying public simply has to deal with it.
Look at what the TSA has done to airport security. Because of that, I drive
to
I make a point of having my passengers see me turn my cell phone off and then
toss it in my flight bag before I climb into the plane. I expect them to do
the same. I'd rather spend my time flying instead of trying to prove that PEDs
will not interfere with the VOR, GPS or Comm radios.
Ghery
I'm stunned by this Mr. Bilton's cavalier attitude about other people's time
and money, and maybe even more stunned at how little time or research he did
before declaring that the whole thing would just be really simple and
everything.
To keep things moving, the airlines could team up and
Agree on all accounts except one:
Envision future airplanes with RF detectors at every seat. If emissions
were detected, a red light next to the isle seat could turn on.
It isn't the intentional emissions that are a hazard to the aircraft; it's
unintentional, and those are too low-level to
Hello Ken - I agree with your position. Turning off edevices
for a few minutes in a flight is a minimal inconvenience at best.
However (and this is a little tongue in cheek!) if the
manufacturers of these devices either were made to comply with
DO160 emissions requirements for edevices
Hi Chas,
as a frequent flier, that take off and taxi period can be many many
minutes... and has taken hours at which time a PED would be most welcome.
Derek.
On 3/19/2012 10:30 AM, Grasso, Charles wrote:
Hello Ken - I agree with your position. Turning off edevices
for a few minutes in a
In message cb8cb701.1c203%ken.ja...@emccompliance.com, dated Mon, 19
Mar 2012, Ken Javor ken.ja...@emccompliance.com writes:
Agree on all accounts except one:
Envision future airplanes with RF detectors at every seat. If
emissions were detected, a red light next to the isle seat could turn
Hi Derek - That's true..especially if there is a hangup at the gate or
on the taxi way. My recent experiences on flights were that the dark time
is about 20mins either side of the flight - not too bad.
Best Regards
Charles Grasso
Compliance Engineer
Echostar Communications
(w) 303-706-5467
(c)
Hi Chas,
that's not too bad, even for Denver... My usual airport is O'Hare...
On 3/19/2012 11:20 AM, Grasso, Charles wrote:
Hi Derek - That's true..especially if there is a hangup at the gate or
on the taxi way. My recent experiences on flights were that the dark time
is about 20mins either
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
Clearly if one is stuck on the tarmac for hours and the plane isn't going
anywhere anytime soon, the prohibition against PED use can be lifted.
Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261
From: Derek Walton lfresea...@aol.com
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 10:37:10 -0500
To: Grasso, Charles
In message cb8cca2f.1c27e%ken.ja...@emccompliance.com, dated Mon, 19
Mar 2012, Ken Javor ken.ja...@emccompliance.com 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
That's the number I have in mind as well - doors close to 10,000 feet, but yes
there are the occasional longer times up to an including the stranded on the
tarmac stories heard every so often.
Gary
-Original Message-
From: Grasso, Charles [mailto:charles.gra...@echostar.com]
Sent:
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
In message FCA549BE3ECF9D4CB8CB8576837EA489140573@ZEUS.cetest.local,
dated Mon, 19 Mar 2012, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen
g.grem...@cetest.nl writes:
This scanner thing might be possible technically, but not possible to
implement in the organizational structure the flight crew
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
In message cb8d0024.1c2e6%ken.ja...@emccompliance.com, dated Mon, 19
Mar 2012, Ken Javor ken.ja...@emccompliance.com writes:
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
Almost sounds like a whole new industry -- the business of testing
aircraft for immunity to personal electronic devices:
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/18/disruptions-time-to-review-f-a-a-policy-on-gadgets/
Pat Lawler
-
Cannot be done with any reasonable efficacy for commercial aviation. No
combo of aircraft type, instrument model/version, wiring harness version,
etc is duplicated after about 6 operational months after aircraft has left
factory.
As private pilot driving small SELs, I have had two instances of
Well, the author is either ignorant, or he has glossed over the realities.
In turn:
One cannot verify that a device won't cause interference by flying it on a
single flight, or any reasonable number of flights. All of the possibly
susceptible navigation and communication devices would need to
EMC = early mind-capacity loss syndrome for compliance engineers.
EMC = Explain Magic to Commoners
Pat
On Mar 18, 2012, at 5:26 PM, Brian Oconnell oconne...@tamuracorp.com wrote:
Cannot be done with any reasonable efficacy for commercial aviation. No
combo of aircraft type, instrument
In terms of PEDs interfering with aircraft COMM and NAV functions, all that
is necessary for commonality between a test aircraft and the fleet is the
antennas are in the same place. This assumes coax from antennas to receivers
are intact. If we can't make that assumption, then the PEDs cannot be
38 matches
Mail list logo
