[32692] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Operations: where are you going to sit?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jerry Scharf)
Wed Dec 6 20:30:26 2000
Message-Id: <200012070128.eB71SBV16174@sh.lh.vix.com>
To: Michael Shields <shields@msrl.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-reply-to: Your message of "07 Dec 2000 00:22:47 GMT."
<87elzlw04o.fsf@challah.msrl.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 17:28:11 -0800
From: Jerry Scharf <scharf@vix.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> I think this is based on the same decision process that lead to the
> ban on cellphones in most commercial airplanes -- some unsustantiated
> anecdotes, no testing, and extremely risk-averse executives. I'm not
> aware of any vendor of telecom hardware issuing an advisory that there
> are known cases of cellphones causing problems with the equipment.
> --
> Shields.
>
Actually, there's a general misunderstanding about his. The ban is not an FAA
ban, and has nothing to do with the flight control systems. The rule is an FCC
rule, and the concern in saturating sell site slots as a single phone could
tie up slots on many more cells from 35000 ft with no abstructions.
I have read the Boeing reports on interference that is the basis of "no
electronic equipment below 10000 ft." It documents a small (10s) set of
problems (often with the autopilots) that were not reproducible by Boeing even
when they had the unit in question and did every test imaginable. But the FAA
says that the Pilot in Command can do anything they want, and rather than
having the pilot have any choice the airlines put in blanket rules about 10000
ft and below, which has been interpreted to be a critical area of a flight.
The FAA regs say that all attempts to allow us of equipment whenever it does
not have problems, but that is always subsumed by the pilot in command rules.
jerry
