I was under the impression that such matters were under the purview of the FCC. Every wireless device I own has a conspicuous label (on the product itself or the manual) stating that it may not cause harmful interference and, conversely, must accept any interference.
Perhaps this isn’t what the disclaimer is intended to address - elucidate me!
You are correct, it is FCC rules that regulate these devices, not the FAA. However, given that we’re talking about aircraft, the FAA has explicitly said in the past that they want the applicable FCC rules adhered to. Not an FAA regulation, but the FAA wants folks in aviation - pilots, passengers, whatever - to abide by it nonetheless.
It isn’t saying that it must not be capable of causing interference, it’s saying that you are not supposed to use the device if it causes harmful interference. It’s laying out part of the legal rules for the resolution of interference problems. Part 15 devices are approved for use by the FCC under the condition that their use does not cause harmful interference. It is also saying that you have no grounds for a complaint if your Part 15 device suffers from interference from another device, such as a licensed radio transmitter that is operated and maintained in accordance with FCC rules. In the FCC’s hierarchy of RF devices, a Part 15 device is at the bottom of the heap. It is not allowed to interfere with radio services that have higher status, like broadcasting and other licensed radio services.
For more info, see American Radio Relay League | Ham Radio Association and Resources
On every flight I’ve ever been on, I’ve seen at least one passenger turn off their electronics when asked to by the flight attendant…then turn them right back on again as soon as they turned their backs. And if I saw it, that means it was within a few seats of me.
I’d guess that, conservatively, 85% of all passenger flights have people using electronics during the “forbidden time,” and planes are not falling out of the sky left and right, nor failing to determine which direction they’re going.
It’s paranoia ensconced as tradition. But it’s a relatively harmless paranoia, as opposed to, say, the TSA, so I say live with it.
Did you read my post about misleading media articles?
Your own link states that Qantas complied with the maintenance requirements associated with the “[p]roblems with elevation controls, including concerns about potential break-down of hydraulic O-ring seals,” and also note that it is entirely unrelated to electronic devices.
There is currently no evidence to suggest that the recent Qantas incident was caused by a laptop and the ATSB don’t appear to consider it a serious contender.
If aircraft electronics are so sensitive that the radio emissions of a 0.6 watt cell phone can disrupt them, how is it possible for them to serve microwavable in-flight meals? A commercial microwave oven generates about 1600 watts of radio emissions, and there are more than one of them on a plane. True, the oven is shielded, but only at a level to protect humans, not sensitive electronics. Anyone with a 2.4 GHz cordless phone knows that a microwave oven will interfere with it – why doesn’t this affect airplanes?
Location, location, location!
The in-flight microwave ovens are set in a location that won’t interfere with other essential electronics, and this is tested before the airplane ever takes off. The don’t move from those spots, ever. Your portable consumer electronics, however, wander about.
Also, their emission characteristics are well-known and rigidly controlled. I would also imaging, although I have no handy cite, that they have a much higher level of RF shielding and more stringent emission standards than your typical microwave oven from Sears.
Notice where I said that cellphone interference hasn’t ever happened, as far as we know. I though of mentioning that the 9/11 flight seemed to not be bothered by extensive cellphone use. In fact, I believe the opposition to cellphones in the US today is more about not wanting to sit next to someone talking rather than safety.
But it was still an interesting article.
What the others said. We have a microwave in our aircraft and they were hideously expensive, 10 to 20 times as much as a consumer oven (and I believe there were initially issues with one of them causing various problems with the nav systems, I can’t remember the details.)
Yes it was. The problem is that they make it interesting by stating facts essentially unrelated to the issue and allowing the reader to draw their own conclusions. Although they clarify later, the reader remembers the most striking statements. I’m more annoyed by the bit about the control problem warnings than the electronic interference, and I’m annoyed at the article, not you.