Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:37 AM - Re: current sensor (GRT hall effect current sensor) ()
2. 05:13 AM - Re: very sensitive current monitor? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
3. 05:21 AM - Re: current sensor (Ken)
4. 05:35 AM - Cell phone (rd2@evenlink.com)
5. 05:41 AM - Re: Alt/Batt switch question (Alan K. Adamson)
6. 05:42 AM - Cell phone (rd2@evenlink.com)
7. 05:44 AM - Re: legal Cell phone (John Schroeder)
8. 05:53 AM - Re: Cell phone (Dave Morris \)
9. 06:01 AM - Re: Cell phone (Wayne Reese)
10. 06:13 AM - Re: Cell phone (Jim Michael)
11. 06:14 AM - Re: Cell phone (Brian Lloyd)
12. 06:20 AM - Re: Cell phone (Brian Lloyd)
13. 06:50 AM - Re: legal Cell phone (Dave Morris \)
14. 08:28 AM - Re: legal Cell phone (Fiveonepw@aol.com)
15. 09:42 AM - Re: legal Cell phone (Brian Lloyd)
16. 10:20 AM - Re: Cell phone (rd2@evenlink.com)
17. 10:20 AM - Re: legal Cell phone (Fiveonepw@aol.com)
18. 11:29 AM - [Fw: Re: RV-List: Engine compartment wiring] (Bill Dube)
19. 08:12 PM - Test..... (Jim Baker)
20. 09:46 PM - Re: legal Cell phone (JAMES BOWEN)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: current sensor (GRT hall effect current sensor) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
Allan:
I can assure you the lack of reply has nothing to do with wanting to sell
you something. They are slow to respond sometimes and it is Sun and
Fun time. However if you must get them, CALL them and email them both.
Sandy may be out sick or helping Greg get ready for S&F. I do NOT work
for them or personally know them. I have just had a eis4000 and several
earlier models going back at least 15 years. Great products and super nice
folks.
They make the best products at very good prices. Nuff said on GRT, that
is the reason they have not responded yet.
Now for your Hall effect. The three wires are output, ground and power
supply.
You should be able to get it to work. There is no guarantee it will work,
but the EIS is pretty flexible and hall effect sensor have pretty standard
specs. Once you get it figured out GRT can give you the settings or I.
You have to tell me or GRT what its output and range is. With that info
you can figure out the Offset factor (OF) and Scale factor (SF) to make it
work (read correctly). As you know the Aux inputs have these two factors.
You also have to set the EIS resolution (decimal place) and if its forward
sensing (see your EIS manual).
So contact the company that sold you the hall effect and find out the
specs, or you could test it. The supply power to the hall effect,
is usually nominally 5 volts, not sure about the one you have. The
power input to most hall effect sensors is +4.5v to + 8.0v DC. The EIS
has an on-board 4.8volt power supply to power aux sensors. (see your
EIS manual).
Depending on the capacity of your hall effect (25, 50 or 100 amps) it will
produce a linear voltage, mill volts, on the output based on how much
current is passing thru the wire you are measuring. I am guessing you
have an AMPLOC brand. Model? AMP100 or ZAP50? Both sensors
read to 100 amps linearly. (total guess call them).
This mV output is read and converted to a reading on the EIS4000.
Warning the max Aux input to the eis4000 is 5.5 volts. Any more than
that will damage it. Depending on the Hall Effect sensor, the typical out
put will be between 0.9V to 1.9V so this is not an issue. However NEVER
pump 12volts direct into an aux input. I never did it but the manual says it
is a bad thing.
Write me off list if you want more info. You NEED:
Rated current capacity capacity
Peek voltage at rated current
What range you are trying to measure
You need to know supply voltage, the EIS 4.8 volts will likely do fine.
Depending on what model EIS (software version) may affect settings.
George
Subject: current sensor
From: "Allan Aaron" <aaaron@tvp.com.au>
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Allan Aaron"
<aaaron@tvp.com.au>
I have a GRT EIS4000 and want to add the ammeter function. I
forgot to buy the sensor from GRT but I do have a spare hall effect
sensor from the previous Rocky Mountains EIS I was using. I'm
wondering what the voltage (I assume) output of these devices is?
The RkyMtns one has three input wires - is anyone familiar with
these and how I might connect the sensor to read volts into the
GRT?
I've emailed GRT a couple of times but got no reply - I guess its
understandable that they want to sell me the $60 sensor rather than
have me use the one I have.
Thanks for your suggestions.
Allan
---------------------------------
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: very sensitive current monitor? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 08:48 PM 3/29/2006 -0600, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: D Wysong <hdwysong@gmail.com>
>
>Has anyone here come across an affordable (< $50) current monitor
>(preferably hall effect) with a max range of ~1 A? I'm looking for
>something that is usable with scaling of mV/mA rather than mV/A.
>
>The form factor of those little ampsense units is perfect... but the
>sensitivity offered by their smallest unit (25A) just isn't sensitive
>enough.
>
>Thanks for any guidance you can offer!
You can get more sensitivity from these products by passing
the current carrying wire through the aperture more times.
I've wound as many as 30 turns through the little Amploc
devices for 30x the sensitivity.
If you're needing 1000x the sensitivity, it's going to
be much harder. You may have discovered that the simple
hall devices have quite a bit of retentivity and tend to
take a "set" in the direction of the last current pulse
that makes zero current readings something of a moving target.
This makes it difficult to simply add gain to the device's
output for more sensitivity.
You might consider a "servoed" hell sensor where there are
two windings on the device. One is driven by an op-amp
set up to watch the hall output and then bias the core
so that net magnetic field is held at zero. The second winding is
your sense winding . . . any field generated by this winding
is exactly offset by the op-amp. This makes the retentivity
thing go away and allows you to put lots of gain on the
current measurement in the null winding which is an exact
image (within limits of the op-amp's dynamic limits)
of the current in the sense winding.
Have you considered the low cost, high common mode
instrumentation amps like the AD626? These can be
used with appropriate shunts to get the kinds of
sensitivity you cited also.
Bob . . .
< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: current sensor |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
Allan
The EIS sensor has a 5 volt input (they call it 4.8 volts for some
reason), a ground, and an output that outputs 0 to 5 volts. At zero
sensed current it output about 2.5 volts (half the supply voltage). At
max forward current it will output about 5 volts. At max reverse current
it will output about 0 volts. The EIS sense parameters (offset and scale
factor) can be adjusted to calibrate most sensors. Remember that you can
loop the sensed wire through the sensor more than once to increase the
sensitivity if you wish. My sensors all came from GRT but I have still
tweaked most of the sensor parameters a bit to calibrate them accurately.
Many industrial applications would feed a positive supply and a negative
supply to the sensor (instead of ground) so that the output at zero
sensed current is zero volts but that is not required with the EIS setup.
I don't recall anyone else mentioning the problem but I had to puzzle
out my own parameters to calibrate an extra liquid temp sensor as the
GRT numbers seemed to be way out of the ballpark for any kind of
accuracy. That was the only sensor that needed the reverse sensing
option selected on my install. I guess one should be hesitant to believe
any gauge until it is calibrated. I have found that support from GRT is
fast and excellant but if it were my business I'd probably also be
hesitant to spend time supporting products that I didn't sell. I am
assuming that they would be in favour of any discussion here though that
supports their product.
Ken
Allan Aaron wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Allan Aaron" <aaaron@tvp.com.au>
>
>I have a GRT EIS4000 and want to add the ammeter function. I forgot to
>buy the sensor from GRT but I do have a spare hall effect sensor from
>the previous Rocky Mountains EIS I was using. I'm wondering what the
>voltage (I assume) output of these devices is? The RkyMtns one has three
>input wires - is anyone familiar with these and how I might connect the
>sensor to read volts into the GRT?
>
>I've emailed GRT a couple of times but got no reply - I guess its
>understandable that they want to sell me the $60 sensor rather than have
>me use the one I have.
>
>Thanks for your suggestions.
>Allan
>
>
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rd2@evenlink.com
You are not mistaken, it is against FCC regs. Although, I haven't yet heard
of a case when the FCC penalized someone for doing so. Maybe because it
happens rarely and mostly in emergencies (9/11 being the most notable
example).
Sometimes it is even impossible to get into the network from the air in
areas where there is no signal problem on the ground.
A cell phone can be very usefull on the ground, though, for getting a
clearance or filing, or calling someone when taxiing. With the engine
running using a headset is very convemient. I use a Lightspeed ANR headset
("X-country") that has an input for cell phone (3.5 mm on the headset side,
2.5 mm on the cell phone side). Same input is used for feeding high quality
stereo audio (auto soft-muted) to the headphones (intercom input can still
be mono).
It is a less expensive solution and the audio is usually of higher quality
than using add-on devices.
Rumen
do not archive
_____________________Original message __________________________
(received from Dave Morris \"BigD\"; Date: 07:36 PM
3/29/2006 -0600)
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dave Morris \"BigD\""
<BigD@DaveMorris.com>
Unless I'm mistaken, I believe it is still against FCC regulations
(47CFR 22.925) to operate a cellular phone onboard an aircraft that
is in the air. This is because the signal will be picked up by
multiple cell towers at the same time and will lock out a significant
amount of bandwidth.
See
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/09nov20051500/edocket.access.gpo.gov
/cfr_2005/octqtr/47cfr22.925.htm
Dave Morris
At 05:35 AM 3/29/2006, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jack Kuehn
><jkuehn@mountaintime.myrf.net>
>
>I have a homebuilt Sky Ranger airplane with a Softcomm intercom, and I
>am trying to find a way to connect a cell phone into the intercom. I
>tried using an earphone jack plugged into the record output and music
>input, but this did not work. Does anyone have a solution, or does
>anyone know why this does not work? Thanks
>
>Jack
>
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Alt/Batt switch question |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alan K. Adamson" <aadamson@highrf.com>
Bob, Thanks for the reply. I unfortunately didn't see your reply before I
wasted the bandwidth and send a second message.... Sorry bout that :(.
Your checklist idea is an excellent one. I had thought thru most of it but
seeing it in simple black and white certainly reinforces the results and
benefit.
Thanks again
Alan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 6:13 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Alt/Batt switch question
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
--> <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 04:47 PM 3/26/2006 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alan K. Adamson"
><aadamson@highrf.com>
>
>Take Z14 for example. I know there has been lots of discussion about
>not doing Avionics masters, but I have a somewhat related question.
>
>I have an IO-550 with dual alt/batts. One alt will be a regular engine
>driven one and it will be on the primary buss. The other, and SD-20,
>will be on the essential buss.
>
>So, in the scenario where I perform the initial startup, How does the
>VR and the Backup alternator perform under this scenario.
>
>A) I put the primary master in ALT+BATT.
>B) I leave the CROSS TIE contactor OFF,
>C) I put the Essential buss master to BATT only, not to ALT. I do this
>because the engine instrumentation is on the essential buss and I want
>to prime and watch for static fuel pressure, etc.
You can turn on battery only or turn on both alternators too . . .
doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.
>So, the primary battery provides all the power required for start and
>the fuel pump (it's a Mag based engine). The backup battery is
>providing just the power for the essential buss (in my case, the PFD
>EFIS, the AHRS, the Magnetometer and the Engine instruments).
>
>Once running, I switch the essential master to ALT and that should
>start the backup alternator charging the system.
>
>My real question is, is just having the ALT switch to the VR open,
>enough to cause the alternator *not* to put out a charge until after I
>switch the switch?
Assuming that you're using externally regulated alternators as
illustrated
in Z-14 then if the alternator switch is not ON, then the alternator
controlled
by that switch is OFF. You can turn it on after starting or before
starting,
it doesn't matter.
>Perhaps I don't understand all the mechanics, but from the B&C
>datasheet on the VR, (it's one of theirs), that is how you test it, so
>I figured, it wouldn't hurt to start this way?
It doesn't HURT anything to start any way you wish. What you do
want to do is craft a preflight test that sorts through all your
marbles to see that they're in place before takeoff. From a human
factors perspective, you want to do one thing and observe one result.
MAIN bat ON . . . . stuff lights up. MAIN LO VOLTS
flashes.
AUX bat ON . . . . more stuff lights up. AUX LOW
VOLTS light flashes.
Engine START . . . . oil pressure rises.
MAIN alt ON . . . . MAIN LOW VOLTS warning
goes dark.
AUX alt ON . . . . AUX LOW VOLTS warning
goes dark.
>Would it be better to switch the cross tie on prior to switching on the
>second alternator, or does *any* of this matter?
Why? The cross tie is there for one of two reasons: (1) allow sharing
of energy sources during a failure event on one side or the other and
(2) letting two batteries do the job of getting the engine started. If
stuff on the aux bus doesn't run well in the real world of starter-
in-rush-brown-out, then (2) is not an option for you. This leaves only
(1) which (given the inherent reliability of modern batteries and
alternators) should be a very rare event. You might want to include it
in the pre-flight checklist by closing the cross tie, turn aux battery
and alternator OFF to see that the aux bus stays lit then return the
system to the flight configuration.
Bob . . .
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rd2@evenlink.com
Brian, FAA rules aside, are you sure it is ok with the FCC to use digital
cell phones in the air? If so, this is very usefull info.
Rumen
do not archive
_____________________Original message __________________________
(received from Brian Lloyd; Date: 05:56 PM 3/29/2006
-0800)
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
Dave Morris "BigD" wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dave Morris \"BigD\""
<BigD@DaveMorris.com>
>
> Unless I'm mistaken, I believe it is still against FCC regulations
> (47CFR 22.925) to operate a cellular phone onboard an aircraft that
> is in the air. This is because the signal will be picked up by
> multiple cell towers at the same time and will lock out a significant
> amount of bandwidth.
That is indeed the case for AMPS phones (the old analog cell-phone
technology). The newer digital PCS phones operate under a different set
of rules. These phones, CDMA, TDMA, GSM, etc., may be used in-flight.
There are no FCC limitations on that. The FAA limitation (part 91
operations) is that the pilot must determine that the operation of the
phone does not present a hazard to aircraft operation or navigation.
--
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: legal Cell phone |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder@perigee.net>
Do Not Archive
I'm very indebted and relieved if this is the case, and hope it will
remain the policy of the airlines to ban the use of cell phones while the
aircraft is away from the gate. I can imagine how bad it would be to be
held captive for hours while the usual cell phone bore orders an underling
or their secretary around in a loud voice, or relates intimate details
from the previous night's liaison, or in a similarly loud voice, relates
in detail the long string of other problems in their life. In a restaurant
or the terminal one can put some distance between the annoyance and
themselves. In the usual crammed cattle car we fly in these days? Abu
Ghraib anyone?
Cheers,
John Schroeder
On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 19:42:34 -0700, Jack Kuehn
<jkuehn@mountaintime.myrf.net> wrote:
> Do the pilots, as a matter of company policy, "decide" they are not
> "safe?"
--
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dave Morris \"BigD\"" <BigD@DaveMorris.com>
Brian you are probably right. I can't seem to find any limitations
in the PCS part of the regulations, other than for "antenna height",
and that seems to apply to ground stations.
Dave
At 07:56 PM 3/29/2006, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
>
>
>Dave Morris "BigD" wrote:
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dave Morris \"BigD\""
> <BigD@DaveMorris.com>
> >
> > Unless I'm mistaken, I believe it is still against FCC regulations
> > (47CFR 22.925) to operate a cellular phone onboard an aircraft that
> > is in the air. This is because the signal will be picked up by
> > multiple cell towers at the same time and will lock out a significant
> > amount of bandwidth.
>
>That is indeed the case for AMPS phones (the old analog cell-phone
>technology). The newer digital PCS phones operate under a different set
>of rules. These phones, CDMA, TDMA, GSM, etc., may be used in-flight.
>There are no FCC limitations on that. The FAA limitation (part 91
>operations) is that the pilot must determine that the operation of the
>phone does not present a hazard to aircraft operation or navigation.
>
>--
>Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
>brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
>+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
>
>I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
>- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
>
>
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Wayne Reese" <webfootboat@comcast.net>
Thanks, just ordered it.
Wayne
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 10:28 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Cell phone
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Wayne,
I had the same issue until I found the cable. PS-Eng sells them but
for a super high price. I bought this one, from here, and it works
great.
http://www.midi-classics.com/c/c23895.htm
Maker: Hosa Technology
Code: CMM-403
That should be some help for you....they're really cheap.
To use this one, you will need to buy a 2.5mm jack for the input.
If you wired a 3.5mm jack, you'll need a 2.5mm to 3.5mm male cable,
which I haven't shopped for.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
PS, that PS8000 is one hot intercom. I can't believe how
great it functions in many ways!
Wayne Reese wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Wayne Reese"
<webfootboat@comcast.net>
>
> Excuse me for jumping in here. I have a ps8000sr that includes a cell
phone
> connection which I have not been able to try simply because it requires a
> cord with a 2.5 mm connection of each end (stereo I believe) and I have
not
> been able to find a cable anywhere. Any suggestions?
> Wayne
>
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Michael" <jm@10squaredcorp.com>
Cell tower antennas point toward the ground where the majority of the users
can be found, so I'm not surprised that reception might be worse in the air
even with the LOS benefit.
On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 08:29:33 -0500, rd2 wrote
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rd2@evenlink.com
>
> You are not mistaken, it is against FCC regs. Although, I haven't
> yet heard of a case when the FCC penalized someone for doing so.
> Maybe because it happens rarely and mostly in emergencies (9/11
> being the most notable example). Sometimes it is even impossible to
> get into the network from the air in areas where there is no signal
> problem on the ground. A cell phone can be very usefull on the
> ground, though, for getting a clearance or filing, or calling
> someone when taxiing. With the engine running using a headset is
> very convemient. I use a Lightspeed ANR headset
> ("X-country") that has an input for cell phone (3.5 mm on the
> headset side,
> 2.5 mm on the cell phone side). Same input is used for feeding high quality
> stereo audio (auto soft-muted) to the headphones (intercom input can
> still be mono). It is a less expensive solution and the audio is
> usually of higher quality than using add-on devices.
>
> Rumen
> do not archive
>
> _____________________Original message __________________________
> (received from Dave Morris \"BigD\"; Date: 07:36 PM
> 3/29/2006 -0600)
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dave Morris \"BigD\""
> <BigD@DaveMorris.com>
>
> Unless I'm mistaken, I believe it is still against FCC regulations
> (47CFR 22.925) to operate a cellular phone onboard an aircraft that
> is in the air. This is because the signal will be picked up by
> multiple cell towers at the same time and will lock out a
> significant amount of bandwidth.
>
> See
>
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/09nov20051500/edocket.access.gpo.gov
> /cfr_2005/octqtr/47cfr22.925.htm
>
> Dave Morris
>
> At 05:35 AM 3/29/2006, you wrote:
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jack Kuehn
> ><jkuehn@mountaintime.myrf.net>
> >
> >I have a homebuilt Sky Ranger airplane with a Softcomm intercom, and I
> >am trying to find a way to connect a cell phone into the intercom. I
> >tried using an earphone jack plugged into the record output and music
> >input, but this did not work. Does anyone have a solution, or does
> >anyone know why this does not work? Thanks
> >
> >Jack
> >
>
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
rd2@evenlink.com wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rd2@evenlink.com
>
> You are not mistaken, it is against FCC regs.
As I said in earlier messages, the use of *AMPS* cellphones (the older
analog phones that transmit using narrow-band FM in the 800MHz band) in
an airplane in the air is prohibited by the FCC. It is *NOT* against FCC
regs to use PCS phones (digital phones such as CDMA, TDMA, and GSM)
while in flight. As far as the FCC is concerned AMPS and PCS are
completely different services and operate under completely different rules.
--
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
Dave Morris "BigD" wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dave Morris \"BigD\"" <BigD@DaveMorris.com>
>
> Brian you are probably right. I can't seem to find any limitations
> in the PCS part of the regulations, other than for "antenna height",
> and that seems to apply to ground stations.
One thing to considers: many phone are "dual-band", i.e. they can
operate both PCS *and* AMPS. Often when your phone roams it is switching
to AMPS mode. This would be against FCC regs if you let this happen
while flying. If you wish to use your PCS phone in your plane you need
to go into the phone's settings and disable AMPS mode. I just lock mine
to my home provider and don't let it roam. That solves the problem and
prevents "surprise" roaming charges.
--
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: legal Cell phone |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dave Morris \"BigD\"" <BigD@DaveMorris.com>
From 91.21:
"In the case of an aircraft operated by a holder of an air carrier
operating certificate or an operating certificate, the determination
required by paragraph (b)(5) of this section shall be made by that
operator of the aircraft on which the particular device is to be
used. In the case of other aircraft, the determination may be made by
the pilot in command or other operator of the aircraft."
Operator not = pilot.
Dave Morris
At 08:42 PM 3/29/2006, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jack Kuehn
><jkuehn@mountaintime.myrf.net>
>
>That is interesting, and I bet not too many pilots know this. Why then
>are the airlines still telling us to turn our digital cell phones off?
>Do the pilots, as a matter of company policy, "decide" they are not
>"safe?"
>
>Brian Lloyd wrote:
>
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
> >
> >
> >
> >Dave Morris "BigD" wrote:
> >
> >
> >>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dave Morris \"BigD\""
> <BigD@DaveMorris.com>
> >>
> >>Unless I'm mistaken, I believe it is still against FCC regulations
> >>(47CFR 22.925) to operate a cellular phone onboard an aircraft that
> >>is in the air. This is because the signal will be picked up by
> >>multiple cell towers at the same time and will lock out a significant
> >>amount of bandwidth.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >That is indeed the case for AMPS phones (the old analog cell-phone
> >technology). The newer digital PCS phones operate under a different set
> >of rules. These phones, CDMA, TDMA, GSM, etc., may be used in-flight.
> >There are no FCC limitations on that. The FAA limitation (part 91
> >operations) is that the pilot must determine that the operation of the
> >phone does not present a hazard to aircraft operation or navigation.
> >
> >
> >
>
>--
>Jack Kuehn
>5565 Brady Lane
>Lolo, MT 59847
>
>(406) 273-6801
>(406) 546-1086 (cell)
>(406) 273-2563 (fax)
>
>
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: legal Cell phone |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Fiveonepw@aol.com
In a message dated 3/29/06 8:46:09 PM Central Standard Time,
jkuehn@mountaintime.myrf.net writes:
> Why then
> are the airlines still telling us to turn our digital cell phones off?
> Do the pilots, as a matter of company policy, "decide" they are not
> "safe?"
>>>
Actually, the pilots would face a major revolt from flight attendants who do
not want to face complaints from passengers and enforce usage guidelines. F/A
union members almost unanimously object to cell phone use in commercial
aircraft, and if I were sitting elbow to elbow with someone endlessly blabbing
while I was trying to get some work done or take a nap, I'd be pretty upset. I
have heard some discussion about turning the old smoking sections into yakking
areas. Where would we be without our addictions?
Bryan- how does one determine type of cell phone? Anything newer than "X"
years OK? All dualbands OK? TIA!
Mark - do not archive
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: legal Cell phone |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
Fiveonepw@aol.com wrote:
> Bryan- how does one determine type of cell phone? Anything newer than "X"
> years OK? All dualbands OK? TIA!
In the US Sprint, Cingular, AT&T, and Verizon all operate under the PCS
laws. Only the older cell-phone franchises still have AMPS. AMPS doesn't
support any of the newer features like text messaging, internet access,
picture phone capability, etc. Customer feature requirements dictate
that one sell PCS services these days.
So virtually all phones sold today are PCS.
For instance, my phone, a Samsung SP500i from Sprint, has three choices
under "roming":
-automatic
-Sprint
-analog
By setting it to "Sprint" I prevent it from switching to analog (AMPS)
roaming mode.
But the definitive answer is: RTFM. ;-)
Brian Lloyd
brian HYPHEN yak AT lloyd DOT com
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rd2@evenlink.com
Thanks for the clarification.
r
do nor archive
_____________________Original message __________________________
(received from Brian Lloyd; Date: 06:13 AM 3/30/2006
-0800)
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
rd2@evenlink.com wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rd2@evenlink.com
>
> You are not mistaken, it is against FCC regs.
As I said in earlier messages, the use of *AMPS* cellphones (the older
analog phones that transmit using narrow-band FM in the 800MHz band) in
an airplane in the air is prohibited by the FCC. It is *NOT* against FCC
regs to use PCS phones (digital phones such as CDMA, TDMA, and GSM)
while in flight. As far as the FCC is concerned AMPS and PCS are
completely different services and operate under completely different rules.
--
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
--
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: legal Cell phone |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Fiveonepw@aol.com
> But the definitive answer is: RTFM.
>>>>
Absolutely- thanks again Brian and apologies for the (y) mispel-
Mark do not archive
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: [Fwd: Re: RV-List: Engine compartment wiring] |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bill Dube <william.p.dube@noaa.gov>
Interesting presentation on "by the book" aircraft wiring practices
(from the RV list)
Bill Dube'
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: RV-List: Engine compartment wiring
From: Steve Allison <stevea@svpal.org>
--> RV-List message posted by: Steve Allison <stevea@svpal.org>
better yet, download it here:
www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/designees_delegations/training/der_present/la_may/media/Electrical%20Wiring.pdf
Bob C. wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Bob C. " <flyboy.bob@gmail.com>
>
> Ralph,
>
> I have a power-point that I down loaded from the FAA? It's overkill but
> very informative.
>
> I send you a copy . . . If anyone else would like a copy send me an email
> off line.
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Baker" <jlbaker@msbit.net>
Please disregard...something odd happening with my new email
ISP......
Jim Baker
580.788.2779
Elmore City, OK
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: legal Cell phone |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "JAMES BOWEN" <jabowenjr@hotmail.com>
My experience is that cell phones don't work above a few thousand feet AGL
anyway. I'm not sure what the actual altitude is where they start to work. I
hesitate to say more. ;-)
Jim Bowen
RV-8
>From: Fiveonepw@aol.com
>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: legal Cell phone
>Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 11:25:09 EST
>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Fiveonepw@aol.com
>
>In a message dated 3/29/06 8:46:09 PM Central Standard Time,
>jkuehn@mountaintime.myrf.net writes:
>
> > Why then
> > are the airlines still telling us to turn our digital cell phones off?
> > Do the pilots, as a matter of company policy, "decide" they are not
> > "safe?"
>
> >>>
>
>Actually, the pilots would face a major revolt from flight attendants who
>do
>not want to face complaints from passengers and enforce usage guidelines.
>F/A
>union members almost unanimously object to cell phone use in commercial
>aircraft, and if I were sitting elbow to elbow with someone endlessly
>blabbing
>while I was trying to get some work done or take a nap, I'd be pretty
>upset. I
>have heard some discussion about turning the old smoking sections into
>yakking
>areas. Where would we be without our addictions?
>
>Bryan- how does one determine type of cell phone? Anything newer than "X"
>years OK? All dualbands OK? TIA!
>
>Mark - do not archive
>
>
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|