TomTom on an airplane?

[dhn]

If you believe that stuff, then you must also believe that the only reason the Pentagon shot down that satellite was because of safety concerns surrounding the hydrazine fuel. Sure!

Oh.......oh........

Here come the grassy knoll theorists ......

 

[martinp13]

From the Continental website:

http://www.continental.com/web/en-US/content/travel/baggage/devices.aspx

Devices that may be used only when announced by the flight attendants and the aircraft is above 10,000 feet in altitude:

* electronic games
* personal computers
* entertainment players
* recorders (audio and/or video, such as tape/CD/MiniDisc/MP3 players and camcorders)
* calculators
* shavers
* cameras
* aircraft power ports for laptops.

Devices that are not permitted for use at any time:

* battery operated personal air-purifying device
* TVs
* radio receivers and/or transmitters (including AM/FM/SW, CB and scanners)
* remote-control toys.

-----

So from that, GPS receivers are not to be turned on at any time on Continental. American Airlines is the same, Delta lets you use them. Go figure. You should be FINE with them stowed in your carry-on bag. My laptop bag also carries my TomTom, Garmin handheld, and Nintendo DS every flight.

 

[geocacher]

I work for an airline and I have asked the pilots and most of them say they have no problem with it, because GPS units do not transmit signals. You should ask your pilots when you fly to make sure they are ok with it. If you do use one in flight, make sure you are near a window and turn it on before you take off. I did that with mine going to California last year and had no problem, it was cool to see how fast you were going and where you are.

 

[boren]

Spook,

First we have to seperate the use of electronic devices from those that transmit. The use of toys, laptops, etc is prohibited below 10,000 feet so that you can hear and pay attention to instructions given by crew members should an emergency arrise.

Cell phones are prohibited for 2 reasons:

1. Old analog phones (AMPS, just terminated) are problematic for cell carries in the air because they suddenly affect a large number of cell cites at once and shut down that frequency over a broad area. They are effectively line of site and on the ground you only affect a small area around you. At altitude you might block a frequency for en entire small state. You have a whole bunch of people flying those and you can kill service.

2. It's hard to prove the affects they have on electronics, if any. If you look at post crash analysis again it's hard to find anything. I was looking for an NTSB report of a twin that crashed a few years ago. For no apparent reason the aircraft flew 500 under the ILS localizer (a signal that guides the aircraft down through the clouds) until it impacted the terrain. There was speculation that perhaps the copilot talking on his cell phone may have affected the systems.

Like many things in aviation in the risk/benefit analysis. Digital cell phones in general don't work well in the air at altitude. Once too many cell towers pick up the signal the cell phone company normally kills the phone. Second you're in a metal can that's very hard to get signal through.

So the risk is, you kill 500 people because someone had their useless cell phone on or you ask people to turn it off.

 

[The Spook]

Oh.......oh........

Here come the grassy knoll theorists ......

I guess you don't know what tech really was on that satellite then. The Americans here should, it was dozens of billions of their tax dollars. Oh wait! That's right, it went on the 'black' budget. They never officially admitted how much money they pissed away on super-secret NRO technology.

Let me tell you, close on 400 sattelites with hydrazine fuel tanks (many of them full) have just been allowed to smash into the Earth. The Pentagon never felt the need to destroy those with experimental missiles. Why? Because if you are not within 30 metres of a hydrazine filled fuel tank when it hits, it isn't a problem. You know how much one of those SM-3 interceptors cost right? They ain't cheap. They don't fire them for fun. They are not even officially operational yet. It was a last-ditch attempt at ass-covering.

The Pentagon has never been worried about the cost to human life or the environment before, and they aren't worried about it now. They are worried that their very newest top-secret tech would crash outside of the US and fall into the hands of 'unfriendly' governments.

 

[The Spook]

2. It's hard to prove the affects they have on electronics, if any. If you look at post crash analysis again it's hard to find anything.

Yeah, because the affect is 0. Any even half-critical system can use a not-quite-magical tech called 'shielding', and does. That's why aircraft don't fall out of the sky when flying in electrically charged atmoshperes (i.e. near storms).

Unshielded systems (like the beacon you described) are theoretically vulnerable (they antenna must be unshielded to work), but in reality there is no problem.

I ask you, how come you can use a cell phone on Air France flights? They have a pico-cell onboard that relays signals to the ground, so you can get a call through. However, the rest of the aircraft's systems are not specially shielded. Why? Because there is no need. The worst that can happen in an aircraft without an onboard cell is that you can't make a call.

 

[boren]

It's not a beacon, it's a radio receiver, and that's exactly the issue. It's meant to receive radio signals and amplify them. Cell phones are on vastly different frequencies, but that doesn't elliminate the problems with harmonics.

That's nice that Air France has the relay service, but that doesn't many anything on any other plane. Unless you're done immunity testing you don't know how it may react.

The chance of any problems is very close to 0, and in may never ever cause a problem, but that's not the point. You maybe so special that you can't be bothered to turn of your cell phone, it takes all of 2 seconds after all. But if the off chance it does cause a problem you kill everyone aboard. Why not play it safe?

 

[Sheerah]

Thank you everyone for your input.
I'm looking forward to travelling with it just to see what I can see!
Ciao for now.

 

[baggss]

Seriously, does anyone actually believe that a mobile phone could dangerously affect on-board equipment? Please. If it could, planes would be falling out of the sky every single day. The worst affect it may have is that the pilot gets a slight clicking noise on the comms system when you receive a call. And only if you are really close to the cockpit. C'mon folks, planes survive lightning strikes without a problem. I don't think 'transmitting devices' (which lighting is incidentally) are going to cause any trouble.

I've read this has more to do with the phone companies than FAA safety. You'd hit to many towers from 35000 feet and the system can't handle the load.

 

[Smokiewolf]

Yeah, if you are not sat near a window you can have problems getting good enough reception, due to the metal fuselage.

That whole thing about interference is a total crock. I haven't turned off my phones (I usually carry two) on a plane for at least five years. Not since I saw a stewardess making a call on her cell phone.

Seriously, does anyone actually believe that a mobile phone could dangerously affect on-board equipment? Please. If it could, planes would be falling out of the sky every single day. The worst affect it may have is that the pilot gets a slight clicking noise on the comms system when you receive a call. And only if you are really close to the cockpit. C'mon folks, planes survive lightning strikes without a problem. I don't think 'transmitting devices' (which lighting is incidentally) are going to cause any trouble.

Certainly, I have made dozens of flights with my phones switched on and no member of crew has ever demanded "which maniac has their phone switched on?"! I frequently do a bluetooth search in flight to see how many other people have their phones on too, and usually find a few more like me.

If you believe that stuff, then you must also believe that the only reason the Pentagon shot down that satellite was because of safety concerns surrounding the hydrazine fuel. Sure!

ROFL! I'm with you dude. I think they did it to prove that we can take out satellites if we wanted to!
Did you see the mythbusters episode where they investigated cell phones on airplanes?
Basically, they found that the older technology cell phones did affect instruments, but with proper shielding that can be avoided. Airlines and the FAA choose to enforce the ban to cover themselves in the event that there was a problem, and they were aware that there was the chance of a problem. CYA all the way!

 

[The Spook]

I've read this has more to do with the phone companies than FAA safety. You'd hit to many towers from 35000 feet and the system can't handle the load.

Personally, I think it has more to do with passenger comfort. You don't want the guy next to you yacking away at full volume for two hours, and the air crew don't want to go round asking people to shut up. So it easier to ban the use of phones.

If they say it is for 'safety reasons' no-one complains. If they asked for a voluntary ban on account of 'consideration of fellow passengers', 60% of people would spend the entire flight on their phone.

What I do know is that cell phones do not cause planes to fall out of the sky.

 

[baggss]

Personally, I think it has more to do with passenger comfort. You don't want the guy next to you yacking away at full volume for two hours, and the air crew don't want to go round asking people to shut up. So it easier to ban the use of phones.

If they say it is for 'safety reasons' no-one complains. If they asked for a voluntary ban on account of 'consideration of fellow passengers', 60% of people would spend the entire flight on their phone.

What I do know is that cell phones do not cause planes to fall out of the sky.

There was an article in Scientific American a few years back that talked about the joint FAA/Cell Phone industry tests. They did cite the passenger annoyance issue as well. That was where I read about the overloading of the cell towers and concerns or the industry about being able to handle the volume of traffic on that many towers simultaneously. They did point out that there was not andy real interference with flight control and navigation systems in most modern aircraft that were tested.

I fly a lot for business and I fully agree about not wanting to sit next to some idiot babbling on cell for a 5 or 6 hour flight.

 

[PiratePast40]

There are 2 problems with the automotive GPS on high speed passenger jets:

The first has allready been mentioned and it's about reception. You have a better chance of obtaining enough satellites if you're sitting next to a window. You can possibly help yourself out a little by acquiring the signal prior to boarding the aircraft. My experience is that flight attendants are just as interested as you are in your airborne location.
The second issue is is your location in relation to roads. Keep in mind that these devices are made to find your location and calculate routes on roads. At cruising altitude, you leave the calculated roadway within a few seconds so it's constantly recalculating your route. It's pretty cool to see that you're over some county road in Montana and your ground speed is 535 mph but it gets pretty boring when the screen only lasts a few seconds.

I've used it on several flights but to be honest, it's only cool the first couple of times.

The other issue people keep bringing up is about electronic devices being turned on during the critical phases of the flight. You can argue all you want but the airlines have policies that you as a passanger need to comply with. Basicly, if you act like a child, they're going to take away your toys!

 

[Smokiewolf]

There are 2 problems with the automotive GPS on high speed passenger jets:

The first has allready been mentioned and it's about reception. You have a better chance of obtaining enough satellites if you're sitting next to a window. You can possibly help yourself out a little by acquiring the signal prior to boarding the aircraft. My experience is that flight attendants are just as interested as you are in your airborne location.
The second issue is is your location in relation to roads. Keep in mind that these devices are made to find your location and calculate routes on roads. At cruising altitude, you leave the calculated roadway within a few seconds so it's constantly recalculating your route. It's pretty cool to see that you're over some county road in Montana and your ground speed is 535 mph but it gets pretty boring when the screen only lasts a few seconds.

I've used it on several flights but to be honest, it's only cool the first couple of times.

The other issue people keep bringing up is about electronic devices being turned on during the critical phases of the flight. You can argue all you want but the airlines have policies that you as a passanger need to comply with. Basicly, if you act like a child, they're going to take away your toys!

LOL!!! That's true, and if you're lucky they will give them back after you land!

 

[zkczyk]

TT on aircraft - LEGAL

yes, it's legal. just make sure you turn it off when so instructed by the flight attendant to rurn off all electronic devices... and don't turn it back on until the flight attendant says it's OK to use electronic devices.
you will also want to CLEAR your route, otherwise TT will continually attempt to reconfigure a new route as you go zipping along at fantastic speeds.
if you don't Clear your route, you will at least want to turn your SOUND OFF so TT isn't telling you to "turn left" or "turn right" as it continually reconfigures a new route for you.

 

[Pedro2NR]

Here is my clip of me using my 920 on an airplane.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnOqAq3mT5g

 

[Larry L]

Just flew across US with TT1

I just got back from a trip from NJ to CA and back. I had an isle seat , but the wife had the window. The TT did well aquiring the Sats when held next to a windo for about a minute. After locking about 6 Sats, I could bring the TT back to my lap and track.

I did turn off the sound first and clear any rout after watching the recalculate to get me home about 3 times. I used the Brouse Map feature and zoomed out to see the entire country and sometimes in to see the state. I would hit the icon in the top right to get a current location.

It was nice to know once in a while our location, altitude, and speed. Below is a section from the TripMaster file.

-9593529|3930158|20:16:03 - Dist. 4 - 30623.4 ft - 4.1 Miles - 479 Mph - 7|0|
-9597691|3930195|20:16:20 - Dist. 6 - 30613.5 ft - 6.2 Miles - 478 Mph - 7|0|
-9601488|3930221|20:16:35 - Dist. 8 - 30603.7 ft - 8.2 Miles - 478 Mph - 6|0|
-9605446|3930252|20:16:51 - Dist. 10 - 30607.0 ft - 10.3 Miles - 478 Mph - 6|0|
-9609194|3930277|20:17:06 - Dur. 0:10:19 - 30613.5 ft - 11.6 Miles - 477 Mph - 7|0|

Regarding Cellphones in airplanes: I have worked in the EMI/EMC field of Electrical Engineering. Relaize that much of the wireing in airplanes runs within inches of some passengers' heads. Cell phones adjust their power level based on recieved signal strength from the cell tower. At 30,000 feet through an aluminum body, the phone will use maximum power. This power can couple onto the wireing which may be used for navigation or control. There may not be any documented problems directly related to

 

[thaJack]

I tried it a couple of months ago.. The best way is to go to the View Map screen, otherwise, it tries to keep snapping the thing to a road.

Anyways, we were going 501 miles per hour when I did it.

 

[twistrman]

Going pretty fast...

Tried the TT out on the plane on my way from SF to CHI a week ago. I was stupid and before i left home I didn't do the GPS map update, so it was having A LOT of trouble finding the satellite. But i managed to get one after holding it up against the window for about 5 - 10 minutes.

Finally got a signal and turned tripmaster on and all that. Clocked it going 628 mph. I turned it on a little bit later and we were down to 540, so I think i got it right around our peak speed. The flight was long, so it was nice to turn it on and see how close we were to getting there.

The picture doesn't look like it's loading right in the post, but I know the link is correct, so I'll see if it starts working eventually.

http://bp2.blogger.com/_li4MaAo0Y78/SCWq4rHZOrI/AAAAAAAAAKc/928RbwpHqAo/s1600-h/tomtom_plane.jpg

 

[GGW]

A friend who's a pilot for NWA and a huge gadget freak told me that the best place on A330's and similar is a window over the wing. He wasn't sure if the wing itself had any impact on helping bounce signals or anything but said that in a few hundred flights (lives in Atlanta but flies from MSP so fly's to work every week) playing with GPS that's his experience. Me thinks he also had the advantage of FA's not telling him in his uniform to turn off his GPS during takeoff and landing.