Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 85080	2007-11-29 03:56:00	Blue tooth on planes	John H (8)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
616207	2007-11-29 03:56:00	Like all of you, I listen avidly to the cabin announcements on AirNZ. Yeah right. I must have heard them a thousand times over the last few years, however, I may have missed this bit. Can you use Bluetooth on a plane (i.e. for Bluetooth headphones so I can listen to an mp3 player without getting tangled up in cords). I seem to recall some blether about Bluetooth being one of the prohibited broadcasting modes, but I can't find anything about it on the AirNZ site. Anyone help? Thanks.	John H (8)
616208	2007-11-29 04:06:00	Partially, if my understanding is correct. Virgin and British Midlands are investigating the use of Bluetooth on aircraft, however that probably will not include phones. Something to do with GSM signals potentially affecting the nav systems....believe that ongoing party-line if you wish. However, for sync'ing devices that aren't phones, it seems very likely. Pocket PC's to laptops for example, and I guess your MP3 player to your headphones. How far, if at all AirNZ is along that track, no idea. My guess is they'll let Virgin etc do all the work testing it, and announce its availabilty two days after Virgin do!	allblack (6574)
616209	2007-11-29 04:36:00	CAA regulations prohibit the use of all "Radio transmitting devices" onboard an aircraft. A bluetooth device falls into that category.	somebody (208)
616210	2007-11-29 05:21:00	i've always wondered if it would actually effect the radio equipment any proof of it ever happening? i'm sure all the ambient radio waves above any major city/airport would have a much greater effect than a bluetooth mp3 player although i suppose if you get 200 bluetooth players there might be a problem, but wouldn't the radio equipment be shielded from the main cabin anyway?	motorbyclist (188)
616211	2007-11-29 05:29:00	i've always wondered if it would actually effect the radio equipment any proof of it ever happening? i'm sure all the ambient radio waves above any major city/airport would have a much greater effect than a bluetooth mp3 player although i suppose if you get 200 bluetooth players there might be a problem, but wouldn't the radio equipment be shielded from the main cabin anyway? It's not proof that it *will* affect the equipment, rather proof that it *won't*. There are documented cases of things such as cellphones coinciding with planes going down. It isn't possible to conclusively rule out interference causing problems on planes, and hence it's better safe than sorry.	somebody (208)
616212	2007-11-29 05:31:00	Thanks folks. At the moment, I have a feeling that any form of "transmission" is prohibited on AirNZ. Your comments seem to confirm it. Thanks again. I am back on the "bus" to Wgtn on 3 Dec, so I will concentrate more on what they say...	John H (8)
616213	2007-11-29 06:19:00	The technology is there to stop cellphones et al affecting aircraft nav equipment, and has been for some time. The delay is probably due to more pragmatic concerns e.g. terrorists using cellphones to do their stuff, and also concerns about "air-rage". Trolley dolleys are very anti-cellphones in planes. They are (rightly) concerned that with all the stress these days regarding air travel, pax who usually find sanctuary in the (relative) peace of an aircraft cabin will start going postal with 300-odd cellphones ringing all the time. Naturally, there are valid arguments for both sides, but as far as I'm concerned, if you can't survive an hour's flight between Wgtn and Akl without the cell, then you either need to get a life, or have delusions of grandeur. Or both. Long may the "ban" continue.	allblack (6574)
616214	2007-11-29 06:25:00	The technology is there to stop cellphones et al affecting aircraft nav equipment, and has been for some time. The delay is probably due to more pragmatic concerns e.g. terrorists using cellphones to do their stuff, and also concerns about "air-rage". Trolley dolleys are very anti-cellphones in planes. They are (rightly) concerned that with all the stress these days regarding air travel, pax who usually find sanctuary in the (relative) peace of an aircraft cabin will start going postal with 300-odd cellphones ringing all the time. Naturally, there are valid arguments for both sides, but as far as I'm concerned, if you can't survive an hour's flight between Wgtn and Akl without the cell, then you either need to get a life, or have delusions of grandeur. Or both. Long may the "ban" continue. There's another issue that older aircraft may not have the same level of shielding required on wiring and equipment to prevent interference. A lot of the planes flying in the air are anywhere up to 20-30 years old.	somebody (208)
616215	2007-11-29 06:33:00	There's another issue that older aircraft may not have the same level of shielding required on wiring and equipment to prevent interference. A lot of the planes flying in the air are anywhere up to 20-30 years old. Correct. But they are not the majority. And if you look at the aircraft fleets between major cities and hubs, you'll find they're relatively new. The FCC in the US is also focussing on business traveller's....and a significant number of aircraft used between major cities in the US during mornings and evenings are, by virtue of pax volumes, 777's and A330's. New aircraft.	allblack (6574)
616216	2007-11-29 06:36:00	There's possibly also an issue for cellphone service providers - travelling at jet-liner speeds, billing could be an interesting exercise, skipping from cellsite to cellsite across a multitude of countries in a short time-frame (though this would be more relevant in Europe than downunder)...	johcar (6283)
1 2