What operation do you like more? The reason i bring this up is because I like UA more but for some reason, I have always liked AA’s operation at ORD more (terminal, on time performance, flight crews).

UAL for E+ and Ch 9

Ch 9 and they allow the use of GPS receivers during cruise phase of flight. American does not allow their use at all. As long as American continues that policy, they will be at the bottom of my list of potential carriers. :stuck_out_tongue:

Speaking of not allowing GPS use inflight: anyone know why Southwest stopped allowing them? I have used them since the ban discreetly (latest on SWA1783 SEA-OAK to determine if we had already overflown Oregon) and I haven’t seen any aircraft fall out of the sky due to me using it.

What operation do you like more? The reason i bring this up is because I like UA more but for some reason, I have always liked AA’s operation at ORD more (terminal, on time performance, flight crews).

I have actually liked UA more. Ch. 9 of course is one reason, but they have the best hubs in terms of on time performance and ease to get through (SFO, DEN).

UA at ORD is bigger and better (see… … Issue2.pdf) . I dont know why you like AA more at ORD. Their terminal takes longer to get through, their on time performance is worse then ua’s and they have less flights. I know that for regional airports, they always try to get UA at OHARE as oppose to AA. The reason: UA’S terminal is quicker to connect to and they have more flights. Business travelers like Business 1 so that they connect to business cities in the same area. When I connect through ohare, I always use UA.

Maybe the misconception is that you are comparing UA crews at Den or other hubs to UA at ord. UA crews at den are the best…very hard to beat

What is ch 9?

Inflight Entertainment System channel 9 on the headsets is the ATC communications frequency currently in use for your flight.

and the fact that AA carts you in MD-80’S while UAL gives you 777 and 767 all over the place.

I HATE THE MD-80 :angry: :angry:
and everyone talks about NWA and the DC-9

Great, so you decide that it is ok to create a potential hazard and risk other peoples lives by using a device that is specifically not allowed because you want to know what state you are flying over. All you need to do is ask the flight attendant and they’ll tell you.

It is amazing to me that you criticize people for using the wrong word or something that you think is wrong about their post, but think it is ok to blatantly violate an airline rule/reg.

For years, I used the GPS with no problems. Evidently it doesn’t affect aircraft operation if other airlines allow its use.

Don’t want to bother the flight attendant. They were too busy handing out non-peanuts because of one (1) person’s selfishness.

I smell slime, er, lawyer at work at banning GPS units due to some perceived possibility of liability.

YEAH…what are you thinking dami?.. :stuck_out_tongue:

And it’s still rediculous…A handheld GPS is a receiver not a transmitter, therefore it’s generating very little RMI if any at all…certainly not enough to affect HIRF protected aircraft wiring and equipment. New generation PDA’s and cell phones have GPS mapping capabilities. And you know that people are using those onboard aircraft. A flight attendant is going to be too busy or disinterested to notice if they even happen to be knowledgable to know otherwise. :unamused:

On top of which, mine is a PDA and a GPS - two electronics in one! (It’s an iQue 3600 by Garmin)

And that’s the unit they asked you to cease and desist? I’m surprised they even noticed what you were doing… Were you in cruise flight and not 10,000 ft or below? ie: the “allowed” electronic device segment of flight?

The FAA has issued an advisory circular to all airlines on this subject (AC 91.21-1B). Like many FAA actions, it leaves it to the individual operator to determine how to implement it. All airplanes that I know ban electronic devices below 10,000 feet. Just because they allow them above 10,000 feet doesn’t mean that they have no problems, but the altitude allows time to recover.

The main point is that the effects of electronic devices on airplane systems has been shown to be erratic. One famous case was a laptop that caused a 737 autopilot to disconnect. If that had happened near the ground on a low IFR day, that could have been fatal. The laptop was confiscated and they were unable to recreate the disconnect, however it was shown to be transmitting well above the allowable limits. If it is important to know where you are on a flight, you can buy an aeronautical chart and figure it out without risking people’s lives.

The laptop was only a suspected cause…since it could not be proven to be the cause. There can be a whole host of unknown reasons for things like an unexplained AP disc. as I am a witness from experience. Electronics burp period, and there isn’t always an explanation for it. How many times have you had to restart your computer because it locked up? Did you understand why? Not likely…

Sorry but the sky is not falling here. And with all reasonability you know aswell as everyone else that when the announcement is made to turn off all PED’s there is not full unequivocal compliance. Some don’t listen, some don’t understand, some just flat out don’t care and rebel. The flight attendants have no way of knowing for sure…

The AC is nothing more than a CYA for the FAA, by putting the onus on the operator because there is no definitive proof either way. Operator’s/airlines aren’t going to spend the money to conduct research so they just tell passengers “no” like they’re children, because the FAA via the AC has empowered them to do so. As spoken by a FAA inspector I’ve worked with "operators didn’t know what to do and looked to the FAA for guidance. And the FAA said, we don’t know for sure, so here’s some guidance.

As the AC states in regards to cell phone usage, it’s the FCC’s decision, not the FAA’s, to ban their use due to line of sight ground station grid lock. The airlines were just recently considering installing an onboard relay antenna that would interrogate a single ground station at a time, allowing cell use in flight. The idea was tabled because the consensus was that it would be to disruptive in such a confined space. So it seems that the airlines aren’t too concerned about interference from onboard cell phone/PDA transmissions. The very same cell phone/PDA units that have GPS mapping capability. Just more eye wash… :unamused:

A handheld GPS that is functioning properly will generate very little RMI. However, if just the right circuit was somehow shorted or opened up, it’s possible the device could scream with interference. That interference COULD possibly affect any electronic system that is within reception of those errant signals.

It sounds pretty far-fetched, that just the right circuit could break on just the right device at just the right time to interfere with the glideslope receiver of an airplane on approach to minimums at a foggy airport. But isn’t it always something like that that brings down an airliner? Just the right string of circumstances coming together at just the right time…?

I agree with you that there is a lot of uncertainty about what happens. So let’s look at the cost/benefit. The benefit is that you can use your GPS to know “are we there yet”, a benefit that could be equally achieved by asking a flight attendant or looking at an aeronautical chart (if you can bring a GPS, you could bring a chart). On the cost side, you might cause a disruption, potentially even a fatal one, in a commercial flight. The risk is sufficiently high that the FAA has sent out an advisory circular and some airlines have decided to prohibit specific devices. Yes, I agree that it is a low risk, but not a risk worth taking and particularly not worth taking in light of the low benefit (so someone can play with their GPS). Some have postulated that the real reason GPS’s have been banned is not because of the electronic issues, but because of terrorism risks. Given that 9/11 was yesterday, I think we are all sensitive to that particular issue.

Your observation that other people are violating those rules is not persuasive for the obvious reasons. Other people are also making runway incursions, but neither you nor I intend to take that risk either.

CAFlier, I kindly and respectfully disagree with your cost/benefit analogy. It’s a matter of science for which no conclusions have been reached…only hypothesis. So the FAA had to do something to quell fears, unintentially…or maybe intentionally…creating an unfounded fear, and shift potential legal issues. As evidenced by how many times the FAA uses the word “potential” in the language of the AC. When a fear exists it opens the door for influence, misguided or otherwise. Yes that’s “my opinion” but it’s a somewhat educated one that I throw out there for thought provocation. As FDR very astutely said “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”

My point was the “fact” that there are PED’s that are still operating, running some form of an electronic (transmitting/receiving) process during the prohibited period with no reported consequence to an aircraft. And I guarantee that it happens hundreds and hundreds of times, on thousands of flights every day.


I wonder how many people are operating laptops during the flight that do not turn off the wireless. This is a transmitter/receiver, albeit a low powered one.