Vario III GPS @ 470 mph

[Guest pd.ryder]

He-he.

I used to use a speed camera system on my motorbike called Inforad. It had the added benefit of logging way-points every x-seconds during the journey. I loaded this data into Google Earth the one day after a ride through the Forest of Dean here in Gloucestershire. I was amazed to discover me and my pillion had managed a recorded speed of 385mph!! On a 600cc motorbike!

Impressive ;)

[Guest tims31]

While flying from Canada to the UK, I was asked by the cabin crew to turn off my GPS for fear of interference with the plane's systems. After explaining that the device (a Garmin GPS, not a phone in this case) was a receiver only and did not transmit any data, they still insisted I turn it off.

Anyone know if this is true or not? Getting a strong signal was difficult without holding it to the window.

Thox, Yes GPS is only a receiver and not a transmitter of any form. Indeed most aircraft are fitted with very similar systems to the ones in a phone or handheld GPS receiver. They just have a GPS antenna fitted to the aircraft skin to enable a better reception and this is then connected to the GPS processor in the cockpit.

The only reason most airlines say you must switch off your mobile phone is that it can interfere with the coms onboard much like the sound you hear if you hold your phone next to a speaker. If everyone onboard an aircraft has their phone on imagine what the feedback can be like.

[Guest VulakAerr]

Staff and crew don't know if they're safe or not, and don't want to test?

Not to mention, they're worried that the pilot will overhear the instruction saying: At the end of the road... turn left.

Disaster!

[Guest Paul (MVP)]

Hahaha!

P

[Guest Alcedes]

Staff and crew don't know if they're safe or not, and don't want to test?

There's quite a number of devices that probably won't interfere with the electronics equipment on the plan but subclassing and training the staff to recognize devices that will or won't cause problems would get way to complicated. (BTW: Does any one remember a few months back when that one passenger was held at security because the TSA staff thought the lack of hard drive in his Mac Book Air was suspecious?).

If the airplanes electronics were really as sensative as they would have you think then a dubious individual could cause havok by getting on board the plan an placing a call.

[Guest Kallisti]

For what it's worth, very little I suspect, one of the major reasons you can't have broadcasting devices on board airplanes is because they cause havoc with the cells below them. Travelling at a few hundred miles an hour, you get into a new cell every few seconds, just enough time for the cell to say hi, begin processing you in before realising you're gone again. Imagine groups of 3-400 people all doing this in sync.

If anyone seriously believes that planes are badly enough wired, shielded and insulated to mean radio interference on licensed spectrums would be an issue... Well, if I believed it, I certainly wouldn't be willing to get in one.

[Guest pd.ryder]

It has to be said if all these things were so electronically delicate and prone to such gross interference then nothing would work the world over. The surgeons & anaesthatists my wife operates with work with mobiles either in their pockets or on the bench behind them. Again, if these several-thousand-pound monitoring machines went wibble at the merest hint of a UMTS signal, they would never have been licensed in the first place.

There are exceptions, but in the main its utter rubbish.