http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/srg_gad_gasil4of2003.pdf

Highlights the case where a KAP140 equipped plane went a bit wobbly which
was caused by a cell phone carried by a passenger.

Personally I thought it was all rubbish till now, I guess time to take a
different view.

Makes you think when you are using Otto for an approach to minimums as I did
earlier this week,
an uncommanded roll at 230 feet could be a bit tricky!

Peter

"Peter Bondar" > wrote in message
...
> http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/srg_gad_gasil4of2003.pdf
>
> Highlights the case where a KAP140 equipped plane went a bit wobbly which
> was caused by a cell phone carried by a passenger.
>
> Personally I thought it was all rubbish till now, I guess time to take a
> different view.
>
> Makes you think when you are using Otto for an approach to minimums as I
did
> earlier this week,
> an uncommanded roll at 230 feet could be a bit tricky!

I think the authors of GASIL do a generally good job in producing something
that is bound to be didactic. But this is one of a few examples of really
awful science. So the autopilot makes an uncommanded roll and one of the
passengers happens to find a mobile phone on. So the mobile phone must be
responsible for the autopilot issue. Yeah right...

Julian Scarfe

Julian Scarfe wrote:

> I think the authors of GASIL do a generally good job in producing something
> that is bound to be didactic. But this is one of a few examples of really
> awful science. So the autopilot makes an uncommanded roll and one of the
> passengers happens to find a mobile phone on. So the mobile phone must be
> responsible for the autopilot issue. Yeah right...

My KAP 140 AP made an uncommanded roll to the right after I invoked it
at cruise a few months ago. No cell phones were on.

An investigation by avionics later discovered that one of the servos was
defective and needed to be replaced.

--
Peter










----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Julian Scarfe wrote:
>
> > I think the authors of GASIL do a generally good job in producing
something
> > that is bound to be didactic. But this is one of a few examples of
really
> > awful science. So the autopilot makes an uncommanded roll and one of
the
> > passengers happens to find a mobile phone on. So the mobile phone must
be
> > responsible for the autopilot issue. Yeah right...
>
> My KAP 140 AP made an uncommanded roll to the right after I invoked it
> at cruise a few months ago. No cell phones were on.
>
> An investigation by avionics later discovered that one of the servos was
> defective and needed to be replaced.
>

For what it's worth, I made a three hour cross-country flight and
found my cell phone was on all the time when I went to cancel my flight
plan. On the way home I played with it in the cockpit (one hand firmly on
the controls) and found not one iota of problem -- including the KAP-140
installed in the 172SP. I do, however, turn it off when I can remember
because of the purported (implied) problems associated with the cell-phone
system on the ground. It (the cell phone) is virtually worthless in the
cockpit with the high ambient noise level anyway.

I read somewhere that increased flatulence can cause interference with
airplane equipment. Is it possible that one of your passengers emitted
Flatulence during that period of uncommanded roll?

Peter R. > wrote in
:

> Julian Scarfe wrote:
>
>> I think the authors of GASIL do a generally good job in producing
>> something that is bound to be didactic. But this is one of a few
>> examples of really awful science. So the autopilot makes an
>> uncommanded roll and one of the passengers happens to find a mobile
>> phone on. So the mobile phone must be responsible for the autopilot
>> issue. Yeah right...
>
> My KAP 140 AP made an uncommanded roll to the right after I invoked it
> at cruise a few months ago. No cell phones were on.
>
> An investigation by avionics later discovered that one of the servos
> was defective and needed to be replaced.
>

Judah wrote:

> I read somewhere that increased flatulence can cause interference with
> airplane equipment. Is it possible that one of your passengers emitted
> Flatulence during that period of uncommanded roll?

LOL! Considering the pilot and passenger, that is very possible.

--
Peter










----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Casey Wilson wrote:

> . I do, however, turn it off when I can remember
> because of the purported (implied) problems associated with the
> cell-phone system on the ground.

I do, too, but also because I read that the phone's battery can be
prematurely drained while the phone keeps attempting to make contact
with the cell node (or some explanation like that).

--
Peter










----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Casey Wilson wrote:

> For what it's worth, I made a three hour cross-country flight and
> found my cell phone was on all the time when I went to cancel my flight
> plan. On the way home I played with it in the cockpit (one hand firmly on
> the controls) and found not one iota of problem -- including the KAP-140
> installed in the 172SP. I do, however, turn it off when I can remember
> because of the purported (implied) problems associated with the cell-phone
> system on the ground. It (the cell phone) is virtually worthless in the
> cockpit with the high ambient noise level anyway.

It can be useful as a locating device, I think (assuming that your ELT is
not being helpful). If your cell phone is on and someone calls it, I think
that they can determine which cell the phone is communicating with even if
no one can answer.


All the best,


David

"Julian Scarfe" > wrote in message
...
> "Peter Bondar" > wrote in message
> ...
> > http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/srg_gad_gasil4of2003.pdf
> >
> > Highlights the case where a KAP140 equipped plane went a bit wobbly
which
> > was caused by a cell phone carried by a passenger.
> >
> > Personally I thought it was all rubbish till now, I guess time to take a
> > different view.
> >
> > Makes you think when you are using Otto for an approach to minimums as I
> did
> > earlier this week,
> > an uncommanded roll at 230 feet could be a bit tricky!
>
> I think the authors of GASIL do a generally good job in producing
something
> that is bound to be didactic. But this is one of a few examples of really
> awful science. So the autopilot makes an uncommanded roll and one of the
> passengers happens to find a mobile phone on. So the mobile phone must be
> responsible for the autopilot issue. Yeah right...
>
Was it doing rolls the entire trip?

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Julian Scarfe wrote:
>
> > I think the authors of GASIL do a generally good job in producing
something
> > that is bound to be didactic. But this is one of a few examples of
really
> > awful science. So the autopilot makes an uncommanded roll and one of
the
> > passengers happens to find a mobile phone on. So the mobile phone must
be
> > responsible for the autopilot issue. Yeah right...
>
> My KAP 140 AP made an uncommanded roll to the right after I invoked it
> at cruise a few months ago. No cell phones were on.
>
> An investigation by avionics later discovered that one of the servos was
> defective and needed to be replaced.
>
Maybe your cell phone was defective, not the servo.

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Casey Wilson wrote:
>
> > . I do, however, turn it off when I can remember
> > because of the purported (implied) problems associated with the
> > cell-phone system on the ground.
>
> I do, too, but also because I read that the phone's battery can be
> prematurely drained while the phone keeps attempting to make contact
> with the cell node (or some explanation like that).
>

Because it shifts to analog mode when it can't get a digital signal. Analog
mode require much more power from the battery than digital mode.