Interesting use of cell phone to command a sharp roll to the right!

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.