rickair7777

I fully agree that the law is convoluted and may not reflect the true intentions of the authors (who probably didn't fully understand exactly what they were trying to ban, or how to properly describe it).

The FCC has a mandate to regulate ALL spectrum use. Some use is explicitly licensed, other use is "free for all" within certain set aside frequency bands. The above reference to "unlicensed wireless services" would likely include all spectrum use within the bands set aside as "free for all". Wifi and bluetooth most likely fall into that (I'm sure the fed thinks they do...maybe you could argue that with some expensive legal help).

Wifi, bluetooth, cordless phones, RC airplanes, etc are NOT unregulated. They are regulated such that:

1) They have to stay in the bands allocated for unlicensed use.

2) The devices have to meet certification criteria related to power output and sidebands, basically limiting the range and bleed-over into other bands.

rickair7777

Not sure what you mean.

Airplane Mode, on or off, may not have much bearing on the law. A PED which is a "device through which personal wireless services are transmitted" does not seem to automatically change it's character, as defined in the law, by turning on airplane mode.

I'll grant that you could probably argue that point in a criminal trial, ie that with airplane mode on, the device is not presently meeting the definition. Since the burden of proof would rest on the government you might win that one. But it would be harder to win the admin law fight with the FAA/NTSB, since they tend to take the approach of "you know what we meant, regardless of how it was worded".

In all likelihood nobody is going to come looking for you because your headset has a bluetooth capability that you're not even using in flight. So you can take your chances with something like a headset or kindle with very, very low risk of repercussions.

The guy who's going to get burned by this law will be actively using his cell or wifi service for non-SOP purposes while operating the aircraft. You're leaving a digital paper trail...

TonyC

DUH, my mistake. Now I look like the complete idiot. That's what I get for scrounging around through 18-month old threads for what I thought I remembered.

Kronan said that, not you. (His name even appears where I quoted him. ) My sincere apologies.

Let me refocus.

From your first post, you indicated that using a bluetooth capable headset in the cockpit of an airliner would be unlawful, even if the bluetooth function was never used.

Do I understand that correctly?







.

rickair7777

No worries. I'm just PO-ed about this ludicrous micromanagement of my profession by chairbound bureaucrats.

Cell network is clearly illegal, ie calling/texting. (unless authorized by SOP).

I believe that wifi/bluetooth fall under "unlicensed wireless services", so that their actual use would be illegal also (unless authorized by SOP).

What I'm not entirely sure about, is whether Airplane Mode removes the device from the category specified in the law. I think lawyers could argue either way, and I suspect we may get to hear both of those arguments eventually...

Actually I'd love it if somebody could convince me that airplane mode gets me off the hook so I can legally use my phone's calculator, pdf reader, etc.

TonyC

Actually, "unlicensed wireless services" is further defined 2 subparagraphs below the paragraph previously quoted:

(iii) the term “unlicensed wireless service” means the offering of telecommunications services using duly authorized devices which do not require individual licenses, but does not mean the provision of direct-to-home satellite services (as defined in section 303 (v) of this title).

I do not believe the BlueTooth function of the headset, which simply connects the audio from the communications device to the headset, has anything to do with telecommunications services. Therefore, I do not see how it is prohibited in any way.

Using a telephone connected to the headset is another story, but not because of the headset itself. The issue would be the personal wireless communications device.






.

JohnBurke

Not all the time.

The Federal Register citation that you provided does NOT prohibit a headset with bluetooth capability on a Part 121 flight deck. Read again.

Personal electronic devices not approved by the airline have long been prohibited. The airline cannot arbitrarily approve a device, but must have tested and demonstrated acceptability of a given device, prior to approval.

Current regulation regarding the use of electronic devices in the cockpit isn't just about using your cell phone. It's about spending time being distracted while you're a crew member, and the rule was brought about specifically owing to that reason (ie, flying past one's destination by a considerable distance, while entirely immersed in personal devices and conversation).

While you might see it as micromanagement, regulation of your cockpit is at the discretion of the Administrator, who is not only charged with creating and enforcing that regulation, but who also grants you the flying privileges in that cockpit. Go figure. Moreover, regulation doesn't occur arbitrarily, and is nearly always the result of death or injury, or notable public folly which forces changes to the rules. That is certainly the case here.

rickair7777

By SOP, not by federal law. There's a difference. USA Today is generally prohibited by SOP, but it's not a felony.

I know what it's about, and agree with the underlying thought process to an extent. Too bad some people can't keep one eye on the ball while relieving cruise flight boredom.

Of course I know all that, worked for the government long enough. My issue is the convoluted and round-about way in which they tried to legislate stupidity out of the cockpit. Guess what? Epic Fail...nothing changed, and 90% of the folks out there don't even understand the nuances of the new rule (hell I'm not sure I do). A lot of folks are oblivious to the new rule.

If you have to ban something, ban use of anything which creates an "active user interaction", ie anything which may actively demand the user's attention (ex. video games, texting, computer apps). It's a lot easier to avoid getting sucked into passive activities like reading a book because there's no sense of "missing" something if you tear your eyes away long enough to glance at the PFD/FMS map. Allow passive reading and perhaps watching movies (pause button), but ban inter-active activities.

JohnBurke

Previously you claimed that it was a violation of regulation. "SOP," isn't regulation, and the regulation isn't criminal law. It's administrative law. If you're referring to company policies and procedures, one can hardly blame that on regulatory oversight. I know of no "SOP," whether specifically formalized in a general operations manual or otherwise by company policy, which dictates that a headset can't have bluetooth capability.

The introduction of "felony" is irrelevant. When you previously stated that federal law and Part 121 had been modified to prohibit a headset with bluetooth, perhaps what you meant was that neither was true, but it sounded good to say. If not, it's worth pointing out that neither is true, regardless of how it may sound to say.

rickair7777

???

121 SOPs, which are approved by a CMO, have the force of regulation, they're an extension of FAR 121. As you should know...

Federal law (and matching language in 121) was enacted last year to "outlaw" the use of devices utilizing wireless services. See the previous posts. The one point I've never been entirely clear on is whether wifi and bluetooth fall under that law, the language is a bit vague to the layman, although there may be FCC lawyers who know exactly what it means based on legal precedent. But nobody in any position of authority has issued any sort of guidance.

Also unclear as to whether airplane mode removes the device from the jurisdiction of said law. I think you could argue either way, and nobody will know for sure until some judge rules. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

As I've said about five times already, the intent of the law is probably not to go after someone using a legit aviation tool (headset) which happens to have an unused capability proscribed by the law. But if you miss a radio call and create a problem because you were listening to tunes via bluetooth, it might be a different story.

The rule is vague to the end user without published guidance and interpretation. I suppose I could write the FAA and ask...but you might not like the answer. I doubt they really know, put them on the spot and they'll fail conservative.

mike734

Yes, get Bluetooth. And, no, you're not going to go to jail.