Bose Bluetooth v non Bluetooth
#1
Line Holder
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Aug 2009
Posts: 37
Bose Bluetooth v non Bluetooth
Is Bluetooth necessary? I honestly don't know that I would ever use it but I hope to keep the headset for as long as I can and don't know if Bluetooth would be the only way to go in years to come.
Thanks for your input!
Thanks for your input!
#5
Blue tooth works great. Phone calls only. I call dispatch sometimes on the ground. It won't stream music. Why would it be illegal to use it for phone calls on the ground? Great tool especially for GA pilots.
#6
Bluetooth is worth it for calling Dispatch after you're out of the chocks. I used it all the time at my previous airline. Haven't used it once since. But once I'm back in the GA world, I imagine it'll be a handy feature to have.
#7
Can you cite the law that we would be violating?
Or are you just talking about making phone calls? That's allowed, too, under certain circumstances. As long as the parking brake is set, I can whip out my cell phone and call dispatch or maintenance. It seems like the quality of that call might be improved were I to use it through the Bose headset with BlueTooth.
.
#8
Gee, I wonder how we snuck these iPads which talk to each other through BlueTooth past the feds to use as EFBs.
Can you cite the law that we would be violating?
Or are you just talking about making phone calls? That's allowed, too, under certain circumstances. As long as the parking brake is set, I can whip out my cell phone and call dispatch or maintenance. It seems like the quality of that call might be improved were I to use it through the Bose headset with BlueTooth.
.
Can you cite the law that we would be violating?
Or are you just talking about making phone calls? That's allowed, too, under certain circumstances. As long as the parking brake is set, I can whip out my cell phone and call dispatch or maintenance. It seems like the quality of that call might be improved were I to use it through the Bose headset with BlueTooth.
.
https://www.federalregister.gov/arti...he-flight-deck
In 2014 both FAR 121 *AND* federal law was modified to prohibited crew members from using wireless PEDs or laptops.
There is OBVIOUSLY an allowance for tasks which are SPECIFICALLY authorized by your FOM/SOP. All airlines would have ensured that EFBs and cell phone use to call the company for operational reasons (w/ parking brake set) are authorized in their FOMs.
But any other use of a device which has wireless capability is illegal (in the federal felony sense, not just the FAR sense). The way the law is written there is NO allowance for "airplane mode"...if the device has wireless built in you can't use it.
Now I'm not telling people what to do in their own airplanes, but a lot of people are unaware of this and eventually some pathological texter is going to have an accident while taxiing and end up in jail (yes they'll pull your phone records, the NTSB does that every time).
#9
Do you think I'm a complete idiot after all this time?
https://www.federalregister.gov/arti...he-flight-deck
In 2014 both FAR 121 *AND* federal law was modified to prohibited crew members from using wireless PEDs or laptops.
There is OBVIOUSLY an allowance for tasks which are SPECIFICALLY authorized by your FOM/SOP. All airlines would have ensured that EFBs and cell phone use to call the company for operational reasons (w/ parking brake set) are authorized in their FOMs.
But any other use of a device which has wireless capability is illegal (in the federal felony sense, not just the FAR sense). The way the law is written there is NO allowance for "airplane mode"...if the device has wireless built in you can't use it.
Now I'm not telling people what to do in their own airplanes, but a lot of people are unaware of this and eventually some pathological texter is going to have an accident while taxiing and end up in jail (yes they'll pull your phone records, the NTSB does that every time).
The regulations/laws do not speak to PEDs, per se. They refer to wireless communications devices, which is a subset of electronic devices. So while that means your statement, "In 2014 both FAR 121 *AND* federal law was modified to prohibited crew members from using wireless PEDs ...", is inaccurate, it doesn't mean you're a complete idiot.
Here's the actual current code:
14 CFR §121.542 Flight crewmember duties.
(d) During all flight time as defined in 14 CFR 1.1, no flight crewmember may use, nor may any pilot in command permit the use of, a personal wireless communications device (as defined in 49 U.S.C. 44732(d)) or laptop computer while at a flight crewmember duty station unless the purpose is directly related to operation of the aircraft, or for emergency, safety-related, or employment-related communications, in accordance with air carrier procedures approved by the Administrator.
For the definition of "personal wireless communications device", here's 49 U.S.C. 44732(d):
49 U.S. Code § 44732 - Prohibition on personal use of electronic devices on flight deck
(d) Personal Wireless Communications Device Defined.— In this section, the term “personal wireless communications device” means a device through which personal wireless services (as defined in section 332(c)(7)(C)(i) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 332 (c)(7)(C)(i))) are transmitted.
And still further, for the definition of "personal wireless services", we go to 47 U.S.C. 332 (c)(7)(C)(i):
47 U.S. Code § 332 - Mobile services
(c) Regulatory treatment of mobile services
(7) Preservation of local zoning authority
(C) Definitions
For purposes of this paragraph—
For purposes of this paragraph—
(i) the term “personal wireless services” means commercial mobile services, unlicensed wireless services, and common carrier wireless exchange access services;
I'm not seeing where a BlueTooth-equipped headset fits in here. And I haven't quite figured out how one would use that for texting ...
.
#10
02-17-2014, 10:40 AM
Section 307 of the Act defines “personal wireless communications device” as a device through which personal wireless services (as defined in Section 332(c)(7)(C)(i) of the Communications Act of 1934) are transmitted.
If my device is incapable of transmitting, by definition, it is no longer a "personal wireless communications device". It may, or may not have the capability of becoming one again in the future. Semantics, true, but such are the weapons lawyers use if needed to defend a pilot from certificate action arising from reading a Grisham novel on a Kindle versus reading that same story in a paper back book.
Today, 12:22 PM
The way the law is written there is NO allowance for "airplane mode"...if the device has wireless built in you can't use it.
Now I'm not telling people what to do in their own airplanes, but a lot of people are unaware of this and eventually some pathological texter is going to have an accident while taxiing and end up in jail (yes they'll pull your phone records, the NTSB does that every time).
So, Airplane Mode ... is this your new position?
.
Section 307 of the Act defines “personal wireless communications device” as a device through which personal wireless services (as defined in Section 332(c)(7)(C)(i) of the Communications Act of 1934) are transmitted.
If my device is incapable of transmitting, by definition, it is no longer a "personal wireless communications device". It may, or may not have the capability of becoming one again in the future. Semantics, true, but such are the weapons lawyers use if needed to defend a pilot from certificate action arising from reading a Grisham novel on a Kindle versus reading that same story in a paper back book.
Today, 12:22 PM
The way the law is written there is NO allowance for "airplane mode"...if the device has wireless built in you can't use it.
Now I'm not telling people what to do in their own airplanes, but a lot of people are unaware of this and eventually some pathological texter is going to have an accident while taxiing and end up in jail (yes they'll pull your phone records, the NTSB does that every time).
.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post