Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Pilot Lounge > Hangar Talk
Bose Bluetooth v non Bluetooth >

Bose Bluetooth v non Bluetooth

Search

Notices
Hangar Talk For non-aviation-related discussion and aviation threads that don't belong elsewhere

Bose Bluetooth v non Bluetooth

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 10-10-2015, 03:18 PM
  #1  
Line Holder
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Aug 2009
Posts: 37
Default 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!
C152PIC is offline  
Old 10-10-2015, 05:09 PM
  #2  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 40,044
Default

If you plan on using it in an airliner cockpit, it would be a violation of both FARs and federal law (even if never use the bluetooth feature).
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 10-10-2015, 06:21 PM
  #3  
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: Feb 2014
Posts: 64
Default

Just out of curiosity, where can that regulation be found? I never knew that it was illegal.
c250ft is offline  
Old 10-11-2015, 05:26 AM
  #4  
Line Holder
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Aug 2009
Posts: 37
Default

If that's the case I guess it makes my decision easier. Thanks for the info, I'm also curious to know where it states that in the regs.
C152PIC is offline  
Old 10-11-2015, 03:00 PM
  #5  
Gets Weekends Off
 
AKpilot's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: B-737 Capt
Posts: 153
Default

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.
AKpilot is offline  
Old 10-12-2015, 12:41 AM
  #6  
I'm a man of my word.
 
CaptainCarl's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: Devil's Advocate
Posts: 2,883
Default

Originally Posted by rickair7777
If you plan on using it in an airliner cockpit, it would be a violation of both FARs and federal law (even if never use the bluetooth feature).
Party pooper, man.

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.
CaptainCarl is offline  
Old 10-12-2015, 01:19 AM
  #7  
Organizational Learning 
 
TonyC's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,948
Default

Originally Posted by rickair7777

If you plan on using it in an airliner cockpit, it would be a violation of both FARs and federal law (even if never use the bluetooth feature).

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.






.
TonyC is offline  
Old 10-12-2015, 09:22 AM
  #8  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 40,044
Default

Originally Posted by TonyC
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.
.
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).
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 10-12-2015, 10:21 AM
  #9  
Organizational Learning 
 
TonyC's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,948
Default

Originally Posted by rickair7777

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).

I don't think, even after all this time, you are infallible. We didn't exactly agree on this when it was discussed in February of 2014 (Pilots' personal use electronic devices). You weren't sure whether it included e-Readers.

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—
(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 ...






.
TonyC is offline  
Old 10-12-2015, 10:26 AM
  #10  
Organizational Learning 
 
TonyC's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,948
Default

02-17-2014, 10:40 AM

Originally Posted by kronan

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

Originally Posted by rickair7777

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?






.
TonyC is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
erjdrivin
The Boneyard
4
11-24-2012 05:09 AM
erjdrivin
The Boneyard
0
02-24-2012 06:16 AM
FLowpayFO
Regional
34
12-28-2011 07:34 AM
FSUpilot
Regional
29
12-20-2007 09:15 PM
kansas
Hangar Talk
10
11-27-2007 07:51 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices