The manufacturers of PEDs have to meet FCC radio interference regulations. You may find this hard to believe but they are much tighter than the regulations governing avionics. The RTCA document provides figures that were obtained from PEDs during testing. The measured EMI figures were, without exception, less than those specified in the TSO specifications for non-transmitting airborne equipment. The RTCA document also includes tables covering reports of in-flight occurences of suspected interference caused by PEDs. Not one of the reports was substantiated in post flight testing of the suspected PED. These are the grounds upon which I state my personal opinion. The report issued by the RTCA errs on the safe side, and although you may find my postion odd, I also believe this leads to the proper outcome - a revision of FARs. Safety isn't a matter of opinion, it is a matter of life and death.
Aerial Jock asked simply what were the grounds for the ban on PEDs. The answer is that the ban was based upon thorough scientific testing of various PEDs. That the results are the source of disagreement among specialists is hardly surprising but until more specific and detailed data is available, the FAA acted upon the best advice available.
. .That in turn leaves me in the incongruous situation where I do not use my portable CD Player on the aircraft even though I am personally convinced that it poses no risk. Rules are rules and I too would rather err on the side of caution, but without getting too excited about it.
For those who are privileged to fly around in aircraft with the latest IFE equipment then there is no need to "BYO" but as for the rest of us, well we must suffer in silence - in our neck of the woods they think that having replaced the pneumatic headsets with electric ones and attached television monitors to the ceiling they are running on the ragged edge of technology. <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">
**********************************. .Through difficulties to the cinema