Bluetooth GPS in aircraft
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Reading
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bluetooth GPS in aircraft
Hi all,
I am considering purchasing a GPS receiver for my PDA, and one of the options is to use Bluetooth, however, since Bluetooth is a radio frequency (albeit low powered) I would like to know your thoughts on using such a device while flying. Mobile phones are banned while flying - what about Bluetooth?
(I hope this is not considered too much of a bone question)
Cheers
I am considering purchasing a GPS receiver for my PDA, and one of the options is to use Bluetooth, however, since Bluetooth is a radio frequency (albeit low powered) I would like to know your thoughts on using such a device while flying. Mobile phones are banned while flying - what about Bluetooth?
(I hope this is not considered too much of a bone question)
Cheers
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hants
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only hit from a search on the CAA website gave this quote:
Standards are being developed for WLAN such as the IEEE 802.11 and some future PEDs are likely to have
this capability. WLAN uses radio transmissions of low power in the 2.4 GHz band with consideration being
given to use of the 5 GHz band. WLAN transmissions do not need to be licensed.
Similarly, Wireless Personal Area Network (WPAN) is an emerging technology offering wireless data and audio
communications, with a range of about 10 metres. "Bluetooth" is the name given to one example of a WPAN
technology. WPAN also uses unlicensed, very low power radio transmissions in the 2.4 GHz band. Bluetooth
will be incorporated into many classes of PED and passengers are likely to bring them on board aircraft
expecting to use such devices during the flight. Studies (reference 8.10) have been completed which show that
the interference risk in aircraft from PEDs with a Bluetooth transmitter is sufficiently low to permit their use
during non-critical phases of flight i.e. Bluetooth devices need be subject only to the general restrictions applied
to non-intentional transmitters.
The aviation authorities are monitoring WLAN and WPAN developments and will give further guidance where
considered necessary.
I recall seeing a recent document update alert from the CAA regarding Bluetooth, but don't have the link anymore. Sorry.
Standards are being developed for WLAN such as the IEEE 802.11 and some future PEDs are likely to have
this capability. WLAN uses radio transmissions of low power in the 2.4 GHz band with consideration being
given to use of the 5 GHz band. WLAN transmissions do not need to be licensed.
Similarly, Wireless Personal Area Network (WPAN) is an emerging technology offering wireless data and audio
communications, with a range of about 10 metres. "Bluetooth" is the name given to one example of a WPAN
technology. WPAN also uses unlicensed, very low power radio transmissions in the 2.4 GHz band. Bluetooth
will be incorporated into many classes of PED and passengers are likely to bring them on board aircraft
expecting to use such devices during the flight. Studies (reference 8.10) have been completed which show that
the interference risk in aircraft from PEDs with a Bluetooth transmitter is sufficiently low to permit their use
during non-critical phases of flight i.e. Bluetooth devices need be subject only to the general restrictions applied
to non-intentional transmitters.
The aviation authorities are monitoring WLAN and WPAN developments and will give further guidance where
considered necessary.
I recall seeing a recent document update alert from the CAA regarding Bluetooth, but don't have the link anymore. Sorry.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boeing,
Just a little point about using a pda for gps. Before you invest in the cost of a bluetooth gps, make sure that you are happy with the clarity of the screen of your pda when flying in bright sunshine. I have a dell axim, and on a nice bright sunny day, I would prefer the screen to be brighter than it actually is, especially when using a screen protector.
dp
Just a little point about using a pda for gps. Before you invest in the cost of a bluetooth gps, make sure that you are happy with the clarity of the screen of your pda when flying in bright sunshine. I have a dell axim, and on a nice bright sunny day, I would prefer the screen to be brighter than it actually is, especially when using a screen protector.
dp
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Reading
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the replies. I guess I'll knock the bluetooth idea on the head for now.
I was working on the principle that £100+ for GPS on a PDA that I already own along with
CheersPocketFMS would be alot cheaper than buying a Garmin or similar. I can then also use it for road maps as well.
I was working on the principle that £100+ for GPS on a PDA that I already own along with
CheersPocketFMS would be alot cheaper than buying a Garmin or similar. I can then also use it for road maps as well.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.oziexplorer.com/ is a lot cheaper way to get a simple moving map on a pocket/pc PDA.
Cheaper because they let the owner handle the copyright issues involved in scanning charts
There should be no ethical problem because most people will be scanning charts they bought and have to carry anyway.
It is also about the most universal.
Cheaper because they let the owner handle the copyright issues involved in scanning charts
There should be no ethical problem because most people will be scanning charts they bought and have to carry anyway.
It is also about the most universal.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not cheaper than the one boeing was thinking about.
I don't mean to put you off the pda solution Boeing. I use it, and am very happy with it.
I guess a lot depends on what you want it for. I simply want to have something to confirm what my eyeball and map are telling me. Sometime the brain works double time and starts to doubt itself. So it's nice to be able to look at the gps and see if you are where you think you are. And it's perfect for that.
What I am saying though, is that on bright days it can be hard to see the screen. Yes you can see your line, and whether you are on it or off it. But if you want to look that the smaller stuff, like ground speed or heading/track etc it can be difficult. I imagine (possibly incorrectly) that purpose built aviation gps's would be better able to deal with the bright sunshine.
Dull day's it's not really an issue. Next time you are a passenger, bring your pda, and use it a bit, and see how clear the screen is.
The other thing to consider with the pda solution, is mounting it. That is a further cost too.
dp
I don't mean to put you off the pda solution Boeing. I use it, and am very happy with it.
I guess a lot depends on what you want it for. I simply want to have something to confirm what my eyeball and map are telling me. Sometime the brain works double time and starts to doubt itself. So it's nice to be able to look at the gps and see if you are where you think you are. And it's perfect for that.
What I am saying though, is that on bright days it can be hard to see the screen. Yes you can see your line, and whether you are on it or off it. But if you want to look that the smaller stuff, like ground speed or heading/track etc it can be difficult. I imagine (possibly incorrectly) that purpose built aviation gps's would be better able to deal with the bright sunshine.
Dull day's it's not really an issue. Next time you are a passenger, bring your pda, and use it a bit, and see how clear the screen is.
The other thing to consider with the pda solution, is mounting it. That is a further cost too.
dp
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I use an EMTAC bluetooth GPS unit, with a PDA running Memory Map Navigator and the CAA charts, and I have had no problems that I am aware of at all in terms of interference etc.
I use an IPAQ with an extended life battery. I have tested this combination, and even using the backlight continuously to get around those "bright day" problems, I get 5 hours continuous use from the system overall.
As to mounting, I use a simple suction cup unit with a long goose neck so I can mount the PDA where I want it. Now wires, so no problems.
Go for it !
FF
I use an IPAQ with an extended life battery. I have tested this combination, and even using the backlight continuously to get around those "bright day" problems, I get 5 hours continuous use from the system overall.
As to mounting, I use a simple suction cup unit with a long goose neck so I can mount the PDA where I want it. Now wires, so no problems.
Go for it !
FF
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Kent
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FF,
This is well off topic - but a subject close to my heart. I've come close on a few occasions to getting my Ipaq GPSed up, but have a few problems with the cost/benefit as against a dedicated unit such as the Garmin Pilot 3. See this thread:
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...hreadid=120198
Do you really think the Bluetooth GPS, Memory Map, CAA Chart solution is cost effective as against a dedicated unit? I would appreciate your take.
Apologies Boeing for hijacking your thread.
KCDW
This is well off topic - but a subject close to my heart. I've come close on a few occasions to getting my Ipaq GPSed up, but have a few problems with the cost/benefit as against a dedicated unit such as the Garmin Pilot 3. See this thread:
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...hreadid=120198
Do you really think the Bluetooth GPS, Memory Map, CAA Chart solution is cost effective as against a dedicated unit? I would appreciate your take.
Apologies Boeing for hijacking your thread.
KCDW
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KC, I think it's a matter of horses for courses ...
1. The PDA solution with MM Navigator is not really a GPS unit solution ; it's a moving map. However, coupled with the CAA digital charts, VFR nav - in the sense of "where am I exactly?" - becomes very easy, particularly in respect of airspace boundaries.
2. You most certainly can use it for "instant reference" flight planning ; you do the planning on the ground on a PC, and then just use the PDA for a visual check in the air (backed up of course by other, traditional means)
3. As to cost benefit, it's not something I've really thought about greatly, as I use the PDA for many other purposes as well. I also have a fairly well equipped plane in any case, so I'm not worried about it not having an HSI style interface, or "GoTo" functions etc - I've got those covered anyway.
The only thing which I'm having difficulty with is getting digitised versions of non-UK airspace maps, which I guess the traditional GPS route has the drop on, but I'll get there with that eventually.
FF
1. The PDA solution with MM Navigator is not really a GPS unit solution ; it's a moving map. However, coupled with the CAA digital charts, VFR nav - in the sense of "where am I exactly?" - becomes very easy, particularly in respect of airspace boundaries.
2. You most certainly can use it for "instant reference" flight planning ; you do the planning on the ground on a PC, and then just use the PDA for a visual check in the air (backed up of course by other, traditional means)
3. As to cost benefit, it's not something I've really thought about greatly, as I use the PDA for many other purposes as well. I also have a fairly well equipped plane in any case, so I'm not worried about it not having an HSI style interface, or "GoTo" functions etc - I've got those covered anyway.
The only thing which I'm having difficulty with is getting digitised versions of non-UK airspace maps, which I guess the traditional GPS route has the drop on, but I'll get there with that eventually.
FF
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Reading
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KC et al,
No problem. Its something that I have been thinking about for a long time - primarily as I already own a PDA, and with a GPS unit and some software can also be used for road nav as well.
One thing that has come to light though is that anything to do with aviation seems to attract a massive price tag. I work in the IT industry and by nature a bit of a gadget freak, but said gadgets don't always have to cost the earth I feel - take Notamplot for example, the guy could have made a tidy sum from it but chose to give away the software for the benefit of the rest of us.
Pocketfms is another example of this providing what I felt was an excellent GPS moving map, and is vector based so that it can tell how close you are to airspace and warn you, when you do a "goto" you can tell it to avoid certain classes of airspace - invaluable if you ask me, and I only wonder why the likes of Garmin have yet to include this in their systems.
I felt therefore, that given a PDA can run a number of functions, it would be effectively a one stop aviation "swiss army knife" with GPS, whizz wheel, w&b etc (pocketfms has these built in BTW).
Back on topic though - it would be interesting to hear other opinions of using EM radiating devices on light aircraft. I have definately read posts from people using Bluetooth GPS, mobile phones are banned for a reason, but while the "authorities" make up their minds as to whether something is dangerous to use or not, how should we react?
(1). Assume that using the device is a bad thing?
(2). To hell with the consequences, it works in the car, why not in the air?
Its just food for thought, the idea being to try and get people to think about what consequences may be, rather than leaping in with both feet and assuming that using any modern technology will be OK?
Also, has anyone figured out why Iberia insist on banning laser emitting devices such as CD players?
(Oh yeah, and if I\'m coming over as a supercilious moron, please let me know and I\'ll shut up
)
No problem. Its something that I have been thinking about for a long time - primarily as I already own a PDA, and with a GPS unit and some software can also be used for road nav as well.
One thing that has come to light though is that anything to do with aviation seems to attract a massive price tag. I work in the IT industry and by nature a bit of a gadget freak, but said gadgets don't always have to cost the earth I feel - take Notamplot for example, the guy could have made a tidy sum from it but chose to give away the software for the benefit of the rest of us.
Pocketfms is another example of this providing what I felt was an excellent GPS moving map, and is vector based so that it can tell how close you are to airspace and warn you, when you do a "goto" you can tell it to avoid certain classes of airspace - invaluable if you ask me, and I only wonder why the likes of Garmin have yet to include this in their systems.
I felt therefore, that given a PDA can run a number of functions, it would be effectively a one stop aviation "swiss army knife" with GPS, whizz wheel, w&b etc (pocketfms has these built in BTW).
Back on topic though - it would be interesting to hear other opinions of using EM radiating devices on light aircraft. I have definately read posts from people using Bluetooth GPS, mobile phones are banned for a reason, but while the "authorities" make up their minds as to whether something is dangerous to use or not, how should we react?
(1). Assume that using the device is a bad thing?
(2). To hell with the consequences, it works in the car, why not in the air?
Its just food for thought, the idea being to try and get people to think about what consequences may be, rather than leaping in with both feet and assuming that using any modern technology will be OK?
Also, has anyone figured out why Iberia insist on banning laser emitting devices such as CD players?
(Oh yeah, and if I\'m coming over as a supercilious moron, please let me know and I\'ll shut up
)
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boing_737
I am an electronics hardware/software developer, been doing this for as long as microprocessors have been around, designed products of complexity equivalent to just about any piece of current GA avionics, spent enough time in labs testing for EM emissions and immunity, and the only thing I can say with certainty is that nobody can answer your question (about interference) categorically.
Not in the GA context, for sure.
The reason is that in this business EM compatibility doesn't get exhaustively tested. The stuff is just fitted into an aircraft, under some sort of paperwork like an STC, which is based on some installation(s) which may not be at all representative of yours.
Also the standard of electronic design is often poor. I have seen some amazing stuff, on a US$33k product, which looks like it has come out of a school project. And this same company makes avionics for bizjets and airliners - perhaps they have better engineers doing that stuff? They ought to have because those products cost 10x as much again.
So you get fuel flowmeters that misread when an electric fuel pump is running, oil pressure gauges that read zero when one is transmitting on certain VHF frequencies, autopilots whose firmware crashes for no apparent reason, in level flight. But in the same aircraft you could fly a coupled ILS down to Cat 1, with all 3 passengers texting their girlfriends/boyfriends, with no problems.
In comparison, bluetooth comms use a far lower power level which suggests it should not interfere with anything. But one can never tell.
Personally, if I was in avionics, I would never sell a BT product because the stuff is so unreliable and so susceptible to interference, there would be too many problems in the marketplace. Or none at all...
I use GPS all the time, but would never use a GPS unless the aerial had a good view of the sky, which means on the roof, which means it has to be wired in. The next best thing is a wire-connected aerial stuck to the top of the windscreen (the sort that the Skymap comes with).
I am an electronics hardware/software developer, been doing this for as long as microprocessors have been around, designed products of complexity equivalent to just about any piece of current GA avionics, spent enough time in labs testing for EM emissions and immunity, and the only thing I can say with certainty is that nobody can answer your question (about interference) categorically.
Not in the GA context, for sure.
The reason is that in this business EM compatibility doesn't get exhaustively tested. The stuff is just fitted into an aircraft, under some sort of paperwork like an STC, which is based on some installation(s) which may not be at all representative of yours.
Also the standard of electronic design is often poor. I have seen some amazing stuff, on a US$33k product, which looks like it has come out of a school project. And this same company makes avionics for bizjets and airliners - perhaps they have better engineers doing that stuff? They ought to have because those products cost 10x as much again.
So you get fuel flowmeters that misread when an electric fuel pump is running, oil pressure gauges that read zero when one is transmitting on certain VHF frequencies, autopilots whose firmware crashes for no apparent reason, in level flight. But in the same aircraft you could fly a coupled ILS down to Cat 1, with all 3 passengers texting their girlfriends/boyfriends, with no problems.
In comparison, bluetooth comms use a far lower power level which suggests it should not interfere with anything. But one can never tell.
Personally, if I was in avionics, I would never sell a BT product because the stuff is so unreliable and so susceptible to interference, there would be too many problems in the marketplace. Or none at all...
I use GPS all the time, but would never use a GPS unless the aerial had a good view of the sky, which means on the roof, which means it has to be wired in. The next best thing is a wire-connected aerial stuck to the top of the windscreen (the sort that the Skymap comes with).
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London, UK
Posts: 778
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've used a Bluetooth GPS in variety of light aircraft without problems. Mind you, perhaps this is a bit like saying my granny smoked 20 a day and lived to a hundred therefore smoking doesn't hurt.
As for an ipaq in bright sunlight, if it is really bright you can just turn the backlight off altogether and the screen is visible, if not exactly fantastically so.
Mind you, as I've commented before, having owned MemoryMap (moving map with CAA charts) and AnywhereMap (US-centric vector based) I still prefer my 196.
As for an ipaq in bright sunlight, if it is really bright you can just turn the backlight off altogether and the screen is visible, if not exactly fantastically so.
Mind you, as I've commented before, having owned MemoryMap (moving map with CAA charts) and AnywhereMap (US-centric vector based) I still prefer my 196.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: London
Posts: 708
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wouldn't be at all perturbed by the transmission aspect of Bluetooth. Whilst I noone can guarantee 100% immunity, the odds are that such a low power device will never be attributed to an incident or accident ever.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I own two Ipacs with anywheremap for my ferry business.
One Ipac has the wired antenna and power supply.
One Ipac is bluetooth with a Socket wireless antenna.
The wireless is a 2210 and it is fantastic.
Chuck
One Ipac has the wired antenna and power supply.
One Ipac is bluetooth with a Socket wireless antenna.
The wireless is a 2210 and it is fantastic.
Chuck
