Re: Followup: GPS use on Air Canada or WestJet

<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Rob" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The "FA" was just making it all up so you would comply with her
> request, while making you feel better about doing so (that is, not to
> offer any substantial challenge to it's authority).

Why would you think the FA is making it up? The FCC Class B requirement
would seem like a reasonable starting point for an airline
and I somehow doubt the FA would be so knowledgeable on
EMI/EMC to know what specs to quote when making up a story.

> Next time, call the twit on it's claims.  Ask it why Canadian
> regulations are going to be written with respect to an American
> certification.

I don't think airline policy is the same as Canadian regulations. As far
as I know it is airline policy that is dictating what is allowed on
the aircraft. I'm not sure why you are calling he/she "it" or a "twit".
I guess you started with the premise that the FA was the source
of a made up FCC requirement so that would be why you would blame him/her.

It is not uncommon for regulatory bodies to reference another
country's regulations. It is also not uncommon when designing something
to quote the most stringent regulation rather than all requlations.

> Ask it what proof process it would undertake when
> presented with evidence the unit was certified -- to _any_ standard;
> is it specifically trained to detect forged certifications?

You are going to ask an FA (or an airline for that matter) how they
will deal with forged certification documents? I would expect they
would look for a compliance marker/certificate/sticker. If they
expected forgeries they would simply ban all the products because
it would be too much work to validate or invalidate the product.

> Also note
> that a certification is granted on the basis of a _sample_ of units in
> the remote past, that even if it accepts a certification document is
> valid, the instant unit could well be operating in a flagrantly
> uncertified manner.

The onus is on the manufacturer to justify/validate design changes
that could invalidate a previous certification. A manufacturer could
achieve qualification and then change the design and keep labelling
it as compliant even though it had not been re-tested.

I think this arguement will lead to the conclusion that the airline
shouldn't allow any electronics on board. Not only can they not trust
that the labelling isn't a forgery, the product may have fallen out
of compliance. So they should drop laptops from the list too.

Steve