From: "Jerald F. Wright" 
To: Charles Mitchard ,
        ATM List 
Reply-To: "Jerald F. Wright" 




Charles Mitchard wrote:

> Hi Jerry,
> laser pointers as sold today are regulated as to their power output.
> The red pointers can shine in your eyes and do no damage due to this low
> output.
> Bright? very, but no damage unless you have extremely sensitive eyes.
> However I would not advocate shining them into my eyes to test the voracity
> of this :-)
> I would think the 15 year old laser was more than likely from a kit or home
> made with  a fairly respectable output
> The green pointers I have not looked into as to power output but I would
> love to use one as a finder. These are the ones I believe have been banned
> in South Australia.
>
> The cell phone debacle I believe was actually started by the phone
> companies, not the aviation authorities. If I remember correctly as you
> said it was something about flying through the cells too fast to get an
> accurate usage for billing purposes. They worked fine but the companies
> couldn't bill the customers.
> That may have been a conspiracy theory but I do not remember all of the
debate.
> Like your self I have seen huge ramifications from simple sparks but in
> most cases there was no discussion on the matter and so the hypotheticals
> grew out of proportion.
> I feel that is what could happen here if we keep quiet and stifle discussion.
> Informed discussion would show up the reality of the situation and the
> absurdity of the reasoning leading to bans.
> A problem with perceived threats is that there is no protection from them.
> A perceived threat can be anything no matter how far fetched. If we act
> upon all perceived threats we may have a secure country but at what cost?
> In my job I have seen the results of stifled discussion and it always leads
> to dissatisfaction and disruption with sometimes highly unethical decisions
> being made.
> Just my 2c worth. no disrespect to your points of view meant.
>
> all the best
> Charles

    I do almost entirely agree with you.

    But....      There are many people who have not even considered the
possibility
of some of those unrealistic threats.  The time to debunk them is when they appear,
not before.  Some will not accept reasons why something is unrealistic and prior
debunking only brings the subject to their attention and creates fear in them and a
movement toward regulation.  Prior debunking can create in some the perception of a
threat they didn't have until hearing the debunking that they can't understand and
therefore don't believe.  Not all and perhaps not many are capable of understanding
the technical reasons why something can't or is unlikely to occur.  No matter how
perfect your rationale there are those who will not understand.  My point is not to
do nothing to protect your interests.  It's to be wise enough not to do something
that may have the effect of creating the contest that "if" it
occurs you must win.
It might not occur at all.  If it does then you debunk it.  The reasonable people
will understand and the ones that don't wouldn't have if you debunk before
the issue arises. You may loose the contest.  Don't hasten the day of the
contest unless you are sure of winning.  The time for discussion of
political issues is when they arise not before.  The hysterical people are
the only ones interested beforehand.  You will loose then.  When it is an
issue for the masses you will have
reasonable people on your side.

    Cell phone calls are switched from site to adjacent site by signal strength
if
you are getting into sites far removed just as strongly which site will your call
be through?  Will more than one site be handling your call.  Could just a couple of
airborne conversations tie up large network capacity?  Are you roaming in one and
not another? Here is an example of regulation protecting infrastructure. 
If a large number of people were using cell phones airborne we all would be
aware that
there is a problem. Your signal being received quite well at a distant cell site
not involved in your call has that receive frequency. Your signal from 100 miles
may be stronger at the site than a ground phone in the cell area. Actually you will
be received by many sites well. We know there are some who are unaware and others
who just don't care about the regulations who will be using them airborne. 
The fact that most obey prevents serious problems.  This is all a system
integrity and
viability thing rather than billing.  Billing might enter somewhat.  Maybe
the airborne call should cost 100 times what a ground call would be.  The
airborne call
may tie up that much network capacity.  The user should probably pay for that.

Jerry

--- BBBS/NT v4.00 MP