Electronics In Flight — Danger Or Distraction? 532
another similar writes "IEEE Spectrum has a blog post revisiting the debate on whether electronic devices pose a risk to flight avionics spurred by a NY Post article about Arianna Huffington's refusal to power down her Blackberry during takeoff. The post points out the EU's removal of their own ban on cell phone use in 2007 and the likelihood of significant non-compliance daily in the US — and curiously, planes haven't been falling from the sky at a similar rate. While the potential exists for there to be a problem, it would appear the risk is low. Ever bent the rules? Is an app for landing commercial jets somewhere in our future?"
Re:I would be very concerned (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd like to see tests proving that. EMF/RFI shielding isn't rocket science. The electronics in cars are hardened against pretty much everything - cell phone towers, high voltage power lines, microwave repeaters, terrestrial radio transmitters, etc... I don't see how flight avionics, which also have to be hardened against increased cosmic radiation and RFI from operating closer to the ionosphere, are so sensitive to relatively low power transmitters.
Re:EU planes still don't allow. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I would be very concerned (Score:4, Interesting)
You are quite wrong ... The reason car tyres are black is because they are heavily loaded with carbon to make them conductive. This prevents sparks when refuelling after explosions in the 1920s when white tyres were common. (It also improves wear qualities, but thats not why it was introduced).
Re:I would be very concerned (Score:5, Interesting)
great home experiment:
you will need 1 GSM phone, another phone to call it, a USB 2 external hard drive, your computer, and a large file.
After attaching the USB-2 cable between your HD and computer, place the GSM phone on or near the cable. I have had success within one or two feet, but for the purposes of your first run, placing the phone on the cable itself is the most likely way to see results.
begin the transfer of the large file.
call the GSM phone.
if the GSM phone receives the call while the file is transferring, the drive should crash. i've encountered blue screens from this experiment in the past.
Nasa (Score:4, Interesting)
In 1995 Nasa published a document describing a plethora of mishaps and anomalies related to EMI. These spanned from Saturn 5 rockets to anti-lock braking systems in cars. Some were annoyances, others got people killed. Some were caused by small devices such as phones and others required degraded shielding in combination with military radars.
It seems to describe an overall "you never know" situation.
http://www.cvel.clemson.edu/pdf/nasa-rp1374.pdf
Re:I would be very concerned (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think anything would interfere with engine or other instrumentation, as most of that is hard-wired. The problems lie in potential interference with nav radios (primarily VOR and ILS).
As much as I hate to bring Mythbusters into any serious discussion, they brought several electronic devices, aircraft instruments, and a ramp test box (which simulates the aforementioned navigation aids) into a faraday cage to see what they could see.
As I remember, nothing had any effect, except for an attempted cell phone call on a specific frequency that significantly deflected either the VOR or ILS (don't remember which now). Since ILS is what the pilots use to find the runway when they can't see, that would concern me.
Given that the cabin crew can't tell what a given device might be doing, "all off during takeoff/landing, and no cell phones in the air" seems like a totally reasonable policy.
Re:I would be very concerned (Score:2, Interesting)
Before my Dad (a private pilot) died, he would fly to a nearby town a couple of times a week to work at the hospital. He always took his cell phone and on approach (when he was low enough to get a signal) would call the hospital to have someone drive to the airport and pick him up.
This was a Piper with a full complement of modern avionics...so as my Dad always said "the electronics rule is bullshit"
Oh yeah, he put himself through med school on the GI bill after serving in the Air National guard and going through electronics training.
Re:I would be very concerned (Score:5, Interesting)
You're a little off on this. Just a little though.
I had an app on my Blackberry, that would log every time it connected to a tower. I was using it to track service issues in some rural areas. I accidentally left it on during a trip. According to the log, it did successfully reach towers. Judging by the spread, it wasn't enough to actually maintain a conversation, but it was enough for the tower's ID to be logged. Along the US East coast, it saw approximately 10 towers from Florida to New Jersey. That range was selected, because it excludes all towers received during ascent and descent. As could be expected, there were significantly more towers reached on approach, as this part of the flight involves a longer time at lower altitudes.
When plotting the information, the graphs are horribly polluted by pre and post flight periods, where I was driving around the airports, and in the cities. Driving, I'd see towers very frequently, spaced not more than a few miles apart in rural areas. If the towers were spread more than a few miles apart, there would be a lack of service. For my purposes, it showed where the local poor service areas are, so I'd know where not to attempt to maintain a conversation. The maps still haven't explained why service drops in the elevator at work. :)
Back to your assertion, I've read a number of FAA reports on electronics in-flight. They are the exception, not the rule. The most significant interruptions were due to an odd-ball piece of equipment disturbing the autopilot. For example, a single Nintendo Gameboy would cause the autopilot to enter a slow bank, 5 degrees if I remember correctly. The pilot did work with the flight crew and passengers to identify the unit. They bought the Gameboy from the passenger for further testing. Subsequent tests with numerous Gameboy units identical to the unit in question did not cause the same problem. So, it was an irregularity in a single unit.
The best reason for leaving your cell phone off during flight is your own battery life. When service is weak or nonexistant, your phone increases it's transmit power to try to reach towers. This will run the battery down fairly quickly. You can lose a significant portion of your battery life during a 4 hour flight. If you expect to use your phone when you land, it's a pretty good idea to turn it off before takeoff. Really, why would you leave it on? If you try to use it for anything, the flight crew will get pissy with you, even if you're just playing games with the transmitter off. You're not going to be able to make calls, or send/receive texts, except for maybe a few seconds at a time during flight. So leaving it on, you're just trying to be rebellious. Most of us gave up on such silly things when we were teenagers. "No mom, I won't turn off my phone, and there's nothing you can do about it. I left it on in my pocket. nah-nah. I beat you." See, it's very silly.
Re:What? The plane crashed? (Score:3, Interesting)