Time to Review FAA Gadget Policies 292
Nick Bilton, Lead Technology writer for The New York Times Bits Blog, called the FAA to complain about its gadget policies on flights and got an unexpected reply. Laura J. Brown, deputy assistant administrator for public affairs, said that it might be time to change some of those policies and promised they'd take a “fresh look” at the use of personal electronics on planes. From the article: "Yes, you read that correctly. The F.A.A., which in the past has essentially said, 'No, because I said so,' is going to explore testing e-readers, tablets and certain other gadgets on planes. The last time this testing was done was 2006, long before iPads and most e-readers existed. (The bad, or good, news: The F.A.A. doesn’t yet want to include the 150 million smartphones in this revision.)"
About time common sense prevailed! (Score:5, Insightful)
Having said that, of course, if my plane is going down, I'd probably take off my headphones. YMMV.
Re:some parts are fine (Score:3, Insightful)
What I want to see evaluated... (Score:4, Insightful)
...is the use of devices like Bluetooth mice and other short-range radio devices that don't communicate to a distance more than a few feet. I want to be able to use Bluetooth headphones and Bluetooth mice on a plane where getting tangled up with wires is a very unappealing prospect.
I'm not too worried about cell phones acting as such, as we'll be too high and going too fast to make that do any good (plus I don't want a plane full of chatterboxes), and I'm not terribly worried about wifi, as either the airline will provide a means for it or else they won't. The only time that for me, wifi might be useful is if I'm travelling with a group that's split up and we want to share text communication or else want to collaborate on documents. Then something ad-hoc might actually make sense.
That's about it.
Re:What's so bad about their policies? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:some parts are fine (Score:5, Insightful)
While I agree with what you're saying, and think it may be a good idea it doesn't seem to be the point of the rule -
I'm perfectly allowed to read a hardcover book during these times.
Re:The other side of the story (Score:5, Insightful)
Word.
It doesn't even really matter if the device is capable of creating interference. The fact is, when the aircraft suddenly jumps and the lights flicker out and the oxygen masks drop from the overhead compartments, everyone and their flight attendants are going to be glaring down with dirty looks at the guy with the little glowing electronic device, thinking "what the FUCK did you DO?!" and they're not going to care one bit what the answer is. Not even the NTSB report that comes out months later is going to vindicate him or ease that guilt one bit.
Yeah, I used to be that guy. :-P
Re:The other side of the story (Score:5, Insightful)
(Not all devices have this kind of shielding, but some do. Anything with wifi turned on definitely do NOT.)
Re:About time common sense prevailed! (Score:5, Insightful)
So what would you think if you were the B777 pilot who's radio communication with air traffic control was interrupted by a passenger's cell phone call? Or if you were the captain in command of a B747 that unexpectedly lost autopilot after takeoff and did not get it back until 4, count 'em four passengers turned off their portable electronic devices?
I would think that Boeing did a piss-poor job of protecting the aircraft against interference.
Clearly terrorists are stupid when they try to sneak bombs on board; a dozen of them should bring iPads and iPhones onto a flight and turn them all on at the same time during takeoff.
Re:The other side of the story (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:some parts are fine (Score:4, Insightful)
what about people reading the 2" thick hardcover book at those times?
If it is about "not prepared to deal with an emergency", then all activities during those times should not be allowed, this includes reading newspapers, and looking out the window.
Re:What's so bad about their policies? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The other side of the story (Score:5, Insightful)
This raises a very serious question: Why are airplane electronics not designed for noise immunity? It seems like such an obvious solution, like adding security doors to the cockpit after 9/11.
To be fair, much as it should be the airline's job to ensure the aircraft can't be affected, replacing the cockpit door is a heck of a lot easier than replacing aircraft avionics or rewiring them to prevent interference. Even before you consider the cost of the new hardware, that could require taking the aircraft out of service for weeks at a cost of six figures or more of lost revenue per week.
Newer aircraft should be more robust, but the older ones will be around for decades yet.
Re:About time common sense prevailed! (Score:5, Insightful)
Was any followup ever done on any of those 35 cases to see if the cell phones were actually the cause of the interference?
Incident reports of that form are simply "the crew says this happened"... it would be a lot more convincing if some followup was done to see if it was actually cell phone interference, or other interference that just happened to abate some time after a known cell phone was turned off.
It should be noted that the study linked stated that they weren't able to reproduce the results. Additionally the test they did that did show some interference had several unlikely assumptions. First of all, the equipment they used was that used in general aviation, not commercial aviation. It was also all old and outdated equipment unlikely to be in use on any airliner. Additionally the cell phone had to be on maximum power (I'm also not sure where they found a cell phone with a maximum power of 2 watts! I haven't seen one that powerful since the old brick phones of the late 1980s!) and less than 30cm from the equipment before it caused any interference.
Hardly a reliable study for the current situation we are discussing.
Re:About time common sense prevailed! (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:The other side of the story (Score:5, Insightful)
This raises a very serious question: Why are airplane electronics not designed for noise immunity?
You have to realize that most aircraft in service have been in service for decades. For example, Boeing 737s first came out in 1968. MD-88s/90s came out in 79/95. Except for the MD-90, these planes were designed and produced when a "personal electronic device" was a radio set that would fit on a table, maybe an 8-track or cassette player. It wasn't really expected that they'd run into much interference from passenger devices. It is very hard and expensive to retrofit aircraft already in service as well as to adjust production lines. A lot of people don't realize that the plane they're flying in very possibly was designed and built before they were born.
Re:About time common sense prevailed! (Score:5, Insightful)
A blogger citing one instance of a handheld GPS system interfering with the plane-mounted one? Gee, that's a whole lot of trouble given the last ~100 years of flying and how little PEDs have done to cause problems on planes.
In the immortal words of Toby from The West Wing:
Flight Attendant on AF1: "Sir you need to put away your phone, we're about to take off."
Toby: "If my $36 phone from Radio Shack can bring down Air Force One, we have bigger problems than we thought."
Re:About time common sense prevailed! (Score:5, Insightful)
But they don't care if you have your electronics out. They don't care if you're holding your iPod. They just want it turned off.
Re:About time common sense prevailed! (Score:5, Insightful)
Tell that to the pilots and crew who are using them now instead of lugging around a flight bag full of charts. Their iPad is the same one you can buy anywhere. If their which are sitting right in the cockpit aren't gumming up the works, I fail to see how mine magically will.
Oh stop (Score:5, Insightful)
People trot this tired line out again and again with NO BACKING. If that is the case why isn't the order then "Everything must be put away for takeoff, no electronics, books, or anything else may be in your hands." They don't mind if you have a book out, I've done it many a time. Guess what? A book, particularly a hard cover one, will do more damage than a phone, yet only electronics are banned. That is not the reason for the ban. Sorry, try again (or just go look at the FAA's actual policies, they aren't a secret).
Re:Razors? (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it's just interference. "Potential for projectiles" is an example of the kinds of additional excuses that those in favor of rules for rules sake start to tack on when their original reason starts to wear thin.
Re:The other side of the story (Score:2, Insightful)
Wait, do you really think a 737 that was built in the last 10 years has avionics from 1968? Or that the old planes have never had GPS retrofitted into the cockpit?
And, I have seen cockpits of those MD-88s and all of them are glass - they were obviously retrofitted with new avionics - Delta Airlines, fyi.
Re:The other side of the story (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yes, please stop. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm sorry you have such trouble understanding basic physics.
His argument is not that objects flying about the cabin aren't hazardous, it's that small electronic devices are no more dangerous than books. I don't know about Australia, but on airlines in the USA, I've never been asked to put away a book or magazine for takeoff, while flight attendants regularly warn people that all electronic devices (Kindles, iPods, phones, etc) *must* be put away for takeoff.
Why do I have to put away my 8 ounce Kindle during takeoff when the guy next to me gets to read his thick 24 ounce hardcover book? Granted, if the book hits you in the right way (open pages against your body), it might hurt less than a phone hitting on you on edge, but surely airlines aren't relying on geometry of a book strike lessening the blow?
If your airlines make you put away all handheld objects, then they are much more consistent than our airlines.