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:About time common sense prevailed! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:About time common sense prevailed! (Score:5, Interesting)
citation please?
I've never read a documented case like that, I'm genuinely curious.
Re:About time common sense prevailed! (Score:5, Informative)
NASA anonymous reporting system.... "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?" http://christinenegroni.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/handhelds-on-airplanes-bigger-problem.html [blogspot.co.uk]
"In 2007, one pilot recounted an instance when the navigational equipment on his Boeing 737 had failed after takeoff. A flight attendant told a passenger to turn off a hand-held GPS device and the problem on the flight deck went away." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/18/business/18devices.html [nytimes.com]
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:About time common sense prevailed! (Score:5, Funny)
The solution to this is to have a million terrorists board the plane.
Re:About time common sense prevailed! (Score:5, Informative)
Radio communication with ATC is an analog band just above FM radio, and involves shielded cables running from a shielded radio to one or more antennas located outside the body of the aircraft (which is a Faraday cage at those frequencies unless one of the doors is open, and probably even then).
Based on that, I'd rate the odds of a cell phone call interfering with an ATC call just south of the odds of getting hit by a meteor while dancing the Macarena. Actually, scratch that. It's more like the odds of dancing the Macarena creating a statistically significant increase in your risk of getting hit by a meteor.
The problem with using incident reports as a means of determining whether something is safe or not is that correlation is not causation. The fact that the autopilot came back online after four people shut off their laptops does not mean that those laptops caused the failure. It means that the autopilot came back on after those laptops were disabled. In much the same way, it rained in the SF Bay Area after I used the bathroom this morning, so obviously my toilet causes rain.... It's a lot more likely that the autopilot kicked out due to a transient problem in some sensor, a frozen pitot tube that thawed out, a power surge that caused a self-resetting circuit interruptor to temporarily shut off power to a critical piece of equipment, or some other temporary problem that went away on its own.
However, it is human nature to look for and see patterns even when they don't exist. Thus, after years of being told that electronics can cause planes to misbehave, people immediately assume that somebody's MP3 player is at fault whenever something unexplainable happens on an aircraft. The flight crew tells people to shut down their electronics. After a while, things start working again, so the flight crew then assumes that those electronics caused the problem when the evidence supporting that conclusion is flimsy at best and nonexistent at worst. That doesn't prevent it from being reported as an incident, though.
If you really want useful data, the flight crew needs to tell those passengers to turn that equipment back on and see if the problem recurs. If it does, then it probably contributed to the problem. If it does not, it probably did not. The problem is that nobody wants to do this because they're too afraid that turning it back on might bring the plane down. And this is why incident reports are nearly useless as a means of determining safety.
Re: (Score:3)
"The problem with using incident reports as a means of determining whether something is safe or not is that correlation is not causation. The fact that the autopilot came back online after four people shut off their laptops does not mean that those laptops caused the failure."
Ugh. No. It's that the plural of anecdote is not data. If you actually collected enough thorough incident reports to count as data and narrowed your question enough to actually detect a correlation, say between a particular model of
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting, but it brings up more questions than it answers. It says there were approximately 75 cases in the past 7 years where a pilot reported something suspicious that *may* have been the result of personal electronics interfering with systems. But no information on any followup to see if that was actually the case.
I'm not saying that there couldn't possibly be a link (though other articles from the same source [nytimes.com] do...) I'm just saying that it sounds like no real followup was ever done on those cases to
GPS (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They emit about as much as a calculator of similar power consumption.
Re: (Score:3)
If you have an unshielded oscillator in your electronic device, it's emitting EMF waves. Probably not much, but it's still there.
When I was in the Navy way back in the 80's as a demonstration of why TEMPEST/EMCON was important to security - the auditors had one of us bring in a portable TV from home. They sat in their van, outside the building, two stories down, and sixty odd feet from the building wall... we sat in the office and watched TV, periodically changing the channel and logging the time we did
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: (Score:3)
Superheterodyne receivers have a local oscillator which is mixed with signal from the antenna to shift the signal down to the intermediate frequency. Nearly all receivers work this way.
There might be leakage from the local oscillator. The the stage that mixes the LO with the incoming signal doesn't just mix with the desired signal, it mixes with every signal that reaches it, shifting them all to new frequencies. So a circuit designed to receive one frequency may be transmitting, weakly, on other frequencies
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
I've always looked at the policies as a hedge against the *really* crappy knock-off electronic devices that spring up. Sure, the wifi on that super cheap android knock-off tablet is under 100mw....sure....
But for the most part, the FAA is in the business of blaming *someone* when something goes wrong. A reversal of the no electronic devices could someday potentially conceivable maybe result in them getting some share of the blame for an incident.
In the end, I just wish more people would act like adults when
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.
Re: (Score:3)
http://www.pcworld.com/article/110576/cell_phones_still_pose_flight_risks.html [pcworld.com]
From March 1996 to December 2002, CAA recorded 35 aircraft safety-related incidents that were linked to cell phones, the authority said.
The reported interference incidents included interrupted communications due to noise in the flight crew's headphones, according to the study.
Even minor interference such as introducing static noise on flight crew's headsets can be a not-so-good thing during takeoffs and landings when the pilot already has his hands full.
People tend to be skeptical about this because in their normal daily existence, they do not see any problem with cellphones and do not experience interference with their other electronic devices (TV, computer, e
Re: (Score:3)
Given that even the most RFI-noisy cell phones (GSM) only affect unshielded high-gain power amplifiers within a radius of about five or six feet in open air, even after factoring in constructive interference from signals bouncing off the metal skin, a cell phone causing "static" that interferes with an ATC call would still have to be in the cockpit or the forward galley. And if those amplifiers are unshielded, the designers should be shot.
Re: (Score:2)
Furthermore, if low em is ok, but badly shielded devices are a problem then the solution is simple. Have em sensors around the plane. If any of the sensors detects excessive em, the stewardess wil
Re: (Score:3)
Either they're dangerous or they're not. If they're dangerous then the planes need to be fixed to prevent terrorists from using this to cause problems.
You really don't understand statistics, do you? Risk is probabilistic. The target level of safety for aircraft is of the order of less than one accident in 10^7 flight hours, which we're achieving. Turning on a mobile phone does not make the aircraft crash: it increases the risk. If you got lots of terrorists on every flight (which would cost a fortune) you'd probably pull the figure down below 10^7 flight hours to -- oh, who knows, let's say one accident in every 10^6 flight hours. That's an unacceptable
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.
Swissair Flight 111 (Score:2)
had bad wiring on in-flight entertainment that started a fire.
Re: (Score:2)
Needs citation.
There was a case [newscientist.com] of in-flight wifi systems causing certain new displays to blank out periodically, but:
Re: (Score:2)
So quickly we forget [photobucket.com]
Re:About time common sense prevailed! (Score:5, Informative)
The reason you should not be reading your kindle, or have a laptop out during takeoff and landing, or any reasonably hard-edged, dense object is that it has the potential to become a projectile upon sudden deceleration. The less crap raining horizontally through the cabin upon impact, the better the chances of survivability.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sitting here holding a Nook Simple Touch in one hand and an average-sized paperback book in the other (typing with my feet :-p ). The Nook weighs slightly less than the paperback book (7.6 ounces versus 8.5 ounces). It weighs significantly less than a hardcover book of comparable length (1 pound, 9.5 ounces).
I suppose you could make the argument that it would hurt more than the paperback book because if it hits edge-first, it would spread that weight over a smaller area, but even that argument falls a
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, Interesting)
I have personally observed interference from a camera (Nikon D70) on the navigation instruments on my Bonanza (caused the VOR needle to jump - we were in visual conditions at the time so it wasn't a problem). Of course airliner avionics is better - but we need the odds of substantial interference to be about 1 in a million for it not to be a safety risk.
It is true that many passengers fail to turn of electronics, but remember that the transmit power adds from all the devices. It is possible that 400 cell phones on a plane would be a more serious problem than the few that weren't turned off.
--- Joe Frisch
Re:About time common sense prevailed! (Score:5, Interesting)
As a pilot, takeoff is not at all a sensitive time of flight. Pretty much, you mash the gas all the way forwardward, and keep the plane pretty much in line with the runway. (yawn)
The sensitive part is LANDING the plane! Here, you are actually aiming at the ground with minimal power right up to the last 10 seconds or so, where you pull the nose up just inches off the ground and (if all goes well) allow the loss of speed to force the wings to stop producing enough lift to stay airborne.
It's merely a matter of practice to do safely, but it's *tough* to do elegantly every time. Every pilot blows a landing and bounces or comes down rough every so often.
But again, that's the *pilot* that we're talking about. Personally, I wouldn't care 1 whit about what the passengers do during the landing sequence.
Re: (Score:3)
Until that Kindle goes flying about in the cabin and hitting someone because you had it out when you weren't supposed to.
My Kindle weighs a heck of a lot less than the latest Stephen King doorstop novel. The corners probably aren't as sharp either.
some parts are fine (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
His point had nothing to do with RF interference or terrorists - just that loose objects are hazardous in a crash situation. If a plane suddenly decelerates, that ipod at the back of the cabin can very well become a missile heading towards the front of the cabin.
Re: (Score:2)
How the hell did this post get +5 Insightful? It's nothing to do with what it's replying to....
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: (Score:2)
Everything has an opportunity cost. What's the economic activity lost, for example, due to business travellers not being able to work during takeoff and landing?
Re: (Score:3)
Brakes, undercarriage, mixture, flaps, fuel, altimeter, FUCKING CABIN SECURITY, landing light. That's how you get ready for landing any plane.
Cabin security means no loose items, everything is strapped down or stowed, everybody is fucking wearing shoes, has moderate situational awareness and is ready for emergency procedures like brace for impact, evacuation or fire.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and my foul mouthed point was: people talking on the phone are not prepared to deal with an emergency.
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: (Score:3)
Shoes or no shoes, if they're fucking, they're not going to have situational awareness.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. Brakes undercarriage mixture fuel pump, flaps, altimeter, radio call, cabin security landing light.
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: (Score:2)
We already get that now!
Re: (Score:2)
I don't give a damn about that once we are landed; that's a fairly short duration and if it helps people pull up the curb at the right time then that's fine.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
I've met people involved with getting cell phones working on planes by installing their own 'cell tower' on board, so in the future you'll probably have to pay extra for the cell-free flights.
I can't imagine it woudl be a problem (Score:2)
WiFi is approved for planes. I've been on multiple flights with it. They have little APs somewhere in the plane and you can turn your laptop on and get on the Internet, for a large fee. Bluetooth operates int eh same 2.4Ghz spectrum, just with less power. So I fail to see who it could cause problems that WiFi does not.
Razors? (Score:2)
Really people, just put back in the back for that period, you can survive without it for a few minutes: just ta
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I need to shave my beard during those boring events. [grin]
Re: (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.
Familiar territory (Score:5, Interesting)
I've been involved in this for a long time, including the Supplemental Type Certification and FAA processes to get WiFi on aircraft. Most of what happens to get you to turn them off during takeoff and landing has little to do with interference, it's to get your attention and to get you to follow directions. All of that is really important to your safety more-so than a nudeo-scan 5000 operated by the TSA. The other aspects such as Cellular Phone use during flights also isn't a technical risk to the aircraft but the annoyance factor to other passengers as well as coordination possibilities for terrorist activities.. Think "Ackbar we're over Chicago, what do I do?" That's why the damn in-flight position tracking on larger aircraft suddenly turns off when you're close to arrival. Some of this is a bit silly because we've allowed WiFi on planes and you can log into flight tracker or use the GOGO website to track where you are. The safety feature there is that it shuts off below 10,000 feet automatically and there's always a breaker in the cockpit that the pilots can use to shut it off.
If the FAA wants to review this then great but there's a lot more to it than just "possible" interference with aircraft systems and I don't expect that the airlines will open up the floodgates and let you use anything you want, when you want either just because of the annoyance issues.
Re: (Score:2)
coordination possibilities for terrorist activities.. Think "Ackbar we're over Chicago, what do I do?"
Yes, because nobody would ever think to use the existing seat back telephones for that purpose, only a cell phone will do!
Re: (Score:3)
I think it was because that terrorists couldn't get credit cards maybe?
That whole on board phone thing was a disaster for most airlines because they didn't make any real revenue on it and had to carry 100s of pounds of weight onboard the aircraft. Every pound = fuel $$$
Re: (Score:2)
I would imagine it's difficult to call someone who's on another plane with the seat back phone.
Re: (Score:2)
The last flight I was on had them, that was about 6 months ago. I don't see those going away any time soon, or at least not until they allow another method of communication on the plane.
Re: (Score:3)
Most of what happens to get you to turn them off during takeoff and landing has little to do with interference, it's to get your attention and to get you to follow directions.
Yet I'm allowed to do the crossword at that time, or read a large hard-cover book (if the follow up was about handheld projectiles). There may be some reasons to ban them, but any hint of any rule I've ever seen is not applied consistently, and that's what annoys/frustrates most.
Re: (Score:2)
Well I can't argue with that point but the airlines also apply the same paint to all electronic devices. They *may* cause interference so to shut them off. What's really sad is that about 90% of the phone users I see just switch the screen off or switch it to airplane mode, so yeah it doesn't make much sense at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Familiar territory (Score:5, Informative)
Dude, it has nothing to do with terrorists. Where did you even get that idea from?
The reason is this: statistically speaking, altitudes below 10,000 feet are far more dangerous than higher altitudes. Most accidents occur during takeoff/landing and given that transponders are not required below 10,000 unless within controlled airspace and/or within a Mode C veil, it makes the lower altitudes a fairly dangerous area. Hence why Personal Electronic Devices (PEDs) are prohibited below 10,000 feet and sterile cockpit procedures are enforced any time the aircraft is below 10,000 feet.
Why then can passengers continue to listen to music and watch TV through the aircraft's on-board entertainment system at altitudes below 10,000 feet? The answer is that all of those systems have a built-in feature that disables (pauses, mutes, etc) them when a PA is made. PEDs do not have that ability which is why they are prohibited below 10,000 feet.
Read Advisory Circular 91-21.1B (specifically states that the FCC mandates the ban on using mobile phones while airborne), 14 CFR 121.306, and 14 CFR 121.542(c) for further information.
Re: (Score:2)
I've been involved in this for a long time, including the Supplemental Type Certification and FAA processes to get WiFi on aircraft. Most of what happens to get you to turn them off during takeoff and landing has little to do with interference, it's to get your attention and to get you to follow directions.
So, I can wear my noise canceling headphones during takeoff and landing. But I have to turn them off! When they are off, they are nearly as effective as with the active noise canceling (turned on) at blocking sound. But even when plugged in to the entertainment system, they won't pass the system audio. So I can't hear diddly and I miss announcements.
Taking them off in addition to turning them off would be better. But then I have to listen to someone's shrieking sprog (there's no 'air mode' on those blasted
Re: (Score:2)
Following up on this, one issue during takeoff and landing isn't so much electrical as gravitational. Lots of g-forces in strange directions and easily dropped gadgets don't mix.
Guess who just bought a new iPad(N-2)? (Score:4, Funny)
The head of the FAA of course!
Re: (Score:2)
You think the head of the FAA flies commercial????
Re: (Score:2)
In-flight entertainment systems raise safety issue (Score:2)
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/travel/2009-03-22-electronics-fires-airlines_N.htm [usatoday.com]
'bout time!! (Score:2)
The last time I flew on an airplane I took out my Android phone and turned on an app that uses GPS to track your elevation, speed, direction, pitch etc. It was a blast to watch how fast the plane accelerated down the runway, pitch as we would turn, and what the take-off, cruising, landing speeds. I then switched to google maps and watched as I zipped across states. It was a ton of fun.
And guess what? No ill effects on the airplane.
Mobile phone use during flight? Hell no... (Score:3)
Well, I can assure you that if actual mobile phone use during flights is approved, as in allowing passengers to make and receive calls, I will be first in line to boycott air transportation. I sincerely hope this is not even on the table.
Can you imagine what a cacaphonic mess it would be if everyone was allowed to use their mobile phones during flights? It's bad enough that you are sitting in a tin can with hundreds of people in close quarters for several hours. Add in mobile phones ringing all the damn time and people talking continuously on their phones and it will be a nightmare to travel by air. No thanks.
Re:What's so bad about their policies? (Score:5, Insightful)
The other side of the story (Score:5, Interesting)
"Earlier this year, aviation journalist Christine Negroni obtained a copy of a confidential report from the International Air Transport Association that indicated the use of personal electronics on commercial aircraft had interfered with flight deck operations in 75 instances over the past seven years.
What kind of problems? I’m not sure you want to know. All cockpit systems were affected, flight controls, communication, navigation and emergency warnings. . . .
And
The use of PEDs [Personal Electronic Devices. –DS] on board will not – I repeat – will not cause a plane to go tumbling through the sky like something in a made-for-TV-disaster movie. What PEDs can and in fact have already done, is create a distraction for the flight crew. When that distraction comes at the wrong time it can lead to pants-wetting episodes and maybe even disaster. And that is why boys and girls, devices are supposed to be turned off as in OFF, below 10 thousand feet. The concept is that with sufficient altitude below us there is time to address any pesky error messages that might wind up being transmitted to the cockpit. Only now we know that those messages are pretty darn common."
Handhelds on Airplanes a Bigger Problem Than You Think [blogspot.co.uk]
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:The other side of the story (Score:5, Informative)
Well, I am not sure what you are talking about when you mention the EM radiation from your watch. That should either be essentially zero, in the case of an analog watch, or... well still essentially zero, if you are talking about an LCD watch. Unless you have a fancy "smart watch" which plays MP3s or something... I don't think anyone claimed a plane was vulnerable to less radiation than your watch puts out.
That said, since some devices can and do cause interference, the default should be "don't allow", and then certain devices (or even classes of devices) can be allowed after extensive testing. The onboard microwave, you can be sure, received many many hours of testing, and is probably a special model, with special shielding. They also control when and how it is operated. For example, let's say the GPS goes out every time the microwave is run - they know how to restore it if needed, and they know why it is out. If that kind of thing happens randomly and uncontrollably due to some combination of consumer devices, that's a different situation.
Lightning bolts have a tremendous amount of energy, but are very, very brief. Other than creating some static on analog radio communications, they don't usually cause much interference. (Unless they strike you, then they can cause circuit failure).
Radio stations are a known quantity, since they are pretty much always operating in the same locations, frequencies, and power levels. The airplane is also so far away from them most of the time, that the power level is very low. A much weaker signal (like the WiFi from my laptop) can be much stronger in the interior of airplane, given that it's much closer. Also, let's not forget that the airplane is a metal box, it blocks out outside signals for the most part, and keeps inside signals bouncing around longer.
Re:The other side of the story (Score:5, Interesting)
Despite what libertards like to believe, in cases like this devices are dangerous until proven safe, not the other way around.
But sometimes it's not clear who they present a danger to.
We're all told to turn off our phones for our own safety, because self-interest is the most persuasive argument available.
Imagine however that you're a network provider with cell-phone towers on flight lines to a major airport. Each tower has to be built to acquire, then hand over more than three hundred simultaneous connections in just a few seconds as each plane passes over. And that's in addition to your real network traffic.
Wouldn't you rather just build the heavy-duty infrastructure in one place (at the airport) and tell everybody to switch their phones on once they've landed?
Re:The other side of the story (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
We're all told to turn off our phones for our own safety, because self-interest is the most persuasive argument available.
If you are unlucky enough to be on a flight that ends up in an accident during takeoff or landing (if it happens, its probably going to be one of those two), do you really want be trying to get to an exit with everyone between you and that door trying to put a laptop away? People have a hard enough time just leaving their bags on the plane in these situations, it'll only be worse if they have stuff they are trying to stuff back into a bag before leaving a burning aircraft.
True, its quite the exception to b
Re: (Score:3, 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:The other side of the story (Score:4, Interesting)
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:The other side of the story (Score:5, Funny)
Really? That's very interesting. I didn't know they were building jet airliners during WWII.
Re:The other side of the story (Score:5, Interesting)
The biggest issue was with FM radios. The desired station is mixed with the local oscillator in the radio to make the Intermediate Frequency of 10.7 Mhz for the filters and FM detector.
This is not a problem with the hardness of the electronics on the plane. This issue is the local osc on many portable radios is not 100% shielded and is 10.7 Mhz above the FM station. This places a Transmitter on the air in the plane on the frequency band for aircraft communication. Many MP3 players, media players, cell phones etc, have an FM tuner. Often the tuner remains on, even when the device is playing other media.
The air distress frequency is 121.5 Mhz. Listening to an FM station on 110.8 will put the LO smack dab on frequency. This is the reason why no FM stations operate on even 100 Khz frequencies. Other aircraft frequencies are within the local oscillator range of FM radios. 105.3 FM will put the local oscillator on 116.4 MHZ in the aircraft band.
References..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_distress_frequency [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate_frequency [wikipedia.org]
Re:The other side of the story (Score:4, Informative)
Interference on 121.5 wont affect much. 95% of the traffic on that freq is people telling other people they are accidentally transmitting on guard.
The real issue is 108-112 MHz is the frequency band localizers broadcast on (the lateral part of instrument landing systems, the vertical is up somewhere in the 300's MHz), and 112-118 MHz is VOR navigation. Most people these day are flying GPS and not VOR, but they will be on the localizer when landing in low visibility. Not too many airlines can use RNAV afaik. If an oscillator is adding 10.7 Mhz, then anyone listening to an FM station around 97-102 MHz would put them in the right range for interfering with the localizer signal.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
FAA did testing years ago when they grounded planes and found that all planes are and have been properly shielded for *quite* some time.
How do I know? my work did the testing and results came back and basically confirmed it.
Re:The other side of the story (Score:5, Informative)
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration collects reports from pilots of incidents related to electronic devices. Of 50 incidents in the most recent report check from last year, few had anything to do with cockpit interference. Mostly it was reports of people who simply didn’t turn off their device or laptop batteries overheating, not of any kind of interference from those devices.
Those incidents that were related to the plane’s avionics were purely speculation. For example, in one report, a fuel gauge on a Boeing 757 was not working properly during takeoff, but began working again when the plane was landing. The report says the pilot “suspects” a possible electronic device on the plane caused the interference. The pilot admitted he did not do any testing.
In other words, there is absolutely zero evidence that the device is a cause of interference. There are, of course, numerous examples of pilots claiming they caused interference, with no scientific evidence ever backing up those claims (I am, in fact, not aware of any such scientific results whatsoever.) Remember, correlation != causation... and every all the instances of interference is anecdotal and correlative at best. If the devices cause interference, than you should be able to replicate it scientifically. Until someone does, I'm calling it BS.
Re:The other side of the story (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:The other side of the story (Score:5, Informative)
It's a bit difficult to find the information on how many flights there are in the US per year, but this article [bts.gov] states that in 2004 there were 6,830,000 airplane flights in the US. I'm going to use an even smaller number - 5,000,000 - as a baseline.
In 7 years - 35,000,000 flights - we have had something go wrong due to said devices 75 times, or around 0.000214% of the time. Is it really worth inconveniencing everyone when the number is that remote?
Re: (Score:3)
Only if you pre-suppose that people actually comply with the rule. Given the numbers involved, I imagine the number of flights without multiple people not turning their phones off, at the least, is probably even closer to 0.
Re: (Score:2)
One of the worst airport disasters, at Tenerife, Canary Islands, may have been aggravated by communications interference [wikipedia.org]. In this case, it was caused by simultaneous VHF transmissions from both aircraft. But the idea that a pop, crackle or buzz might hamper critical radio traffic is one thing that drives the ban on electronics use during critical flight legs.
No, your iPad isn't going to cause a systems failure directly. But I've walked by an FM radio with my cell phone when it started to squawk and I'll c
Re: (Score:3)
Hint: If it can't be reproduced, it didn't happen.
Re:The other side of the story (Score:5, Interesting)
You're referring to a blogger, who admittedly also wrote a piece for the NYT, but she is basing all of this on a "confidential" report by a public safety agency(FOIA request anyone?) and 10 anonymous tips to a website.
While I certainly believe that electronics can have an effect on other electronics, I in no way believe that a PED is capable of disrupting any mission-critical system on a modern commercial airliner. This comes from the background of a computer scientist, electrical engineer, and a pilot. The notion that a small portable device could do anything more than interfere with radio communications in a plane is nonsense.
First, there is absolutely no way a phone or similar device can disable autopilot unless it is somehow connected to the avionics systems. The autopilot activation doesn't base anything on radio communications, and all of the aircraft electronics are in fact heavily RF shielded. To trip up an autopilot, a PED would have to somehow disturb the gyroscopes controlling the instrumentation that feeds data to the AP. As these are primarily controlled by independent vacuum systems and physical gyroscopes behind the dials, that seems rather unlikely.
The digital components of the AP, such as RNAV/GPS or an FMC-Managed system would have a slim to nil possibility of interference - however it would not deactivate the AP. It would just return it to pilot control instead of computer control. A pilot that actually has to fly a plane instead of watching the AP do it for him? Oh the horror, oh the humanity!
A majority of the systems even on a modern airplane are mechanical, not electronic. They may have some electronic components to them, but those are usually just to relay the data to a computer monitoring system. They don't affect the primary display or the true value of the instrument readout(unless you're the flight log computer). Do you really think my Kindle is going to kill your fuel pump? Or the hydraulic system? Or the Cabin Pressure Control System? Or the heating pack? Or the FADEC in the engines all the way out on the wing? Or the landing gear?
No. The most it's going to do is add a little static to a radio communication(if miraculously my WiFi radio has a stronger signal than the plane, on a completely unrelated band). These rules are long overdue for reconsideration.
Re: (Score:3)
Out of the nearly 12 million flights per year, there was a problem in 10. So when is less than 1 in a million "pretty darn common"?
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: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.
Re:What's so bad about their policies? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The question is whether it actually *does* affect safety.
It should be possible to certify a device as being physically impossible to cause a problem. Calculate the maximum possible short-circuit discharge current due to capacitance in the device. Calculate the maximum interference noise on frequencies of importance. Determine whether that could disrupt communication on those frequencies in a flight-threatening manner.
One could also compare devices to other existing sources of electronic noise -- the pote
Re:What's so bad about their policies? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
How is this any more complicated than CE certification?
How is it any easier to fake than CE certification?
How is it any more complex for flight attendants than saying "If your device isn't certified for use on airplane during takeoff?"
Why wouldn't manufacturers advertise the heck out of whether their products are certified or not?
Why do you think that flight attendants wouldn't quickly learn the most common certified and non-certified products? Do they not talk with each other? Do they not see product ads
Re:It isn't the FAA that said "No, because I said (Score:4, Informative)
In small planes you certainly do, I've talked on a cell phone from within a cessna, and many headsets designed for small aircraft have bluetooth to connect to your cell phone (older ones had connectors for the wired jack on cell phones) so that you can talk on your cell phone despite the loud environment.
When I last flew on a military aircraft the flight engineer was talking on his cell phone to communicate with the rescue coordination centre when the HF radio failed.
Cell towers do aim somewhat downward, but at altitude you have nothing to block your signal, so they often work anyway.
That said, if cell phones were permitted on planes, you can bet the wireless carriers would rush to sign contracts to install small cell sites inside the planes. works better with their network, and you can bet they'd find a way to add a premium "airplane roaming charge" of some form.
In a perfect world I'd like to see it where you are allowed to use your cell phone all you want on a plane, as long as you don't talk on it. Texting and data are fine, but please don't chat on your phone for the whole flight, out of courtesy to the rest of the passengers!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even if the FAA allows the use of phones on flights, it will still be against FCC rules, and they will have to have their cellular chipsets turned off.
http://www.onair.aero/ [onair.aero]
I believe it's in operation already on some routes, perhaps not in America yet.