Proposed bill would allow iPad use from takeoff to landing - Page 2

As an engineer that makes a living testing avionics systems for EMI and EMC interactions, I can understand the FAA’s cautious approach to allowing more and more electronic devices to be used during all flight phases.

The FAA will never just take it on faith that electronic devices cannot or will not cause interactions that degrade cockpit comm and nav systems. The first rule of airworthiness is "prove it's safe". Speculation isn't data. There are too many lives potentially at stake. Either test the devices against the aircraft systems (research “source/victim testing” if interested) and prove interactions don’t occur or don’t cause degradation, or don’t fly with them active.

Also realize the FAAs position when you expand the number of devices to *all* consumer electronics. And the number of aircraft. Whose burden will it be to test the device/aircraft combinations…the FAA? the device manufacturer? And how do you enforce allowing tested devices to be operated and all others shut off?

The safety and caution aspect is lost on many travelers, who value convenience and comfort above all else. The subject is something I’m personally passionate about because my job is ensuring aircraft equipment is first and foremost safe for the aircrew and passengers. Performance and durability are second, safety is *always* first.
I’ve seen plenty of interactions occur during testing that no-one ever predicted.

I’m convinced RF energy is part voodoo, and that’s with an understanding of the physics involved. Anyone who says they can predict interactions, or conclusively determine there won’t be any without testing first not to be trusted making airworthiness decision.

And how long an inconvenience is the FAA currently requiring passengers endure? 10 minutes at takeoff, and a few more while in the landing sequence. That’s not much to ask for increased air travel safety. Not by a long shot.

The problem isn’t nearly as simple as the traveling public realizes.

That depends on what you think mythbusters proved.

I really don't think it has anything to do with radio transmissions. Rather, I suspect that it's about the ability to evacuate the cabin in the event of an emergency.

If you leave something on the floor near your feet, they make you move it before they can take off. It must be completely under the seat in front of you. If there's an emergency, they need everyone's full attention so they can get everyone off the plane quickly and efficiently.

If people are busy with their phones and tablets, it would interfere with their getting everyone off the plane. Not only would they be a danger to themselves, but they'd be a danger to everyone else.

In any event, it's not something for Congress to decide. The FAA is required to determine airline safety. That's what they're trying to do - a meddling Congress isn't likely to improve airline safety.

 

Absolutely! This single thing (of getting rid of a silly existing regulation) would be the only thing that the government would work on that day. Funny how when the regulation itself was being formulated, that wasn't considered a low priority compared to everything else.

 

Actually, if you add up all the wasted productivity just in that time when electronic devices aren't permitted we'd probably see a measurable increase in our GDP.

It seems to me that there have been plenty of testing already.  Every single commercial plane, every single day (and we have something like 28,537 commercial flights a day) - there are at least 1 person, and bet closer to 5 people that fail to turn off devices during take off and landing.  And I bet many more during flight have wireless capability turned on -- likely not even realizing it when they turn the devices on.  Bottom line there is tremendous failure with compliance in the first place and it does not quite seem to be a problem.  I know not a very scientific study, but it seems like a pretty big stack of evidence to me.  

 

I don't really buy that argument. 

 

If the airlines were truly concerned about safety then why are there constantly articles about incidents on planes involving air rage, and virtually all of them involve alcohol, which the airline willingly serves and sells to people? The airlines are putting my safety in danger, due to their moronic rules. Is it a good idea to be intoxicated if the plane crashes? As long as they allow drunken morons on planes, I'll take my chances with my iPad, and I'll simply brush off any useless rules.

Would that be where they actually confirmed the interference potential?

 

http://mythbustersresults.com/episode49

But sometimes...

 

 

 

These are fun:

 

Yeah, those are great stories. Irrelevant, but great. Perhaps it's important to understand the subject matter here. It's not about allowing the use of radios on the plane ... under any conditions. It's about using standard electronic devices - most of which don't even have radios - during takeoff and landing.

 

Inevitably when this debate about electronic device usage on planes comes up, there's always someone who starts talking about allowing cell phone usage. It has nothing to do with this issue and is entirely separate from it.

 

If you're going to start finding anecdotal stories relevant, let's include all the UFO sightings by pilots and passengers too.

Since the TSA has decided that you can now carry on small pocket knives...

 

"Dear passengers please stow all pocket knives, put your tray table and seat backs to their upright position and prepare for landing."

Ridiculous that some politico thinks she can wave a wand and make things safe.  Non-engineers and non-pilots should not be making such decisions.  

 

For one thing, most people don't realize that the landing and takeoff phases are the most dangerous, because there's very little room to play with during distractions or malfunctions.  (That's why use is allowed above 10,000 feet... it gives more time for pilots to recover.)

 

There have been many reports via the Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) of auto-pilots disengaging during landings, of navigation instruments screwing up, not to mention that horrible GSM buzz in their headsets, all from devices left powered up inside the hull.

 

Worse, there have been reports of possible cell phone interference causing fake TCAS collision avoidance commands.  One called for a dive while inside the airport area.  Fortunately the pilots ignored that one.

 

Just last year, Boeing was certifying one of their airliner models for in-flight WiFi, and accidentally discovered that the pilot displays went blank if the WiFi power ramped up too much to talk to more users at one time.  Imagine if that had happened during a foggy landing.

 

There's just too many variables when it comes to hundreds of devices possibly in use inside the hull, and some over critical wiring spots (that's what they think caused the false TCAS results). 

 

Until airliners are built and certified specifically to contain such problems, it's  better to be safe than sorry.  I don't want my family put in any unnecessary danger just because some selfish jerk can't put down their iPad for a few minutes.

It is not a matter of whether the rule is useless or not. Everyone is supposed to do what the flight crew says. If you refuse to put your iPad away when told to do so, then you are potentially inconveniencing everyone else onboard. The pilot might decide to have the police take you away accused of being a belligerent passenger endangering the safety of others onboard, just like they occasionally do with a drunken moron. Meanwhile they don't open the cabin doors until the police arrive.

Edited by mstone - 3/8/13 at 2:31pm

Replace the tv's with full size iPads pinned to the wall doubling as wireless routers rooting in LTE below the plane.

Might as also replace some of the controls with touch screens.

Do you even know what you're saying? What would be the difference between a malfunction during takeoff and one during flight? You do realise that devices can be used on airlines during flight? And you do realise that plane isnt suddenly switched off during flight to allow people to use electronic devices? We already allow electronic devices on flights! Why are people talking as if it would be a disaster if we allowed this, when we already do. The only issue is extending the period over which devices can be used. At least 80% of people in this thread don't seem to have read the article and just want to spew out ridiculous garbage which they think contributes to the conversation in a meaningful way.

Everything you assert is 1) not proven by any actual evidence (except the "RF energy is part voodoo", which obviously has many scientific studies to back it up) and 2) not supported by the actual policy in place. If the standard is to test all electronic devices against each particular aircraft, then the hurdle is so high that no devices should be permitted under any conditions.

 

You act like there aren't already certifications in place to test these things. The FCC already tests and certifies electronic devices, including for emissions. Instead, you just throw out speculation and fall back to the "better safe than sorry" position. Sorry, but many of us don't find that to be an appropriate standard for government regulation. Prove it's a problem. Or shut up about it. Cite a study. Just one. And it better not be about devices with radios that are left on, because that's irrelevant to this issue.

 

Ah, reminds me of the last time I flew Northwest. I should have known better than to ask for the chicken when I was handed fish…

Either that was years ago or you fly first class, in which case you should get what ever you want, because all they give you in coach these days is peanuts.

Maybe the FAA should make a rule that every commercial aircraft must be hardy enough to tolerate consumer electronics. An aircraft shouldn't be so fickle that it may cause problems if someone accidentally leaves their iPad on during take-off or landing.

 

IMO, the original rule is a CYA example probably originating from when GSM chirps annoyed some pilots with their crappy intercom to the tower. 

You still get peanuts??? You must not be flying United (surprised they still give you a drink).

What you say may make sense except that while the rule prohibits the use of the device, it doesn't say I have to put it away. I can have it in my hands during that entire duration that its use is prohibited with the screen off, because lets face it no one really turns it off, just toggle the on/off button which basically just puts it to sleep. As for why I would have it in my hands during that time? Well I'm waiting for those stupid 10 minutes to expire before I can turn the screen on again.

Ha Ha! The most recent flight I took domestically was on SouthWest Alaska and they still gave us peanuts. 

 

I enjoy flying internationally where they serve full meals even in coach. Here is a tip: when you register your flight select special diet (Kosher) then you get the same quality as first class including actual stainless steel silverware and ceramic plate. In business class last month, I enjoyed two full meals, both a huge breakfast menu as well as a typical mid day meal which in Central America is like dinner. That was on Taca.

 

Edit: Sorry I meant Alaska Airlines from OC to Portland.

 

Here is a nice article about Alaska Airlines:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/03/business/alaska-airlines-flying-above-an-industrys-troubles.html

Edited by mstone - 3/9/13 at 12:46pm

Unfortunately they were packing peanuts.

Read my earlier post. There are plenty of reasons for requiring them to be put away that have nothing to do with electronic signals.

Really? Is it so absolutely imperative that we maintain our "connected" lives that we can't turn off a damned device (regardless of whether its a tablet or a music device) for the time it takes for an aircraft to get to altitude? I think Sen. McCaskill should work harder on fixing the budget than trying to develop legislation for convenience.

I disagree, even though I personally feel that there's no danger (since many passengers never actually shut down their devices anyway - they just place them out of sight).    I don't want politicians making decisions on what's safe or on what's science even when regulators don't do their job properly.    The result of that is politicians who deny global warming and even those who deny evolution.    Even if the FAA is totally wrong on this issue, what's the harm?   That people are inconvenienced for a few minutes?    So they won't play some stupid game while the plane is landing.    Even if they rule that electronic devices do not affect a plane's navigation readings or controls, they're still not going to let you keep them un-stowed during take-off and landing.   At times, I've even been told to put a trade paperback away.    

 

My bet is that McCaskill got "yelled at" on a flight while she was on her phone when the plane was ready to take off.     I think that everyone in Congress should be working on economic, budgetary, environmental, educational, gun control (or not), health insurance or issues concerning the wars we're still engaged in instead of this silly trivia.   

 

If you want to do something that really affects travelers, I'd go after the stupidity of "security theatre" in airports as well as the ridiculousness of airlines getting away with quoting a fare without all of the extra charges that can raise a fare by as much as 30%.   

Actually, it is standard policy to test all aviation devices against one another...it's called "Source/Victim" testing.  And yes, it's a very laborious process.  That's in part why certification of any device is very time consuming and expensive.

 

No matter your personal opinion, airworthiness will not be based on "I think it's ok because nothing as happened before".  Either prove a device will not degrade avionics systems, or live with the ban.

 

A more useful discussion would be how to certify devices, not should they be certified.

 

Comments like that just prove why non-engineers shouldn't be allowed to make these decisions.

 

Any device with an oscillator is a transmitter.  That includes an iPad, an MP3 player, a handheld game, or any other device with a CPU.

 

 

Perhaps one day everything will be done by fiberoptics, and the crew cabin will be hardened.  That day is not yet here.

 

As for the FAA, it's more about keeping airlines flying than about passenger safety.  Think of all the years that the NTSB recommended fire suppression systems, and yet the FAA failed to make them a requirement because of the extra cost to the airlines. 

 

 

It's about being just "annoyed".   When a pilot can't hear instructions, people can and do die in collisions.

 

Non-pilots have become so accustomed to thinking of flying as like being on a safe bus, that they simply do not realize how a single mistake can lead to a disaster... and how often this can happen.

 

However, right now, I'm more worried about people leaving lithium cells in their baggage.  There are reports of baggage like that catching fire while on the way to the plane.  It's likely just a matter of time before an airliner is brought down by such an accident.

Dude, surfers should not be prohibited by law from surfing, when there is no danger from the practice thereof.  My airline can say "please don't surf and pay attention," we gots no problem with that; it can be ignored.  It undermines the rule of law to have bogus Sh ... Stuff like "oh, there's electromagnetic radiation that will cause the plane to crash" and everyone knows it ain't true.  So ... [consider that you have been told ...]  

IN my formative years I was told I had to wear socks on the plane for safety reasons.  Dude.  SRSLY.  Get over it.  I did.

So I can't read my e-reader during take off or bring a bottle of shampoo, but I'm allowed to carry a pocket knife in my pocket?

Until you pass a friggin budget & solve our Nation's debt crisis I couldn't give a flying fart about whiners having to turn off their phones for 10 mins during crucial flight times. If this is really so big a deal to you that you think legislative action should be taken you belong in a rehab center cause you have an addiction.

To be fair, pocket knives are less of a problem now that the cockpit doors are reinforced.

Not to the stuages.

The pilot has to come out sometime, unless there's a port-a-potty in the cockpit.  If the cockpit door is never opened during flight, then guns should be allowed too.

 

Yes, let's allow the potential wonton slaughter of hundreds as long as the pilot's safe.

 

If every male passenger has a pocket knife, I don't think even multiple hijackers are going to get a chance to slaughter "hundreds".  

 

More like hundreds will slaughter them.

 

Pocket knives are known to do well against metal projectiles moving at the speed of sound.

 

Oops, sorry.  I didn't catch that you were responding to someone suggesting that guns should be allowed.

 

 

 

No worries. It was a silly thing to suggest, in terms of a plane.