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.
Didn't Mythbusters, you know, bust that whole thing about half a decade ago? How none of this stuff actually affects anything in the plane?
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.
Finally, not to get political, but we have far bigger problems in the US than using a device on take offs and landings. Get real.
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.
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.
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.
Didn't Mythbusters, you know, bust that whole thing about half a decade ago? How none of this stuff actually affects anything in the plane?
Would that be where they actually confirmed the interference potential?
Quote:
The ban on cell phones on aircraft is designed to force passengers to use the expensive in-flight phones.
busted
It was found that cell phone signals, specifically those in the 800-900 MHz range, did intefere with unshielded cockpit instrumentation. Because older aircraft with unshielded wiring can be affected, and because of the possible problems that may arise by having many airborne cell phones "seeing" multiple cell phone towers, the FCC (via enforcement through the FAA) still deems it best to err on the safe side and prohibit the use of cell phones while airborne.
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.
But sometimes...
Quote:
Last Christmas, I was on a multi-hop flight back to SF from the east coast. We were going to be landing in Vegas, and I was talking to a flight attendant. She mentions that conditions in Vegas were a little crazy, as the runway doesn't drain properly and crosswinds are common.
As we're preparing to land, the captain gives the usual speech. It's going to be a little rocky on the landing; there's a sleet storm, etc.
We're making our approach, and the flight attendant gets on the PA. "Someone's cell phone is on. Turn it OFF NOW." A minute later: "Someone's cell phone is still on. I need EVERYONE to doublecheck their phones, and get that phone switched off!"
We ended up diverting to Phoenix, because the pilot did not feel comfortable making an instruments-only landing. His announcement was the only time I've ever heard a pilot sound audibly rattled on the PA.
...
Probably the problem was that during approach pilots had the usual GSM buzz in their headphones while trying to communicate with ATC.
Do you really want your pilots not to hear ATC instructions on take-off, landing or taxi? Like not hearing landing clearance, or which runway exit to use, or what other traffic to lookout for.
Do you even know what was the main cause of the deadliest air disaster (583 dead)? That's right, not hearing ATC instructions.
...
Same thing happened to me on a Qantas flight out of Adelaide.
Takeoff was crazy turbulent, and the pilot got on the PA several times pleading for "ALL your devices" to be shut off.
Kinda scary.
...
Former avionics tech here. Not scientific, but I've seen CDMA devices interfere with nav equipment, and GSM devices interfere with communications system (ala the infamous dat-dit-dah GSM sound over speakers). And these on nuke-hardened (EMP-shielded) military systems.
...
I flew for the airlines.
The problem is not your everyday takeoff and landing. The problem arises when the weather deteriorates to near zero visibility and the crew is relying on instrumentation to find that strip of pavement, at 130 knots.
Instrument approaches rely on a narrowing volume of radio signals, the closer one is to the runway. The tighter the signal, therefore, the greater the deviation should something go wrong. Think of threading a string through a funnel, if you touch the edges, you lose. Now do it on a trampoline while someone else jumps on it. I assume we can all agree that wildly porpoising a 200k lb jet, 400 from the ground, chasing a signal, is not a good idea.
Vehicles on the ground are prevented from encroaching on the approach signal area, when aircraft are shooting approaches in reduced visibility conditions, to prevent them for interrupting the signal. In the cockpit you can see your signals fluctuate if someone does cross that threshold. It happens.
When visibility is good, it is a non event but when you can't see jack, having your guidance just start dancing around, gives one moments of pause.
The phones do interfere in some manner. TO what degree, I can't say. I have forgotten to turn my phone off before takeoff and get the annoying beep in the headset when we descend into an area with coverage, so something is going on.
The reason they ask you to turn it off is because they can't tell you its okay, because they haven't tested it. They can't say, well turn it off if it's cloudy or if the bases are below 300'. Some departures and arrivals require precise navigation, even in good weather, for traffic flow reasons. Missing a fix on departure or arrival could cause traffic alerts or aircraft deviations.
All rules exist for the worst possible scenario. Not the milk run. But how do you explain that to the traveling masses? You should be more concerned with the fact those little dixie cup oxygen masks they instruct you to put on in the event of a decompression, won't actually supply you with oxygen when the shit hits the fan at altitude. It's a partial pressure thing.
That's just between you and me...
Edit: At the end of the day, it is the law. If the crew is having a bad day and has a stick up their ass, they can make your day a lot worse. You need to ask yourself, does ignoring the rule, no matter how inane you think it is, really make a body cavity search worth checking the latest XKCD update?
These are fun:
Quote:
Synopsis
IN AN APPARENT PED INTERFERENCE EVENT, A PAX'S PORTABLE GARMIN GPS MODEL NUVI 660 ALLEGEDLY INTERFERED WITH A B737 CLASSIC'S (NO GLASS) DME NAVIGATION UPDATE FUNCTION.
# # #
Synopsis
CAPT OF AN A320 RPTS VHF INTERFERENCE ON ZOB ARTCC FREQ FROM A CELL PHONE ABOARD HIS PLANE.
# # #
Synopsis
FLT CREW OF CRJ-700 RPTS THAT AURAL INTERFERENCE IN VHF COMS CEASED WHEN PAX WERE ASKED TO ENSURE ALL FORMS OF 2-WAY COMS WERE TURNED OFF.
# # #
Synopsis
B737-300 CREW HAD ERRATIC LOC SIGNALS ON ILS RWY 13 AND RWY 7 AT JAX. A PAX WAS USING A 'PALM PILOT' AT THE TIME.
# # #
Synopsis
DC-9 FLT CREW RECEIVED A FALSE TCAS RA DURING DEP CLIMB AND INCREASED THEIR RATE OF CLB TO AVOID A FALSE TARGET APPARENTLY GENERATED BY A PAX LAPTOP COMPUTER.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Maybe the devices we use today might not cause navigation problems on take off and landing, but imagine five years from now a new popular device comes out, let's say some piece of cheap plastic crap from Samsung, 30 people on a plane are using it and there just happens to be a bug with it's antenna that does in fact cause serious issues with the plane's systems and the plane does cart wheels down the runway.
Why not be safe and just wait a few minutes to play your video game?
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.
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?
...
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.
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.
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.
You still get peanuts??? You must not be flying United (surprised they still give you a drink).
Common sense really should be the factor here. The most dangerous parts of flight are landing and take off. While electronic devices are "light" what happens when they leave the hands of the owner during turbulence while landing and smacks someone in the eye or mouth. Who then gets to be sued - the airline, the owner, the FAA? Yes, electronic interference is mostly bunk, but the potential for injury is higher in an already over litigious society.
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.
You still get peanuts??? You must not be flying United (surprised they still give you a drink).
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.
Comments
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by allenbf
Finally, not to get political, but we have far bigger problems in the US than using a device on take offs and landings. Get real.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Didn't Mythbusters, you know, bust that whole thing about half a decade ago? How none of this stuff actually affects anything in the plane?
Would that be where they actually confirmed the interference potential?
Quote:
The ban on cell phones on aircraft is designed to force passengers to use the expensive in-flight phones.
busted
It was found that cell phone signals, specifically those in the 800-900 MHz range, did intefere with unshielded cockpit instrumentation. Because older aircraft with unshielded wiring can be affected, and because of the possible problems that may arise by having many airborne cell phones "seeing" multiple cell phone towers, the FCC (via enforcement through the FAA) still deems it best to err on the safe side and prohibit the use of cell phones while airborne.
http://mythbustersresults.com/episode49
Quote:
Originally Posted by ProgressBar
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.
But sometimes...
Quote:
Last Christmas, I was on a multi-hop flight back to SF from the east coast. We were going to be landing in Vegas, and I was talking to a flight attendant. She mentions that conditions in Vegas were a little crazy, as the runway doesn't drain properly and crosswinds are common.
As we're preparing to land, the captain gives the usual speech. It's going to be a little rocky on the landing; there's a sleet storm, etc.
We're making our approach, and the flight attendant gets on the PA. "Someone's cell phone is on. Turn it OFF NOW." A minute later: "Someone's cell phone is still on. I need EVERYONE to doublecheck their phones, and get that phone switched off!"
We ended up diverting to Phoenix, because the pilot did not feel comfortable making an instruments-only landing. His announcement was the only time I've ever heard a pilot sound audibly rattled on the PA.
...
Probably the problem was that during approach pilots had the usual GSM buzz in their headphones while trying to communicate with ATC.
Do you really want your pilots not to hear ATC instructions on take-off, landing or taxi? Like not hearing landing clearance, or which runway exit to use, or what other traffic to lookout for.
Do you even know what was the main cause of the deadliest air disaster (583 dead)? That's right, not hearing ATC instructions.
...
Same thing happened to me on a Qantas flight out of Adelaide.
Takeoff was crazy turbulent, and the pilot got on the PA several times pleading for "ALL your devices" to be shut off.
Kinda scary.
...
Former avionics tech here. Not scientific, but I've seen CDMA devices interfere with nav equipment, and GSM devices interfere with communications system (ala the infamous dat-dit-dah GSM sound over speakers). And these on nuke-hardened (EMP-shielded) military systems.
...
I flew for the airlines.
The problem is not your everyday takeoff and landing. The problem arises when the weather deteriorates to near zero visibility and the crew is relying on instrumentation to find that strip of pavement, at 130 knots.
Instrument approaches rely on a narrowing volume of radio signals, the closer one is to the runway. The tighter the signal, therefore, the greater the deviation should something go wrong. Think of threading a string through a funnel, if you touch the edges, you lose. Now do it on a trampoline while someone else jumps on it. I assume we can all agree that wildly porpoising a 200k lb jet, 400 from the ground, chasing a signal, is not a good idea.
Vehicles on the ground are prevented from encroaching on the approach signal area, when aircraft are shooting approaches in reduced visibility conditions, to prevent them for interrupting the signal. In the cockpit you can see your signals fluctuate if someone does cross that threshold. It happens.
When visibility is good, it is a non event but when you can't see jack, having your guidance just start dancing around, gives one moments of pause.
The phones do interfere in some manner. TO what degree, I can't say. I have forgotten to turn my phone off before takeoff and get the annoying beep in the headset when we descend into an area with coverage, so something is going on.
The reason they ask you to turn it off is because they can't tell you its okay, because they haven't tested it. They can't say, well turn it off if it's cloudy or if the bases are below 300'. Some departures and arrivals require precise navigation, even in good weather, for traffic flow reasons. Missing a fix on departure or arrival could cause traffic alerts or aircraft deviations.
All rules exist for the worst possible scenario. Not the milk run. But how do you explain that to the traveling masses? You should be more concerned with the fact those little dixie cup oxygen masks they instruct you to put on in the event of a decompression, won't actually supply you with oxygen when the shit hits the fan at altitude. It's a partial pressure thing.
That's just between you and me...
Edit: At the end of the day, it is the law. If the crew is having a bad day and has a stick up their ass, they can make your day a lot worse. You need to ask yourself, does ignoring the rule, no matter how inane you think it is, really make a body cavity search worth checking the latest XKCD update?
These are fun:
Quote:
Synopsis
IN AN APPARENT PED INTERFERENCE EVENT, A PAX'S PORTABLE GARMIN GPS MODEL NUVI 660 ALLEGEDLY INTERFERED WITH A B737 CLASSIC'S (NO GLASS) DME NAVIGATION UPDATE FUNCTION.
# # #
Synopsis
CAPT OF AN A320 RPTS VHF INTERFERENCE ON ZOB ARTCC FREQ FROM A CELL PHONE ABOARD HIS PLANE.
# # #
Synopsis
FLT CREW OF CRJ-700 RPTS THAT AURAL INTERFERENCE IN VHF COMS CEASED WHEN PAX WERE ASKED TO ENSURE ALL FORMS OF 2-WAY COMS WERE TURNED OFF.
# # #
Synopsis
B737-300 CREW HAD ERRATIC LOC SIGNALS ON ILS RWY 13 AND RWY 7 AT JAX. A PAX WAS USING A 'PALM PILOT' AT THE TIME.
# # #
Synopsis
DC-9 FLT CREW RECEIVED A FALSE TCAS RA DURING DEP CLIMB AND INCREASED THEIR RATE OF CLB TO AVOID A FALSE TARGET APPARENTLY GENERATED BY A PAX LAPTOP COMPUTER.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
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.
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.
Might as also replace some of the controls with touch screens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kjohnst
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?
...
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.
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.
Originally Posted by mstone
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…
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
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.
You still get peanuts??? You must not be flying United (surprised they still give you a drink).
Quote:
Originally Posted by nacymex
Common sense really should be the factor here. The most dangerous parts of flight are landing and take off. While electronic devices are "light" what happens when they leave the hands of the owner during turbulence while landing and smacks someone in the eye or mouth. Who then gets to be sued - the airline, the owner, the FAA? Yes, electronic interference is mostly bunk, but the potential for injury is higher in an already over litigious society.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheUnfetteredMind
You still get peanuts??? You must not be flying United (surprised they still give you a drink).
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