Actually, there is no funding for the necessary experiments. Only some passengers are convinced that there is no correlation to personal electronics and air safety, and they are not willing to pay for the investigation. Personally, I would disapprove of using tax revenue to fund the study. Take off and landing are the most dangerous parts of air travel so any additional precautions taken during those times seems reasonable to me.
Funding? WhoGAS about funding. The FAA should just order the airlines to do that testing and report the results by a set date if they want to continue to have the privilege of flying.
Each of these phones has a different level and, not only that, different frequencies. Aircraft are tested under specific flight conditions and any issues are known and pretty darn well understood under those specific conditions. Likewise, behavior on the ground can be markedly different than at 30,000 feet (for example radiation flux is much higher and EMI levels are higher at high altitude and also depend heavily on latitude) so system level ground testing is not always an option.
It is easy to say "Just test it" when you don't understand the parameters that need tested. What cell phones do you use? What mix of cell phone models, LTE, HSPA? HSPA+, 2G and/or 3G frequency bands do you test against?
And yes, I do this specific system and software interaction/debugging for a living. I take all my electronic equipment to either OFF or Airplane Mode when I fly.
You can't turn off solar flares from sunspots, EMF levels many times higher than a battery powered cellphone.
It would help had the reporter spent sometime doing research, aircraft autopilots aren't guided by compasses even in little single engine planes, let alone airliners. So if it effected the autopilot it would have had to interfered with the internal navigation systems. And maybe that's possible, but honestly then wouldn't every plane be seeing these issues on take off and landing with tall the Wifi and cell towers surrounding airports??
Makes a lot more sense that the pilots of this flight made a mistake and were looking for an excuse. Would have been interesting to see the black box data, showing how the pilots programed the autopilot vs. what the plane was actually doing...
This has been a top of discussion for like 5 years, extreme discussion for the last 2-3. So how is it that all of a suddenly we are hearing about this allegedly incident. But with no real details. IF it happened, incident reports would have to have been filed, the plane tested to make sure there was nothing faulty that made it suspectible to such interference etc. so we would know exactly which flight, date, type of plane, the names of the folks involved and for certain that it was the phone to blame.
And it would more likely be sourced from an FAA spokesperson not some 'unidentified' and possibly made up copilot
IDK about the iPhones but I know for certain that whenever I plug my Macbook into its power adapter, enough RF interference is generated that I lose my (over-the-air broadcast) TV reception. Very annoying.
But is that the fault of your MacBook, or perhaps crap wiring in your house
Funding? WhoGAS about funding. The FAA should just order the airlines to do that testing and report the results by a set date if they want to continue to have the privilege of flying.
That is just silly. The FAA is the one who made the rule to begin with. Why should the airlines pay to fund the study? To be perfectly honest, in my opinion there are probably more important reasons to ban personal electronics during take off and landing than the supposed interference. One, the flight crew does not want people to use headphones during take off and landing because if there is an emergency they want the passengers to be able to hear commands. Second, they don't want small metal and glass objects sailing around the cabin in the event of extreme turbulence, and thirdly, they want everyone to be paying attention to all the other safety precautions during those times and not distracted by Angry Birds. There are a lot of idiot passengers, but you can't make a regulation that allows intelligent responsible people to have permission to use electronic devices and stupid people to be prohibited so they use the supposed "interference" justification to eliminate the other problems without having to explain all the reasons.
That was true 40 years ago. Compass position and output to the flight system is now output digitally and the electronics and communications could be susceptible to interference.
Well, according to wikipedia, "almost all" aircraft even commercial ones still use the bowl compass. Also, the co-pilot in question specifically said that the iPhone affected the compass not the entire flight system output. You could certainly be right, but I would argue that it's hard to tell based on what we have before us.
I don't really care about the details beyond the fact that the whole report is just stupid anyway. The idea that this simple correlation was taken as causal by the co-pilot is just wrong whatever the cause as many others have also pointed out.
This problem has been around for over 30 years now. I fail to understand why all the cabling and systems in something like a passenger jet weren't just shielded long long ago. If all the wires and terminals were properly shielded, it wouldn't matter if there was a working cyclotron onboard.
Seriously? I think that serious people that have studied this stuff agree that a cellphone or a computer has no influence on place systems, let alone the compasses.
I don't know why anyone wouldn't trust their life to the guy in row 3 using the iPhone that was dropped last week. It seems to be functioning perfectly normally.
Really! What more proof do you want that it's safe to use?
This problem has been around for over 30 years now. I fail to understand why all the cabling and systems in something like a passenger jet weren't just shielded long long ago. If all the wires and terminals were properly shielded, it wouldn't matter if there was a working cyclotron onboard.
Aren't they shielded? I thought they were.
Most companies don't allow cellphones because it would be annoying to have people constantly talking beside you, and I understand that.
This is stupid. Your modern car has more complicated electronics than the average plane. I don't phones being used as an excuse for cars crashing and ignitions going crazy. Just another example of a hyperbole antiquated law completey unfounded in any truth of evidence whatsoever.
You can't turn off solar flares from sunspots, EMF levels many times higher than a battery powered cellphone.
You are right and this is why incidence reports are much higher when doing flights over the poles (like Tokyo to New York flight routes) but those are a result of SEU induced by cosmic rays mostly. Since EMI is additive, the combined impact of 100's of cellphones, tablets and laptops not in Air plane mode/OFF is still slightly higher than other other natural sources. Since I know for 100% fact that altitude has impacts on system reliability due to natural sources and there are trends that show slightly higher incidence rates on a full cabin VS an empty cabin, I will continue to turn OFF my laptops and take other electronics to Air Plane mode with the screen OFF during flight critical phases.
None of this is "PROOF" of what is causing the bumps in the night but remember, we are talking about 1,000's to 10,000's of thousands of processors per plane WITH 100's to 1,000's of planes in a fleet operating for 1,000's of hours each per year. Example: A Fleet of 1,000 planes (all of the same design) with 5,000 processors per plane with a light operational 50% duty cycle will get you almost 25 billion processor hours of operation per year. Even with reliability in the 10^-9 and 10^-12 range, decreasing reliability by a small amount can greatly increase the number of incidences of things that go bump in the night. For one example, I have found a design that used the wrong design guidelines (using AHCT design guidelines for FCT logic for example) for the employed logic families making the circuits more susceptible to increased EMI.
No, you can's make airplanes 100% safe. There will always be crashes and disasters. You can do things that minimize the possibility of catastrophic failure.
Keep the ban. There's enough evidence that it can cause problems. And these sad pathetic screen addicts should be about to put their damn toys away for the 10 freekin' minutes it takes to takeoff and climb-out. Seriously.
This is stupid. Your modern car has more complicated electronics than the average plane. I don't phones being used as an excuse for cars crashing and ignitions going crazy. Just another example of a hyperbole antiquated law completey unfounded in any truth of evidence whatsoever.
Having worked with the auto-industry and extensively with the avionics industry, I will assure you, 100%, this is NOT a true statement in any way shape or form.
Well, according to wikipedia, "almost all" aircraft even commercial ones still use the bowl compass. Also, the co-pilot in question specifically said that the iPhone affected the compass not the entire flight system output. You could certainly be right, but I would argue that it's hard to tell based on what we have before us.
I don't really care about the details beyond the fact that the whole report is just stupid anyway. The idea that this simple correlation was taken as causal by the co-pilot is just wrong whatever the cause as many others have also pointed out.
This problem has been around for over 30 years now. I fail to understand why all the cabling and systems in something like a passenger jet weren't just shielded long long ago. If all the wires and terminals were properly shielded, it wouldn't matter if there was a working cyclotron onboard.
The dangers of a small amount of knowledge. This information has to get into the flight computer and this has to go digital and/or analog through an A/D. Some systems will actually read the compass convert to digital, output to analog (to maintain system functional interfaces) and then have the flight computer re-sample the data. This changes from plane to plane and compass to compass.
I'm talking about when the phone is used in the car. I don't see the interactions. Phone has GPS and so does a plane. Completely unfounded. Phone has a transmitter so does a plane. Phone has a receiver, so does a plane.
Modern avaitions are mostly fly-by-wire. Electronic signals sent out to control various parts of the airplane. Any interference that disrupt that signal may cause problems. Most automobiles are still mechanically controlled. Plus you can pull over to the side of the road. The palne can't just pull over to the "side" of the sky to check things out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kkerst
I'm talking about when the phone is used in the car. I don't see the interactions. Phone has GPS and so does a plane. Completely unfounded. Phone has a transmitter so does a plane. Phone has a receiver, so does a plane.
[S]ome major carriers such as Delta still support the relaxing of rules on use of personal electronics under 10,000 feet, noting that there is no way of verifying with certainty that those devices are actually the cause of any interference.
Yeah. Science is weak. Best to stick with first-hand accounts from stewardesses.
Don't buy it. You're telling me that a plane is so fragile electronically that a measly bluetooth/wifi/3G/4G signal interferes with it? Nope, all phones are FCC certified and do not spit out spurious harmonics all over the spectrum so as to create a beat frequency into the cockpit. Where's the antenna? - In coach mounted on the seats? And, do you realize the phone would have to be physically touching the compass before it would be screwed up. A compass is an electro mechanical device. For someone sitting in row 9, everyone on the plane would be fried from that much radiation.
This is yet another example of non-technical people blaming something (iPhone in this case) they don't understand.
It must be the iPhone, Android phones would never do this. /s
That was true 40 years ago. Compass position and output to the flight system is now output digitally and the electronics and communications could be susceptible to interference.
This is correct. Even a simple charter jet will be using an HSI slaved remotely to a gyro and a flux compass over wires.
An airliner will be using a FMS (Flight Management System) that takes info from the VOR/DME radios, Inertial Reference System (if it has one) and/or GPS receiver (if it has one). The FMS controls the autopilot. TCAS receivers in the tail give alerts. All of this is wired together and susceptible to interference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
This has been a top of discussion for like 5 years, extreme discussion for the last 2-3. So how is it that all of a suddenly we are hearing about this allegedly incident
Frankly, because reporters are lazy. Those who are pilots and/or engineers have long known about ASRS and interference reports. You can tell from the wording that some of the incidents really shook up the pilots. The problem is, again, that it's so hard to prove and/or prevent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NCMacUser
It would help had the reporter spent sometime doing research, aircraft autopilots aren't guided by compasses even in little single engine planes, let alone airliners. So if it effected the autopilot it would have had to interfered with the internal navigation systems.
Correct.
Quote:
And maybe that's possible, but honestly then wouldn't every plane be seeing these issues on take off and landing with tall the Wifi and cell towers surrounding airports??
No, bringing up outside interference is a popular misconception, You see, an airline fuselage is a pretty good Faraday cage. Except for holes, signals do not get in or out. Ever try to use a handheld radio or GPS on an airliner? You have to get very close to a window to get an external signal at all.
The bigger danger always comes from inside the aircraft tube. Which brings up a couple of more common questions which I only have a few seconds to address right now:
Q. My device doesn't transmit. How can it be a problem? A. Almost all modern electronic devices are transmitters of some sort, because they have high frequency clocks to drive the CPUs. Even a toy.
Q. Some airplanes have onboard wifi or cell. How is that possible? A. First, each class and type and model of aircraft must be tested individually. That costs. Second, it relies on devices following basic rules about transmit power. E.g. a device should only have to use its lowest power setting to talk to a hotspot inside the aircraft a few dozen feet away. If there is a software bug (which is not unknown), a device could ramp up to very high power output and cause interference. (That's what happened in the Boeing test case.) This is also why it's dumb to leave your cell phone on in a plane.. it's going to ramp up power trying to talk to a tower, and use battery like crazy.
Comments
Funding? WhoGAS about funding. The FAA should just order the airlines to do that testing and report the results by a set date if they want to continue to have the privilege of flying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven N.
The kick is the variability in testing. For example:
http://reviews.cnet.com/2719-6602_7-291-2.html
Each of these phones has a different level and, not only that, different frequencies. Aircraft are tested under specific flight conditions and any issues are known and pretty darn well understood under those specific conditions. Likewise, behavior on the ground can be markedly different than at 30,000 feet (for example radiation flux is much higher and EMI levels are higher at high altitude and also depend heavily on latitude) so system level ground testing is not always an option.
It is easy to say "Just test it" when you don't understand the parameters that need tested. What cell phones do you use? What mix of cell phone models, LTE, HSPA? HSPA+, 2G and/or 3G frequency bands do you test against?
And yes, I do this specific system and software interaction/debugging for a living. I take all my electronic equipment to either OFF or Airplane Mode when I fly.
You can't turn off solar flares from sunspots, EMF levels many times higher than a battery powered cellphone.
It would help had the reporter spent sometime doing research, aircraft autopilots aren't guided by compasses even in little single engine planes, let alone airliners. So if it effected the autopilot it would have had to interfered with the internal navigation systems. And maybe that's possible, but honestly then wouldn't every plane be seeing these issues on take off and landing with tall the Wifi and cell towers surrounding airports??
Makes a lot more sense that the pilots of this flight made a mistake and were looking for an excuse. Would have been interesting to see the black box data, showing how the pilots programed the autopilot vs. what the plane was actually doing...
And it would more likely be sourced from an FAA spokesperson not some 'unidentified' and possibly made up copilot
But is that the fault of your MacBook, or perhaps crap wiring in your house
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsenka
Funding? WhoGAS about funding. The FAA should just order the airlines to do that testing and report the results by a set date if they want to continue to have the privilege of flying.
That is just silly. The FAA is the one who made the rule to begin with. Why should the airlines pay to fund the study? To be perfectly honest, in my opinion there are probably more important reasons to ban personal electronics during take off and landing than the supposed interference. One, the flight crew does not want people to use headphones during take off and landing because if there is an emergency they want the passengers to be able to hear commands. Second, they don't want small metal and glass objects sailing around the cabin in the event of extreme turbulence, and thirdly, they want everyone to be paying attention to all the other safety precautions during those times and not distracted by Angry Birds. There are a lot of idiot passengers, but you can't make a regulation that allows intelligent responsible people to have permission to use electronic devices and stupid people to be prohibited so they use the supposed "interference" justification to eliminate the other problems without having to explain all the reasons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven N.
That was true 40 years ago. Compass position and output to the flight system is now output digitally and the electronics and communications could be susceptible to interference.
Well, according to wikipedia, "almost all" aircraft even commercial ones still use the bowl compass. Also, the co-pilot in question specifically said that the iPhone affected the compass not the entire flight system output. You could certainly be right, but I would argue that it's hard to tell based on what we have before us.
I don't really care about the details beyond the fact that the whole report is just stupid anyway. The idea that this simple correlation was taken as causal by the co-pilot is just wrong whatever the cause as many others have also pointed out.
This problem has been around for over 30 years now. I fail to understand why all the cabling and systems in something like a passenger jet weren't just shielded long long ago. If all the wires and terminals were properly shielded, it wouldn't matter if there was a working cyclotron onboard.
I think that serious people that have studied this stuff agree that a cellphone or a computer has no influence on place systems, let alone the compasses.
I don't know why anyone wouldn't trust their life to the guy in row 3 using the iPhone that was dropped last week. It seems to be functioning perfectly normally.
Really! What more proof do you want that it's safe to use?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
This problem has been around for over 30 years now. I fail to understand why all the cabling and systems in something like a passenger jet weren't just shielded long long ago. If all the wires and terminals were properly shielded, it wouldn't matter if there was a working cyclotron onboard.
Aren't they shielded? I thought they were.
Most companies don't allow cellphones because it would be annoying to have people constantly talking beside you, and I understand that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
You can't turn off solar flares from sunspots, EMF levels many times higher than a battery powered cellphone.
You are right and this is why incidence reports are much higher when doing flights over the poles (like Tokyo to New York flight routes) but those are a result of SEU induced by cosmic rays mostly. Since EMI is additive, the combined impact of 100's of cellphones, tablets and laptops not in Air plane mode/OFF is still slightly higher than other other natural sources. Since I know for 100% fact that altitude has impacts on system reliability due to natural sources and there are trends that show slightly higher incidence rates on a full cabin VS an empty cabin, I will continue to turn OFF my laptops and take other electronics to Air Plane mode with the screen OFF during flight critical phases.
None of this is "PROOF" of what is causing the bumps in the night but remember, we are talking about 1,000's to 10,000's of thousands of processors per plane WITH 100's to 1,000's of planes in a fleet operating for 1,000's of hours each per year. Example: A Fleet of 1,000 planes (all of the same design) with 5,000 processors per plane with a light operational 50% duty cycle will get you almost 25 billion processor hours of operation per year. Even with reliability in the 10^-9 and 10^-12 range, decreasing reliability by a small amount can greatly increase the number of incidences of things that go bump in the night. For one example, I have found a design that used the wrong design guidelines (using AHCT design guidelines for FCT logic for example) for the employed logic families making the circuits more susceptible to increased EMI.
No, you can's make airplanes 100% safe. There will always be crashes and disasters. You can do things that minimize the possibility of catastrophic failure.
Keep the ban. There's enough evidence that it can cause problems. And these sad pathetic screen addicts should be about to put their damn toys away for the 10 freekin' minutes it takes to takeoff and climb-out. Seriously.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kkerst
This is stupid. Your modern car has more complicated electronics than the average plane. I don't phones being used as an excuse for cars crashing and ignitions going crazy. Just another example of a hyperbole antiquated law completey unfounded in any truth of evidence whatsoever.
Having worked with the auto-industry and extensively with the avionics industry, I will assure you, 100%, this is NOT a true statement in any way shape or form.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
Well, according to wikipedia, "almost all" aircraft even commercial ones still use the bowl compass. Also, the co-pilot in question specifically said that the iPhone affected the compass not the entire flight system output. You could certainly be right, but I would argue that it's hard to tell based on what we have before us.
I don't really care about the details beyond the fact that the whole report is just stupid anyway. The idea that this simple correlation was taken as causal by the co-pilot is just wrong whatever the cause as many others have also pointed out.
This problem has been around for over 30 years now. I fail to understand why all the cabling and systems in something like a passenger jet weren't just shielded long long ago. If all the wires and terminals were properly shielded, it wouldn't matter if there was a working cyclotron onboard.
The dangers of a small amount of knowledge. This information has to get into the flight computer and this has to go digital and/or analog through an A/D. Some systems will actually read the compass convert to digital, output to analog (to maintain system functional interfaces) and then have the flight computer re-sample the data. This changes from plane to plane and compass to compass.
Modern avaitions are mostly fly-by-wire. Electronic signals sent out to control various parts of the airplane. Any interference that disrupt that signal may cause problems. Most automobiles are still mechanically controlled. Plus you can pull over to the side of the road. The palne can't just pull over to the "side" of the sky to check things out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kkerst
I'm talking about when the phone is used in the car. I don't see the interactions. Phone has GPS and so does a plane. Completely unfounded. Phone has a transmitter so does a plane. Phone has a receiver, so does a plane.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
[S]ome major carriers such as Delta still support the relaxing of rules on use of personal electronics under 10,000 feet, noting that there is no way of verifying with certainty that those devices are actually the cause of any interference.
Yeah. Science is weak. Best to stick with first-hand accounts from stewardesses.
edit: Emphasis added.
This is yet another example of non-technical people blaming something (iPhone in this case) they don't understand.
It must be the iPhone, Android phones would never do this. /s
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven N.
That was true 40 years ago. Compass position and output to the flight system is now output digitally and the electronics and communications could be susceptible to interference.
This is correct. Even a simple charter jet will be using an HSI slaved remotely to a gyro and a flux compass over wires.
An airliner will be using a FMS (Flight Management System) that takes info from the VOR/DME radios, Inertial Reference System (if it has one) and/or GPS receiver (if it has one). The FMS controls the autopilot. TCAS receivers in the tail give alerts. All of this is wired together and susceptible to interference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
This has been a top of discussion for like 5 years, extreme discussion for the last 2-3. So how is it that all of a suddenly we are hearing about this allegedly incident
Frankly, because reporters are lazy. Those who are pilots and/or engineers have long known about ASRS and interference reports. You can tell from the wording that some of the incidents really shook up the pilots. The problem is, again, that it's so hard to prove and/or prevent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NCMacUser
It would help had the reporter spent sometime doing research, aircraft autopilots aren't guided by compasses even in little single engine planes, let alone airliners. So if it effected the autopilot it would have had to interfered with the internal navigation systems.
Correct.
Quote:
And maybe that's possible, but honestly then wouldn't every plane be seeing these issues on take off and landing with tall the Wifi and cell towers surrounding airports??
No, bringing up outside interference is a popular misconception, You see, an airline fuselage is a pretty good Faraday cage. Except for holes, signals do not get in or out. Ever try to use a handheld radio or GPS on an airliner? You have to get very close to a window to get an external signal at all.
The bigger danger always comes from inside the aircraft tube. Which brings up a couple of more common questions which I only have a few seconds to address right now:
Q. My device doesn't transmit. How can it be a problem? A. Almost all modern electronic devices are transmitters of some sort, because they have high frequency clocks to drive the CPUs. Even a toy.
Q. Some airplanes have onboard wifi or cell. How is that possible? A. First, each class and type and model of aircraft must be tested individually. That costs. Second, it relies on devices following basic rules about transmit power. E.g. a device should only have to use its lowest power setting to talk to a hotspot inside the aircraft a few dozen feet away. If there is a software bug (which is not unknown), a device could ramp up to very high power output and cause interference. (That's what happened in the Boeing test case.) This is also why it's dumb to leave your cell phone on in a plane.. it's going to ramp up power trying to talk to a tower, and use battery like crazy.
Regards.