I always wonder what new Apple hit-piece is going to come out at any given day. And how mind-numbingly preposterous it's going to be.
First of all, all I see in airports is iPhones. Hundreds of millions of iPhones, or more, have been on many millions of flights around the world. I think if they caused issues with the flight, we'd fucking know it by now.
Secondly, there's nothing magical about the tech inside the iPhone- it uses the exact same wireless technologies as every single other smartphone out there. You'd think they know by now if phones had any effect on flight systems. Cause, you know, it's a big fucking deal.
But hey, "maybe" that iPhone screwed the plane up, right? Makes for a good fear-mongering headline!
Oh, and whats the reason for the $14 stock drop so far today? Are there any other horse-shit hit-pieces I missed? Is it cause that woman wants $5 million cause her power button didn't work right?
Oh that's interesting. The source Bloomberg story was:
Quote:
The regional airliner was climbing past 9,000 feet when its compasses went haywire, leading pilots several miles off course until a flight attendant persuaded a passenger in row 9 to switch off an iPhone.
“The timing of the cellphone being turned off coincided with the moment where our heading problem was solved,” the unidentified co-pilot told NASA’s Aviation Safety Reporting System about the 2011 incident. The plane landed safely.
As it happens, I think I have a copy of that particular ASRS report:
Quote:
Synopsis
CRJ200 First Officer reports compass system malfunctions during initial climb. When passengers are asked to verify that all electronic devices are turned off the compass system returns to normal.
Narrative
After departing, climbing through ~ 9,000 feet we received an EFIS COMP MON caution msg. Flight Manual directs pilots to slew compass to reliable side. It was apparent neither side was correct with the Captain's, Mag Compass, and First Officer's headings all different.
... snip ...
In the past I have had similar events with speculation that cellphones left on may contribute to the heading problems. I made a PA asking our passengers to check their cellphones and make sure that they are off. Short of flying with both headings in DG (*) we attempted to slew the compasses together again, and the EFIS COMP MON was cleared with no further messages.
Our Flight Attendant called and asked if that had helped, I said yes, what did you do? He stated he walked through the cabin and spoke to each of the 12 passengers. A passenger in Row 9 had an iPhone in the standby mode, not airplane mode or off. He showed the passenger how to turn the phone off fully.
The flight continued to destination with no further problems. In my opinion and past experience the cellphone being on and trying to reconnect to towers on the ground, along with the location of row 9 to the instrumentation in the wing caused our heading to wander. The timing of the cellphone being turned off coincided with the moment where our heading problem was solved. Eight other flights in the same aircraft in two days span completed without a similar event.
I'll see if I can post others later on.
(*) DG mode means using only the gyros, which become inaccurate after a while.
Electronic devices, even malfunctioning ones, have never caused a plane crash, and likely never will.
It's simple. Those that actually know something about electrical engineering, know that any electronic device can cause EMI, but also know that aircraft are shielded to reject such interference. If an EMI spewing device affects an aircraft, then it has a serious shielding problem that needs to be fixed asap.
Airlines are now replacing books with iPads in the cockpit. It should now be obvious to even the most lay person, that electronic devices are not a problem.
It's time for honesty. The real reasons they want you to stow your devices at take-off and landing, and not use cellular service at any time, are:
1. In an emergency situation, loose articles can become projectiles, or simply be an obstruction.
2. They want you to pay attention to flight attendant announcements.
3. The cellular companies don't want you to use cell service while in the air because it causes switching problems with their cell towers.
FAA/Airlines - tell the truth. You'll get much better 'mileage', cooperation, and credibility when you just tell it like it is and stop blaming interference.
This is a perfect example of someone seeing two temporally close events that are unrelated, and incorrectly assuming a direct causal link. I've seen even very intelligent people reach for an absurd explanation when another event happens to coincide with a phenomena they don't understand.
That said, it's the lithium batteries that worry me nowadays. There are ASRS reports of baggage catching fire while being loaded. If that happened in mid-air, it could be disastrous.
(To those who do not know. ASRS allows pilots to submit confidential incident reports without fear of reprisal. This has allowed NASA to collect a lot of info that would otherwise never be known about.)
Agreed. Batteries in devices in checked luggage are a very serious, and a real concern. Especially with laptops that frequently fail to go to sleep when the lid is closed, and are shoved into a suitcase with a bunch of clothing. The fire risks in checked luggage are high, and getting higher all the time. People really need to be educated to not check luggage that contains anything with a battery.
Here's another one about false collision alerts. There are more of these in the files.
Note that several times the pilots get a false RA (Resolution Advisory) - CLIMB! or DESCEND! from the Collision Avoidance system. It got so bad that they start to ignore it. In the meantime, wonder what what the passengers thought with the plane climbing or descending rapidly at times.
As the pilot pointed out, a false RA at low altitude with max weight could be dangerous, as the aircraft cannot perform as well in that case.
Quote:
FLT XXX, A B737-800 ZZZ-ZZZ1. AFTER TAKEOFF NEAR MAX GROSS WT, PRIOR TO FLAP RETRACTION RECEIVED A RESOLUTION ADVISORY 'MAINTAIN VERTICAL SPEED' WITH RED AREA NOT TO DECREASE TO 1500 FPM OR LESS RATE OF CLIMB.
DELAYED THRUST REDUCTION AND FLAP RETRACTION TO COMPLY WITH RA AND SCANNED FOR TRAFFIC. TCAS INDICATED A CO-ALTITUDE TARGET (RED CIRCLE) LESS THAN .01 BEHIND US. THIS OCCURRED AT 1000 FT MSL, AND CLEARED UP APPROX 30 SECONDS LATER.
SECOND RA OCCURRED NEAR 12000 FT MSL. SAME TARGET INDICATION, A RED CIRCLE CO-ALT LESS THAN .01 BEHIND US. NOW THE RA ADVISED 'DESCEND, DESCEND, DESCEND.' WE STARTED THE DESCENT, ADVISING ATC OF THE RA AND SCANNING FOR TFC. ATC ADVISED US THERE WAS NOTHING IN OUR VICINITY, AND TCAS WAS CLEAN OF TARGETS FOR NEARLY 10 MILES.
BEGAN TO SUSPECT EMI FROM CABIN. STARTED TO CLIMB AGAIN -- IGNORING THE TCAS RA COMMANDS. THE BOX WAS QUIET. RECYCLED THE TRANSPONDER POWER. AT 14000 FT, WE GOT A THIRD TCAS RA. SAME DISPLAY AND DESCEND CALLOUTS. WE IGNORED THEM.
CALLED CABIN FOR A CHK OF EQUIP THAT MAY HAVE CAUSED INTERFERENCE. FOUND PAX SEATED IN FIRST CLASS WITH LAPTOP ON. MODEL HP 6220 WITH WIRELESS FUNCTION ENABLED.. ONCE HE DISABLED THE WIRELESS FUNCTION, ALL OK.
IS THE TCAS ANTENNA CABLE SHIELDED FROM INTERNAL (CABIN COMPUTERS) EMI? I HAVE NOT SEEN AN EVENT LIKE THIS BEFORE.
WHAT MAKES IT HAZARDOUS -- IS THE RATE OF CLIMB AT DEPARTURE, PRIOR TO ACCELERATION AND FLAP RETRACTION AND THE 1500 FPM OR GREATER RATE OF CLIMB. (TRANSCONTINENTAL FLIGHT NEAR MAX TAKEOFF WT.)
WITH THE PROLIFERATION OF WIRELESS COMPUTERS, I AM SURE WE WILL BE SEEING THIS MORE OFTEN.
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.
The parameters seem pretty clear in this case. Put an iPhone in row 9 of the same aircraft at the same point in the same flight path and turn it on. This is not definitive, but could at least be added to the accumulating evidence instead of accumulating anecdote.
To me, it seems like it should be simple. Figure out however many radios there are, figure out how many different types of planes there are, test each plane with each radio. It'll take time of course. Also, don't worry about future proofing the regulations until after the whole country knows whether or not they can use their devices. They're showing how slow they're departments really are.
Uh huh. Thousands of different phone types. Many hundreds of different planes (when you consider the different versions). Then, you need to test each combination under a wide range of conditions because any problem, if it occurs at all, might be dependent on what the aircraft or phone is doing at the time. You might get a problem when the aircraft is headed north, but not headed south. Or maybe it's dependent on altitude (as in the distance between the phone and cell tower). Or it could be dependent on which band is being used by the phone at any given time.
Testing every phone with every plane under every possible set of conditions is ridiculous. Many millions of tests would be required.
There's at least one phone, tablet, or some other random device turned on on every single flight. Some people forget they're on. Some don't think the rules apply to them. Some just think it's a silly rule that shouldn't apply to anybody. Also as more and more portable devices are being put in the hands on people the airlines are going through a very impressive safety streak. It's probably safe to infer that the portable devices have little to no affect on the planes electronics
Testing every phone with every plane under every possible set of conditions is ridiculous. Many millions of tests would be required.
Why not begin with testing the particular phone in the particular row of the particular plane? Something like not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good?
Rather than test the actual phones, a testing device could be constructed that can be tuned to broadcast anywhere in the spectrum used by phones, at the upper limit of allowed power for such devices. The device should simulate the worst-case interference that's possible. The data from these tests should be used to harden planes against such interference.
Uh huh. Thousands of different phone types. Many hundreds of different planes (when you consider the different versions). Then, you need to test each combination under a wide range of conditions because any problem, if it occurs at all, might be dependent on what the aircraft or phone is doing at the time. You might get a problem when the aircraft is headed north, but not headed south. Or maybe it's dependent on altitude (as in the distance between the phone and cell tower). Or it could be dependent on which band is being used by the phone at any given time.
Testing every phone with every plane under every possible set of conditions is ridiculous. Many millions of tests would be required.
Funny because how many "walking through a airport the other day all I saw were iPhones and iPads" have I read on here and now all of a sudden it's hundreds of device types. So which one is it?
Among millions of flights, one had a problem with the compass which resolved when a single iPhone was turned off. This was on a plane full of electronic devices, many of which were probably left turned on while stowed in overhead bins. Which is more likely: That the single iPhone far back in the plane was causing the interference or that it was random chance that the iPhone was turned off at the same time as the interference stopped? What of the smart bits of electronics much closer to the cockpit, perhaps even an iPad or iPhone in the possession of one of the pilots?
Does anyone here really believe that all hypotheses or theories are proven or disproven by one single perfectly designed and definitive experiment or test? In most cases, you publish your theory and over a number of years it is eventually supported or denigrated by many small tests that take parts of it, not a single grand definitive one. Why not start by testing the most common suspects (an iPhone for instance) in the most common plane, under the most common circumstances? Then let others go from there?
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?
It's not that hard to test every possible variation of iPhone in row 9 of the plane. It will take more than a few minutes, but not more than a day or two.
Obviously you cannot test every phone in every location in the plane, so you cannot prove it will NEVER cause a problem, however you can easily disprove the silly anecdotal cases that keep popping up. If you find one that it real, then you focus on that.
This reminds me of the warnings by gas pumps to keep your cell phone in your car when fueling. Presumably a fire was caused by static electricity when someone went in their car to get their phone and this turned into the cell phone caused the explosion.
As mentioned above, conduct a test with real engineers not bureaucrats and find out if this interference is even possible.
On the face of it, this claim is impossible. We don't know the details of course, but an aircraft's compass is typically of the "bowl" variety and uses solid bar magnets. The only thing that could affect it would be a very strong electromagnetic field or the presence of other bar magnets (very) nearby.
It's also worrying how a co-pilot "<span style="color:rgb(24,24,24);font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;line-height:18px;">... suggested it was likely the iPhone caused interference with the plane's systems, as the timing of the phone being turned off coincided with when the navigational issues were resolved." </span>
<span style="color:rgb(24,24,24);font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;line-height:18px;">Whomever this person is, they certainly don't understand science, causality, statistics etc. I didn't think co-pilots were that dumb. </span>
<span style="color:rgb(24,24,24);font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;line-height:18px;">It's almost (literally!) more likely that a UFO happened to pass by the window at the same time. </span>
Maybe airplanes should use iPhones. iPhones have compasses that are immune to its own interference.
The parameters seem pretty clear in this case. Put an iPhone in row 9 of the same aircraft at the same point in the same flight path and turn it on. This is not definitive, but could at least be added to the accumulating evidence instead of accumulating anecdote.
What other PED equipment was in the aircraft turned on at the same time?
What was the current sunspot number?
Same exact time of day.
Same latitude and longitude.
Same day of the year.
Have you heard the phase "The Straw that Broke the Camels Back"?
It is easy to just say "test it once and that is 'science' and be done with it". Nothing could be farther from the truth or science.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
But is that the fault of your MacBook, or perhaps crap wiring in your house
Or just a crap UHF signal.
I always wonder what new Apple hit-piece is going to come out at any given day. And how mind-numbingly preposterous it's going to be.
First of all, all I see in airports is iPhones. Hundreds of millions of iPhones, or more, have been on many millions of flights around the world. I think if they caused issues with the flight, we'd fucking know it by now.
Secondly, there's nothing magical about the tech inside the iPhone- it uses the exact same wireless technologies as every single other smartphone out there. You'd think they know by now if phones had any effect on flight systems. Cause, you know, it's a big fucking deal.
But hey, "maybe" that iPhone screwed the plane up, right? Makes for a good fear-mongering headline!
Oh, and whats the reason for the $14 stock drop so far today? Are there any other horse-shit hit-pieces I missed? Is it cause that woman wants $5 million cause her power button didn't work right?
Oh that's interesting. The source Bloomberg story was:
Quote:
The regional airliner was climbing past 9,000 feet when its compasses went haywire, leading pilots several miles off course until a flight attendant persuaded a passenger in row 9 to switch off an iPhone.
“The timing of the cellphone being turned off coincided with the moment where our heading problem was solved,” the unidentified co-pilot told NASA’s Aviation Safety Reporting System about the 2011 incident. The plane landed safely.
As it happens, I think I have a copy of that particular ASRS report:
Quote:
Synopsis
CRJ200 First Officer reports compass system malfunctions during initial climb. When passengers are asked to verify that all electronic devices are turned off the compass system returns to normal.
Narrative
After departing, climbing through ~ 9,000 feet we received an EFIS COMP MON caution msg. Flight Manual directs pilots to slew compass to reliable side. It was apparent neither side was correct with the Captain's, Mag Compass, and First Officer's headings all different.
... snip ...
In the past I have had similar events with speculation that cellphones left on may contribute to the heading problems. I made a PA asking our passengers to check their cellphones and make sure that they are off. Short of flying with both headings in DG (*) we attempted to slew the compasses together again, and the EFIS COMP MON was cleared with no further messages.
Our Flight Attendant called and asked if that had helped, I said yes, what did you do? He stated he walked through the cabin and spoke to each of the 12 passengers. A passenger in Row 9 had an iPhone in the standby mode, not airplane mode or off. He showed the passenger how to turn the phone off fully.
The flight continued to destination with no further problems. In my opinion and past experience the cellphone being on and trying to reconnect to towers on the ground, along with the location of row 9 to the instrumentation in the wing caused our heading to wander. The timing of the cellphone being turned off coincided with the moment where our heading problem was solved. Eight other flights in the same aircraft in two days span completed without a similar event.
I'll see if I can post others later on.
(*) DG mode means using only the gyros, which become inaccurate after a while.
Electronic devices, even malfunctioning ones, have never caused a plane crash, and likely never will.
It's simple. Those that actually know something about electrical engineering, know that any electronic device can cause EMI, but also know that aircraft are shielded to reject such interference. If an EMI spewing device affects an aircraft, then it has a serious shielding problem that needs to be fixed asap.
Airlines are now replacing books with iPads in the cockpit. It should now be obvious to even the most lay person, that electronic devices are not a problem.
It's time for honesty. The real reasons they want you to stow your devices at take-off and landing, and not use cellular service at any time, are:
1. In an emergency situation, loose articles can become projectiles, or simply be an obstruction.
2. They want you to pay attention to flight attendant announcements.
3. The cellular companies don't want you to use cell service while in the air because it causes switching problems with their cell towers.
FAA/Airlines - tell the truth. You'll get much better 'mileage', cooperation, and credibility when you just tell it like it is and stop blaming interference.
Relevant wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation
Quote:
That said, it's the lithium batteries that worry me nowadays. There are ASRS reports of baggage catching fire while being loaded. If that happened in mid-air, it could be disastrous.
(To those who do not know. ASRS allows pilots to submit confidential incident reports without fear of reprisal. This has allowed NASA to collect a lot of info that would otherwise never be known about.)
Agreed. Batteries in devices in checked luggage are a very serious, and a real concern. Especially with laptops that frequently fail to go to sleep when the lid is closed, and are shoved into a suitcase with a bunch of clothing. The fire risks in checked luggage are high, and getting higher all the time. People really need to be educated to not check luggage that contains anything with a battery.
Here's another one about false collision alerts. There are more of these in the files.
Note that several times the pilots get a false RA (Resolution Advisory) - CLIMB! or DESCEND! from the Collision Avoidance system. It got so bad that they start to ignore it. In the meantime, wonder what what the passengers thought with the plane climbing or descending rapidly at times.
As the pilot pointed out, a false RA at low altitude with max weight could be dangerous, as the aircraft cannot perform as well in that case.
Quote:
FLT XXX, A B737-800 ZZZ-ZZZ1. AFTER TAKEOFF NEAR MAX GROSS WT, PRIOR TO FLAP RETRACTION RECEIVED A RESOLUTION ADVISORY 'MAINTAIN VERTICAL SPEED' WITH RED AREA NOT TO DECREASE TO 1500 FPM OR LESS RATE OF CLIMB.
DELAYED THRUST REDUCTION AND FLAP RETRACTION TO COMPLY WITH RA AND SCANNED FOR TRAFFIC. TCAS INDICATED A CO-ALTITUDE TARGET (RED CIRCLE) LESS THAN .01 BEHIND US. THIS OCCURRED AT 1000 FT MSL, AND CLEARED UP APPROX 30 SECONDS LATER.
SECOND RA OCCURRED NEAR 12000 FT MSL. SAME TARGET INDICATION, A RED CIRCLE CO-ALT LESS THAN .01 BEHIND US. NOW THE RA ADVISED 'DESCEND, DESCEND, DESCEND.' WE STARTED THE DESCENT, ADVISING ATC OF THE RA AND SCANNING FOR TFC. ATC ADVISED US THERE WAS NOTHING IN OUR VICINITY, AND TCAS WAS CLEAN OF TARGETS FOR NEARLY 10 MILES.
BEGAN TO SUSPECT EMI FROM CABIN. STARTED TO CLIMB AGAIN -- IGNORING THE TCAS RA COMMANDS. THE BOX WAS QUIET. RECYCLED THE TRANSPONDER POWER. AT 14000 FT, WE GOT A THIRD TCAS RA. SAME DISPLAY AND DESCEND CALLOUTS. WE IGNORED THEM.
CALLED CABIN FOR A CHK OF EQUIP THAT MAY HAVE CAUSED INTERFERENCE. FOUND PAX SEATED IN FIRST CLASS WITH LAPTOP ON. MODEL HP 6220 WITH WIRELESS FUNCTION ENABLED.. ONCE HE DISABLED THE WIRELESS FUNCTION, ALL OK.
IS THE TCAS ANTENNA CABLE SHIELDED FROM INTERNAL (CABIN COMPUTERS) EMI? I HAVE NOT SEEN AN EVENT LIKE THIS BEFORE.
WHAT MAKES IT HAZARDOUS -- IS THE RATE OF CLIMB AT DEPARTURE, PRIOR TO ACCELERATION AND FLAP RETRACTION AND THE 1500 FPM OR GREATER RATE OF CLIMB. (TRANSCONTINENTAL FLIGHT NEAR MAX TAKEOFF WT.)
WITH THE PROLIFERATION OF WIRELESS COMPUTERS, I AM SURE WE WILL BE SEEING THIS MORE OFTEN.
The parameters seem pretty clear in this case. Put an iPhone in row 9 of the same aircraft at the same point in the same flight path and turn it on. This is not definitive, but could at least be added to the accumulating evidence instead of accumulating anecdote.
Uh huh. Thousands of different phone types. Many hundreds of different planes (when you consider the different versions). Then, you need to test each combination under a wide range of conditions because any problem, if it occurs at all, might be dependent on what the aircraft or phone is doing at the time. You might get a problem when the aircraft is headed north, but not headed south. Or maybe it's dependent on altitude (as in the distance between the phone and cell tower). Or it could be dependent on which band is being used by the phone at any given time.
Testing every phone with every plane under every possible set of conditions is ridiculous. Many millions of tests would be required.
There's at least one phone, tablet, or some other random device turned on on every single flight. Some people forget they're on. Some don't think the rules apply to them. Some just think it's a silly rule that shouldn't apply to anybody. Also as more and more portable devices are being put in the hands on people the airlines are going through a very impressive safety streak. It's probably safe to infer that the portable devices have little to no affect on the planes electronics
Why not begin with testing the particular phone in the particular row of the particular plane? Something like not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good?
Rather than test the actual phones, a testing device could be constructed that can be tuned to broadcast anywhere in the spectrum used by phones, at the upper limit of allowed power for such devices. The device should simulate the worst-case interference that's possible. The data from these tests should be used to harden planes against such interference.
Funny because how many "walking through a airport the other day all I saw were iPhones and iPads" have I read on here and now all of a sudden it's hundreds of device types. So which one is it?
Among millions of flights, one had a problem with the compass which resolved when a single iPhone was turned off. This was on a plane full of electronic devices, many of which were probably left turned on while stowed in overhead bins. Which is more likely: That the single iPhone far back in the plane was causing the interference or that it was random chance that the iPhone was turned off at the same time as the interference stopped? What of the smart bits of electronics much closer to the cockpit, perhaps even an iPad or iPhone in the possession of one of the pilots?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven N.
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?
It's not that hard to test every possible variation of iPhone in row 9 of the plane. It will take more than a few minutes, but not more than a day or two.
Obviously you cannot test every phone in every location in the plane, so you cannot prove it will NEVER cause a problem, however you can easily disprove the silly anecdotal cases that keep popping up. If you find one that it real, then you focus on that.
As mentioned above, conduct a test with real engineers not bureaucrats and find out if this interference is even possible.
Maybe airplanes should use iPhones. iPhones have compasses that are immune to its own interference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber
The parameters seem pretty clear in this case. Put an iPhone in row 9 of the same aircraft at the same point in the same flight path and turn it on. This is not definitive, but could at least be added to the accumulating evidence instead of accumulating anecdote.
What other PED equipment was in the aircraft turned on at the same time?
What was the current sunspot number?
Same exact time of day.
Same latitude and longitude.
Same day of the year.
Have you heard the phase "The Straw that Broke the Camels Back"?
It is easy to just say "test it once and that is 'science' and be done with it". Nothing could be farther from the truth or science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR
And let's not forget Apple's assassination of JFK.
Unforgivable!
Yes, but it was Samsung that was responsible for Bobby!