Japanese Airlines Ban DS, PSP

Gamespot is reporting that Japanese Airlines such as Japan Airlines and ANA have banned the use of wifi-capable game devices, including the DS and PSP, over 'safety concerns'. From the article: "A law banning on gaming systems with wireless capabilities came into force on Monday, according to the Hollywood Reporter. Japan's transport ministry has concluded that the electromagnetic waves from the wireless networks can interfere with aircraft navigation systems, so it's no Nintendogs for passengers flying with Japanese airlines. The new law also bans wireless computer mice, and headphones that have not been provided by the airlines, although the use of electric razors, calculators, and cassette players is permitted, readers may be relieved to know."

Comments

Here's your cue, Microsoft!

[EchoD]

Just in time for Microsoft to announce a hand-held without wireless capabilities! Sure, it'd be opportune... but I doubt I'm the only one who wouldn't buy it.

Re:Here's your cue, Microsoft!

[dintech]

Also there's nothing worse than flying a red-eye while surrounded by kids playing pokemon at high volume. Victory!

Re:Here's your cue, Microsoft!

[edwdig]

Try a red eye that's got an entire troup of girl scouts with a large supply of pixie sticks.

Re:Here's your cue, Microsoft!

[dintech]

I think maybe Hell is something like that. A never ending late night, long haul flight with a bunch of kids making loads of noise while all the adults try to sleep.

No so bad if you're Gary Glitter...

Re:Here's your cue, Microsoft!

[7Prime]

There's something strangely... arousing... about what you just said.

Re:Here's your cue, Microsoft!

[aliquis]

Please bring me a plane filled of japanese girl scouts.

the real reason

[ILuvRamen]

"Sir...sir we need you to get off the plane. We arrived twenty minutes ago and we have to take off for the next flight. I don't care if you're almost to level 47, get off the plane!"

Fleecing?

[tepples]

Wireless computer mouses have also been banned aboard flights, along with headphones that are not provided by the airlines. If airlines ban even wired headphones, then why does this remind me of the roughly 70% or larger gross margin that movie theaters take on candy (e.g. $0.88 Wal-Mart candy sold for $3.00)?

Re:Fleecing?

[CRiMSON]

You mean the headphones they hand out free? Not sure how you can fleece someone with a free product. I've been on 4 different airlines in the past year and the headphones were always free to use.

Re:Fleecing?

[walt-sjc]

The headphones handed out for free by airlines are horrible. I always use my own which sound great, and actually FIT.

Re:Fleecing?

[Gwala]

A lot of US airlines make you pay like $2.00 for them. American is a particularly guilty offender.

Re:Fleecing?

[ForestGrump]

Yes, they may charge you 2 bucks for the headphones, but they are "yours to keep". I think it's reasonable then.
However, their 5 dollar sandwiches and 2 dollar bottles of water are a wee bit too much.

Grump

Re:Fleecing?

[pthor1231]

Why? That food is "yours to keep" as well. They don't make you shit it out or vomit it back up before you get off the plane.

Re:Fleecing?

[walt-sjc]

But why would I WANT $2 headphones when they totally suck and I already HAVE headphones that are awesome?

Many airlines (such as United) charge you $4 or so for the "movie" and either give you the headphones or allow you to use your own. Not being allowed to use your own would really suck.

Re:Fleecing?

[SighKoPath]

That entirely depends upon the pilot and the weather.

Re:Fleecing?

[Lost Engineer]

Yeah but they haven't banned bringing your own.

Re:Fleecing?

[mikael]

Some airlines (particularly African airlines) would charge international passengers a small "fee" for using a set of headphones, around one or two US dollars or English pound notes. People would get around this by buying adaptors for converting a set of standard headphones to the connectors used by the airplane headphone system.

well,

[joe 155]

whilst I would like to see some research done into this I think that it seems like a fairly sensible policy if there is insufficient knowledge currently to be sure of the effect that it might have. If it saves even one life it seems to be worth the inconvenience (which is pretty minor anyway).

Re:well,

[king-manic]

whilst I would like to see some research done into this I think that it seems like a fairly sensible policy if there is insufficient knowledge currently to be sure of the effect that it might have. If it saves even one life it seems to be worth the inconvenience (which is pretty minor anyway).

That idea can get pretty silly. For instance Peanut butter can kill people with severe allergies, ought we ban all peanut butter in public places? Bee stings can kill certian people, ought we ban bees? A CD could presumably kill someone in exactly the right circumstance ought we ban CD's? A Scarf could kill someone too (and have killed many children), it's only a small inconvenience to go without one so ought we ban scarves?

Re:well,

[walt-sjc]

This is the nanny society we live in. In fact, many schools DO have a total ban on peanut butter just for that reason. Having a "peanut free" table instead would discriminate against the poor kids suffering with a peanut allergy. Yes, even at a high school, where the kid with the allergy should have enough sense not to eat another child's food by that age. I've lived with severe allergies my entire life, but a total ban on anything like that is insane.

Re:well,

[darkmayo]

Hey I dont know about you but if wireless signals from said devices do/can cause issues with flight instrumentation I'd rather just play it safe. That being said I'd like to actually see studies on this.. maybe some tests have everyone on the play have a ds and playing mario kart wirelessly against each other while the plane is on the ground.

Re:well,

[adavies42]

It's a minor inconvenience to the public if we lock you up for the rest of your life on the off chance that you might someday, accidentally or deliberately, kill someone, hurt someone, or hurt someone's feelings. If it saves just one person's life, limbs, or dignity, how can it not be worth it?

Re:well,

[Tofystedeth]

I doesn't matter if the kid has sense not to eat other people's food. A lot of peanut allergies are really severe, and just the dust from someone a few seats over eating peanuts can cause a sometimes severe reaction.

Re:well,

[Kugala]

I'm not aware of any consumer equipment that's going to bring down a plane, or even cause major failures alone. However, many systems, and especially radios, are pretty susceptible to interference. While a cell phone may not accidentally cause your rudder to jam right, they DO often make noise on audio systems, and that could easily take a recoverable emergency to a deadly crash. What happens when the pilot doesn't hear the tower tell him the gear aren't down? For the 'convenience' of aimless chatter with someone, I'd rather not take that risk. I'd especially prefer other people not apply that risk to me.

Re:well,

[CRCulver]

Some people have peanut allergies so severe that even being in the same room where they could smell them is potentially fatal.

Re:well,

[Babbster]

Yeah, you know what? Anyone that allergic ought to be wearing a fucking surgical mask. Hundreds of people - whether adults or children - should not have to change their eating habits for one person. Peanuts are not only tasty but they're nutritious as well. I'd certainly rather kids be enjoying some peanuts at lunch rather than some of the crap served by, and present in, public schools...

Re:well,

[AcidLacedPenguiN]

I believe there was a man who went by the name of Darwin who would have something to say about this.

Re:well,

[walt-sjc]

Then those people should probably be wearing masks. Seriously. If you life is at stake, would YOU take the chance that someone forgot about the ban and brought in a PB&J? Or had a snickers bar?

Re:well,

[Cecil]

A lot of peanut allergies are really severe, and just the dust from someone a few seats over eating peanuts can cause a sometimes severe reaction.

Myth. Peanut allergies can be severe, but never that severe. If you were in a peanut processing facility, or the person a few seats over was smashing hundreds of peanuts into peanut butter, maybe. Just eating peanuts is going to produce an infinitesimally small amount of dust. The likelihood of inhaling even a single particle of dust in that scenario approaches zero, and is not far from the likelihood of inhaling a piece of peanut dust that was picked up on the wind from a chinese peanut factory and blown around the world and directly into your mouth. They are both statistically implausible. And even if it were to happen, a single piece of peanut dust is not enough, in any recorded case of peanut allergy, to cause even a noticeable reaction.

Enough peanut allergens can actually be transferred through saliva (kissing) to cause a mild reaction in the severely allergic but even that is very infrequent, and I can't find a single case of death as a result (No, the death of the Quebec girl had nothing to do with her peanut allergy, contrary to the media reports, it was a cigarette-induced asthma attack)

Re:well,

[mchale]

Some people have peanut allergies so severe that even talking about peanuts is potentially fatal.

Re:well,

[Sensible Clod]

I know someone who has this kind of peanut allergy, and he really dislikes the smell of peanuts. As far as I know, it doesn't cause a reaction per se, but he really hates the smell of peanuts or peanut butter, even if it's just one person eating it near him. I figure it may cause a very mild immune response, which is why he hates the smell. (Prior to his first reaction, he liked peanut butter.)

Re:well,

[toolie]

There is a bunch of anecdotal evidence about interference messing with functions on an aircraft. The last I read (a couple years ago) on the subject talked in detail about an incident in which the navigation system on a commercial plane was giving erroneous data when one of the passengers had their MP3 player on.

In all the testing, nothing has been pinpointed. Interference concerns are why there is a ban on certain devices (most notable are RF emitters).

Re:well,

[djdavetrouble]

You insensitive clod !
Ok. Lets say you have a kid. this kid is so allergic to peanuts that they could die, not from eating, but simply by being around someone that is eating peanuts or a product prepared with peanuts. You want to send this kid to school.
Do you:

1. Trust the (peanuts are ok!) public school to administer the life saving shot should your kid be exposed? (someone at the school must have gone through certified training for this, btw.)
        I don't know about you, but I went to a public school myself and...

2. Seek out a private school that is sensitive to your child's allergies and already has a no nuts/seeds policy in place as well as an actual nurse on full time staff (many do).

My kids and I love peanut butter... But we have become aware that there are many people with this life threatening allergy, some personal friends or schoolmates.
Luckily many private schools have adopted the no nuts / seeds policy. It is not too much to ask, that you eat your beloved peanut butter in
the sanctity of your own home, for the safetly of these unfortunate kids that don't have the skills yet to avoid every speck of peanut dust.

Yes they do have some nutritional value but 2/3 of the calories are pure FAT . ! I know this is offtopic, but really now.....If you are going to mod this
guy insightful...... look at it from another perspective than some guy that doesn't know the whole picture other than "how dare they restrict my PB&J"

Re:well,

[Voltageaav]

You try spending an overseas flight without a PSP and then tell me it's a minor inconvenience. I generally can't sleep on planes, I can't read for more than 8 hours streight which is usually only half the flight. I'll go crazy without something to keep my mind occupied. My PSP has been a saving grace while flying and long flights are the only reason I bought extra batteries for it.

Re:well,

[gstoddart]

If it saves even one life it seems to be worth the inconvenience (which is pretty minor anyway).

That idea can get pretty silly. For instance Peanut butter can kill people with severe allergies, ought we ban all peanut butter in public places?

The difference being, is the bodies that have to oversee air travel are required to be very conservative. They have to have strong evidence that "nothing will happen", as opposed to "no evidence that something might happen".

There are so many different kinds of planes (each with various models over various years) with so many different components, that short of testing every possible combination of wiring and potentially-emitting device, they simply can't reliably and conclusively say "no problems will ever happen". Think of a 747, which they've been making for around 40 years -- there's a LOT of different configurations of that plane alone. Different types of wiring, different options, etc.

That's sufficient to say "well, ban it all then". Because the risks of losing a planeload of people are just too high. It's not ideal, but it is a reflection of how bodies which govern air safety just have to err on the side of caution.

And, from what I'm hearing on news, some schools have pretty much taken the extreme position of outlawing all nut products. It sucks for those who like peanut butter, but the school has to err on the side of caution and not have a kid die on their watch.

I guess by the time you're an adult, you're on your own. :-P

Cheers

Re:well,

[Mattintosh]

Hey, if your kid is so allergic that my normal kid has to eat bologna sandwiches instead of PB&J, you can either pay to have your kid put in a bubble, pay to have your kid put in a private school, or pay to have my kid eat bologna. Your rights end where my nose begins, and this works both ways. I may have no right to knowingly make your kid sick, but you have no right to expect me to pick up the tab for it either.

Re:well,

[bentcd]

Some people have peanut allergies so severe that even being on the same planet as a peanut is potentially fatal.

Some people have peanut allergies so severe that even talking in a language that has a word for peanut is potentially fatal.

Some people have peanut allergies so severe that even the existence of the idea of something that may be vaguely peanut-shaped is potentially fatal.

Re:well,

[Homr Zodyssey]

I was nauseated by most of the smells that could be found in my high school cafeteria.

Re:well,

[Anonymous Coward]

ought we ban bees?

But I love bees, you insensitive clod!

Re:well,

[rxmd]

Some people have peanut allergy allergies so severe that even being in the same room with a person with peanut allergy is potentially fatal.

Re:well,

[Doctor Faustus]

If you're flying with kids, I'd agree with you. If it's just you, read a book.

Re:well,

[Kamrom]

It never made sense to me, when a school bans nuts...You see, I'm highly allergic to dust and mold. So much so that it can be fatal in the right amounts, and its fairly easy to get it into those amounts. But can I ever expect people to clean up dust? No, they toss it into the air and call it "dusting". And the mold. Its impossible for me to escape it. I should be able to demand everyone everywhere I go have all traces of dust and mold removed from them before they can participate in anything I feel like doing at that moment. But since its dust and mold, such common things, everyone expects ME to adapt. If these peanut jerks dont have to wear a surgical mask like I do all the time, how is that even sorta fair? They should see what its like, instead of being taught that the whole world will accomodate their health problem above every other concern.

Re:well,

[Tim C]

Ok. Lets say you have a kid. this kid is so allergic to peanuts that they could die, not from eating, but simply by being around someone that is eating peanuts or a product prepared with peanuts.

No, let's not say that. First, let's see if there's any evidence at all to back up claims of such hypersensitivity, because without some I simply cannot believe that anyone could suffer any reaction at all from being near me as I eat peanut butter. If it were true, then those people would have to refrain from going anywhere where nuts could be consumed - restaurants, cafes, bars, coffee shops, even just out and about. They'd be prisoners in their own home.

Yes they do have some nutritional value but 2/3 of the calories are pure FAT . ! I know this is offtopic

It is, but so was the OP bringing up the fact that they're tasty and nutritional. It's completely irrelevant - unless it can be demonstrated that a significant risk exists from someone eating peanuts or peanut-containing food in proximity to someone who is allergic, then there simply is no need to ban them.

Re:well,

[ClamIAm]

Hundreds of people - whether adults or children - should not have to change their eating habits for one person.

Yes, requiring people to refrain from eating peanuts for three hours so that peanut-allergic folk can travel in airplanes is a horrible injustice. Surely, we should just ban anyone with any allergies from flying on planes. While we're at it, we should probably ban wheelchair-bound people too, since they're just such a hassle.

Re:well,

[ClamIAm]

Peanut allergies can be severe, but never that severe. If you were in a peanut processing facility, or the person a few seats over was smashing hundreds of peanuts into peanut butter, maybe. Just eating peanuts is going to produce an infinitesimally small amount of dust. The likelihood of inhaling even a single particle of dust in that scenario approaches zero

Myth. My father has a severe allergy to peanuts, and sitting near someone eating peanuts (e.g. in a plane, at a baseball game) will cause him to react.

Re:well,

[neverhadachoice]

You flacid apologist! Life's not fair. Sometimes people have things that are wrong with them to cause them to be incompatible certain environments. I moved from a capital city to a redneck city in the middle of nowhere when I was in the 8th grade. Nearly everyone there was a sexist, racist, homophobic wanker, and it sucked cause I was a city kid with .. y'know .. common sense. I was totally incompatible with that environment. But there was nothing I could do about it because that was normal there. No amount of stomping my feet was going to stop everone there from being a fuckhead. So I got the shit kicked out of me a lot, and it was generally a pretty messed up experience, but what's the moral of the story? You should stay away from things that hurt you. The world does not exist to suit your needs. You exist in the world, find your own place in it rather than forcing other people to adapt for you.

Re:well,

[Anonymous Coward]

So you'd rather schools punish several hundred kids because of one kid's allergy? That's a pile of crap.

Peanuts exist. They're everywhere. Banning them in schools isn't going to make them go away in the real world. What happens when these horribly peanut-allergic kids graduate, expecting that nobody will ever dare to unwrap a single Reese's cup within ten miles of them?

Re:well,

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay. "Thinking peanuts smell gross" != "allergic to peanuts."

Your friend does not have an allergy. Your friend just thinks peanuts stink. Maybe he did like them at some previous point in his life. Tastes change. It happens.

When some small children don't like certain foods, they claim to be allergic. You know at least five kids in grade school who claimed to be "allergic" to things like green jello or carrots or peaches. You might have even been one of them. I was "allergic" to tomatoes, myself. And then I learned that the word "allergic" did not mean what I thought it meant.

If he has a genuine peanut allergy, that's fine. That's understandable. "Eww, that stinks" is not an allergic reaction.

Re:well,

[Anonymous Coward]

What about out in the rest of the world? Should I have to stand on a chair and announce that I am about to open a bag of peanuts to give the maybe one or two people out of five hundred who's allergic to them time to evacuate? Or should I just not eat peanuts anywhere except in my own home, because someone might be allergic twenty feet away?

How dare you expect the rest of the world to change their eating habits just for you? If you're allergic to peanuts, don't eat them. If someone on the plane or in the school cafeteria is eating peanuts and you're so allergic that you can't stand being within ten feet of them, MOVE. If you're so allergic that if you're on one side of a school cafeteria-sized room or one end of a jumbo jet and someone unwrapping a PB&J on the opposite side sends you into anaphylactic shock, look into getting a plastic bubble.

God, you people are worse than vegans. At least most of them aren't trying to ban meat worldwide.

Re:well,

[Kuros_overkill]

If I ever have a kid that Allergic to Peanuts, I am sure as hell not going to trust that some jackass isn't going to sneak a peanut into the school. I am going to buy the kid a freaking bubble.
(Speaking as someone with a nut allergy (not peanuts...):) this has gotten bloody insane. I've actually had a job where they banned peanuts because we had heired someone with a peanut allergy (They never banned almonds for me, just goes to show you how completely nonsensical and one sided this whole thing has gotten. )Even she (said person with allergy) thought it was insane the level the anti peanut sentiment has gotten to. I know the same number of people who are allergic to one of the following:(1 Each) Peanuts, Almonds, Grass (Freaking Grass! I am not shitting you.) and Milk. I have never once come across any one who has even suggested banning one of the last 3. Nor any of the other thousand things one can be allergic to. I say Peanuts have gotten a bad rep, and its time to give all the Helen Lovejoys of the world their valium, and let the rest of us get back to trying to live what ever passes as a normal life in your neck of the woods.
Formal apology: I Apologies for the size of the above rant, being an individual with a nut allergy myself, I tend to take this argument personally.

Re:well,

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a minor inconvenience to the public if we lock you up for the rest of your life on the off chance that you might someday, accidentally or deliberately,... hurt someone's feelings. If it saves just one person's...dignity, how can it not be worth it? OT: If someone is that afraid of being offended, they have no dignity to be saved. "Dignity" implies "self-respect" which includes the ability to realize that some people are just asshats, and have a right to be.

That said, I think your irony was a bit too subtle. ;)

Re:well,

[JFitzsimmons]

Laughable advice coming from someone with no reading comprehension...

I can't read for more than 8 hours streight[sic]

Re:well,

[ultranova]

I figure it may cause a very mild immune response, which is why he hates the smell.

Or it could simply be the taste system (of which the olfactory sense is a part of) is doing the job it's supposed to do, by making him avoid something which is deadly for him. A bit like most people learn to avoid putting their hands on hot stoves.

Re:well,

[ultranova]

I believe there was a man who went by the name of Darwin who would have something to say about this.

Indeed: there must be some mighty fine upside for such a dangerous condition if it still persiss in the gene pool. I wonder if allergic people have stronger immune systems in general - after all, allergy is caused by an overly strong immunal reaction ? Perhaps allergic people are the ones best able to resist illness and therefore help ensure that the human race and society survives epidemics, such as the possible bird flu pandemic.

Has this been researched ?

Re:well,

[ultranova]

Hey I dont know about you but if wireless signals from said devices do/can cause issues with flight instrumentation I'd rather just play it safe.

Yeah. If airplane instruments are so pathetically fragile that a signal from battery-powered cell phone or Wi-Fi can cause them to fail, better take the train or boat.

Re:well,

[Anonymous Coward]

I have, and it is. You're a fucking selfish retard. Try talking to soldiers who have sat perfectly still for hours with nothing but sheer terror to keep them awake. If you think you can't stand half a day without your fucking electronic bullshit, I'd recommend you never, ever leave your home. Society will be bettr for it.

Re:well,

[British]

Why don't we just solve the peanut allergy kid problem altogether by making a special private school for kids with peanut allergies? We could call it the Planters school. They would have a statute of Mr. Peanut in the courtyard. At the end of the year, they can pull it down like Saddam's statue in Iraq.

Or we can just let evolution take its course. Really, if your are defeated by a legume...

Re:well,

[Sensible Clod]

You may want to re-read my comment above. Perhaps I was not clear.

When my friend (now in his 20's) had his first reaction, his family had to take him to the hospital to bring it under control (yes, I've talked with them). Since discovering the source, he has had a very few accidental ingestions of peanut products (usually in a restaurant where the waiter didn't know that something had peanut products when asked) and had severe reactions each time. (By the way, according to him, peanut oil and products fried therein are usually fine.)

From my earlier comment: I figure [the smell] may cause a very mild immune response

My personal hypothesis of the source of his dislike is just that -- a personal hypothesis. But his allergy to peanuts is not something driven by dislike for them; rather, his dislike is caused, immunologically or psychologically, by his preexisting condition.

Re:well,

[ElleyKitten]

You try spending an overseas flight without a PSP and then tell me it's a minor inconvenience. I generally can't sleep on planes, I can't read for more than 8 hours streight which is usually only half the flight. I'll go crazy without something to keep my mind occupied. My PSP has been a saving grace while flying and long flights are the only reason I bought extra batteries for it. Try a Gameboy SP. No, it's not as pretty as a PSP, but it has a lot of great games, and the batteries will last the whole trip.

Re:well,

[mybadluck22]

Sir, your comment makes me laugh.

Re:well,

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you were absolutely clear.

figure [the smell] may cause a very mild immune response

If the supposed "immune response" is so mild as to be indistinguishable from a normal non-allergic "ew, that stinks" response, your friend is not allergic. He simply does not like peanuts.

In all fairness, He may have been allergic and at some point managed to develop the defenses that keep him from having a real reaction. That happens. Years ago, I couldn't be in the same room with a cat without first taking a Benadryl. Now I own two cats, one of whom sleeps in my bed with me every night, and I don't have so much as a sniffle.

I don't like being around people who wear too much cologne. It makes me uncomfortable. It makes me not want to breathe too deeply. Am I allergic? No. I just don't like being around people who wear too much cologne, and I'm not about to go crying for a ban on cologne just because I don't like it.

Learn the difference, please.

Re:well,

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad you don't know how radios work. Go buy a book and read it, fucktard.

Re:well,

[Woody]

Some people have peanut allergies so severe that they can't come within six miles of anything that says "styrofoam packing materials" on the box.

But...

[teh tw]

What about the wifi-enabled electric shavers? Does Japan really hate multifunction that much?

Question for those who fly more then me....

[butterflysrage]

haven't wireless devices ("that send or receive signals") been banned in North American airspace for years now? I would have thought that DS-like devices would have fallen under that category.

Re:Question for those who fly more then me....

[Farakin]

what about laptops with Bluetooth and wireless cards always on? I love Tech savvy Gov officials.....

Re:Question for those who fly more then me....

[walt-sjc]

Every laptop I've seen has the ability to turn off wireless features. What braindead laptop have you found that doesn't?

Re:Question for those who fly more then me....

[irc.goatse.cx troll]

Last time I flew they said to turn wireless features off, but didnt outright ban the device.

The whole thing feels pretty silly to me, considering how much it costs to build an airplane you think they'd tack on an extra $15 worth of a faraday cage around important devices. For that matter, if it's really such a serious issue should the only thing stopping a ZOMG TERR'IST from taking down the plane with his noisy wireless interfering headphones be some small warning from the pilot before takeoff?

Hint: they aren't that dangerous.

Re:Question for those who fly more then me....

[EtoilePB]

No. I just flew cross country (JFK/LAS) twice in the last four days. The speech says that anything with an internal transmitter must have that transmitter disabled but the devices themselves are allowed. In fact I was playing MarioKart on my DS Lite most of the way back from Vegas (and my boyfriend was playing Phoenix Wright on his).

Re:Question for those who fly more then me....

[pthor1231]

I thought part of the point of a faraday cage was to not allow signals out as well. This would kind of nullify the point. Great, my radio isn't susceptible to interference anymore, but I can't hear shit on it either.

Re:Question for those who fly more then me....

[magus_melchior]

The Faraday cage idea would only work if it surrounds the cabin interior (fellow reply pointed out that the "important devices" also need to transmit signals). The odds of any airline company or aircraft manufacturer carrying this out are worse than Cheney's office taking responsibility for anything.

Re:Question for those who fly more then me....

[Lost Engineer]

I was thinking along the same lines. Is there not way to turn off the wireless on a PSP/DS. Seems like it would save batteries.

Re:Question for those who fly more then me....

[bbcisdabomb]

Only thing is that the DS doesn't start its wireless communications unless you tell it to, in which case it warns you first.

Umm...

[apdyck]

Does this really come as a surprise to anyone? I mean, we've known for years that you shouldn't use wireless devices on planes, that's why they don't let you use cell phones while on the plane. This is just the logical extension. As we see an increase in the number of wireless devices available to the public, I am sure that we will see an increase in the number of devices that are banned on aircrafts. The only thing that bothers me is that I'm not allowed to carry more than one lighter on a plane...what if my lighter runs out? Then what will I do?

Re:Umm...

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, no... you can't use cell phones in the air because you'll knock over all the cell towers you fly over...

Re:Umm...

[Moridineas]

Why exactly shouldn't we use wireless devices? I can think of a lot of good reasons--like not wanting to hear assholes chatting it up the whole flight (if possible), but from what I've read, there's no technical reasons cellphones shouldn't be able to be used--if you know more than I do, feel free to correct me.

This article is kinda funny... http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/09/25/memphis.air.snafu/

Re:Umm...

[apdyck]

Well, I did a quick google search, and here's what I found. It would appear that cell phones and other wireless devices can cause issues with the GPS systems used in planes, which are critical for landing the aircraft. Now, I don't know about anyone else, but when I get on a plane I want to know that when I get off the plane, it won't be in a farmer's field or an ocean.

Re:Umm...

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe the Mythbusters debunked this in one of their episodes.

Re:Umm...

[Moridin42]

If the pilots of aircraft you fly on can mistake a farmer's field or an ocean for an airport, I think you have issues bigger than interference with GPS and other nav systems.

Re:Umm...

[apdyck]

Fair enough, however can you deny that there is a certain amount of dependence on technology when operating a vehicle, be that a plane, or even a car? For example, if you're driving your car down the road, would you know if you were going too fast without the spedometer? Would you know your car was overheating without the temperature gague? Would you know you're running low on gas without the gas gauge?

Re:Umm...

[Homr Zodyssey]

Thats strange...the last few times I rode on a plane, they wouldn't let me past security with even one lighter. I forgot one in my backpack, and the guard found it and made me toss it out.

Re:Umm...

[assassinator42]

I can see banning the use of the actual wireless communications features, but to ban the device outright even if the transmitter is turned off seems pretty stupid.

Re:Umm...

[toriver]

That's a myth: Statistically there are usually some switched-on mobile phones on a plane, and those devices are anyway regulated for frequency bands other than the ones used by air traffic systems and the like.

The real reason is that when you are in the air, they will try and contact - at their maximum power because of the distances involved - the multiple cell network stations the plane passes as it flies at a high speed. This screws with the switching system.

So it's in the interest of the user to turn it off to preserve both battery power and their genetic material :) and in the interest of the cell phone companies to preserve network stability.

Re:Umm...

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope. Cell phones are banned because aircraft move too quickly for the cell phone to roam well. It has nothing to do with the aircraft.

Also, the Boeing 787 was going to use entirely wireless communications on board. Every seat with internet access or music or a TV was going to be connected wirelessly. They chose not to do this because it would weigh more than using traditional wires. The point is, if wireless technology were really such a threat, why would Boeing consider using it exclusively?

I call myth on this whole issue.

Re:Umm...

[spiderbitendeath]

Yes. Because when you roll it going around a curve, it's going to fast. If you see smoke pouring out of the hood, it's over heating. When the engine sputters and turns off, you're out of gas.

Re:Umm...

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't do any good if you don't realize it until after it happens.

Re:Umm...

[Discoflamingo13]

Pilots have to be able to land a plane on instruments alone - during a rainstorm, or at night, there is very little visibility. During a hailstorm, the cockpit glass could be busted up so heavily that the pilots can't see out. Visibility on anything other than a gross level (track is here) is over-rated for any but the simplest approaches.

Re:Umm...

[Moridin42]

Granted. Do they also land planes on instruments alone without communicating with the tower? Probably not. So I still stand by my comment of having much bigger issues, if pilots are putting planes down in the ocean or on some field. Additionally, just because a plane is landing at night is certainly no excuse for putting down anywhere in the ocean (as the post I was originally replying to suggested). You are relying on instruments to not crater the aircraft to be sure. But if your GPS nav says the field is 10 miles out and you don't see any landing lights, or any lights at all then a pilot that believes the GPS is bloody insane.

And yes I am aware that not all pilots ferry passengers. And they may indeed be putting down at airports without towers. I have little enough concern for them, as they a) don't have passenger's cell phones that may potentially disrupt their instruments and b) are not flying me anywhere.

Re:Umm...

[Moridin42]

Uh.. given that a vehicle is technology, obviously when operating one you will be depending upon technology. As for knowing when I'm going too fast without a speedometer, yes I do in fact know that. I know what gear I'm in, and I can tell how many RPMs the engine is turning just from the noise. It isn't necessarily as precise a method as possible. But then analog tachometers and speedometers sacrifice a certain amount of precision as well. And I've never gotten a speeding ticket, so it seems to be good enough. A temperature gauge failure would leave me in a bad spot (in fact, it has in the past). As for the gas gauge not operating, it isn't an issue. I know what type of miles I've been driving, and the trip odometer tells me how many of them I've done. So yes, I do know when I'm running low on gas without needing to consult the fuel gauge.

I'm guessing this isn't quite the response you were looking for. Not that your question is exactly relevant given the nature of the post I was responding to. It would be more accurate to ask if I would know how fast I was actually travelling if my speedometer was off by say 12 mph without my knowledge. It isn't that the instrument ceases to exist when there is a powered NDS radio on the plane. The issue is that the instrument may issue a false reading and I rely upon it to operate the vehicle. I don't rely on either the speedometer or fuel gauges (or indeed the tach) to operate my car. However, I'm still pretty confident that barring some sort of major failure in multiple systems, pilots aren't going to be landing planes in fields or over the ocean, thinking they're touching down at an airport. The radio would have to be either inoperative or unusable due to interference, the GPS nav and RDF navs would have to be giving the same erroneous location of an airport, as well as erroneous ILS radio marker information. And pilot visibility would have to be severely low to preclude the pilots being wise to not being at an airport due to the lack of the landing lights. It is possible. But the issues involved are certainly larger than navaid interference. Lack of maintenence or highly statistically unlikely bad luck for instance.

Screw You Japanese Airlines

[Anonymous Coward]

Next time I'll just WALK to Japan.

Ob.

[pushing-robot]

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/10/30

Change of heart?

[juletre]

Didn't some japanese airlines give its customers DSs as entertainment on long flights a couple of years ago?

Re:Change of heart?

[Danse]

q[Didn't some japanese airlines give its customers DSs as entertainment on long flights a couple of years ago?]q
Not sure about that, but I just had a stopover in Tokyo a couple days ago and it seemed like half the Japanese people in line for the plane were playing with a DS. It wasn't a JAL flight, but I figure their passengers are probably about the same. I think there's gonna be some real grumbling about this regulation, if not outright protest.

Re:Change of heart?

[ijdod]

Roughly a year ago, the JAL in-flight brochure mentioned the DS being available on some flights and classes. I was wondering about that at the time, given the WiFi capabilities of the DS. Perhaps the airline supplied ones were made without WiFi.

Inconsistency

[adwarf]

So Japan is banning headphones & handhelds while European carriers are adding mini cell towers and wifi to their planes?

Obligatory

[Protonk]

Penny Arcade!

Re:Obligatory

[node159]

ROFLMA... thank god someone with some sanity actually made a constructive comment on the issue :).

Seriously the entire issue has always smelt of ass.

• The reason you are asked to turn of your cell phone is not because it might down the plane (statistically there should be crashes caused by this by now), its because the cellphone negatively impacts the network by rapid switching and denying use of frequencies over a large area.
• If this really is such a large and potentially hazardous issue (which it isn't), why is the cabin not shielded?
• They don't ban the electric razor? The most EM jamming device out of the lot?!

How enforcable is this ban?

[antifoidulus]

the DS and PSP are obviously easier to ban because everyone knows what they look like and that they have wireless, but for most electronics, can you really tell just by taking a look at them whether or not they have wireless? For example, some mp3 players have wireless, some don't. Other than perhaps Zune(and who actually has one of those?) and the iPod touch(which could be an iPhone in airplane mode once it reaches Japan :P) I doubt very many flight attendants could tell you on the spot whether or not a given device is wireless or not. So if they cannot enforce the ban, why have it at all? You are just going to make people angry without adding any safety.

But this does make the environmentalist in me happy, maybe more people will take the train vs. a plane for domestic travel, and having lived in Europe, the US and Japan, I can say that the Japanese is by far the best. Though one thing I still cannot understand in both Europe and Japan is why are plane tickets more often than not cheaper than train tickets?

Re:How enforcable is this ban?

[Babbster]

Here's my problem with this banning: It would be a trivial exercise to teach flight attendants how to tell if the wireless is active on a Nintendo DS, and I assume that the PSP has a similar activity light. 30 minutes (or less) of training for its employees and they could avoid angering their game-playing customers - that sounds like a pretty good deal.

Re:How enforcable is this ban?

[m50d]

Though one thing I still cannot understand in both Europe and Japan is why are plane tickets more often than not cheaper than train tickets?

Duh, because they're cheaper to provide.

Re:How enforcable is this ban?

[Sciros]

Because if plane tickets were more expensive than the shinkansen then the airlines would be totally screwed on domestic travel. Even a regular JR line's not all that bad if you don't have to go across the entire country. If you need to get from Tokyo to Kagoshima, sure.. well soon enough I think even that might change.

I'll tell you, though, the wireless ban is BULL if it's for safety. I mean really, if they were at all unsure about how "safe" consumer wireless devices are, they wouldn't even let you take them on board. Airlines don't take chances when one screwup costs them insane amounts of money and PR.

In Japan you're not supposed to talk on a cell phone while on a train, and need it in manner mode. It's a way to promote courtesy. I don't see how this is all that much different, even if under the guise of "safety."

Re:How enforcable is this ban?

[RailRide]

But this does make the environmentalist in me happy, maybe more people will take the train vs. a plane for domestic travel It seems they are:

"Airplanes are getting stuck in lots of traffic jams this summer, but Amtrak is on a roll. Ridership on the passenger rail system is up 6% so far this year, the biggest jump since the late 1970s. On the Acela Express, trains that run at higher speeds between Washington, New York and Boston, the number of riders has surged 20% over the past 10 months. That's enough new passengers to fill 2,000 Boeing 757 jets,"

--Dan Machalaba, Wall St Journal August 23, as quoted from http://www.nationalcorridors.org/df2/df08272007.shtml#Wall

---PCJ

Re:How enforcable is this ban?

[moonbender]

Though one thing I still cannot understand in both Europe and Japan is why are plane tickets more often than not cheaper than train tickets?

Not sure if this is true for anywhere else, but here in Germany fuel and energy is heavily taxed, which factors into the train ticket prices. Airplanes, however, are excempt. We pay about EUR 0.60 per liter of gas, the airlines pay EUR 0.00 per liter of kerosene. Compared to driving in a car, railway travel is somewhat competitive.

That's not the only reason, but it's one reason.

Intentional Transmitters

[Detritus]

Any RF transmitter has the potential to cause interference with the aircraft's communication and navigation systems. Besides the intended signal, transmitters also produce spurious outputs and noise at other frequencies. This can be a real problem for systems that deal with weak signals like GPS receivers. It doesn't take much power to jam a GPS receiver. A plane full of wifi devices could create an interference nightmare.

Re:Intentional Transmitters

[NoseyNick]

Speaking as a radio ham... Electric razors frequently emit FAR more RF spew than WiFi cards, orders of magnitude more, yet they're allegedly allowed.

Re:Intentional Transmitters

[spiderbitendeath]

Speaking as a ham, thanks a lot. Now they know that, and I won't be able to use my secret razor based packet radio to connect to the internet.

Re:Intentional Transmitters

[starman97]

Here's an idea..
Put the GPS antenna outside of the metal airframe.
RF gaskets on the doors and metallized glass windows and no RF gets out of the interior.

If aircraft systems are so sensitive that consumer FCC certified gear can take them down,
then why hasn't anyone with bad intent brought up a 100W wideband noise source and
glitched out the ILS or nav gear?
Because maybe it cant be done?
Any aircraft certified system is going to have strict requirements for out of band filtering.
The antennas are placed on the top and bottom of the body, well away from the doors and windows
where interior RF can leak out. The whole thing is more security theater and liability paranoia
by the airlines. Some dope probably wasn't paying attention to the attendants when they told him
how to buckle up because he was listening to a walkman and got tossed out of his seat in some
turbulence and sued the airline for not telling him to put his damn seatbelt on.

Re:Intentional Transmitters

[Detritus]

I've read reports of RFI to VOR and ILS systems, so it is a real issue. Portable radio receivers have been a known source of interference, via LO radiation, to aircraft communication and navigation systems for almost 50 years. These systems were not designed to be jam-resistant or spoof-resistant. Many military GPS receivers have those features, but those aren't the GPS receivers in civilian aircraft.

Good thing I'm not flying to Japan

[jlf278]

I took a flight to Greece from New York and my DS certainly saved the day. Coincidentally there was a guy across from me talking on his cell phone DURING the whole take-off and ascent. Now even that's definitely not allowed on a flight, but the attendants didn't seem to care. Well, it was just one guy, whereas on a Japanese flight about 70% of people probably carry a DS.

Inconsistent regulation

[sunderland56]

So, they ban wireless computer mice - but not laptops, which all have 802.11 wireless capabilities, and many of which also have bluetooth?

They should ban transmission of RF - so your laptop/cellphone is fine as long as you turn off the radio part. I'm not sure if the DS or PSP can disable it's wireless capability but if it can - then you should be able to play games while on board, just not interact with other users.

Amazing how people in government/management are all technically inept, isn't it?

Re:Inconsistent regulation

[Skuld-Chan]

I'm not sure if the DS or PSP can disable it's wireless capability but if it can - then you should be able to play games while on board, just not interact with other users.

The psp can - it has a switch on the left hand side - or if its the new one its on the top.

Re:Inconsistent regulation

[Anonymous Coward]

And the DS has an icon (always looks the same, regardless of game) to indicate a function that would activate the wireless antenna.

Re:Inconsistent regulation

[aliquis]

Since someone answered for the PSP, you can't turn of wireless on the DS. But it's only on when you are in pictochat or try to play a multiplayer game and it's indicated by a blinking power light.

Thought if it DOES interfer with stuff in the plane I wouldn't want to trust people to not accidently turn it on or whatever. But then I don't understand why laptops are allowed, because what happens if someone had forgot to turn their wlan of? Same for mp3players, cameras and whatever.

What happened yesterday?

[Applekid]

So, nobody in Japan ever thought to bring and use a DS or PSP on a plane before today? How come planes weren't dropping out of the sky left and right? All of a sudden they interfere with navigation systems?

Call me nutty, but, wouldn't it just make more sense to shield the instruments better? I mean, EM radiation and potential jamming isn't just something that exists only on the inside of the cabin.

Re:What happened yesterday?

[Anonymous Coward]

And what about 9/11? Each plane had virtually everyone on it phoning relatives like crazy. Did that affect navigation?

No, it seems to me the navigation was still pretty damn accurate.

Why the PSP?

[sqlrob]

You can easily turn off the wireless with a switch.

There isn't a switch in the DS, but it's not on unless you use a game that turns it on.

Re:Why the PSP?

[fbjon]

All games on the DS I've seen have a standard icon to mark actions that will activate the wireless, it's probably required. They usually ask to confirm if you want to connect to WFC as well, not sure about local play though.

Re:Why the PSP?

[sqlrob]

Local wireless is just going to another location in the game, at least for the ones I've played, and you have to explicitly download for single card play.

If they're banning these, where it requires explicit user actions to kick off the wireless, then you need to ban computers as well.

Re:Why the PSP?

[Misfire]

On the DS, Pokemon Diamond and Pearl both ping the Wi-Fi connection when starting up, to look for a nearby Wii running Pokemon Battle Revolution. There's no way to suppress this that I know about, but it's a pretty brief occurrence anyway.

Re:Why the PSP?

[MagusSlurpy]

Do hammers count as switches?

Modders to the Rescue!

[bigdady92]

If this 'wireless' thing is such a big issue and the people see that there is no wire, they'll ask you to stop using it.

Now, we being the ingenious lil monkies we are, can easily take a single black wire and electric tape it to the inside of the headphone and then to the device. It doesn't have to be molded or connected in any way shape or form to something useful, just a nice thick attachable cable that stewardess can see and identify and pass on by.

Stewardess: Excuse me papa san, you can't use that headphone on the plane
Me: Why not?
S: It's a wireless headset, it can crash the plane, eat babies, and summon Godzilla.
Me: It's not wireless, it's got a cable hooked into it, see , can't be wireless when it's got a wire!
S: Ok, carry on, enjoy air tokyo

Dilbert...

[Wolvie MkM]

... I'm reminded of the comic where Dilbert convinces the PHB that he can fly the plane with Excel... Good times..

Irony

[zdude255]

It's funny how cell phones are banned in planes, where they've never caused a serious wreck, but in the US are allowed in cars, where they've caused a bunch of wrecks.

Re:Irony

[Detritus]

That's debatable. They are suspected of causing the crash of Crossair flight LX 498.

Re:Irony

[brjndr]

Why is this being modded funny? Cell phone interference was suspected in causing the crash.

Re:Irony

[node159]

They tell you not to drive while talking on the phone... ... common sense would tell you not to pilot while on the phone.

But I'm sure if they allowed phones on the planes, more people would be killed by air rage, than by plane crashes.

Headphones?

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

Sorry, but I fly on noisy commercial turboprops a lot (EMB 120 Brasilias), and I wear noise canceling headphones starting the instant those loud bastards start up. Many regular passengers do. I don't plug them into my ipod until the "OK to start your electronic devices" announcement. I've never had any question from a flight attendant. They're all wearing hearing protection too.

Re:Headphones?

[Proud like a god]

Do they work passively/off sound energy, or with their own power source, or not properly until they're plugged in??

Re:Headphones?

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

Do they work passively/off sound energy, or with their own power source, or not properly until they're plugged in?? They run off a single AA cell. Bose.

Animal Crossing: Wild World

[tepples]

All games on the DS I've seen have a standard icon to mark actions that will activate the wireless, it's probably required. Animal Crossing: Wild World doesn't have the "wireless comms icon" seen at the lower right corner of the PictoChat and DS Download Play buttons on the main menu, but anything that uses wireless communication involves talking to Copper at the north gate. Stay away from Copper, and the wireless chipset doesn't turn on.

Re:Animal Crossing: Wild World

[DJ Rubbie]

If the wireless feature of the NDS is turned on, the power light will go from solid green (or red if low battery) to blink, which I feel is a good indicator.

Granted, it will also blink when the lid is closed on standby, but I think the blink pattern is different.

It's a cell tower problem.

[tepples]

It's funny how cell phones are banned in planes, where they've never caused a serious wreck, but in the US are allowed in cars, where they've caused a bunch of wrecks. Standard (GSM or UMTS) mobile phones are designed to use terrestrial antenna towers. In most cases, you'll get a much stronger signal from one or two of these towers at once, and your phone will remain connected to one tower for a long period of time. In an airliner, you're so far off the ground that your phone can see more towers, and you're traveling so fast (900 km/h for a Boeing 747) that several towers might come in and out of range per minute. This load on the roaming system is why the mobile network operators don't want you using mobile phones on an airliner flight.

Re:It's a cell tower problem.

[JimboFBX]

Yes, its a big conspiracy between the cell phone companies and the FCC. Last year I had this discussion with a professor who specializes in wireless communication and ad-hoc networks and they were fairly certain that is not an issue. Perhaps it wouldnt work, but it definately would not be a load issue given you already get signals from a lot of towers at once anyways. Their theory? You wouldnt use that expensive airphone on the seat in front of you if you had a cell phone (planes still have those anymore?), and people dont need another annoyance (such as your "party-up" ringtone) on an airplane.

Please try to refrain from posting theories and opinions as facts unless your also willing to present them as exactly what they are.

Re:It's a cell tower problem.

[jmpeax]

[the] load on the roaming system is why the mobile network operators don't want you using mobile phones on an airliner flight

Yeah, this makes complete sense - that's why they're installing mobile masts in planes.

When I first read about that I thought that it was a complete contradiction to the argument that the signals were dangerous to aircraft systems.

Glad I don't fly

[Anonymous Coward]

Every time I hear an article about airlines, it makes me even more glad that I refuse to fly, and that I haven't flown since 1999.

If I need to go overseas, I'll take a ship.

evidence

[djdavetrouble]

kid dies from kissing someone that had peanut butter sandwich hours earlier

also google "fatal peanut allergy"

The danger is not with adults that can take care of themselves, but children that aren't 100% concious of the fatal or near fatal condition every minute of every day.

Re:evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

Darwinism hard at work.

This is all rubbish

[mgblst]

Every plane i have ever been on, 10 in the last month, I have left my phone on. Somehow we haven't crashed. Somehow we haven't landed next to the runway rather than on it. Somehow we survived.

It's so simple

[Graftweed]

Am I the only one who's slightly worried about getting on a plane sporting a few million dollar's worth of navigation systems which can be defeated by a $129.99 piece of consumer electronics? I mean, it's not like this is blown out of proportion is it?

Long live the credit cards

[Nightjed]

"We regretfully inform you that using portable games or cellphones during the flight is forbidden and will be punished with extreme prejuice *points at the on-board security personel holding flails*, by the way, please note our new credit-card driven plane phone and gaming devices available in each seat for your convenience"

The REAL story

[Digz]

She didn't die from kissing her boyfriend, but from an asthma attack after being with smokers at a party and smoking pot..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christina_Desforges

It can't be that big of a deal

[Foolth]

If they're going take away stupid crap like nail files and 1" pocket knives, they're not going to allow everyone to carry on devices that pose a serious risk to the plane. If the use of these devices were a serious threat they wouldn't leave it up to us to turn them off. They would take them away. So the question is, what, exactly, IS the big deal? And more importantly, why don't they shield/redesign/fix the problem so as to not inconvenience the bulk of the 21st century population that are walking around with wireless devices??!?!?! It's either a threat or it isn't. If it is, take the damn things out of everyone's hands because there are a lot of dangerous people, a lot of stupid people, and a lot of malicious people out there and I don't want my plane to crash because of them. If it isn't a threat, then shut the heck up.

Re:It can't be that big of a deal

[Discoflamingo13]

The real problem is that nobody knows how much of a detrimental effect wireless signals will have on the nav systems, and it will be ridiculously expensive to find out how much of a problem it is. Not all planes use GPS - some use one variant or another of nav radio, which is pretty darn easy to interfere with. Some of these planes have nav systems designed in the 1970's (with FORTRAN, Ada, and obscure assembly languages nobody remembers anymore for chips that haven't been in production for years). The test equipment used to certify the original nav systems is probably defunct. All of the original designers are probably, at best, not working for the company that produces the nav system (i.e. different job or retired); at worst, they're dead. The design specs are probably archived in some abandoned mine shaft, where nobody has had to read them for decades. Back then, RF interference was not a design concern (since the nav system(s) was probably causing all of it). If you shield the devices, you can add weight or power constraints unforeseen by the original designers - this might be a problem, and it might not - it depends on the device.

React? Sure.

[Anonymous Coward]

I dislike the smell of licorice. Sitting next to someone who's eating it will cause me to react... but only emotionally.

You might want to consider the possibility that a deathly allergy to a very common food can *also* cause some pretty serious psychological trauma. Most people find out when they're children. They eat something, have a terrifying and painful experience and then spend the rest of their lives with that threat hovering around them.

Smelling peanuts brings back the memory of that time, the fear and the sensations, but it is chemically incapable of causing the actual reaction. Since a mild peanut reaction isn't particularly visible to the naked eye, there's no difference for a spectator. This is especially true if the spectator cares deeply for the afflicted person.