Slashdot Mirror
Electronics In Flight — Danger Or Distraction?
another similar writes "IEEE Spectrum has a blog post revisiting the debate on whether electronic devices pose a risk to flight avionics spurred by a NY Post article about Arianna Huffington's refusal to power down her Blackberry during takeoff. The post points out the EU's removal of their own ban on cell phone use in 2007 and the likelihood of significant non-compliance daily in the US — and curiously, planes haven't been falling from the sky at a similar rate. While the potential exists for there to be a problem, it would appear the risk is low. Ever bent the rules? Is an app for landing commercial jets somewhere in our future?"
Personally, I find it hard to believe that a cell phone or wireless device can bring down an airliner. Why would a terrorist use a bomb? Why not simply turn on your iPhone?
Over the last few months I have been on a few EU carriers and they have the same restriction of no personnal electronics during take off and landing, same as when I was on the US carriers.
A few seasons back, Mythbusters did some tests and found that none of their phones were able to affect even remotely the instruments of a plane. It makes sense after all - we're not exactly seeing terrorists trying to sneak twelve cell phones on board and try to text each other into crashing the plane.
Who gives a shit about cell phones on an airplane, I want to know when I'll be able to use my remote control car during flight.
Monstar L
It's a load of over-sensitive could-possibly-be-thought-might-happen crap. Like using a mobile phone in a petrol station - the risk is actually from dodgy, illegally imported batteries installed in such things which might "spark" if dropped, nothing to do with the phone itself somehow magically igniting vapours. Most petrol station fires are caused by static sparks from people re-entering their cars while they are fuelling (which in itself suggests inattention to the pump pushing litres of a flammable liquid at high speed into your car) or just plain carelessness (i.e. smoking on the forecourt).
At some point, there probably WAS a time it could interfere with a piece of equipment not designed to take account that mobile phones were nearby (even if that was just audible chirps being recorded on the cockpit tapes because the mics picked them up like mics tend to do with mobile phone "check-in" broadcasts). If you're seriously using planes which are not designed to cope with mobile phone transmissions now, you're in a serious breach of due diligence as regards safety and hazards. For a start, it's too easy to leave one on, whether in the hold, or the overhead compartments, or your pocket, or even the pilot's pocket, and secondly you are going to be flying OVER mobile phone masts (with a lot more power output) and getting very, very close to them and mobile phones whenever you come into land and taxi.
The mobile phone thing is most probably, as has been recorded in several of the EU discussions, more about radio licensing - because having lots of mobiles suddenly appear in the air can mess up OTHER things. Like I can join a ferry's maritime network but only when it's switched on when we're out at sea, not near the coast. In terms of safety, if a mobile phone, or even a thousand mobile phones, can interfere with the operation of an aircraft, then you have much more to worry about that mobile phones themselves. For a start, any transmitter, any static, any friction at all. Same for wireless, bluetooth, and anything else that operates on similar wavelengths. Hell, most aircraft that serve food have a microwave or similar heater on board - bet that churns out a million times more "Risk Assessment" than the pilot's mobile phone.
The ban on cellphone usage during takeoff and landing is for your safety. The ban on cellphone usage during cruise is due to weaknesses in the cell network and your sanity.
The reason we tell you not to use your phone for takeoff and landing is because those are the point during the flight when the aircraft is most likely to encounter problems and also when our navaid usage and workload is at its highest. We are trained to assume that the airplane will crash on every flight and act accordingly - Complacency Kills! You should be in the same mindset. First, there's the matter of the crash. When the aircraft goes from flying speed to nothing in a few seconds, the G-forces are going to make that iphone/laptop/whatever that you are holding in your hands suddenly weigh several times its normal weight. You WILL NOT be able to keep ahold of it. It's going to become a projectile and injure or kill the people sitting near you. Next is longer-term survival. The fact is, most deaths in air crashes happen not during the impact sequence, but in the post-crash environment. People panic and stampede. They don't know which way is out. The aircraft is dark and possibly filling with smoke or water. Situational awareness and decision-making ability are KEY to both your survival and that of your fellow passengers. Having to get your headphones off or figure out where your laptop went is not going to help. If you weren't paying attention to things before the crash you won't know where you are now and what direction you need to go. You probably ignored the safety briefing too. See where this is going? Finally, if you are alert and paying attention, the amount of information you will be able to provide to the crash investigators after the crash will be of higher quality. Those of us at the pointy end of the aircraft probably died in the impact. Being able to give information to the investigators could uncover flaws in the aircraft or our procedures, and by correcting those save hundreds of lives. We take this flying stuff seriously. You should too.
I've heard that cell usage during cruise overloads the cell network by switching cells too often - I'm not an expert on the cell system so I'll defer to a cell tech on that. In my eyes, the ban on cell usage during cruise is for reasons of everyone's sanity. Do you really want to hear the guy in the next seat shouting into his phone about the BIG IMPORTANT EXECUTIVE THINGS BIG IMPORTANT EXECUTIVES LIKE HIM DO, or THIS THING ON MY NECK IS GETTING BIGGER, or whatever other inane thing he wants to rattle on about at maximum volume? It's bad enough everywhere else, why must we suffer too? (Misery loves company?)
Anyway, that's the score. I've repeated this I don't know how many times now and it never sticks. STICK, DAMMIT!
What? The plane crashed? I didn't notice. I was on my Blackberry. Neither did I notice the guy sitting next to me who was hitting me so I would get out of his way. I'm going to send him a nasty text message.
Ah sure, there are pretty strict limits on autoland (such as crosswind etc) - and it's not a "pilots read the newspaper while an iPhone lands the plane" affair, but Cat III autoland is equipped on the large commercial jets, and many of the large airports have a Cat III autoland certified runway, allowing for, well, autoland. Go google for it, it's pretty well described out there on the intertubes.
[citation needed]: some of the above post sounds made up. Please clarify with facts.
While the odds of a crash are minimal - if it's about to happen (and during takeoff and landing the timescales involved can be very short), you can drastically improve your odds if you pay attention.
One that hath name thou can not otter
At least one study has shown that it isn't out of the question that electronic devices can have an impact on cockpit GPS systems. Inherently this is really only vital for landings.
But the rule isn't really the problem. The problem is cheating.
Day in and day out we all abide by questionable rules not because we agree with them, but because we are civilized human beings. Flaunting rules which could, even in the most remote chance, endanger not just your life but the lives of everyone around you is bad. Forget politics, forget gender, forget class, forget intelligence. If you aren't going to abide by the rules, then don't play the game.
http://windows.scares.us
[...] one of the multiple reasons is passenger attention.
That's what a pilot told me too. If passengers are listening to music, for example, they won't hear announcements made on the speakers.
It's not that the inability to hear announcements is a direct threat to the safety of passengers. But it's one of those cases where you want to eliminate anything that can potentially make a bad situation become worse.
Most plane crashes, it seems to me, are caused by a combination of small incidents that—combined together—create a deadly situation. When reviewing those incidents, they never seem so serious if considered separately.
There are many possible reasons why electronics of various types should be turned off, most of the covered by the discussion here. However, most importantly, THEY SHOULD BE TURNED OFF BECAUSE THE RULE IS TO TURN THEM OFF. That's right, I'm advocating obeying the rule just because there is a rule. Sounds like I'm some kind of wuss, huh?
We like to think that we are a nation of laws, not men (read about it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law or here http://robertdfeinman.com/society/men_not_laws.html. A fundamental premise of this is that everyone is supposed to obey the law. I'm sure everyone can cite examples where this is not so (police giving other police a pass for infractions, etc.) but in general it is a very useful and egalitarian way to order society. We order society so that society is possible. Without order there would be chaos. One way to order society is to have multiple classes of people - you know, the nobles and the peasants. There are some who feel that this is the rightful order of things. Others don't. In the United States, one of the basic premises of our society is that everyone follows the rules. Sure, we know its not always true. But the more we pursue the ideal, the greater the chance that we will come close to it.
I get aggravated every time I see someone flaunt their disrespect for the law, such as when driving in traffic. We've all seen someone cut to the head of a line, etc. Why do we get angry? Well, its not fair, for one thing. For another, most of us recognize that its extremely easy to break the law and we probably wouldn't get "caught" (i.e., punished by some enforcer of the law), but we obey it anyway. We are frustrated with those don't, in part because most of us are smart enough to realize that if we all disregarded those laws, we would have chaos. The rule breaking only works if a very few people do it. So those few people have anointed themselves as somehow being above the rest of us. Nothing is more sure to tick a person off then another person placing themselves above that first person, especially in a society that believes it is egalitarian.
So think about it the next time you are breaking a rule, probably because you think you know it is a harmless infraction. Who are you ticking off with your self-importance? How much are you encouraging others to also choose to bend/break a rule, perhaps one more important? How much are you contributing to disorder and chaos?
Most importantly, how much are you contributing to the kind of thinking exhibited by those like Ms. Huffington who obviously think that "rules are for the little people"?
So, I am not an engineer nor in a field related to cell phones, air flight etc...the simple fact is that the US Govt. has banned the use of certain electronic devices during certain (or all) phases of an airline flight. If we want that to change, then we should lobby our representitives, and the experts in the field can testify and explain as to why there is no threat to air safety. Until then, the arrogant, self-centered Arianna Huffington's of the world need to shut up and do what they are told. I can tell you that if I see someone flaunting the rules, endangering my safety on a flight, I am going to help the stewardess hold them down while someone shoves their phone somewhere less than enjoyable. So, facts be what they may about electronics use and air flight, to me this article is more about the sad state for the consideration of others and the arrogance of people that is affecting our society.
"This technology stuff is just plum crazy!"
I'm an airline pilot, and a colleague of mine (on a Boeing 737/300) once saw his fuel quantity indicators suddenly jump to zero. He asked a cabin attendant to check if anyone was using electronic equipment in the cabin. One passenger, sitting next to the wing, was using a portable CD player. He was asked to turn it off, and fuel quantity indication returned to normal. Switched it back on again... indications went back to zero. The cause of the interference was later determined to be the motor of the CD player, which is rapidly switched on and off to keep a variable speed necessary for reading data at different distances from the center.
Personally, while flying in the cockpit myself, I have forgotten to turn off my cell phone many times. This usually just resulted in a drained battery but no ill effects on the airplane. On a few occasions, it even started ringing during final approach. I never saw any fluctuations in the instrument indications. However, I have heard the typical noise on the radio "trrrrrrrr tkt tkt tkt tkt", which I'm sure pretty much anyone has already heard when a phone was about to ring and it was close to a radio. The instrument landing system receives signals on frequencies pretty close to those of ordinary radio, so I can imagine it being affected in the same way. But I haven't actually seen the needles jump as a result.
In any case, this interference is VERY unlikely to affect the flight controls. Most landings are done manually, so interference should not actually be able to bring down an airplane. However, in foggy weather, the plane is landed automatically and in this case, it's probably safest to just keep all electronics off just in case the autopilot suddenly behaves in some weird way. Planes have crashed because of relatively minor errors in input, for example the radio altimeter reading an altitude that is much too low, and the plane thinking it's above the runway and bringing the power back to idle while in fact it's still at a few hundred feet. That sort of thing. Yes, it can happen, and planes have crashed as a result.
In 1995 Nasa published a document describing a plethora of mishaps and anomalies related to EMI. These spanned from Saturn 5 rockets to anti-lock braking systems in cars. Some were annoyances, others got people killed. Some were caused by small devices such as phones and others required degraded shielding in combination with military radars.
It seems to describe an overall "you never know" situation.
http://www.cvel.clemson.edu/pdf/nasa-rp1374.pdf
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
On a (slightly smaller) Australian plane:
Another passenger:
Do we need to turn our phones off?
Pilot:
No need, but you can if you want to. But please hold the door open for the first 100m down the runway to let the flies blow out.
>pilots do not wait until the aircraft is 300 feet off
Actually your REQUIRED TO perform full autolands every 90 days in each aircraft in order to keep it certified to perform such landings when you 'really' need its help.
(work for airline, wrote the system that keeps track of the compliance)
Also have been in aircraft cockpit several times during autolands and even performed one myself in the full SIM. It's pretty amazing.
-- Given enough time and money, Microsoft will eventualy invent UNIX.
This is definitely wrong.
First of all regulation make it mandatory to perform Cat. 3 precision landing on autopilot. If the autopilot is not operational you are not authorized for Cat. 3
(Cat. 3 is the one which has the lowest minima, up to Cat. 3 C, which has 0/0 for minima...meaning no minima, you land and stop blind).
Said that yes,. small, light single prop autopilots are just a little more than toys and can't land safely a plane ether in ideal conditions. Big planes do have very sophisticated autoland systems which are in fact able to react to wind shears and other hazards much faster than any human being.
Please study some basic instrumental flight test or have a chat with an airline pilot before saying such nonsense.
This is a completely irrelevant point.
Imagine someone in authority made up a rule: "If you have gum in your mouth, you have to stop chewing whenever you're within ten feet of anyone who is wearing a red and white striped shirt."
I almost never chew gum, and I almost never happen to be near (or even see at a distance) people wearing such striped shirts. This rule would not be onerous, and if I complained about the rule, you would just as right to chide me: "Is it really that difficult to stop chewing your gum when you're near someone with a red and white striped shirt?"
No, it wouldn't be difficult. But if you did happen to be chewing gum and suddenly found yourself within ten feet of a stripe wearer, what would you do? You would keep on chewing and think, "fuck that stupid arbitrary rule!"
Ease of compliance isn't what matters. The only important thing is whether or not the rule has reason to exist. If a rule doesn't have sufficient justification, then it should be ignored no matter how easily obeyed. (Note, though, that sometimes the existence of enforcement is the immediate reason to obey the rule rather than ignoring it. This is why you don't even try to bring your harmless pocket knife onto a plane.)
Beyond the irrelevance of the point, I also think it is harmful.
There is already a trend of "overcriminalization" where we are subject to a great many rules, laws, and conditions that don't make sense. So we disobey them whenever we think we can get away with it. We are also subject to some rules, laws, and conditions that don't make sense to us as laymen, but actually do have justifications that we're unaware of. But 90% of the time that The Man tells us to do something that we don't understand, he just happens to be fucking with us rather than actually having a good reason. So we disobey these rules too. Stupid shit undermines respect, so the last thing anyone should say to justify a rule is, "but it's easy to comply." No, you've gotta explain why. Saying anything else just reinforces peoples' belief that there is no "why."
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
--Air travel is a horrible experience these days, before you're even off the ground.
--So let's add some doofus YELLING DRIVEL ON HIS PHONE THE WHOLE FLIGHT, in addition to the cramped seats, the bad air, the tiny bags of hamster kibble they hand out for some reason, the roar of the engines, the kid behind you kicking your seat, the person in front leaning a-l-l-l-l the way back, no way to bring your own thermos of coffee and no way in hell to get any from the flight attendants, but when you need to visit the bathroom the aisle is permanently plugged up with carts.
You know what? I don't care what excuse they use to keep people from talking on phones. Just keep doing it.
Anything silent: fine. Texting, MMOs, whatever. But the day I'm trapped with a self-important shouting jerk in a tin can is the day I go to jail for justifiable homicide.
My Brother is an A320 pilot. He uses his iPad, Macbook and cellphone in the cockpit evey day. They have a company cellphone which they use in flight.
However, he says it can be very annoying and even dangerous for their RF communication if many cellphones are turned on. Ever held your cell next to a normal radio receiver? Yeah its not nice. Radio communication is just above normal radio frequencies (> 108 MHz).
Cheers,
-S