Personal Electronics May Indeed Disrupt Avionics

mattrwilliams writes "There is a growing body of anecdotal evidence that points to personal electronics being a real issue on board planes. Dave Carson of Boeing, the co-chair of a federal advisory committee that investigated the problem of electronic interference from portable devices, says that PEDs radiate signals that can hit and disrupt highly sensitive electronic sensors hidden in the plane's passenger area, including those for an instrument landing system used in bad weather."

Comments

...really?

[chemicaldave]

There is a growing body of anecdotal evidence

Need I say more?

Re:...really?

[Wyatt Earp]

Have you seen how heavily shielded the cables and connections for PDAs and other PEDs are in US military aircraft?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:E-8_crewmembers.JPG

Thats what you need to keep avionics from being disrupted and vice versa according to the DoD, they've done a lot of testing on that stuff over the last 30 years.

Re:...really?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a growing body of anecdotal evidence

Need I say more?

It would help, because the evidence that electronic devices do not disrupt avionics is also anecdotal.

The real issue? If the FAA was more regulatory agency and less cheerleader, then they would work with the FCC to create standards for acceptable levels of electronic emissions from electronic devices on aircraft, personal or otherwise. There's FCC Part 15 that says that I can't radiate enough noise to jam TVs and cordless phones, and FCC Part 68 which says what you can hook up to the public telephone system. There's no reason there can't be an FCC/FAA part whatever that specifies emission limits for equipment brought aboard aircraft.

... Cue Ron Paul crowd saying that there should be a market-based alternative to these regulations, without giving feasible examples.

Re:...really?

[localman57]

+1 insightful for the top half of your post. -1 Flamebait for the last line...

Re:...really?

[c0mpliant]

There is a growing body of anecdotal evidence

Need I say more?

It would help, because the evidence that electronic devices do not disrupt avionics is also anecdotal.

Burden of proof much?

Re:...really?

[chemicaldave]

Disrupted from cell phones or enemy weapons designed to disrupt?

Re:...really?

[truthsearch]

This is what I don't understand. With all the discussions over this, how has this not been fully tested and answered? How can we not have a definitive answer by now? And if it has been answered, why it is still being debated?

Re:...really?

[rabbit994]

It's also possible their systems are shielded to handle EMP bursts and all sorts of other craziness that you wouldn't experience on commercial flight.Not to mention E-8 and E-3 are hauling around huge radars that pump out alot of energy. Finally, I would imagine alot of shielding is to protect the devices from said radar coming from airplane instead of protecting the plane from the devices.

Re:...really?

[uglyduckling]

I'm thinking, that's what you need to keep avionics from being disrupted in a combat situation.

Re:...really?

[shadowrat]

Not to mention that if an effect is real and measurable, it will have anecdotal evidence.

I think it's pretty indisputable that electronic devices can cause interference in other devices be they tvs, radios, or airplanes. Is a cell phone going to bring down a plane? I seriously doubt it, but i'd like to think that aviation as a rule is a risk averse field. Why use up resources chasing after these ghosts when the simple solution is just turn your cell phones off?

What the airlines should probably do is offer reward miles to people who turn their phones off promptly on the plane.

Re:...really?

[Anonymous Coward]

umm... you talking about a military craft that
1) Has active radar on board
2) is designed to act as a command and contorl on the battlefield

So yeah.. I would expect heavy sheilding way beyond what a civillian craft needs.
Again this is a military craft, with very different requirments than a civilain craft.. unless you like to fly over war zones that is...

Re:...really?

[chemicaldave]

I'll say more. I would hope the FAA uses scientific evidence when making decisions.

the evidence that electronic devices do not disrupt avionics is also anecdotal.

Then it seems the issue is still at an impasse. Perhaps it's bad summarizing, but using "anecdotal evidence" to make decisions is very bad.

Re:...really?

[Phyridean]

There's a growing body of anecdotal evidence that I'm great in bed. (That doesn't make it true.)

Re:...really?

[AJH16]

That's a nice image, but it's a standard rugadized pda. You can find similar hardware for doing work in factory environments and such where you potentially need to protect the electronics from more abuse than your average consumer electronics are designed to take. It really has nothing to do with preventing interference.

Re:...really?

[AJH16]

Because if it isn't the cellphone there may be something else you need to do to fix the problem.

Re:...really?

[gstoddart]

This is what I don't understand. With all the discussions over this, how has this not been fully tested and answered? How can we not have a definitive answer by now? And if it has been answered, why it is still being debated?

Because .. testing every possible consumer electronics device which might end up on an aircraft, against all the possible aircraft, and all of the possible variations of an aircraft is damned near impossible.

Some aircraft have been in production for a long time (I think over 40 years for the 747). It's got a whole boatload of variations, and has been tweaked, updated, and re-arranged by different carriers over the years. It's got different generations of avionics, in-flight systems, entertainment systems ... and who knows what else. I've seen the inside of a 747 when it was stripped down to an empty shell ... it's got literally miles of wiring.

Now, think about all of the different models of aircraft in the world. You would need to test 'em all.

I get the impression to be able to definitively say that no aircraft could ever be affected by this, you'd need to do testing of every possible emission from the device to coincide with every possible state of the aircraft ... and some of those interferences might be intermittent or not 100% repeatable, or might be compounded by other factors they can't anticipate.

I don't think anybody has the resources to rule it out ... so they've erred on the side of safety. The sheer cost of trying to test this extensively would be enormous.

And, really, unlike the pharma industry which waits until you can prove that something is causing harm before they pull it, the airline industry is waiting for proof that it doesn't cause harm before they allow it.

Re:...really?

[The Moof]

Is there some good reason we shouldn't test against this? It's possible the people who originally did the tests didn't create the circumstances these anecdotes suggest. I'd rather be safe than sorry, but that's just me and my flying preference.

Re:...really?

[MojoRilla]

Why use up resources chasing after these ghosts when the simple solution is just turn your cell phones off?

Why use up resources locking your car when the simple solution is to trust the laws against stealing?

People accidentally leave electronic devices on. Some people want to intentionally disrupt flights. Critical systems on airplanes should be designed defensively.

Re:...really?

[WillAdams]

Actually, that's more about meeting TEMPEST requirements so as to not emit a signal from which an enemy can derive useful information. Hardening of the avionics is a different thing, and not something one will readily find an image of.

William

Re:...really?

[trum4n]

It is incredibility easy to shield the wires in airplanes. I say this as an electrical engineer who deals with high power radio every day. I also operate a 5000watt ham radio within feet of my home audio system, and I am an audiophile. I shield my wires, and I have no problems.

Re:...really?

[secretcurse]

I would place the burden of proof on those that say electronics don't harm avionics considering if they're wrong, 300 people die a fiery death unnecessarily.

Re:...really?

[FatAlb3rt]

Good thing the flight crew can verify that your device is off.... because there's nothing on the screen.

Re:...really?

[NatasRevol]

So, why can't they show it/test it for at least ONE plane. Heck, put all the currently shipping PED's on the plane and get actual proof one way or another. Or fill a plane with people, giving every person the highest radiative device currently shipping, and see if there's any interference. They don't have to do EVERY plane. But how about start with ONE plane, at a maximum conditions for PED radiation.

But when they only have anecdotal evidence - from the head of Boeing - it just comes off as FUD.
It's not like Boeing does any other testing...

Re:...really?

[Cytotoxic]

We do this test every day. On any aircraft of reasonable size, there are at least a dozen cell phones not in the off position during takeoff and landing. Probably more. Most of these jets carry a hundred or more people. Nearly 100% of people carry some sort of electronic devise. Anyone here work in IT? Care to guess how many of your normal users will follow instructions? Does anyone seriously believe they get much north of 90% compliance with the "all electronics must be in the off position" request under the best circumstances? How many rings, pings, and update sounds do you hear on final approach when you come in low enough for the cell signal to connect? I hear so many I don't even notice anymore.

If this were a truly serious problem, we'd have planes dropping out of the sky like rain. I couldn't say that there isn't a potential for a problem. I can say that the risk must be very, very small.

Re:...really?

[postbigbang]

You talk about amateur radio, with a number of mostly AM, SSB, and CW modulated traffic, and not all at 5KW. And they don't affect your *AUDIO* system.

Now imagine air speed indicators, small aperture radar, and some highly sensitive receivers that get bombarded with harmonics from laptops, game controllers, tablet/pads, GSM/CDMA phones, and other personal devices, any or all of which might be blurting out naturals or harmonics from their screens, USB devices, and so on.

This isn't a residential/consumer playing field, it's an aluminum tube with a bunch of unknown stuff blurting and reflecting around a cabin with a bunch of mission critical electronics-- whose shielding might be SOA, or might be generations old. Think about it. Remember your training, and both the 80/20 rule and Murphy's.

Re:...really?

[jd]

There's a difference? One glance at the relative economies of China and the US convinces me that cell phones are weapons that are extremely effective at disrupting.

Re:...really?

[slew]

Burden of proof much?

Are you saying we should err on the side of convenience or err on the side of safety? Or are you saying that the extrodinary claim that no consumer electronics cause interference with commercial avionic systems requires extrodinary evidence of that claim?

On the other hand if they can show one counter example of an electronic system causing interference, then it's a low burden of proof, right? Well someone tried this (mythbusters episode 49), and it turned out to be plausable, so the burden of proof shifts to the other side, right?

Re:...really?

[poity]

This isn't some esoteric theory being posited in a science journal. When the risk that is posed has the potential to harm or even kill people it would be smart to err on the side of the more cautious hypothesis. Burden of proof works the other way around in such circumstances -- it's the whole basis for that popular "better choice of two unwanted outcomes" argument for a total worldwide effort against global warming, for instance.

Re:...really?

[blair1q]

If it grows enough it becomes statistical evidence.

The question is, how many crashes do you want before you'll believe a correlation exists?

Re:...really?

[c0mpliant]

That's not how burden of proof works. I could say that wearing a hat slightly to the left causes the plane to rapidly descend and then qualify it by saying I heard it from a bloke in the pub who knows for definite and that has a much evidence as this article suggests. If I thought it was true then I would have to supply evidence to support it other than the bloke in the pub who knew for sure. The burden of proof rests with the person making the claim.

TFA doesn't say how Boeing came to the conclusion that these signals interfere with other devices, other than that they can be detected. That I have no doubt, but do those signals actually interfere with anything? That isn't specified and until it is and backed up by empirical evidence, then I'm afraid I will not accept it

Re:...really?

[Lemmy Caution]

The more than needs to be said is, "the anecdotal evidence justifies a continued caution about the use of these devices, and provides a basis for following up with real research."

Re:...really?

[bughunter]

Did you read the caption? They're crew on a JSTARS. That's a radar plane. They blast megawatts of RF thru the sky. They need that shielding on their cables, or else their equipment is going to be fried.

And the radars are very sensitive to interference. RF emissions are not going to bring down the plane, but it's going to reduce the sensitivity of their GMTI algorithms, or obscure a target they could otherwise detect.

Furthermore, it's military cable. They don't buy anything that's not shielded and jacketed, they have high standards ya know... and people whose jobs exist solely to make sure they're met.

I was just playing with a military radio terminal last week, and you could use the USB cable that went between the receiver and toughbook as an effective weapon if necessary.

Re:...really?

[blair1q]

No indication that anything in that pic is TEMPEST rated. Just looks like a lot of rubber around what may be a fat bundle of skinny little wires.

Besides which, there are no safety standards for military gear; at least, not as such. Military aircraft don't have to follow the standards that the FAA specifies for commercial aircraft (DO-178B, DO-254, etc.)

The question here is, okay, so what? They measured ERP for a few PEDs. Does that signal have any way to be coupled to the actual equipment they're worried about, and are the frequencies emitted at all compatible? Because if they are, then not only does the FAA have a big problem on its hands, but the FCC has a metric assload of explaining to do.

Re:...really?

[jd]

For any given componet or communications bus, you should be able to determine the energy needed to bit-flip, the level of effectiveness per mm of shielding, the noise from background radiation at international flight altitudes and the maximum error rate that any given error-correction protocol can handle. From this, it should be easy to produce a formula that tells you the maximum disruption from personal electronics that can be tolerated by the system for any given specific aircraft configuration.

You then look not at every device but the worst-case devices (those that have large power requirements, no shielding worth a damn, frequencies that closely correspond with those in the aircraft, etc). If those devices, over the shortest distance possible (floor/wall of cabin to wires), generate RFI in excess of the maximum disruption tolerable, then those devices WILL interfere with the aircraft.

Since selective bans (you canuse brand X of laptop but not brand Y) would be (a) unpopular and (b) unenforceable, if the worst-case could cause catastrophic problems then you have to ban ALL such devices.

Re:...really?

[bws111]

but using "anecdotal evidence" to make decisions is very bad.

No, it isn't. Not when the consequences of the wrong decision are very unequal. If you ban devices and are wrong, you have mildly inconvenienced some people. If you allow devices and are wrong, you may have just killed a few hundred people. One of these is not like the other.

Re:...really?

[jd]

I dunno. Is active radar really more disruptive than Minecraft?

Re:...really?

[c0mpliant]

Yes, if you read my response to another user, yes the burden of proof does shift if its successfully proven However the burden of proof at the moment lies with those who claim it does interfere with flight systems.

Mythbusters, while is a very enjoyable show, is not, and should not be confused with true science and experiments. They're entertainers who introduce the scientific method to people who wouldn't normally have the time for actual science. It shouldn't be confused with actual scientific experiments.

Re:...really?

[Wyatt Earp]

The planes are already shielded against the external radars, ECM, ECCM, coms, SIGINT, nuclear pulse, etc.

The PDA/PED gear cables are against internal interference/interfering.

Re:...really?

[Martin Blank]

The risk is very small. But I can tell you that a cell phone left on can be a communications problem at least. I fly small planes, and my instructor had an iPhone and often forgot to turn off the radio before he tucked his bag in the back. On occasion when in flight, there would be the tick-tick-tick-tick of it trying to connect to a tower. This would sometimes happen when communicating with air traffic control, and we'd get a very firm request to disable all cell phones in the aircraft.

An airliner should be better shielded than a Cessna, but I don't know how much better, and the connections to the antennae may well run within a few feet of the passengers. Given my experience, I am generally extra-careful to switch my phone into airplane mode, though I rarely shut it down completely.

Re:...really?

[Rary]

If this were a truly serious problem, we'd have planes dropping out of the sky like rain. I couldn't say that there isn't a potential for a problem. I can say that the risk must be very, very small.

The thing is, they're not claiming that it is a truly serious problem, or that the risk is anything other than very, very small. In fact, they highlight only 75 incidents (note: "incident" is a specific aviation term that is differentiated from "accident") that may, or may not, have been attributed to personal electronic devices.

So, while you're correct in saying that we do this test every day, it's also true that the tests don't show 100% success. There are certain cases, however rare, where these devices may cause problems. We don't know enough about the variables to prove conclusively and repeatably where exactly the problem exists, so we err on the side of caution and impose a relatively minor inconvenience (seriously, you can live without Angry Birds for a few minutes at the start and end of a flight).

Re:...really?

[MooUK]

Also, all that shielding adds up to a lot of extra weight. You don't add unnecessary extra weight to a commercial aircraft - that costs a lot of money.

Re:...really?

[Chris Snook]

The FAA tries to keep plane crashes due to particular sources below statistically significant levels, so anecdotal evidence cannot be discounted.

Re:...really?

[Theaetetus]

Have you seen how heavily shielded the cables and connections for PDAs and other PEDs are in US military aircraft?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:E-8_crewmembers.JPG

Thats what you need to keep avionics from being disrupted and vice versa according to the DoD, they've done a lot of testing on that stuff over the last 30 years.

That photo is from an E-8, which does long range radar and electronics listening. Trying to compare that to a 747 is like saying you shouldn't use even 15 watt bulbs in your house because to a sensitive telescope, they're blindingly bright.

Conversely, according to this, the FCC has approved iPads for cockpit use in commercial flights.

Re:...really?

[bws111]

If this were a truly serious problem, we'd have planes dropping out of the sky like rain.

That's like saying "seatbelts are totally unnecessary because I have been driving for 20 years without one and haven't been injured yet". That, by itself, may be entirely true. But the reason you haven't been injured yet is because you have not yet encountered BOTH the conditions of no seatbelt AND being in a collision.

There is a wide range of things that can happen between 'no effect at all' and 'plane crashes'. Most of them are probably very minor - just annoyances to the pilot. But you probably wouldn't want to be on the plane where there actually was a real (non-interference related) problem going on AND the pilot was getting confusing or distracting information because of some idiot with a cell phone.

Re:...really?

[MooUK]

We *know* that electronic devices can, in a practical sense, interfere with each other. This is simple physics.

The tolerances and levels involved are what is at question. The decision is made on the side of safety.

Re:...really?

[Chris Snook]

An aircraft body is basically a faraday cage. Internal sources of radiation are many orders of magnitude more disruptive for their power level.

Re:...really?

[LWATCDR]

Let me make a guess. You are not connected in any professorial manor with the aviation industry?
If a pilot notices interference during landing but still can land safety it is still a problem. Maybe for it to be your kind of problem problem it will take them interfering while landing, at night, during a storm, with the GPS landing system out, when the plane is low on fuel. When it is you on the plane or your spouse of maybe your child you will scream bloody murder. Think back to that Air France crash that happened because an air speed indicator iced up. That can also happen all the time and never contribute to a crash. In aviation you ideally try and deal with the problems before it involves a few hundred people dieing in a ball of fire.

Re:...really?

[Rary]

So, why can't they show it/test it for at least ONE plane.

What if that one plane isn't subject to these issues? What if the problem is a particular configuration of avionics or a particular construction that doesn't apply to the one particular plane that you chose to test? Or, better yet, what if the problem isn't caused by a particular kind of device, but a particular instance of that device? Maybe the device is manufactured somewhat inconsistently, and as a result only 1 out of every 100 devices they manufacture has precisely the right qualities to cause interference on a particular plane.

It's an incredibly difficult thing to prove conclusively. Honestly, in the age of security officials groping passengers and photographing them semi-nude, is it really that big a deal to shut off your phone for a few minutes just to be on the safe side?

Re:...really?

[Chris Snook]

Because it's very difficult to characterize all the failure modes of consumer electronics. A circuit that goes bad may continue functioning (or may allow the device to continue functioning in a reduced capacity) while emitting huge amounts of RF radiation that never shows up in bench testing. This is why you occasionally get stories like the FAA knocking on a guy's door because his TV is emitting noise on a distress beacon frequency. With the rise of software-defined radios, it's further complicated by software states far too numerous to cover in testing.

Re:...really?

[TemporalBeing]

Have you seen how heavily shielded the cables and connections for PDAs and other PEDs are in US military aircraft?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:E-8_crewmembers.JPG

Thats what you need to keep avionics from being disrupted and vice versa according to the DoD, they've done a lot of testing on that stuff over the last 30 years.

You do realize that DoD is more concerned with the security of the information on those devices than anything else, right? Sure, it also has the added benefit of decreasing interference with the planes - but those planes also have very heavily shielded cabling and components, again for the same reason - security.

So that does not necessarily have anything to do with the interference of the PDS/PEDs and the aircraft.

Re:...really?

[Chris Snook]

Do you have any idea how many different PEDs are shipping right now? They'd more than fill a 747.

Re:...really?

[postbigbang]

The other problems are bad A-D converters, modulating the power supply lines, and the thought of a hundred passengers with their WiFi left on. Or worse. I'd love to go thru 100 cabins with a DC-6ghz spectrum analyzer just to get some samples. I'd bet the info would fry a lot of otherwise thoughtful engineers.

Re:...really?

[uniquename72]

If this were a truly serious problem, we'd have planes dropping out of the sky like rain.

That's like saying "seatbelts are totally unnecessary because I have been driving for 20 years without one and haven't been injured yet".

No, it's like saying, "seatbelts are unnecessary because no one has EVER demonstrably been hurt by not using them." Hundreds of millions of people fly every year, a substantial percentage of them use electronics and don't bother to turn them off (in my experience), and it's still the safest form of transportation -- without a single confirmed death due to electronic use.

I'm not saying that the ban is good or bad, only that your analogy sucked.

Re:...really?

[Chris Snook]

The law of large numbers can turn a very, very small risk into hundreds of people dying a fiery death.

Re:...really?

[Chris Snook]

Actually, an airliner has much more internal reflection of RF radiation than a Cessna, so that probably offsets any benefits from stricter shielding requirements.

Re:...really?

[muindaur]

It doesn't matter. Mythbusters found that unshielded avionics do in fact receive interference from a certain frequency band emitted by cell phones.

Re:...really?

[Obfuscant]

This is why you occasionally get stories like the FAA knocking on a guy's door because his TV is emitting noise on a distress beacon frequency.

Not the FAA. The Civil Air Patrol and the local police/sheriff.

I was there for one of these. A Toshiba TV/DVD player combo. For some reason unknown it was emitting a VERY STRONG unmodulated carrier on 121.5MHz. So strong that the SARSAT system was picking it up and it was blanketing any other potential ELT in the area.

It was an early Sunday morning. Half a dozen cops, half a dozen uniformed CAP cadets, and a couple of SAR volunteers. A hapless college student was watching Sesame Street in his underwear.

We couldn't pin it down until one of us noticed that the signal had stopped when he answered the door. We asked "did you just turn something off?" and the rest is history. His TV was two days out of warranty, but Toshiba swapped it out anyway so they could test the thing to find out why it was emitting. There was no visible sign of any problem with the TV, nothing looked wrong, everything was working. It wasn't until we showed up at his door that he found out there was a problem.

Anyone who says that personal electronic devices cannot interfere with aircraft systems is ignorant at best. Properly designed, properly maintained, properly functioning PED in a properly designed, properly maintained, properly functioning aircraft has minimal chance, but too many things break too often and the costs are very high, so why risk it? So you can text your BFF that "hey, lolz, I'm on an airplane?"

Re:...really?

[c0mpliant]

Perhaps I should have qualified it by saying

However the burden of proof at the moment lies with those who claim it does interfere with flight systems to the point which compromises safety

Re:...really?

[bws111]

Well there will probably never be a confirmed death due to electronic use, because it is impossible to prove. There have been a few crashes recently where the contributing factors seem to be bad information from sensors, and pilots taking incorrect action. How do you know that the incorrect sensor information wasn't from interference, or that the pilots didn't take the incorrect action because they were distracted by extraneous crap going on from interference?

Re:...really?

[artor3]

Goddamn it slashdot, this isn't insightful. This is the opposite of insightful. This is ignorance and bravado and strawman-beating. No one is saying that every cell phone guarantees a downed plane, or even that it's a 1% chance. But interference is a real thing, and a one plane going down so that you can check your Twitter feed is one too many.

All the professionals and experts who say it's not worth the risk aren't just making shit up to scare you. Their analysis is based on actual facts and knowledge. Yours is based on belly-feel.

Re:...really?

[EMCEngineer]

There is also another factor that is not mentioned anywhere here: maintenance. If you take a plane fresh off the line it is going to be much more robust than something with tens or hundreds of thousands of miles on it. Then take into account airlines trying to cut costs, and maintenance on EMI critical parts may not be up to what is needed.

So A plane might not be susceptible - but as these anecdotes are implying(as well as my experience in EMC engineering) shows that planes can be susceptible.

I doubt it will cause major issues - as the pilot will react to the event and ask for PEDs to be shut down. My only concern would be during take off and landing.

Re:...really?

[NinetyOneDegrees]

Why do we need to test each device? GSM devices only emit in specific frequency ranges. All of them emit in the same set of frequency ranges in the same way. Same with any other class of device.

Planes are allowed to fly over populated areas where digital and analogue TV signals are being broadcast, CB radio, digital radio, FM, and AM radio, electricity substations, telephone masts, as well as signals from satellites above, not to mention lightning, all kicking out EM noise. Surely those all interfere with the sensors. And I'm sure there's been a phone left on in a plane at least once in the past 30 years.

Re:...really?

[shmlco]

And yet pilots are beginning to carry iPads onto the flight deck to cut down on 50-lb flight bags, and airlines are stuffing planes full of seatback LCD screens and onboard WiFi systems.

Parent is right. We test this a thousand times each and every day, on every flight. Have we had ONE serious incident? Lost ONE single plane attributed to a consumer electronics device? No and no.

Re:...really?

[artor3]

A relevant joke my friend told me...

A manager, an engineer, and an scientist are driving along a winding mountain road when the brakes fail. The car careens down the road for half a mile before slamming into a guardrail and grinding to a stop, just a few feet away from a sheer drop. After checking that everyone is okay, they discuss what to do.

"I know," the manager says, "let's have a meeting, propose a mission statement, synergize our core competencies, and by a process of continuous improvement towards our critical goal, we can be on our way!"

"No, no," counters the engineer, "that will take too long, and besides, it's never worked before. Just give me some time and I can isolate the fault in the brake line and rig something together to get us home safe."

"Well alright," says the scientist, "but first I think we should push the car back up and ride it down again a few times, just to make sure it keeps happening."

Re:...really?

[rastos1]

However, do this simple test. Find a desktop computer with external speakers. Turn the speakers up midway. Put your cellphone on the desk. Call the cell phone. Hear the noise in the speaker.

Yes, I hear the noise. I also know that putting the phone 80cm further means that the noise drops completely. Ok. I admit I'm no expert and 80cm can mean a lot in a packed space of airliner fuselage so I agree that turning off a phone - basically a personal radio transmitter - makes sense. A honest question: Does it also make sense to turn off a GPS receiver? A camera without a flashlight? A dumb personal electronic diary? A digital watch? A pacemaker?

Re:...really?

[Obfuscant]

Why do we need to test each device? GSM devices only emit in specific frequency ranges. All of them emit in the same set of frequency ranges in the same way. Same with any other class of device.

Not true. Leakage varies from model to model, frequencies depend on receiver and transmitter design.

Sorry, just read the rest of your posting. I shouldn't feed the trolls.

Re:...really?

[JBMcB]

The article says that there is "anecdotal evidence" indicating some record of this happening. I assume they know what types of planes this anecdotal evidence comes from. Test those planes. Heck, I bet they can even get the exact route and everything, if it's a confluence of environmental factors.

Re:...really?

[brooklynwry]

I think it's important to maintain an open mind when introduced to potential threats and not disregard them based on "gut" reactions. That said, over the past 20 years, we've seen adoption of digital devices grow by orders of magnitude, and over the *exact* same period, witnessed the safest period in the history of aviation in terms of accidents that can't be attributed to something specific (ie, pilot error) -- not to mention overall number of aviation accidents. So yeah, I'm dubious about this anecdotal evidence.

Re:...really?

[Anonymous Coward]

^--- This. It's a Simple Key Loader that's designed to transfer crypto codes. Running Windows CE. Which always made me laugh (but not out loud).

      It's like a toughbook; made to withstand being dropped and mishandled. Unfortunately, the connector at the top wears out easily so it's all a bit of a waste.

http://www.sncorp.com/prod/c4n/skl.shtml

Re:...really?

[JBMcB]

If your shitty chinese speakers are sensitive enough to pick up a cell phone, tell me how a receiver designed to recieve a 5 watt signal in MEO can't get interference from it, but your shitty speakers can.

Because the speakers have no out of band rejection or signal discrimination built into them, they stupidly amplify anything they can detect.

And, yes, I've worked on digital radio systems. The only thing I've seen kill a very sensitive mobile digital radio antenna is a poorly built CB radio that blasted high amplitude garbage all over the spectrum.

Re:...really?

[NatasRevol]

So?

Get 10 each of the top 100 most popular PEDs.

Put them in a 747. Call it a baseline.

Now test it, see where it is and move forward. Instead of whining about what-ifs, actually start down the road of knowing if there are any effects.

Re:...really?

[NatasRevol]

Actually test the configuration.

At least then you'll have a data point.

Stop it with the what-ifs and do something. It won't prove everything, but it will show something.

Re:...really?

[shmlco]

According to BTS statistics, there were approximately 9,500,000 revenue departures in 2009, or about 26,000 per day... in the US alone. That doesn't count private flights, which tend to TRIPLE the numbers involved.

Given that dozens of people ignore the rules or forget to turn off devices on each and every flight... the law of large numbers would say otherwise....

Re:...really?

[Seumas]

cell phones are weapons that are extremely effective at disrupting.

Bingo.

Though, of course, I don't think that's how you meant it.

Everyone has a laptop or portable gaming device or a cell phone.

Classify such devices as weapons.

Everyone has a weapon.

Treat them accordingly.

Re:...really?

[rnturn]

"Why do we need to test each device? GSM devices only emit in specific frequency ranges. All of them emit in the same set of frequency ranges in the same way. Same with any other class of device.

Planes are allowed to fly over populated areas where digital and analogue TV signals are being broadcast, CB radio, digital radio, FM, and AM radio, electricity substations, telephone masts, as well as signals from satellites above, not to mention lightning, all kicking out EM noise. Surely those all interfere with the sensors.

Planes are allowed to fly over populated areas? Heh heh.

Most broadcast antennae are not transmitting vertically. To do so would be a waste of transmitter power. So those antennae are not radiating much power into a place where they would interfere with avionics.

Plus, it is not necessary for something to be transmitting in a frequency band that is reserved for aviation. The combination of signals in space can generate harmonics in the front end of navigation and landing system receivers that can create havoc with those systems. (At this point the plane is low enough where it is completely immersed in the signals being radiated by the radio station antennae sprinkled around the city you're landing in.) I worked on a project back in the '80s that neatly demonstrated that and resulted in a way to predict whether or not existing and/or proposed FM transmitters would create interference that would disrupt the landing system receivers (ILS). (I was the one who turned the software into something that would fit on a floppy and run on a PC. So don't ask me about all the math involved. I do have a few choice words about what a pain it was to work with MS FORTRAN, though. [grin]) The FAA was enthusiastic about the resulting software tool. The broadcasters? As you can easily imagine, not so much when they were told that their request to increase transmitter power or to build a new tower was rejected due to the interference to protected airspace. I strongly suspect that those who are so quick to pooh pooh the effect that PEDs have on avionics have a big financial interest in their not being banned. (Just like the cellular industry will never accept that their products could be causing brain cancer.)

Re:...really?

[Seumas]

All the professionals and experts who say it's not worth the risk aren't just making shit up to scare you

If you know many "experts" and "professionals" who are interviewed or testify or otherwise relied upon for conveying information on such topics to the world, I think you would recant this statement.

Re:...really?

[w0mprat]

The mythbusters tested this. It was busted. But they did in a worst case scenario type test get some needle to twitch. Unshielded equipment and a unrealistically high power level.

However I know a couple of pilots who often can hear GSM cellphone chrips through radio. But these are not comercial aircraft.

Re:...really?

[phoenix321]

There's also much "anecdotal evidence" of ghosts and associated metaphysics.

No one believes them to be true either, unless one haunted house can be scientifically and rigorously tested.

Without tests, "anecdotal evidence" of PED interference is worth nothing. Pilots are indeed usually superstitious, but airplane engineers should not be.

Re:...really?

[morgauxo]

IF frequencies, CPU/bus clocks, harmonics, etc...
and that's just for testing a single device
once you get multiple devices you have to consider intermod too!

Re:...really?

[shmlco]

There are 93,000 commercial flights per day worldwide. That's 33.9 MILLION per year. Extrapolated, that's 339 million in the last decade. As far as we know, we haven't lost a single plane to cell phone or computer interference.

Now, your odds of being struck and killed by lighting in any given year are a mere 2,320,000 to 1. If we had lost ONE place to electrical interference, you're still 15 times more likely to be killed by lighting than by taking a single flight. You're 15,000 times more likely to die from a fall in the shower.

Hell, the odds of being on the plane with a drunken pilot are a mere 117-to-1.

You can't eliminate all risk. But there's chance, and then there's probability and statistics, and statistics say that it's a non-issue.

Re:...really?

[hazem]

Well, then it seems to me the airlines should be doing something to fix it besides just trying to ban electronic equipment. If a plane can truly be put into peril with a small battery-powered transmitter then it's not going to take long for the Bad Guys(TM) to figure out how to use that as a weapon.

I hope this is not going to be another unlocked cockpit door problem where hijackings could have been easily prevented by putting a strong lock on the cockpit doors.

The airlines and the FAA can try to ban PEDs all they want, but until they make the planes safe from them, then it's just another case of security theater.

Re:...really?

[phoenix321]

How much cargo do you think a 747 can hold?

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Boeing_747-400#747-400ERF --> 112,760 kg

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Boeing_747-8#747-8_Freighter --> 140,000 kg

At a unit weight of 4kg, this is more than 30.000 laptop computers. Of course there's more different models shipping right now, but 30.000 different devices should be a good baseline.

Re:...really?

[phoenix321]

While I agree to much of your post and the reasoning behind it, there's still flight AF447. This loss of a recently made, well maintained aircraft of a major carrier is still pretty unaccounted for.

We think we know now the first officer's inputs kept the plane in a constant stall while the plane practically fell straight down, for all the three minutes the crew had left between incident and accident. But the reasons behind this are still in the dark. Pilot error may be one reason, but even the worst pilots usually aren't that crazy to keep pulling up on a stalled plane that's all but falling from the sky hard and fast. There's probably more to it and, judging from the bits we know about, it probably has an electronic background.

Re:...really?

[mzs]

Finally the correct answer. Part of the spec for this connector (a Burndy BTW) and cable was to be dragged behind a Jeep for a certain distance at some speed like 30MPH and to still work. That's the main reason it looks the way it does.

Re:...really?

[phoenix321]

Correction: we still *think* AF447 crashed because of an iced pitot tube. We still don't know for sure.

On the recorder, we saw a constant nose-up input from the pilot, with the plane stalled and falling fast.

It could've been an electronics failure or a crazy pilot's error...

Re:...really?

[es330td]

I fly C182's and A36 Bonanzas and have had this exact same thing happen to me. When I read someone like chemicaldave above dismissing the statement because the evidence is only anecdotal I can only shake my head. I'm responsible for me and up to 3 other people and the idea of my iPhone messing up my ability to fly safely scares the crap out of me. The attorneys for the big airlines must have to take drugs to sleep for how much they have to worry about a plane full of people going down because some new gadget interfered with the plane on takeoff, the most dangerous part of any flight.

Re:...really?

[rotide]

How do you _know_ it wasn't caused by another outside factor, like Cell Towers, Radar stations, or radio/television towers for instance? Should we ban those anywhere near the flightpath of an airplane because we can't prove those don't cause SOME interference with avionics or another instrument on one of your "few crashes"?

Re:...really?

[DerekLyons]

An aircraft body is basically a faraday cage.

Not even close. I can receive GPS, cellular data, and wi-fi within the passenger compartment of a commercial jetliner - none of which would be possible if it were a faraday cage.

Re:...really?

[DerekLyons]

There is a growing body of anecdotal evidence

Need I say more?

You're quoting a reporter, not an engineer. I think that says all that needs to be said.

Re:...really?

[fast turtle]

Well, then it seems to me the airlines should be doing something to fix it besides just trying to ban electronic equipment.

That's like Saying it's the Users responsibility to fix Windows instead of Bitching at MS for selling an insecure product. In this case, it's both the FAA and the manufacturers who need to take action. As to the airlines requiring all electronics being turned off and put away during take off/landing there's a damn good reason and it's got little to do with interference. It hurts like hell to have someone's stinking laptop hit you in the head several rows away doesn't it? I sure as hell want you to put it away because I don't like getting hit for no reason.

Re:...really?

[kylemonger]

It's an incredibly difficult thing to prove conclusively. Honestly, in the age of security officials groping passengers and photographing them semi-nude, is it really that big a deal to shut off your phone for a few minutes just to be on the safe side?

The problem is this: I may forget to shut my phone off. I remember a flight where, once we reached our destination, I realized my phone had been on for the whole flight. In first class they take your jacket and hang it in a closet after you board and my phone was tucked away in a breast pocket. I can see similar things happening with phones in bags tucked away in the overhead bins. Relying on passengers to solve this problem is no solution if indeed radiation from personal devices is a real problem. So proof that there is a problem is only the first step, but it is an important one, because it will be the necessarily grounds for an onerous ban of all such devices or perhaps collecting them all and putting them into a shielded box for the duration of the flight.

Re:...really?

[Obfuscant]

At a unit weight of 4kg, this is more than 30.000 laptop computers.

Do you truly not understand the complexity of proper testing of EMI that you would imagine that you could put 30,000 running laptop computers into a 747 at one time and get any meaningful results?

Or is the goal to do a botch job and get nothing and then use that as proof that every PED is safe in every airplane?

I'm sorry, but I've been a pilot in airplanes where there has been EMI from PED so this isn't "anecdotal" evidence to me. I also know that every case of EMI doesn't result in an airplane falling from the sky because the pilots are too good at flying to allow that to happen, but it does cause extra workload usually at a time when there is already a lot. And, of course, when the worst does happen the NTSB won't necessarily be able to pin the cause on a defective laptop being used at the wrong time in the wrong place because by the time they get there the plane is a smoldering pile of metal shards and nobody will know that the laptop was being used, only that the radar showed the aircraft below the glideslope far enough that it hit the ground instead of landing on a runway. Unless the pilot is really good and really fast at diagnosing the problem and can say it loud enough that the cockpit voice recorder remembers the cause for posterity, the NTSB will chalk it up to just another case of "pilot error".

Re:...really?

[ColdWetDog]

is it really that big a deal to shut off your phone for a few minutes just to be on the safe side?

This is what I don't understand. The only times you can't use PEDs is takeoff / landing / flight below 10,000 feet. Twenty to thirty minutes out of your day at most.

Can't people just stare off into space for a few minutes? Alpha waves are good for you. From what I recall from high school, most of us were pretty good at it back then. Turn the damn things off for a few minutes.

And while you're at it, get off my lawn, please.

Re:...really?

[Obfuscant]

It could've been an electronics failure or a crazy pilot's error...

That's the problem with looking at NTSB reports and trying to find "EMI caused a crash" results.

The NTSB will test everything it can recover, and listen to the tapes. It looks at the radar tracks and interviews ground witnesses. When it finds that the electronics appear to be working, and there were no clues to any mechanical issues, the result will be "pilot error".

The guy in seat 34B who was using his laptop or cellphone during approach will either be dead and unable to admit that fact, be oblivious to the fact that his actions may have contributed to the cause, may not even remember he left his phone ON in his carryon (and yes, I've gotten to my destination and found that my phone was on the whole time), or may be too scared of legal repercussions to admit what he was doing.

So, sorry, I don't trust the lack of documented death from cellphone use at the wrong time as proof of anything other than a lack of documented death from cellphone use. The inability of the NTSB to make that a final determination means it won't be; it's not the fact that it can't happen.

Re:...really?

[Lord_Jeremy]

It does not matter if you can show that nothing short of an EMP will interfere with or disable one model of plane, or even a dozen models. The simple and quite honestly undeniable fact that some common electronic devices might interfere with the navigational systems of some planes means that not only are the airlines completely justified in restricting passenger use of said devices (it's their private aircraft, they can restrict you whichever way they want - you really don't have any say other than refusing to fly by that airline) but people who think they are justified in protesting those restrictions on the plane are putting all the other passengers in danger. All you need is one corner-case of random phone and random plane and a couple hundred people die in a plane crash. Until a full and complete list of safe use cases can be established by testing and possibly retrofitting, the risk inherent in using any wireless device on any is unacceptable.

For what it's worth, I've been on several flights that support in-flight wifi access (paid of course). This would suggest that there has been some (hopefully) rigorous testing with certain types of signals and planes. Unfortunately, the task of testing *every* device with *every* plane (you can't necessarily even just rely on testing a certain model - faulty or damaged interference shielding in older planes could present a danger that varies between individual planes of the same model) is virtually impossible. Passengers really need to just accept that there will be a somewhat limited list of acceptable devices on a somewhat limited number of planes. Violating those rules is reckless and frankly quite self-important. As much as you think the airline employee telling you to shut off your phone is an idiot, they are being told to say that by people that are very likely much smarter and have much more information than you.

Re:...really?

[bwalzer]

Planes are allowed to fly over populated areas where digital and analogue TV signals are being broadcast, CB radio, digital radio, FM, and AM radio, electricity substations, telephone masts, as well as signals from satellites above, not to mention lightning, all kicking out EM noise. Surely those all interfere with the sensors.

Some do. Interference from FM transmitters is a known issue in Europe. Again it is the instrument landing system that is affected. I remember that was a reason for people to want to build the microwave landing system back in the day... Another common ground based cause of interference to aircraft stuff is leaky cable TV systems.

Re:...really?

[ColdWetDog]

That's freaking coax. No just shielded cable but coax. Are you sure it's just to minimize internal interference?

Re:...really?

[NatasRevol]

Bullshit.

Bullshit on this: " The simple and quite honestly undeniable fact that some common electronic devices might interfere with the navigational systems of some planes...the risk inherent in using any wireless device on any is unacceptable."

More than 100,000 people per year die world wide in car crashes and we accept that risk just fine. The world is full of risk, and we all deal with it and accept it every day.

Until anyone can prove (ie test and verify) that there are ANY actual negative effects, and consequences from those effects, then there's no reason to stop using PEDs. As I've pointed out elsewhere, they don't need to test for every combination of plane & PED. Just start with one, ie a 747 with 500 iPhones, and use it as a baseline, then move forward testing other scenarios. They just need to get some damn facts. But the fact is that no plane yet has had an accident directly or indirectly attributed to PEDs, and they're running on every flight, of every plane, around the world. In other words, PASSENGERS ARE ALREADY DOING THIS TESTING AND ITS SHOWING NO INTERFERENCE ON 10,000+ FLIGHTS EVERY DAY, WITH EVERY TYPE OF PLANE AND EVERY TYPE OF PED.

Re:...really?

[Belial6]

If you get hit in the head by someones laptop from several rows away, it wasn't because of a landing or takeoff.

Re:...really?

[bzipitidoo]

testing every possible consumer electronics device which might end up on an aircraft, against all the possible aircraft

... is the wrong approach to this problem. You've obviously spotted the issue that this would require m*n tests, where m is the number of airplane models and n is the number of PEDs. But then you just declare it impractical and give up!

Instead, you need standards. Then you test each device to see if it meets the standards, for a total of m+n tests. In the case of planes, test that they can tolerate a minimum amount of interference. And for the devices, test that they do not emit more than that minimum amount.

Re:...really?

[Belial6]

It's still being debated because the neo-luddits want to call newer tech evil, and logic will not play a roll. For them it is a matter of faith that personal electronics bring down planes.

Re:...really?

[richlv]

could you please point at reputable, conclusive studies, showing standard consumer electronic devices like digital cameras having a significant possibility to disrupt a passenger aircraft ?

given the resources devoted to ensure no operation of such devices i would expect there to be a lots of studies showing conclusive outcome.

Re:...really?

[Twanfox]

I wish I had mod points today, because this right here is exactly what the answer is. We drive cars, we're told that even if there is someone driving outside the bounds of the law (recklessly, speeding, etc), we should drive defensively and take care of ourselves. The same can go for airplane design. So today it's Cell Phones and iPads. We get 100% cooperation and that's no longer a problem, and we can leave sensitive avionics unshielded. Then, a solar storm pushes enough EM interference into the atmosphere and.. whoops, planes are falling out of the sky because their avionics got crippled with the noise.

The lesson learned here shouldn't be 'People need to obey the rules and turn off their radiating devices' but rather 'Planes are vulnerable to interference and should be hardened better'.

Re:...really?

[Obfuscant]

Most broadcast antennae are not transmitting vertically. To do so would be a waste of transmitter power. So those antennae are not radiating much power into a place where they would interfere with avionics.

It is more a case of those antennas being in a fixed location at a fixed power and known hours of operation.

I used to fly out of Syracuse NY and would pass over the top of one of the FM broadcast stations on the way south. It was normal for me to pick up that station in the aviation radio for about twenty or thirty seconds, and ATC knew that anyone in that area was likely to be suffering from the same thing.

It happened every time, it happened in a known place, and it was obvious what the source was. It happened long enough after takeoff that it wasn't a danger to departures, and it was not on final so it wasn't a big hazard to arrivals.

Compare that to a situation where the radio goes kaput at a random time for an unknown cause while on final approach and you're waiting for ATC to clear you for landing and you are in the clouds trying to keep the ILS needles centered -- and it may be one of the ILS radios that is now nonfunctional. Yes, you've trained how to deal with it, but people still bend metal when instruments fail despite repeated practice going without.

Sometimes the problem is not that you are unable to go without that instrument altogether, but that you are not easily able to determine that it is lying to you and should be ignored. If you know it will not work at a certain place, you can ignore it. If you don't know it is broken, you don't know to ignore it. I used to fly over Elmira NY and had a LORAN in the airplane. The first time I flew there, it took me a bit of time to work out why the plane I was flying suddenly had a ground speed in excess of 400 knots. After that time, I knew that I should ignore any LORAN when flying in that area -- the site of one of the LORAN transmitters. If the ground speed indication had been 50 knots instead of 400, I might not have realized what the problem was quite so easily.

Re:...really?

[rueger]

Try running a blender near those cheap speakers - you'll hear even more noise.

Ah! At last I know why the TSA would let me bring my Cuisinart on as carry on luggage!

Re:...really?

[Obfuscant]

In the case of planes, test that they can tolerate a minimum amount of interference. And for the devices, test that they do not emit more than that minimum amount.

In a perfect world, with perfect manufacturing systems and non-breakable objects, that would be fine. In fact, this is already being done.

In the real world, however, you have laptops that are FCC certified for emission levels with nothing plugged into them that radiate all kinds of garbage when a mouse is plugged in, or a poorly shielded USB extension cable, or some other third-party peripheral. You have that cellphone you've dropped a few times and knocked the grounding screw loose so it now radiates. You are sitting in a plane that has been through maintenance a few times, and that cable bundle that was routed one way at manufacturing time has been misrouted by a few inches so it's now in a slightly different place. Or the cable bundle has come loose due to vibration and the shielding has abraded. Or a simple screw holding a ground lug has corroded and is not grounding something well anymore.

This is /., so maybe you have that laptop that you've opened up to replace the hard disk with a nice SSD, but you bent a few of the grounding fingers around the edge of the case when you put it back together, or maybe you just forgot to put the grounding stuff back in and decided "it's just a grounding thing, it isn't important." Or you've demonstrated your leet hacker chops by modding your PS3 into a clear plastic case, having no clue about anything to do with Part 15 or the emission limits and wouldn't know how to test for them if you did.

Or you have a fine piece of modern Chinese manufactured (or US for that matter) electronics where they got the FCC Part 15 certification for A or B emission levels on the first few production units, and then decided to save money by changing the production system and never bothered to retest the units for emissions.

So, you have a can of worms here. How do you solve it?

1. Ban all electronics. Not practical. There are too many things that too many people need to take with them when they travel, including those business travellers who pay prime rates for short-notice tickets.
2. Make all electronic items checked only, and shield the hell out of the baggage compartment. Impractical and unworkable, since much of the avionics is routed through that area. Also not acceptable for those same business travellers who you expect to check a $3k laptop.
3. Make a list of all approved electronic devices. Also unworkable. You'd put an enourmous amount of work onto the waiters, I mean stewardesses, I mean "flight attendants", who would have to carry a book with them just to figure out what was and was not approved.
4. Ban the use of all electronics that can be turned off during certain critical phases of the flight. Saves the effort of trying to figure out is that modded PS3 is legit for emissions, or if your laptop has been Part 15 tested with that mouse or whatever, or has been opened up to revoke its approved status. And gosh, this is what we do.

Why is it that people who should be the most aware of the foibles of our technology and the potentials for failure are so willing to think that none of the technology they use will ever fail in even the slightest way?

Re:...really?

[adolf]

Meh.

Have you seen how heavily shielded the cables and connections for PDAs and other PEDs are in US military aircraft?

No, I haven't. And your photo doesn't show me how well-shielded they are, either. For all I know, that cable has no shielding at all.

The size of the connector or cable has nothing to do with shielding. Mil-spec connectors like that are big so that they are durable (and often waterproof), and rated for huge numbers of insertions, and supply proper strain relief for the cable, and...

Your photographic anecdote makes as much sense me saying this:

"Have you seen how heavily shielded the cables and connections for microphones and other small widgets are in stage performance?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phil_Stacey_%28cropped,_full_shot%29_%C2%B7_071118-N-1644C-007.jpg

That's what you need to keep voice audio from being disrupted according to accepted practice, they've done a lot of testing on that stuff over the last century or so. (Plus, everyone knows that pictures of folks in uniform always helps emphasize a point.)"

Which, of course, is wrong. The wire doesn't need to be anywhere near that big, and the XLR connector is complete overkill, electrically speaking, for a microphone: It's just two wires and a shield, with very low current and voltage. (A trio of Fahnestock clips would work very nearly as well, electrically speaking, and consume little space -- but it's impractical because it wouldn't be durable.)

We use XLR connectors for microphones, because they represent a good balance between durability and size. Likewise, we tend to use big, heavily-insulated wire for stage microphones not because it is electrically necessary or because it is particularly well-shielded (it's generally not), but because it's durable and reliable.

Military connectors are subject to the same reliability/size tradeoff, with generally greater emphasis on reliability (including harsh environments). It's no surprise that the connector/wire coming from that PDA-like device is huge, if it's got more than a handful of conductors: It is, simply, not meant to fail easily.

But again, that doesn't mean that it's particularly well-shielded. It also doesn't mean that it's not particularly well-shielded. The picture doesn't say.

Re:...really?

[bws111]

The planes went through extensive certification testing for external interference. They did not go through the same certification for internal interference, which is the entire point of the ban. It's not that the devices WILL cause problems, it's that they haven't been shown to NOT cause problems. New planes are being tested for internal interference (with modifications being made as needed), which is why wifi is now on some planes.

Re:...really?

[Man On Pink Corner]

And why is this my problem, as a passenger, and not Boeing's, or the FAA's?

Do you want to fly on an airplane that can be crashed if little Johnny in seat 34C leaves his Game Boy turned on? Didn't think so. And this is somehow the devices' fault?

Re:...really?

[ATMAvatar]

The obvious answer is to invest in shielded avionics. If any joe shmoe can unwittingly disrupt plane electronics by forgetting to turn off his cell phone before takeoff, then anyone intent on actually doing harm could pretty easily do so.

Re:...really?

[jwhitener]

We do this test every day. On any aircraft of reasonable size, there are at least a dozen cell phones not in the off position during takeoff and landing.

The last time I flew, the pilot somehow knew that a phone(s) was on and refused to take off. We sat there for 20 minutes or so, with the pilot saying every 5 minutes "I still detect a phone on folks, please turn them off".

Re:...really?

[RoFLKOPTr]

An aircraft body is basically a faraday cage.

... excuse me? If anything, an aircraft body is an antenna. What physics professor told you that an aluminum cylinder blocks and reflects radio waves? (Hint: None did, because the notion is preposterous.)

Re:...really?

[RoFLKOPTr]

unshielded avionics do in fact receive interference from a certain frequency band emitted by cell phones.

Good thing all avionics and life safety equipment are shielded, then. Trust me, this shit is designed to withstand with absolutely no hiccups the enormous amount of interference that a lightning strike directly to the frame of the plane generates... a cell phone is nothing.

Re:...really?

[RoFLKOPTr]

How much cargo do you think a 747 can hold?

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Boeing_747-400#747-400ERF --> 112,760 kg

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Boeing_747-8#747-8_Freighter --> 140,000 kg

At a unit weight of 4kg, this is more than 30.000 laptop computers. Of course there's more different models shipping right now, but 30.000 different devices should be a good baseline.

So... will you be funding this, then? When can I expect a check?

Re:...really?

[Starker_Kull]

There's also much "anecdotal evidence" of ghosts and associated metaphysics. No one believes them to be true either, unless one haunted house can be scientifically and rigorously tested. Without tests, "anecdotal evidence" of PED interference is worth nothing. Pilots are indeed usually superstitious, but airplane engineers should not be.

I see you are quite comfortable using anecdotal evidence when it suits you, unless you happen to have a peer-reviewed study in your pocket regarding the average superstition level of pilots.

Re:...really?

[LWATCDR]

That is correct but that is also the point. Modern aircraft are really good. Airline pilots are well trained. Airline pilots don't stall a plane at cruise out of the blue. Modern airliners rarely just fall apart. Maybe the vast majority of cells and stuff will probably do no harm. One bad kirf or maybe one that has a flaw happens to cause an ILS to glitch at the worst possible time and people die.
They can't inspect every device so the safe route is to have them turned off at takeoff and landing. Cell phones are a different issue. The FCC wants them turned off in flight because they will see too many towers and switch too fast. Most crashes happen when more than one thing fails and the pilot makes an error dealing with the failure. And what the hell is wrong you these fools. They can't turn off their toys for 10 minutes at the start and end of a flight!

Re:...really?

[thegarbz]

The power of interference is additive. You have 300 people and end up with 30 phones on during take-off, and there's a finite limit to the power of the interference, namely 30x (transmitter power - losses). If all 300 people had their phones on your interference may be an order of magnitude higher. Lots of people don't get this.

Mind you that doesn't explain why 30 minutes after takeoff on my last Emirates flight the attendants told us we could turn on our mobiles and take them off flight mode if we wished to make a call, and then proceeded to hand us a card with the international roaming charges.

As always group A predicts doom, group B says group A are loons and there is zero to worry about, but the true answer lies somewhere in the middle. If you think stray RF isn't an issue I invite you to do an electronics thesis involving high gain small signal amplifiers.

Re:...really?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's pretty clear what happened. For your convenience:

- The pitot tubes froze over
- Airbus computer response to a loss of airspeed data is to disable stall warning from AoA vane (which is unreliable at low speeds)
- Plane got into stall, pilots probably felt it warning or no
- Airbus procedure response to a stall is to set full power and nose up, the computer is supposed to figure out what angle is best to fly at to recover from the stall
- This obviously doesn't work so well without airspeed or AoA data. The computer went into alternate law, taking pilot control as gospel
- Pilots probably didn't spot the notification amongst the slew of other alerts they had to go through
- Given full nose up, the plane obviously stalled even harder, full power wasn't nearly enough to recover. It rapidly loses forward airspeed and begins dropping like a stone, still pitched up
- While the descent is accelerating the pilots know there's a stall, but once it hits terminal velocity (this is not something that happens very often and would not be at the front of their minds) they no longer feel a drop and assume that they've recovered from the stall and are climbing
- Obviously once you're climbing you're pretty much in the clear. They settle down to go through all their checklists, all the while the plane is dropping at 11,000 fpm towards the ocean. They may have got a terrain warning from the radar altimeter a moment before the crash. But then again, a cellphone may have been interfering with it! So perhaps if everybody had turned their phones off the pilots would've had 2,500 feet to recover from a 11,000 fpm deep stalled descent, rather than hitting the ocean unaware of it.

AF447 was a tragic combination of bad luck, awful circumstances, procedural problems, pilot error, design flaws and very bad luck. It had absolutely nothing to do with personal electronics.

Re:...really?

[caitsith01]

Exactly. On top of which, if there was even an 0.001% chance of a mobile phone causing a plane crash, do you think they'd be allowed to fly in the cabin of the plane at all? Of course not. They'd be on the list with fireworks, ammunition and so on.

Re:...really?

[bzipitidoo]

More pessimism! There's an answer to this too.

You build safety factors into your standards. Go 50% over what you think you need. Or 100% over. Then, normal wear and tear shouldn't cause devices to exceed the threshhold that causes trouble, even if they can no longer pass the standards for new devices. This has been done for centuries. The Romans did this with aqueducts! The elevated portions can withstand winds of up to 300 mph, 50% more than they thought might ever happen.

As to your other concerns, it's not voodoo. Designs can account for connection problems and ignorant users who want to get their hands dirty. And planes must be shielded better. Otherwise, some prankster on the ground could aim a transmitter at a plane and screw with its electronics. Maybe a powerful radio station could accidentally do it. I recall there was an incident where someone on the ground pointed a laser into the cockpit, making it difficult for the pilots to see. Some things can't be shielded of course. But we don't know what's reasonable.

The fact is, we haven't seriously addressed this problem. Or we would have a better idea of what can be handled. No, it's been cheaper to ignore the problem and resort to crude measures such as blanket bans and let electronics remain the boogieman of air travel.

Re:...really?

[mr100percent]

Most devices fall into certain categories of what they emit. Why not just just test some of the basic ones; GSM phones, CDMA phones, commercial GPS, WiFi antennas, Bluetooth antennas? I can't imagine there's much variation in either of the categories.

Re:...really?

[SudoGhost]

Burden of proof goes both ways, and neither "side" seems to have any.

Re:...really?

[u38cg]

The aircraft was equipped with a "picocell", essentially a cell tower inside the aircraft. They can operate on very low power and are supposed not to interfere with the aircraft. They're not very common yet - there's an argument passengers will hate them - but they will no doubt be coming to a budget airline near you soon.

Re:...really?

[ShakaUVM]

>>>>There is a growing body of anecdotal evidence
>>Need I say more?

Yeah, exactly. They've compiled a list of 75 electronics glitches which "might have been caused by" personal electronic devices.

Calling BS on this - the inverse square law, shielding, and relatively low power of personal devices makes it much more likely that these glitches were caused by:
1) Bugs in the system
2) Cosmic rays flipping bits
3) Human error.

I can't begin to imagine how unlikely a weak RF signal 20 feet away could cause an event resulting in "the autopilot turned off". Hell, isn't the EMI from other devices next to the autopilot and inside the shielding a much more likely culprit?

Re:...really?

[u38cg]

There are about 93000 scheduled flights worldwide per day, and mobiles have been in widespread use for about ten years. So there have been, so far, 93000*365*10 flights without a known crash due to electronic device interference. Just calculating a confidence interval for numbers this small is difficult, but just for you I did it. At 99.99999% confidence, the number of crashes is less than about 8x10^-8. That is, if we re-ran the last ten years over and over again, 0.00001% of trials might have as many as 8x10^-8 crashes.

Re:...really?

[ShakaUVM]

>>And, really, unlike the pharma industry which waits until you can prove that something is causing harm before they pull it, the airline industry is waiting for proof that it doesn't cause harm before they allow it.

The situation with pharmaceuticals is complicated. I can think of a few times when pharma companies lied about risk (Vioxx being a big one), but the reaction to it (pulling Vioxx off the shelves entirely) was as harmful to some people as the drug itself - I used to have a landlord (old B-52 pilot during the Korean war) who had severe arthritis of the spine. Nothing worked for the pain but Vioxx and morphine. So when they pulled Vioxx, he got the morphine, and slept 16 hours a day. He told me he'd rather take the 1% increased risk of heart disease than sleep his life away.

But generally speaking, the pharmaceutical industry and the FDA are very very careful about patient health. Probably too cautious, to be perfectly honest. There's a lot of unique drugs they've pulled due to minor risks, that people can't get anywhere else.

I studied how Boeing does risk-assessment back in college, and they are also very very cautious when it comes to risk assessment. You could put a bullet through a cockpit in any place (excepting the pilot, I guess) and the plane would continue to fly. The notion that a small milliwatt signal from back in the steerage section of the plane could cause an autopilot to turn off is just laughable. It's much more likely that it was something else instead.

Re:...really?

[dintech]

Just to be sure, you're talking about a CRT plugged in to the mains? I've heard in the past of a guy's old TV 'playing havoc with his neighbours' broadband out to a 200m radius'.

Re:...really?

[CSMoran]

If any joe shmoe can unwittingly disrupt plane electronics by forgetting to turn off his cell phone before takeoff, then anyone intent on actually doing harm could pretty easily do so.

Maybe, maybe not. How many people intent on actually doing harm are there, compared to the number of hoe shmoe's unwittingly disrupting the electronics by forgetting to turn their cell phones off? If you get a 1 in 5000 chance of doing that, it's worthless for terrorists, but planes would still be falling from the sky everyday because of joe shmoes.

Re:...really?

[CSMoran]

Yes, because testing this in one case really proves it's busted for all combinations of {aircraft, PDE}, right?

Re:...really?

[AmiMoJo]

We know that electronic devices, especially those with radio transmitters, can interfere with other devices. I'm sure everyone has heard the sound of mobile phone interference on TV or the radio. Okay, so there have not been any serious accidents yet, but that was the case with the pitot tubes that froze over and brought down an Air France flight over the Atlantic.

Aircraft are very fragile things. One sensor fails and they crash and everybody dies. Fatal accidents have been attributed to mere idle chatter in the cockpit. Arguably aircraft should be more robust than that, but at the moment we just have to deal with it.

All iPads have wifi and some have 3G, and I bet they are permanently disabled on the ones the pilots use.

Re:...really?

[Doghouse Riley]

"some new gadget interfered with the plane on takeoff, the most dangerous part of any flight" Fair enough. I don't have any problem at all with the pilot announcing, "We are now #3 for takeoff. At this time, all PED's need to be switched off." But is there a need for them to be off during the 40 minutes it took to get from #27 to #3??

Re:...really?

[black soap]

Maybe in new construction, but how many dollars would it cost per airplane already in service? I think it is probably easier (cheaper) for them to enforce a blanket policy than to rewire every plane in the fleet, or enforce varying policies and keep track of which planes have been retrofitted with shielded wires.

Re:...really?

[FredFredrickson]

No, if it grows enough it becomes something worth investigating. After investigating the facts (not the anecdotes), and ruling out other factors, they determine if they've got enough statistical evidence to suggest a change. If not, they may do further study.

Anecdotes are just so useless. Ever hear of that guy who wasn't wearing a seatbelt and THAT saved his life in an accident? I know I'll never wear a seatbelt again!

Re:...really?

[blair1q]

Anecdotes aren't facts?

Fascinating.

Re:...really?

[Obfuscant]

You build safety factors into your standards. Go 50% over what you think you need. Or 100% over. Then, normal wear and tear shouldn't cause devices to exceed the threshhold that causes trouble,

There's that "perfect world" optimism again.

Please explain this to the TV that was signalling to the satellites at a power level a thousand times more than it should have been emitting. "You shouldn't be doing that, you had 100% overhead in your emission limits..."

Explain that to the cheaply made laptops who meet their emission limits when nothing is plugged in, but fail by 1000% when a badly manufactured cable is plugged in.

No, designs CANNOT account for users who modify the equipment, either deliberately or accidentally. And designs CANNOT account for manufacturers who avoid testing when the design changes.

Otherwise, some prankster on the ground could aim a transmitter at a plane and screw with its electronics.

Now I know that you have no clue what you are talking about, because it is absolutely TRIVIAL for a "prankster" to aim a transmitter at a plane and screw with the avionics. For a few dollars, I could build a fake marker beacon. I could EASILY transmit a fake ILS signal. Put an amp and an antenna on a GPS jammer and the aircraft GPS is gone. Buy a used aircraft radio and block ATC transmissions. You CANNOT SHIELD against that which you must receive, whether that is a leaky laptop emitting on a necessary frequency or a TV gone whacko or a "prankster".

Nobody is ignoring the problem. The solution to the problem is to limit the potential for exposure as much as possible. I'm sorry if that means you cannot text your BFF while you are flying or play DES games for twenty minutes, or even read a book on your Kindle for those same twenty minutes, but I'm sure you can tough it out and survive. And not be so selfish as to think that your use of a PED is so critical that you'd jeopardize everyone else on the plane even to a tiny degree.

Re:...really?

[Obfuscant]

And yet pilots are beginning to carry iPads onto the flight deck to cut down on 50-lb flight bags, and airlines are stuffing planes full of seatback LCD screens and onboard WiFi systems.

And those are known devices in a known place in the aircraft, doing a known function, all unintentional emitters, and TESTED BEFORE THEY ARE INSTALLED so they are known not to interfere. Do you not get the difference between this and Joe Schmuck pulling his cellphone out of his pocket trying to call his girlfriend and thus activating a deliberate transmitter in a random place in the plane?

Do you also not understand the difference between a device under the direct control of the pilot, that can be disabled with the flick of a switch by the pilot when a problem is discovered, with Joe Schmuck texting his BFF that he's "lolz txting while on a plane" who would first need to be located by a probably strapped in flight atttendant and then told to turn it off?

If you don't, then you don't understand the problem.

We test this a thousand times each and every day, on every flight.

No, we don't. Stop being dishonest. The reports of problems that arise "every day" are dismissed as "anecdotal evidence" not worth anything. Either claim we test and find issues or stop claiming these are "tests" of any kind.

Have we had ONE serious incident? Lost ONE single plane attributed to a consumer electronics device? No and no.

I'm glad you are so willing to wait until planes actually do start falling from the skies before you are ready to accept any mitigating actions to prevent it from happening. And I am anxious to see you apply for a position on the NTSB because someone with so much perfect knowledge of aircraft systems and accident causes would be a one-man accident investigation panel.

The truth is, your "no and no" is ignorance. Attributing the cause of a crash to a transient PED is next to impossible, even though there are at least two fatal crashes that have signs of issues with them. Ansett Flight 703 and Crossair Flight 498. Neither can be confirmed as being due to PED use, but it is hard to attribute the error in the radar altimeter in the former flight (flipping 1000 feet in a few seconds, according to the pilot) as anything but interference. (The painting of the antenna was ruled out as a cause, and would not have caused an error as was observed in any case.)

So, maybe and maybe are the right answers. And given that enough people have seen interference issues is it simply lunacy to pretend that such issues don't exist. As I've posted before, I personally have seen it happen, so you will have nothing to say that will disabuse me of the knowledge that PED can cause interference.

Re:...really?

[bzipitidoo]

If avionics is so fragile, why aren't there more crashes? What if a plane flies over a building that houses a server farm? I realize any signals from a building will be greatly attenuated by distance, but still, if an ebook reader can cause problems, why not that?

Jamming is another matter, and not what I meant. Of course you can't read a signal if you're being flooded with energy on the frequencies you're trying to receive. Would be like trying to make out constellations while someone shines a bright light in your face. But that light doesn't cause your heart or pacemaker to go crazy or quit, or otherwise make your body experience a catastrophic failure. Neither should planes suffer any kind of malfunction from such interference.

We've built space probes that can handle the difficult environments of deep space, and Jupiter, and the sun. We have military jets that absolutely must be able to withstand enemy attempts at jamming. We had planes before we had electronics and AM radio. Another place where PEDs could be a concern are hospitals, but somehow they aren't. There any cases of a doctor's cellphone causing equipment failure? Not that I've heard. How about cars? Any cases of cellphones or any other PED screwing up a car's electronics, causing the engine to quit, or activating the brakes, or causing "unintended acceleration" or some such? Again, not that I've heard. Kids play video games and watch movies in the backs of minivans, without any impact whatsoever on the correctness of the vehicle's operation. Heck, they stuff passenger planes full of LCD screens, "sky phones", and other luxuries, all of which could potentially cause interference.

As to your "badly manufactured cable" scenario, that's not the PED killing reason you make it out to be. That cable should be tested, and should fail. Also, 1000%? If necessary, that amount can be factored into a determination of what the standards should be.

Really, the air travel industry should stop being such wimps about consumer electronics.

Re:...really?

[phoenix321]

- Pitot tubes are heated. Weather conditions on FL 30 and up are pretty stable, so pitot tubes either freeze over daily or never.
- The misaligned speed indications lasted less than a minute, after which all three speed indications returned the same approximate value again.
- The pilots noticed they were in alternate law (see voice recorder transcripts), so they should've been trained to input perfect steering commands from then on.
- Trained pilots must have noticed a hard stall, after temporarily climbing up to FL35 (see recorded data)
- Whatever feeling the pilots may had after they've been falling like a rock for 2 consecutive minutes, they are trained to rely on instruments, not gut feelings. The altitude meter has a backup that is not dependent on the pitot tubes. Radar altimeters? Barometers? Inner ear pressure? Squeaks in cabin panels from rapid pressure changes? GPS-inferred altitude, no matter how imprecise they may be? A sustained, rapid descent that doesn't resolve through a nose-up attitude with full power applied must, to a trained pilot, seem like a true stall or a control surface wreaking havoc.

"Luck" should have no place in modern aviation. This is not a lottery. It's either design flaws, failed procedures or pilot error.

And we don't managed to rule out PAX-induced cellphone EMI as a confounding factor in this case. We know the speed indicators were unreliable for a minute and *think* it was the pitot tubes. I'm not saying it was, but it *could* have been interference.

There's still some unclear points:

- Automatically and silently disabling a stall warning at low speeds is a decision that can't naively be understood, since low speeds are a major potential reason for stalling the plane. What's the reason behind that?
- Airbus procedures that command a full nose up in response to a stall seem even more cryptic, especially when conducted at FL30 with plenty of room to turn the nose down to regain speed. A Nose-up, speed-up close to coffin-corner airspace seems very counter-intuitive. I can't think of a compelling reason for that, so there's a [citation needed].

Re:...really?

[es330td]

The point of my post is that with electronics, one really cannot know what *might* happen. Planes are going to "fly-by-wire" so as long as the control surfaces on the aircraft in which I am flying can be actuated by a computer I would like said computer to be as free from interference as possible.

Re:...really?

[vandamme]

Mainly shielded from the 3 megawatt peak airport surveillance radar that sits next to the runway. Carriers are bad too because the radar is on the island 50 feet from the catapult. You don't want the squibs holding the bombs on to go off when it swings by.

Fiberoptics

[Ranger]

If planes switched to fiber optics and got rid of copper wiring I'm sure that would reduce the likelihood of interference. I can hardly wait for the day people will be able to use their cell phones on those long haul flights.

Re:Fiberoptics

[Ranger]

Agreed snakes would be so much better.

Re:Fiberoptics

[bkr1_2k]

Actually many of them are already fiber optic. Certainly not all but more and more every year.

Re:Fiberoptics

[Anonymous Coward]

Good luck with that. Cell towers don't point up, and the hand off between towers isn't really optimized for airplane speeds.

Re:Fiberoptics

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

I can hardly wait for the day people will be able to use their cell phones on those long haul flights.

As a daily train commuter, whose most hated sound is someone shouting "NO, I'VE GOT PLENTY OF TIME, I'M ON THE TRAIN!" into their cellphone, I can only warn you to be really, really careful what you wish for.

Re:Fiberoptics

[kidgenius]

No. No they are not. Passenger jets still use wire cabling for communications buses. Even new ones (B787) still use copper.

Re:Fiberoptics

[Ranger]

I've already experienced a REALLY LOUD PERSON talking on a train. The car didn't have that many passengers and we were about to move to another car when he ended the call.

Re:Fiberoptics

[sunderland56]

Even if the plane was 100% fiber interconnect - there is still direct interference to the sensor/antenna, and direct interference to the communications equipment itself (which uses copper internally).

And even if you were allowed to have your cell phone turned on - when flying at 40,000 feet, you are *eight miles* or more from the nearest cell phone tower, while sitting inside a Faraday cage. Good luck connecting.

Re:Fiberoptics

[PitaBred]

micro-cell anyone? It's a solved problem.

Re:Fiberoptics

[onkelonkel]

Asshat shouting into phone, hurray! I get all stabby and murdery when people sit next to me on the bus and then shout into their phones for 45 minutes. So far I have restrained myself (thanks Kohlinar!) from acting on my impulses. I think if someone did that on a 5 hour cross country flight I would probably snap sooner or later. I'm sure I'm not the only person here who thinks this way.

Re:Fiberoptics

[Em Adespoton]

Not to mention, using a *cell* phone on a _long haul flight_ is a really bad idea for many reasons. You're going to be emitting at max power continuously, and hopping all over the available cell towers monopolizing bandwidth. Even if the airplane is using fibre, its *detection systems* which actually try to make sense of radio transmissions could have some spillover from the cell bands (not direct, but you can get all sorts of frequency effects at those high transmission levels inside a moving metal object at cruising altitude).

Then you've got the cacophony of everyone and their dog attempting to talk on their phone with cut-outs etc. over top of the regular airplane sounds.

Re:Fiberoptics

[tweak13]

I don't think I've ever seen fiber on an aircraft of any type. Which aircraft are using it?

Re:Fiberoptics

[thegarbz]

And add how many points of failure? Remote digital to analogue conversion, additional transmitters, receivers for the fiber, replacing a hardened transistor gate with a device that suffers thermal runaway which can come about the instant it isn't perfectly biased.

There's many reasons to go fiber other than RF too, such as reduced weight. But so far much of the effort of introducing fiber has centered around things like the inflight entertainment system.

Re:Fiberoptics

[proverbialcow]

I can hardly wait for the day people will be able to use their cell phones on those long haul flights.

I can wait forever if need be, and be glad for the privilege. You know how annoying it is when people shout into their cell phones? The intersection of those people with the set of people who can't shut up on airplanes, added to the already stressful air travel experience, is not something I look forward to.

Re:Fiberoptics

[DJ Particle]

And *that* is why the Flight 93 "Let's do it!" cellphone story just doesn't wash.....

Easy Solution

[ArhcAngel]

A couple of coats of lead based paint will take care of that.

Re:Easy Solution

[roman_mir]

yeah, if applied directly over certain passengers.

Re:Easy Solution

[NitzJaaron]

It will also make the walls more delicious!

Re:Easy Solution

[couchslug]

Of course you were being facetious, but aircraft paint is heavy and must be taken into account in weight-and-balance calculations to ensure the aircraft is stable and not overweight after painting.
If too much paint accumulates, it must be removed and the paint cycle begun again.

Re:Easy Solution

[Abreu]

Yeah, but "a crown of lead that that men shall tremble to behold" doesn't have such a nice ring to it.

Re:Easy Solution

[NatasRevol]

Painting a plane weighs a few hundred pounds. It does not need to be taken into consideration on a 300,000 lb plane.

They do not remove the paint if "too much accumulates" while painting. Heck, they can put two full layers on before operational efficiency is impacted.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_05/textonly/fo01txt.html

Re:Easy Solution

[azcodemonkey]

I dunno. I'd tremble to behold molten lead being poured on someone's head.

Re:Easy Solution

[Martin Blank]

A few hundred pounds absolutely is taken into consideration on a 300,000-pound plane. The very article to which you linked includes a note on a table saying, "Less paint reduces takeoff weight and fuel consumption considerably."

A standard layer of paint is not going to destablize a plane, but lead protections along wiring conduits is going to impact payload and fuel consumption. If a 747 gets a new radio that weighs a half-pound more, its weight and balance charts have to get updated.

Re:Easy Solution

[icebrain]

Painting a plane weighs a few hundred pounds. It does not need to be taken into consideration on a 300,000 lb plane.

Spoken by someone who doesn't work in aviation. A "few hundred pounds" is absolutely a big deal--that's another paying passenger or two you could carry on every flight. Manufacturers will spend tens of thousands of dollars on engineering or manufacturing changes to eliminate a single pound of weight, because every single pound of extra weight translates into less payload and/or more fuel burned.

Re:Easy Solution

[i.r.id10t]

Not just aircraft paint - paint in general.

Back in the "Good Old Days" each nation had a racing color associated with it - British Racing Green, etc. Germany had white IIRC. Anyway, gearing up for a race, the MB team found that their car weight too much by a few pounds/kilos. Checkign the rules, they saw that if the car was painted it had to be the national color. No requirements to be painted. So they stripped off all the paint, saving about 30lbs in weight. Which is why so many German race cars were silver in the 50s and 60s - bare metal, no paint.

Re:Easy Solution

[NatasRevol]

Not for weight-and-balance considerations, which was what I was refuting.

You have a valid point though. They also look at it in terms of cost of marketing. See Southwest's fully painted planes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Airlines#Special_Liveries

Re:Easy Solution

[couchslug]

I meant "accumulates in total". Not "while painting".

USAF standard is to weigh and balance after a full paint. Even with the power to weight ratio of a fighter, the weight matters.

Re:Easy Solution

[NatasRevol]

For a 15,000 lb fighter it does matter, but not so much for a 300,000+ commercial jet. The percentages are *slightly* different.

Re:Easy Solution

[mjwx]

yeah, if applied directly over certain passengers.

You mean applied internally.

And

[Osgeld]

These planes can take direct lightning hits but the sensors cant handle a cell signal that's going to be there weather the phone is off or not?

does not compute

Re:And

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

Amusing use of the word "weather". ICWUDT

Re:And

[mkiwi]

You might even take this a step further and claim that people who spend a lot of time on planes have reduced risk of brain cancer, for all the media is telling us.

Re:And

[Xiph1980]

What's your point? Those are two entirely different things.
Some appliances can handle a firehose spraying directly at them, but break when subjected to water vapor.. Just as related, actually, no even more related.

Re:And

[localman57]

Actually, increases your risk. Generally speaking, The higher up in the atmosphere you go, the more radition you're exposed to.

Re:And

[TheRaven64]

A human has no problems touching the terminals of an AA battery, but applying the same battery to the heart can cause cardiac arrest and death. Did you have an actual point?

Re:And

[Ferzerp]

The amusing thing is, you mean faraday cage instead of gaussian surface.

I suppose I can, sort of, see how you made that mistake, but you are like the grammar pedant who confuses there and their.

Re:And

[scorp1us]

Lighting has no business in the interior... that's why hydrogen dirigibles are safe in lighting storms (until the air bladder leaks).

When you use electronics, you are already on the inside. And on a plane, you are never more than 10ft from avionics wiring. Mere inches if you have a window seat. So distance is a huge consideration. You simply don't have that that sensitive of equipment that close that often when not in a plane to notice.

Re:And

[jmottram08]

fly in a small plane. It can take a lightning hit, but a cell phone that is on will mess up the representational landing / takeoff. Been there, done that. Any small plane pilot can tell if a cell phone is on during takeoff, just as most have been in a plane that was struck by lightning.

Re:And

[Andy Dodd]

Depends on the timing.

Specifically - if you're using ILS (typically during the final landing approach in bad weather), it's pretty easy to mess it up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrument_landing_system#Limitations_and_alternatives

Re:And

[LWATCDR]

No not 100% of the time. Sometimes they do know out sensor and electronics. It is rare but does happen.

Re:And

[PitaBred]

Hmmm... one is a charge that's shunted around the outside of the aircraft, and the other is minutely vibrating but powerful enough electric fields interfering with other minutely vibrating electric fields in unpredictable ways, possibly causing the pilot to think things are safe when they're not.

Yeah, totally the same things. I hear Physics 101 has some open seats. Electrical discharge like a lightning strike is not the same as electro-magnetic radiation.

Re:And

[Chris Snook]

An aircraft body is a giant metal tube that functions almost as a faraday cage. It's very good at keeping external RF out, and internal RF in. Anything that's transmitting on the inside will bounce around like mad until it gets absorbed by something inside, quite likely sensitive electronics.

Re:And

[Chris Snook]

Lightning strikes are ephemeral, and mostly happen at high altitude where there's plenty of chance to recover from the momentary disruption.

Re:And

[Ferzerp]

No. What you have done is akin to the following:

Let's say I have a radiation source. I measure the decay with a gieger counter. I place the radiation source in a box lined with a thick layer of lead. Suddenly, I can no longer measure any decay from it.

In your view, saying "that's because you put it in a box!" is correct.

No, it's because I encased it with lead.

Re:And

[nabsltd]

Anything that's transmitting on the inside will bounce around like mad until it gets absorbed by something inside, quite likely the cancer-riddled bodies of the passengers.

FTFY

Seriously, if using a cell phone causes brain tumors, then 100 people using cellphones inside a plane before takeoff should cause some serious health issues, what with none of the RF being able to escape.

Re:And

[mkiwi]

You completely missed the point of my post. Please reread it and do some thinking.

Re:And

[Osgeld]

Thanks, I thought so =)

Re:And

[Ferzerp]

Really? So if I made a plane out of wood it will have the same properties? It has the sane geometry after all. You are a silly, silly ac.

Re:And

[Shienarier]

It might be because the body of the aeroplane works as a Faraday's Cage. The devices are inside the plane, and would create a different situation then the lightning.

Place a phone by a P.A. system...

[bodland]

Brrrrrrr.....Dut Dut Dut Dut Dut....brrrrrrr

What a great way to trash a recording.

Listening

[Daniel_is_Legnd]

I had always heard that the real reason they make you turn off electronic devices is so that you listen fully to any instructions you are given. Why else would they make me turn off my wi-fi only Kindle?

Re:Listening

[Moderator]

I had always heard that the real reason they make you turn off electronic devices is so that you listen fully to any instructions you are given. Why else would they make me turn off my wi-fi only Kindle?

Maybe. I think that the "cellphone interference" is just a blanket term they use whenever anything goes wrong. When I was flying from PSP to DFW a few months ago, the flight attendants had already given the "turn off all electronic devices" thing followed by the safety brief, yet we still hadn't moved onto the runway. Instead of telling us what the hold up was, the flight attendant got on the intercom and said, "We would be on the runway right now, but somebody left their cell phone on and it's interfering with our signals." Lo and behold, about half the passengers pulled out their cell phones and turned them off. This was reverse psychology, shifting the blame to the passengers for the delay. Sad thing is, it worked.

Re:Listening

[h4rr4r]

I would have been filing a complaint. Being lied to is not what the passengers paid for.

Re:Listening

[Andy Dodd]

Nope. There are two separate electronics bans:

1) 10 minutes before landing/after takeoff - this is a blanket ban on ALL electronics, with transmitters or not. During this period is when the majority of aircraft accidents happen, and is when the navigation system has to be the most precise. On landing, 100 feet of error can kill you. The primary method for bad-weather landings for years was ILS, which is well known for being an EXTREMELY sensitive and finicky system - even clock leakage from electronics completely devoid of a radio could cause issues. Once you're at cruise altitude - 100 feet of navigational error is almost meaningless, and you also aren't relying on ILS anyway.

2) Transmitter device ban. Two reasons here - One is in general, transmitters are much more likely to cause problems. However, the FAA DOES allow transmitters on aircraft as long as they don't violate FCC regulations and the aircraft operator has verified that the device does not cause a safety hazard. Most airlines don't want to take the liability risk of the latter, with the exception of highly tested systems like AirCell's. The second is the FCC - airborne cell phones are illegal, because it messes up with the way the cell network's capacity is allocated. (Multiple cells able to see the same mobile terminal is BAD.) The only cases where airborne cell phones have been permitted are cases where the cabin is extra-shielded and a microcell is present to cause the phone's automatic transmit power control to kick in and reduce power. Even using a cell phone in a hot air balloon with no instruments whatsoever is illegal.

(This is why I hate it when I see high altitude balloon projects that say "Hey, we're legal per FAA regulation blahblah" but use a cell phone for comms - they didn't bother to also read up on FCC regs.)

Re:Listening

[nabsltd]

The second is the FCC - airborne cell phones are illegal, because it messes up with the way the cell network's capacity is allocated. (Multiple cells able to see the same mobile terminal is BAD.)

In cities, pretty much every cell phone is seen by multiple towers, and the algorithms (current tower load, signal strength for a device, etc.) decide which one will handle the connection. Outside the city, you'll have the same issue when you are in the "hole" between towers.

There only differences when using a cell phone in an airplane is that the towers to choose from might be more geographically diverse than usual and change more frequently due to the speed.

Re:Listening

[Alioth]

You heard wrong.

Here is the actual federal regulation (for airline operations, 14 CFR 121 para 306). As you see it is all about suspected interference and nothing to do with passengers paying attention:

Section 121.306: Portable electronic devices.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may operate, nor may any operator or pilot in command of an aircraft allow the operation of, any portable electronic device on any U.S.-registered civil aircraft operating under this part.

(b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to-

(1) Portable voice recorders;
(2) Hearing aids;
(3) Heart pacemakers;
(4) Electric shavers; or
(5) Any other portable electronic device that the part 119 certificate holder has determined will not cause interference with the navigation or communication system of the aircraft on which it is to be used.

(c) The determination required by paragraph (b)(5) of this section shall be made by that part 119 certificate holder operating the particular device to be used.

It also applies to non-airline operations, too, see 14 CFR 91.21:

Section 91.21: portable electronic devices.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may operate, nor may any operator or pilot in command of an aircraft allow the operation of, any portable electronic device on any of the following U.S.-registered civil aircraft:

(1) Aircraft operated by a holder of an air carrier operating certificate or an operating certificate; or
(2) Any other aircraft while it is operated under IFR.

(b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to-
(1) Portable voice recorders;
(2) Hearing aids;
(3) Heart pacemakers;
(4) Electric shavers; or
(5) Any other portable electronic device that the operator of the aircraft has determined will not cause interference with the navigation or communication system of the aircraft on which it is to be used.

(c) In the case of an aircraft operated by a holder of an air carrier operating certificate or an operating certificate, the determination required by paragraph (b)(5) of this section shall be made by that operator of the aircraft on which the particular device is to be used. In the case of other aircraft, the determination may be made by the pilot in command or other operator of the aircraft.

Re:Listening

[Andy Dodd]

"that the towers to choose from might be more geographically diverse than usual"

Which completely breaks the frequency/channel reuse planning of the cellular network.

Disclaimer: UMTS soft-handoffs make things a lot more complex than just frequencies and channels, but let's assume the classic "hard handoff" approach. Each mobile device can indeed hear multiple towers, but the network is designed such that those towers are NOT on the same frequency. In normal circumstances, a mobile device will never be heard by or hear from more than one tower operating on the same frequency.

However, once the device goes airborne, it can hear from and be heard by FAR more towers, including ones that were never intended to be able to see the same mobile device simultaneously. The spectrum allocation and reuse design of the network goes down the tubes because the base assumptions on propagation no longer apply.

An example: Towers A, B, and C are all adjacent to each other. The network is designed on the assumption that a device could hear/be heard by all three simultaneously. So it's not a problem if they are. Tower D is geographically separated from towers A, B, and C. Because it should never hear/be heard by a device communicating with A, B, or C, it is not designed to handle this. (For example, it could reuse the same channel allocations as tower A.) If a mobile terminal goes airborne, this assumption goes down the tubes, and a device communicating with A will interfere with D.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_network - take a look at the 1/4 frequency reuse diagram. See how at the left there are three towers, with frequency assignments F1, F3, F1? The two towers on F1 are not suppose to ever have good propagation simultaneously to a single mobile device, and terrestrial cell networks are specifically designed to ensure this. However, if a cell phone goes airborne above the tower on F3, it will have equal propagation to the two towers on F1, and may in fact have better propagation than to the tower directly under it (since the tower's antennas are designed to direct the beam horizontally or at a downward angle.)

this is totally impossible

[Anonymous Coward]

I was told by people on the internet that this cannot possibly happen, so this expert from an actual aircraft manufacturer must be wrong.

Re:this is totally impossible

[wintercolby]

I was too! I had to look it up immediately after the pilot informed us all that we need to turn off our cell phones. I just didn't believe that someone with years of experience and training could be smarter than the internets.

Re:this is totally impossible

[blair1q]

How could anyone on the internet tell you anything? You're anonymous. We have no way to get the information to you.

Link to page 1 of the Story

[bughunter]

This is the first page of the story, summary links to page 2.

C'mon...

[jra]

ILS receiver antennas aren't "hidden inside the passenger compartment".

They're "attached to the outside of the friggin airframe".

Any story that gets the details that wrong, that fast, receives no credence at all. And if airplanes are having this much trouble with my 2mw iPad, what the *hell* are they doing about getting hit by 2GW of lightning?

(And don't tell me "Faraday cage"; that protects the occupants, but not necessarily the things connected to antennas outside the cage.)

Re:C'mon...

[Anonymous Coward]

Correction. A bolt of lightning is only 1.21 GW.

Re:C'mon...

[couchslug]

I'm not impressed by the story itself, but do note that ILS testers are operated from INSIDE the aircraft. I've done plenty of ILS ops checks as a Comm/Nav weenie in the USAF.

The airframe doesn't block the signal enough to matter.

Since my being entertained in-flight is of no importance, I leave my electronic gear off when flying and sleep/nap through the trip.

Re:C'mon...

[blueg3]

Assuming the sensor isn't destroyed by the lightning, the EM radiation from a lightning strike that would cause interference is short-lived. It probably does cause interference with a number of sensors, but only for a short time. If a personal electronic device is causing interference, that interference is likely to persist for the entire flight.

Re:C'mon...

[L0rdJedi]

But do you pull the battery out? If you have an iPhone, this isn't even possible. With most modern consumer electronic devices, "off" is simply putting the thing to sleep. It can still send and receive information and the antenna is still active. Unless the battery is completely removed, it isn't "off".

Re:C'mon...

[mjwx]

I'm not impressed by the story itself, but do note that ILS testers are operated from INSIDE the aircraft. I've done plenty of ILS ops checks as a Comm/Nav weenie in the USAF.

The airframe doesn't block the signal enough to matter.

Since my being entertained in-flight is of no importance, I leave my electronic gear off when flying and sleep/nap through the trip.

I don't sleep on planes for some strange reason. So I do use my laptop/MP3 player or book to pass the time.

But when the flight attendants tell me to turn it off and put it away I do it because I understand that the effects of acceleration/turbulence can cause a 5 KG laptop to fly into someone's head and the average persons nose is not built well enough to handle it.

Half the reason the airlines tell people to turn off your devices and put them away because they can hurt themselves if the devices become dislodged, which is a distinct possibility when accelerating 250,000 KG of plane up to 250 KPH on 2.5 KM of runway (Using the B777-200 take off distance at MTOW as an example).

The risk of EM interference is real, but not the only reason that people should damn well turn their bloody phones of and put them away. I don't want to get hit in the head when some idiot loses their grip on their Iphone.

the one in a million problem

[papabob]

As i was told in mid 90 by my electromagnetism teacher, the problem is not the miriad of (then) walkmans and cd player used in the plane. Those are more or less certified for electromagnetic compatibility. The problem are the crappy chinese electronics that don't pass any test and the one in a million "certified" hardware that is faulty. So, do you prefer listen your music and risk your life in an emergency situation or forbid them all just in case?

And speaking of statistics, in this case "anecdotal evidence" can cause the death of 200+ people...

Re:the one in a million problem

[wbav]

If the hardware is faulty it is faulty. Full stop. Doesn't matter if my iPod causes it to react, because it is just as likely, the thunder cloud we just flew through caused as much if not more interference.

Re:the one in a million problem

[Spectre]

As i was told in mid 90 by my electromagnetism teacher, the problem is not the miriad of (then) walkmans and cd player used in the plane. Those are more or less certified for electromagnetic compatibility. The problem are the crappy chinese electronics that don't pass any test and the one in a million "certified" hardware that is faulty. So, do you prefer listen your music and risk your life in an emergency situation or forbid them all just in case?

And speaking of statistics, in this case "anecdotal evidence" can cause the death of 200+ people...

It's interesting and reasonable, I suppose.

Statistically speaking, though.

And speaking statistically, it seems the vast preponderance of hijackings have occurred by hijackers who were passengers on the plane. The safe way to avoid hijacked planes, then, would obviously be to not allow any passengers on board, or at least be sure they were "powered down". Having a flight marshal terminate all passengers before take-off would be an intermediate solution to the problem.

Re:the one in a million problem

[uglyduckling]

You had an electromagnetism teacher? That's seriously specific (I was taught that by my adjective teacher).

Re:the one in a million problem

[AvitarX]

Assuming the one in a million number is for certain death (and it woul.dn't be, It would be one in 1000 of those one in a million cases I suspect), and there are 500 seats (747), times 3 devices per person, we get a 1500/1000000 chance per flight.

1 in 1000 is a little steep for my taste, but if the assumption about only one in 1000 of those devices being a big deal, than I would gladly take the odds (one in a million vs boredom over 10 hours).

Still safer per mile than a car.

Re:the one in a million problem

[stewbee]

Reminds me of when I took my electromagnetics class. The professor had brought his daughter's tickle me Elmo doll into class. I don't remember what device it was that he had, possibly it was his car's remote key entry system remote, but when he click one of the buttons, he was able to make the tickle me Elmo doll activate and start laughing. This would probably be one of you million to one examples, but I think the crux is the same. If someone doesn't design properly, or well for EMI, then stuff like this can happen that isn't supposed to.

Re:the one in a million problem

[NatasRevol]

I'm sure hoping that planes are designed with a FEW more electrical considerations that a tickle me elmo doll. So that stuff like that DOESN'T happen.

Re:the one in a million problem

[blair1q]

Most EE programs have a course, or five, in "Electromagnetism".

Re:the one in a million problem

[stewbee]

You're right. Designing a tickle me Elmo doll has no where near the requirements for EMI than an aircraft. I worked for a DOD contractor that installed equipment on aircraft. Pretty much all data lines that ran from say the cockpit to where the main hardware was located were differential and shielded, both of which help reduce radiated susceptibility and radiated emission of EMI. Additionally the cable bundles themselves were wrapped in shielding and grounded at both ends. While it did help with reducing EMI, sometimes the cables would pass in close proximity to other antennas and that could cause problems for both our equipment and that which was on the aircraft already. EMI is hard sometimes, even if done right.

Re:the one in a million problem

[bingoUV]

You had an electromagnetism teacher? That's seriously specific (I was taught that by my adjective teacher).

.

You had an adjective teacher? That is seriously specific. I was taught adjectives by my English teacher, under the "grammar" heading.

Re:the one in a million problem

[uglyduckling]

I can't decide whether you're not getting the joke, or making another one of your own. I'm thinking it's probably whooooosshhh....

"Anectdotal"?

[T.E.D.]

Seriously? "Anectdotal"?

This isn't the Middle Ages here, and there are lives at stake. If someone seriously believes there is a safety issue here, there must be scientific studies to show what is going on one way or another.

Re:"Anectdotal"?

[localman57]

Studies cost money. Everything costs money. With a finite amount of money, you prioritize. And this isn't a big enough problem to warrant spending money studing. So instead of paying a bunch of test engineers to undertake a bunch of tests (which to be useful would have to be re-run on practically every aircraft configuration), you hire one guy to look at the anectdotal evidence. Best case, your studies would prevent a couple of crashes over the span of a human lifetime, saving a few hundred lives. Much better to invest in something else, such as the stability control systems on SUVs, which have had a huge impact on SUV rollover rates, for a relatively small investment.

Re:"Anectdotal"?

[RelaxedTension]

Studies cost money. Everything costs money. With a finite amount of money, you prioritize. And this isn't a big enough problem to warrant spending money studing.

Seriously? The number that a casual Google search shows is about 28,000 commercial flights a day. Multiply that by a conservative 75 people a flight and you get at least 2,100,000 people taking a flight per day, just in the US . You think that doesn't warrant an all-out investigation to resolve the questions involved in a methodical and scientific manner, regardless of the cost?

Perhaps the airlines are more interested in monetizing the use of said devices and the studies would possibly show something different than they might want. I have a hard time believing the major airplane vendors have not already done extensive lab and real-world testing on this, at their lawyers insistence.

Re:"Anectdotal"?

[Lemmy Caution]

We don't know whether the presence of ragweed near an airport causes a significant increase in the rate of accidents. We also don't have any anecdotal evidence that it does. There's no basis for research - yet. But if a couple anecdotes start to circulate, it may actually point to something that deserves research.

Also, in this case, the GP has a point. It may actually make more sense to trust the anecdotal evidence than do a rigorous study, because of the cost of a rigorous study: the mild inconveniences of keep mobile phones off mid-air is a very small cost, so even if a full study reveals ultimately there is no basis for restricting their use in flight, it makes more sense to keep the ban than to pay for the study.

Re:"Anectdotal"?

[RelaxedTension]

It's not the mild inconvenience that's the problem, it's the people that either forget or refuse to turn theirs off. Out of the 75 people I mentioned per flight, 1 in 75 is a fair (and again, I think, conservative) guess at how many will forget or refuse. That's 1 per flight, 28,000 times a day.

Come to think of it, isn't that anecdotal evidence in itself that there is likely no problem?

Re:"Anectdotal"?

[localman57]

Seriously? The number that a casual Google search shows is about 28,000 commercial flights a day. Multiply that by a conservative 75 people a flight and you get at least 2,100,000 people taking a flight per day, just in the US . You think that doesn't warrant an all-out investigation to resolve the questions involved in a methodical and scientific manner, regardless of the cost?

No. Because the number we're really interested in is the number of people who die, not the number of people who succeed, and what it would take to prevent those deaths. We've gone years in the US without a catastrophic airliner crash. Even if every crash in history was attributable to iPods and kindles, the math still doesn't add up. There seems to be the idea that somehow where safety is involved, you do everything possible to reduce any risk. For some reason, perhaps the sensationalism of a crash, this attitude is multiplied 100 fold around airports. But that's reactionary fear-think. The world has a finite number of people, capable of generating a finite amount of effort towards solving an infinite number of problems. You prioritize. And iPods on airplanes haven't proven to be a serious risk, even to people who rack up a million frequent flier miles.

Better to spend your money (effort) on Heart Disease, Cancer, Auto Safety (including drunk driving reduction), and reducing the number of people who shoot themselves or others. Depending on your demographic, those are the things likely to kill you. Not some wad who won't turn off his cell phone in flight. If your death is related to flying, it's gonna be in the cab ride to the airport, not on the plane.

Re:"Anectdotal"?

[RelaxedTension]

There's a difference between "society" paying for things, and the airline industry performing due diligence. It isn't the airline industry's business or responsibility to cure cancer or worry about auto safety. It is, however, exactly their business to ensure flight safety, especially for any circumstances that they know will happen thousands of times daily . If something may cause a problem on a flight, especially when there is "anecdotal evidence" for it, they have to know, if only as a responsibility to their shareholders. Plane goes down, they get sued, no matter the cause short of being shot down.

Re:"Anectdotal"?

[RelaxedTension]

A study that is going to cost millions+ of dollars and be obsolete before the study is even over because a new generation of electronic devices will be out.. And... you think conducting the study is going to somehow make forgetful people ... less forgetful?

New devices that will use a new form of radiation perhaps? Radio will not be changing anytime soon. And the airlines and manufacturers can then start working with the knowledge gained to mitigate the problem if there is one. If not, the world is better for the knowledge gained.

The best possible outcome of such a study is that it costs a lot of money to buy people an extra 20 minutes per flight of guilt-free tweets about how badly they need to pee and would they just turn off the fasten seatbelt sign already.

Are you sure you should be reading this site? I'm responding to this on my tablet while taking a dump, what's the difference? (Ok I'm not, but it wouldn't be the first time...)

Anything else is only going to be worse. Lets say the study finds some link between devices and aircraft malfunctions.. the TSA will overreact in all sorts of ways that have no hope of solving the problem, like it always does. At great, corrupt expense.

I have no reasonable response to that, it is true.

FAA certification?

[Anne Thwacks]

I cannot see how the planes can get FAA certification if this is true. either the tests are not appropriate. or they are not being conducted properly. Which is it? Enquiring minds want to know!

Re:FAA certification?

[blair1q]

The FAA certification for such things is worded such that the equipment has to be operable in an environment with up to a certain amount of noise.

The gist of the story is that a lot of common devices can blow right past that amount of noise.

There's Two Possibilities

[wbav]

1. Personal electronics are safe, this is just BS.
2. Personal electronics are not safe, thus if a terrorist wants to crash a plane, all they need to do is use an iPad.

I mean TSA takes away bottled water, if the iPad was really threat, why don't they take those too? Better resale value than the bottled water.

Re:There's Two Possibilities

[mean pun]

1. Personal electronics are safe, this is just BS. 2. Personal electronics are not safe, thus if a terrorist wants to crash a plane, all they need to do is use an iPad.

How about
3. The safety is unknown, and is utterly impractical to determine for all combinations of airplanes and electronic gadgets.

And your point 2 is of course nonsense: even if some electronic gadget would be known to interfere with the functioning of an airplane, it wouldn't mean that switching on the gadget in the plane would make that plane unavoidably fall out of the sky.

Re:There's Two Possibilities

[blueg3]

Your false dichotomy assumes that the chance of the interference from a personal electronic device is either 0% or 100%. (Or at least, near enough to 100% to be used as an attack.)

It's obviously not 100%. I know plenty of people who have forgotten to turn off cell phones and other devices for the entire duration of the flight. That doesn't guarantee that the interference from the devices could never cause a fatal problem.

Re:There's Two Possibilities

[kccricket]

Why test EVERY combination of plane and gadget?

It is impractical for pharmaceutical companies to test compounds on every combination of person and condition. Instead they perform tests on representative samples of people.

Re:There's Two Possibilities

[NatasRevol]

How about they actually test one damn plane, instead of relying on anecdotal evidence.

There's no way the cost of testing electrical devices inside a plane is more than the cost of failure testing of a plane.

Re:There's Two Possibilities

[MooUK]

It doesn't need to destroy a plane to have detrimental effects.

Re:There's Two Possibilities

[hypergreatthing]

So i guess all those planes with tvs, radar and 2 way radio communication systems, phones in the plane itself are falling out of the sky everywhere.

Re:There's Two Possibilities

[mean pun]

Exactly which type of device or devices do you propose to use for your test, and assuming they are safe, how do you know the other gazilion devices out there are safe as well?

Exactly which type of plane or planes do you propose to use for your test, and assuming they are safe, how do you know the other types planes out there are safe as well?

Re:There's Two Possibilities

[artor3]

3. Personal electronics are 99.9999...% safe, so a terrorist couldn't reliably crash a plane, but among all the planes flying, one will eventually go down. Decreasing the number of portable electronics in use will decrease the frequency of such crashes.

Re:There's Two Possibilities

[NatasRevol]

How about a 747 with 500 iPhones. Call it the baseline.

Now test it, see where it is and move forward. Instead of whining about what-ifs, actually start down the road of knowing if there are any effects.

Re:There's Two Possibilities

[wbav]

Yes, and if you want to be 100% safe, you need to start building your bunker in your basement now.

Are the chances that a portable electronic will interfere with you car and cause a crash? Sure. Is the chance so low as to be acceptable to most people? Yes.

Similar analogies can be drawn with subways, buses, trains or any other travel method that relies on electronic sensors/computers.

Re:There's Two Possibilities

[Travelsonic]

Ae you really saying there are no standards so far as aircraft system, and electronic device design, component design?

Some activities warrant excessive caution ...

[perpenso]

There is a growing body of anecdotal evidence

Need I say more?

Actually, yes. How about something regarding consequences? Say 100+ people in a fragile machine, surround by flammable liquids, moving at a high rate of speed and doing so with limited to no visibility outside the machine having a "mishap" because someone had to check twitter? There are some activities where an excess of caution is warranted, personally I believe that needing to use an ***instrument landing system because of bad weather*** is one such activity.

Re:Some activities warrant excessive caution ...

[chispito]

So what you're saying is, "Gee, flying planes is hard."

Why not also establish some empirical basis for the policy?

There is a growing body of anecdotal evidence

Need I say more?

Actually, yes. How about something regarding consequences? Say 100+ people in a fragile machine, surround by flammable liquids, moving at a high rate of speed and doing so with limited to no visibility outside the machine having a "mishap" because someone had to check twitter? There are some activities where an excess of caution is warranted, personally I believe that needing to use an ***instrument landing system because of bad weather*** is one such activity.

Re:Some activities warrant excessive caution ...

[chemicaldave]

Anecdotal evidence, by it's definition, is incompatible with science. Scientific evidence is needed in this situation.

Re:Some activities warrant excessive caution ...

[perpenso]

So what you're saying is, "Gee, flying planes is hard."

Why not also establish some empirical basis for the policy?

Actually I'm saying that flying planes is dangerous, and that given that *many* lives are at risk the burden of proof should be that a device needs to be proven safe, not that it needs to be proven hazardous.

There is a growing body of anecdotal evidence

Need I say more?

Actually, yes. How about something regarding consequences? Say 100+ people in a fragile machine, surround by flammable liquids, moving at a high rate of speed and doing so with limited to no visibility outside the machine having a "mishap" because someone had to check twitter? There are some activities where an excess of caution is warranted, personally I believe that needing to use an ***instrument landing system because of bad weather*** is one such activity.

Re:Some activities warrant excessive caution ...

[Microlith]

the burden of proof should be that a device needs to be proven safe, not that it needs to be proven hazardous.

Perhaps you should stop making up panicky, ridiculous statements like "the machine having a "mishap" because someone had to check twitter" and come up with something more sensible and, as the GP noted, based on empirical evidence instead of anecdotal evidence.

If personal electronics carried by a passenger are a threat to avionics, then the problem is in how the plane is constructed. Otherwise they'll need to start issuing EM scanners to detect if you have any active electronics on you before takeoff/landing.

Re:Some activities warrant excessive caution ...

[rthille]

Picture one person on the plane with a device designed to interfere with the avionics. The device looks like a cell phone, but when turned "off", it really goes into "interfere mode". This is why I see it as idiotic that the avionics aren't hardened well enough to deal with unintentional interference from devices designed to minimize interference...

Re:Some activities warrant excessive caution ...

[__aagmrb7289]

Actually, yes. How about something regarding consequences? Say 100+ people in a fragile machine, surround by flammable liquids, moving at a high rate of speed and doing so with limited to no visibility outside the machine having a "mishap" because someone had to check twitter? There are some activities where an excess of caution is warranted, personally I believe that needing to use an ***instrument landing system because of bad weather*** is one such activity.

Here's the problem with this reasoning. Much work has been done to prove a connection using scientific methods. The answer? Nope - not a problem - but let's keep looking, because, as you said, this is dangerous and important. And you say "Screw the science - anecdotal is good enough - cause it is dangerous!" Well, I'm sorry, but just because a friend of mine swears that genetically altered food contains arsenic because he got sick once, and was told he had food poisoning after eating an apple, doesn't mean it's something to freak out about - even though food poisoning is dangerous, and yes, it's possible he could have died.

Re:Some activities warrant excessive caution ...

[felipekk]

"Tell the pilot to change course to Washington or I'm going to turn Flight Mode on my Smartphone OFF!"

TSA might as well put these "electronic devices" on the list of things not allowed to be carried on...

Re:Some activities warrant excessive caution ...

[perpenso]

the burden of proof should be that a device needs to be proven safe, not that it needs to be proven hazardous.

Perhaps you should stop making up panicky, ridiculous statements like "the machine having a "mishap" because someone had to check twitter" and come up with something more sensible and, as the GP noted, based on empirical evidence instead of anecdotal evidence.

Your statement seems to dodge the issue that many lives are at risk and that this should shift the burden of proof. In other areas where lives are on the line the burden of prove is to prove safety, why not here? Why not require the scientific evidence to demonstrate that the device are safe?

If personal electronics carried by a passenger are a threat to avionics, then the problem is in how the plane is constructed.

Even if true, and given that the planes and avionics were designed before the devices in question existed this may be the case, however what is the remedy? Ban the airplane/avionics or ban the device during landing?

Re:Some activities warrant excessive caution ...

[bws111]

It doesn't really matter if the problem is the way the plane is constructed or the devices themselves. The fact is, there can be interference (yes, I do trust an Associate Technical Fellow at Boeing more than random slashdotters). So now the question is: what to do about it?

Option 1 is to refit all the planes currently in use so they are not susceptible to interference. Since the airlines are already teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, and the flying public has shown no taste at all for increased fares and fees, this option is DOA.

Option 2 is to make new planes not susceptible to interference. This is, in fact, what the industry is doing.

Re:Some activities warrant excessive caution ...

[Lemmy Caution]

Anecdotal evidence can motivate scientific research. And in most fields, almost always does.

Re:Some activities warrant excessive caution ...

[perpenso]

Actually, yes. How about something regarding consequences? Say 100+ people in a fragile machine, surround by flammable liquids, moving at a high rate of speed and doing so with limited to no visibility outside the machine having a "mishap" because someone had to check twitter? There are some activities where an excess of caution is warranted, personally I believe that needing to use an ***instrument landing system because of bad weather*** is one such activity.

Here's the problem with this reasoning. Much work has been done to prove a connection using scientific methods. The answer? Nope - not a problem - but let's keep looking, because, as you said, this is dangerous and important. And you say "Screw the science - anecdotal is good enough - cause it is dangerous!" Well, I'm sorry, but just because a friend of mine swears that genetically altered food contains arsenic because he got sick once, and was told he had food poisoning after eating an apple, doesn't mean it's something to freak out about - even though food poisoning is dangerous, and yes, it's possible he could have died.

The pitot tubes on certain Airbus aircraft were heavily tested using scientific methods and found to be safe. Reports of problems were probably considered anecdotal by some. Yet we eventually had a catastrophic loss of life where we found that the scientific methods employed failed to uncover a design flaw.

Your analogy is also severely flawed. Eating is a necessity. Using a handheld device during landing is not.

Re:Some activities warrant excessive caution ...

[LWATCDR]

Do you know what a risk to benefit ratio is? Having to turn of your electronics == tiny benefit, deaths in a fire ball == big risk. It is kind of like smoking while pumping gas. I am sure millions of people have done it but that doesn't mean that it isn't both stupid and dangerous.

Re:Some activities warrant excessive caution ...

[Chris Snook]

Not every day. According to one rough estimate, maybe two per year. I'm afraid I can't find that study right now, but the takeaway from the study was not that number, but rather that there are so many ways that complex configurations can cause problems with things that work fine alone that truly comprehensive testing is impossible.

Re:Some activities warrant excessive caution ...

[suomynonAyletamitlU]

There is a growing body of anecdotal evidence

Need I say more?

Actually, yes. How about something regarding consequences?

There are times in history, up to and including the present day, when appeal to consequences was used to justify aggressive war, invasion, and violence up to and including genocide, all because of anecdotal evidence that people of X nationality (or religion, etc) were monsters. In other words, a small number of criminals murdered, raped, or otherwise did what criminals of every nationality do, including their own, and yes, including yours and mine, which along with a suitable leap of logic ("Those X are all murderers and rapists") was used to justify killing people that looked vaguely similar or lived within a given territorial boundary.

The argument I just made is, of course, not strict logic, but the fact that the airline industry are of the same mindset is offensive. In both circumstances, you can find out the truth very, very easily, and yet they do not, and you are suggesting that they need not. Frankly, I think you should be ashamed, but then, that's just me.

Re:Some activities warrant excessive caution ...

[hypergreatthing]

yes, lets bring in unreasonable fear into the discussion. If you're that afraid of flying then i hope you don't drive, don't live where there's lightning, don't expose yourself to sunlight, don't eat yellow m&ms, etc.

This is just a way to scapegoat known negligence. Engine part #3401 is known for breaking and there was a redesign, but it would of cost X dollars to replace. Might as well blame it on a cellphone causing the crash, no one will ever know the difference.

Re:Some activities warrant excessive caution ...

[bws111]

So you're saying that things you design and build today will have absolutely no problems with whatever technology is in use 20, 30, or 40 years from now? Bullshit. Planes designed and built NOW are designed to handle RF inside the cabin (which is why some planes can offer wifi, etc). RF inside the cabin was simply not an issue when the majority of planes currently in use were designed and built.

Re:Some activities warrant excessive caution ...

[OldTOP]

Anecdotal evidence can motivate scientific research.

Absolutely. And compilation and analysis of anecdotal evidence can lead to reasonable suggestions for modifying behavior even before there is a full understanding of the underlying mechanisms, trading off putative benefit of behavior change against cost of not doing so.

Besides, in this case, TFA quotes Boeing engineers demonstrating mechanisms by which the anecdotally described problems can be reproduced. In almost all serious accidents there are a number of factors, no single one of which would have caused the accident all by itself, although removing any single one of them might have been enough to prevent the accident.

Re:Some activities warrant excessive caution ...

[Phanatic1a]

There's no such thing as "proving something to be safe." It's not possible. If the bulk of accumulated evidence doesn't indicate sufficient safety, what would?

Stop being a whiny little pussy and get on the plane.

Re:Some activities warrant excessive caution ...

[nabsltd]

The fact is, there can be interference (yes, I do trust an Associate Technical Fellow at Boeing more than random slashdotters).

Whether the pronouncement comes from the most educated person in the world or some drooling idiot, it doesn't matter...the statement "there can be interference" will always be true because commercial passenger airplanes can't afford the weight to shield every system 100% against all RF.

That said, without empirical tests, it still doesn't matter who makes the statement. As an example, does an on-board cellphone interfere more or less than the cell tower the plane flies over during landing? What about other external transmitters? What about other systems inside the plane...how much do they interfere compared to a cell phone?

As others have stated, you don't need to test every combination, but you can test some devices with the most measured RF (which can be done without the airplane). Without knowing what can be interfered with, and how much, and how bad that is compared to interference that cannot be controlled, it's all end-user anecdotes, and not very useful information.

Re:Some activities warrant excessive caution ...

[__aagmrb7289]

The pitot tubes on certain Airbus aircraft were heavily tested using scientific methods and found to be safe. Reports of problems were probably considered anecdotal by some. Yet we eventually had a catastrophic loss of life where we found that the scientific methods employed failed to uncover a design flaw. Your analogy is also severely flawed. Eating is a necessity. Using a handheld device during landing is not.

Really? So, some idiot who has an anecdotal story (which, by the way, I can counter with my own, absolutely true, idiotic anecdotal story), should take precedence over scientific research, because scientific research once failed to predict a problem? Why bother with science at all then? If that's the value of a scientific study to you, then perhaps you should be campaigning against science. While using a handheld device during landing isn't all that crazy important to me, basing laws on anecdotal evidence that directly contradicts scientific findings (and massive amounts of other anecdotal evidence) is dangerous - and that IS important to me. I absolutely refuse to ignore B.S. like this, just because someone says it's for the children.

Re:Some activities warrant excessive caution ...

[DerekLyons]

yes, lets bring in unreasonable fear into the discussion.

When you demonstrate it's an unreasonable fear instead of flinging mud, calling names, and invoking conspiracy theories... then we can talk.

Re:Some activities warrant excessive caution ...

[perpenso]

True you can't prove safety, but my main argument is that the *burden of proof* is on the "its safe" side not on the "its unsafe" side as many around here seem to suggest.

I fly all the time. Its safer than driving and I do that every day. The odds of an unforeseen event affecting me is quite low, but like hitting the lottery someone will be affected by that extremely unlikely event. As seen with Air France over the South Atlantic. Or perhaps with these "anecdotal events".

What you and so many around here fail to realize is that air crashes are not usually the result of a single problem, they are often the result of multiple and often cascading problems. Look at any one problem in isolation, as is being done with the devices in question, and there does not seem to be much risk - but why introduce a new unknown for some trivial unimportant reason? What is so important for you to do with your device during landing that you can not have it sitting in your bag?

Re:Some activities warrant excessive caution ...

[perpenso]

Your analogy is also severely flawed. Eating is a necessity. Using a handheld device during landing is not.

Really? So, some idiot who has an anecdotal story (which, by the way, I can counter with my own, absolutely true, idiotic anecdotal story), should take precedence over scientific research, because scientific research once failed to predict a problem?

Your friend with a mild neurosis about GM foods is hardly comparable with a Boeing employee who co-chaired a committee that investigated portable devices and their affect on aircraft, and who also demonstrated radio emission beyond acceptable limits in a laboratory.

Why bother with science at all then? If that's the value of a scientific study to you, then perhaps you should be campaigning against science. While using a handheld device during landing isn't all that crazy important to me ...

What a silly straw man you offer. Surely such a fan of science as yourself has heard of cost-benefit analysis. When a highly unlikely event is paired with an extremely high cost, especially hundreds of human lives, then the benefit must be something non-trivial. You are essentially admitting that a rational cost-benefit analysis would say to leave the devices off.

... basing laws on anecdotal evidence that directly contradicts scientific findings (and massive amounts of other anecdotal evidence) is dangerous - and that IS important to me. I absolutely refuse to ignore B.S. like this, just because someone says it's for the children.

Scientific results were offered, its more than pilot's anecdotal stories:
"To prove his point, Carson took ABC News inside Boeing's electronic test chamber in Seattle, where engineers demonstrated the hidden signals from several electronic devices that were well over what Boeing considers the acceptable limit for aircraft equipment."
and
"Boeing engineers told us that signals from PEDs could disrupt the navigation and communication frequencies on older planes, which are not as well shielded as the newer models."

Re:Some activities warrant excessive caution ...

[perpenso]

There are times in history, up to and including the present day, when appeal to consequences was used to justify ...

Turning off an electronic device during landing is hardly comparable to the violent actions you describe. I think you deserve a nomination for silliest analogy of the year. :-)

... In both circumstances, you can find out the truth very, very easily, and yet they do not ...

Did you miss the part where a Boeing engineer who co-chaired a federal panel investigating personal devices on aircraft "took ABC News inside Boeing's electronic test chamber in Seattle, where engineers demonstrated the hidden signals from several electronic devices that were well over what Boeing considers the acceptable limit for aircraft equipment"?

Re:Some activities warrant excessive caution ...

[suomynonAyletamitlU]

Turning off an electronic device during landing is hardly comparable to the violent actions you describe. I think you deserve a nomination for silliest analogy of the year. :-)

In general, the policy of leaning on the safe side is a good thing. That's not at all the issue.

I'm aware of the irony of leaning on anecdotes for things I haven't seen myself, but flight attendants have a reputation for verbally assaulting passengers on the subject while remaining ignorant of the entire issue. For example, lambasting people for having a kindle in view, while anyone who silently puts their phone away without turning it off doesn't even get looked at.

The technology exists, and methods exist, to actually find and shut off equipment were it actually a danger. The fact that they haven't implemented those procedures means the airlines don't ACTUALLY consider it a threat. At the same time, they're training the flight attendants as though the devices were a legitimate and serious threat. They, not being actually educated on the subject, can only react with fear. Fear leads to hate, hate leads to the Dark Side.

Believe it or not, it's pretty well analogous. The people actually in the trenches are trusting this image that X is a monster. If that were actually true, they would have known long, long ago. They have encountered X without knowing it for ages. Literally, they have been in situations that are portrayed as worst-case, but they just treated them like normal situations, and it worked out. If there were noticeable differences when passenger electronics were on, it would have been EXCEPTIONALLY clear; similarly, if everyone on the other side of a national border (religious doctrine, etc) were hedonistic monsters, it would be so absolutely crystal clear that nobody in their right mind would say any different. These aren't the sort of questions you have to fudge the answers to.

Did you miss the part where a Boeing engineer who co-chaired a federal panel investigating personal devices on aircraft "took ABC News inside Boeing's electronic test chamber in Seattle, where engineers demonstrated the hidden signals from several electronic devices that were well over what Boeing considers the acceptable limit for aircraft equipment"?

1) If you know anything about aircraft engineering, or really any of the higher kinds of engineering, they set the acceptable limit well below the position where things can go wrong. There are many, many reasons for that.
2) I don't think you understand what I'm saying. There are runways out in the middle of the desert that you can make practice landings and takeoffs at all day, every day, for months. You can have a full complement of mock passengers in the back with phones on, off, or indifferent. You can even make a plane to fly by actual, non-computer hydraulics in case of emergencies. If you did that, there would be absolutely zero of this "demonstrated signals over the acceptable limit" bullshit. They would fly a demonstration and say, "Here's the point at which the controls stop working and the plane starts to crash," or "Here's the point at which the ILS goes wonky, which means that in inclement weather, there's a 100% chance of death." And then they'd actually land the plane anyway, because they're not relying on those systems to fly--they're the engineers that built the damn thing, not helpless children.
3) No, I didn't RTFA. So sue me, this is slashdot.

Re:Some activities warrant excessive caution ...

[__aagmrb7289]

Are you unaware of the fact that scientific studies are currently, and have been in the past, conducted on this subject? Is that where your confusion is coming from? Because if you are, and you are still offering this argument, I seriously don't understand how you could go here.

Would you consider the following analogy better? Perhaps if someone said that they have personally experienced their car's brakes locking up, and they believe it is due to the anti-lock break system. And it's the only car that's ever had that problem. And extensive testing and research was done in order to see if anyone could reproduce the problem. And thousands and thousands of people could be effected - even possible leading to deaths! But nothing can be found - zero effect. And theoritically, the effect is impossible. And the scientific community continues to study the subject, but tell the car manufacturer and the government that they shouldn't stop people from going ahead and using the car. Should the car be taken off the road?

If not, why? If so, WHY? The anecdotal evidence in the airplane interference is about as full of crap. The situation isn't only similar - it's pretty much the same - and both have actually happened. Do you have any understanding as to why so many people are reading your statement and thinking you are a bit crazy?

Re:Some activities warrant excessive caution ...

[bws111]

Who do you think is going to pay for your extensive testing? You are talking probably hundreds of millions of dollars, and hundreds of millions of dollars more to refit planes so they don't have interference problems. Perhaps you haven't read the news lately, but passengers are not really thrilled about paying any more for air travel, and the airlines are not exactly swimming in money.

Re:Some activities warrant excessive caution ...

[perpenso]

Are you unaware of the fact that scientific studies are currently, and have been in the past, conducted on this subject? Is that where your confusion is coming from? Because if you are, and you are still offering this argument, I seriously don't understand how you could go here.

Consider that in the specific test offered by Boeing engineers the worst offender was an iPad. So it is an extremely recent experiment. Consumer technology has changed radically over time. Studies conducted five or ten years ago are becoming decreasingly relevant.

Would you consider the following analogy better? [Insert anti-lock braking software investigation here]

No. It is also a poor analogy. The anecdotal evidence in the aircraft and auto cases are both user reports, pilots and drivers. However in the aircraft case we have laboratory evidence of devices exceeding allowable emissions. I don't see anything comparable in the car analogy, your "theoretically impossible" bit probably directly contradicts the Boeing example causing the analogy to fail - two different situations.

A far more important problem with the analogy is that using a car is more of a necessity for many individuals, whereas the use of a personal device during landing is a trivial and unnecessary act. Recall the cost-benefit analysis, a low frequency but high cost paired with a trivial benefit suggests forgoing the benefit while a highly useful benefit may suggest the risk is warranted. The later is pretty much a daily experience given the hazards of driving, one is more likely to get taken out by a drunk driver than a software failure in the brakes.

The trivial benefit of using a device during landing is the dominant fact in my argument. You have to address this to be convincing.

Do you have any understanding as to why so many people are reading your statement and thinking you are a bit crazy?

Yes, various reasons in various combinations. (1) They did not read the article and are unaware of the recent laboratory evidence by Boeing, they think there is nothing more than anecdotal stories from flight crews. (2) They are focused on a single problem and are failing to consider that catastrophic failures are sometimes due to simultaneously occurring minor problems that interact in a totally unexpected way, they are only considering a direct linear failure due to unacceptably high electromagnetic emissions. (3) They fail to consider that all anecdotal evidence is not equivalent. A commercial airline pilot's anecdotal story carries a little more weight than grandma's sunday drive anecdotal story. F16 pilot reports of instrumentation failures were somewhat dismissed when flight, ground and laboratory testing failed to turn anything up. It turned out that chaffing against a rivet destroyed insulation and caused intermittent shorts depending on how the cables bounced around during flight. Is RF shielding being damaged/degraded in flight somehow - again, multiple simultaneous problems. (4) Human nature. Defiance, denial, arrogance, etc. (5) And as you can probably guess by now :-), focusing on the very low probability of the event and ignoring the high cost of such an event and the near zero benefit gained by using the device.

Re:Some activities warrant excessive caution ...

[perpenso]

In general, the policy of leaning on the safe side is a good thing. That's not at all the issue.

That is exactly the issue to me. The fact that we have an extremely low probability but exceptionally high cost event paired with a trivial unnecessary benefit is the foundation of my opinion.

The technology exists, and methods exist, to actually find and shut off equipment were it actually a danger. The fact that they haven't implemented those procedures means the airlines don't ACTUALLY consider it a threat.

That is a leap of faith.

If there were noticeable differences when passenger electronics were on, it would have been EXCEPTIONALLY clear.

Another leap of faith. Catastrophic failures do not always have a single direct linear cause. Sometimes several minor problems interact in unexpected ways to cause the catastrophe. For example F16 instrumentation went through extensive testing on the ground and in the air. Reports of problems from pilots lead to inspections and further testing. Eventually it was found that wires chaffing against a rivet wore through insulation and caused intermittent shorts in flight, leading to incorrect instrument readings. With respect to personal devices perhaps RF shielding is being damaged/degraded in flight, or something else unexpected is happening, that makes actual flight operations different than laboratory testing.

Speaking of laboratory testing, the Boeing test stated the an iPad was the worst offender with respect to emission beyond acceptable levels. This points out another problem with your argument. Our personal devices are rapidly evolving. Testing and experience from 5 or 10 years ago may not be very relevant today.

1) If you know anything about aircraft engineering, or really any of the higher kinds of engineering, they set the acceptable limit well below the position where things can go wrong. There are many, many reasons for that.

I don't recall the article telling us how far over the limit that iPad went. Why are you assuming it was within the safety margin? Why are you implying that safety margins are unnecessary, they exist for a good reason - mostly as an acceptance of the limitations of our design assumptions and testing methodologies.

2) I don't think you understand what I'm saying. There are runways out in the middle of the desert that you can make practice landings and takeoffs at all day, every day, for months. You can have a full complement of mock passengers in the back with phones on, off, or indifferent. ...

Fantasy, its not being done. Also consider how extensively F16s were used, inspected and maintained before the unexpected set of circumstances necessary for its failure were found.

... You can even make a plane to fly by actual, non-computer hydraulics in case of emergencies ...

Fantasy, current designs do not offer that ability and it is not possible in some cases. Some modern fly-by-wire aircraft are in fact uncontrollable by human pilots.

... "Here's the point at which the ILS goes wonky, which means that in inclement weather, there's a 100% chance of death." And then they'd actually land the plane anyway ...

Uhh, do you know how instrument landings systems work? The problem is not the fly-by-wire nature of the aircraft, the problem is that the pilot can not see the runway and is relying on ground signals and onboard instruments to get him to the runway, perhaps even have the autopilot land. One area being investigated is if the emissions by onboard devices can degrade or otherwise introduce an error into those ground signals.

Re:Some activities warrant excessive caution ...

[Meski]

Current procedure is to ask you to set PEDs into airplane mode, and not use them during takeoffs and landings. But 'not using' a PED does not mean it isn't running and emitting signals. It's in standby mode. (and what that means depends on the model, maybe even the OS version)

Re:Some activities warrant excessive caution ...

[bingoUV]

Has it been proven conclusively that a passenger boarding an aircraft after eating an apple weighing between 75.45 and 75.46 grams does not increase significantly the chance of the aircraft crashing within 46 minutes and 34 seconds of taking off? By your argument, and considering the magnitude of consequences, lets ban apples of the said description.

How about apples weighing between 83.51 grams and 83.52 grams? Pizzas of total carbohydrate content between 31.94 grams and 31.95 grams?

As you say, any actual risk does not have to be demonstrated, just an irrational fear needs to be invoked with sufficient sensationalism.

Re:Some activities warrant excessive caution ...

[harrytuttle777]

Fuck yea. It is about time someone had some common sense. Where I live, I can smoke a cigarette while pumping gas at the gas station, while the passengers drink from cans of open beer in the back seat. Yes sure this is freedom, but I want to know what happens if the laws of physics suddenly stop working. I mean what happens if the flash point of gasoline spontaneously lowers to that of a lit cigarette, and the gas station goes up in a giant explosion. It happens on TV all the time. Clearly the freedom I enjoy isn't worth the potential death due to an explosion if the laws of physics suddenly change.

Also I demand people stop being born until liberals and Government can perfect a way for people to live a life of perfect safety, harmony and never die. The risk from death (near certainty) is not worth the slight enjoyment one might receive from actually living for some short period. (say 60 years). It is about time government stepped in and made some laws to keep me from dieing.

Re:Some activities warrant excessive caution ...

[perpenso]

As you say, any actual risk does not have to be demonstrated, just an irrational fear needs to be invoked with sufficient sensationalism.

Actually a risk has been demonstrated by Boeing, various current devices with emissions beyond what is considered acceptable. Those referring merely to anecdotes from flight crews must not have actually read the article, in other words they are relying on anecdotes rather than scientific results.

You also mischaracterize my argument. My argument is from a cost-benefit analysis perspective. If we have an extremely low probability but extraordinarily high cost (100+ human lives) event paired with a trivial unnecessary benefit then a rational decision would be to forgo the benefit (personal device during landing). Your "proven conclusively its unsafe" approach would only be appropriate if we were discussing a benefit of substantial value, which we are not.

Re:Some activities warrant excessive caution ...

[bingoUV]

Actually a risk has been demonstrated by Boeing

So this could have been the response you should have given, rather than starting to sensationalize the "consequences". Your failing to mention this in your original post suggested that you don't mind that the evidence is anecdotal given the "consequences".

Your "proven conclusively its unsafe" approach would only be appropriate if we were discussing a benefit of substantial value, which we are not.

The post you replied to objected to the evidence being anecdotal. Your reply didn't argue about non-anecdotal evidence there, but you started to harp on the "consequences". My reply was not to "all the arguments you made in your life" but to that single post of yours.

The approach "proven conclusively its unsafe" is not mine, but it is of that post of yours to which I replied. I just used it to reach absurd conclusions to demonstrate the absurdity of the approach.

How is eating an apple weighing between 75.45 and 75.46 grams of substantial value? There are many other apples to choose from, not to mention other food materials.

Re:Some activities warrant excessive caution ...

[suomynonAyletamitlU]

Refitting a few out-of-service airliners into test beds isn't hundreds of millions of dollars worth of work--hundreds of thousands, perhaps, plus or minus for fuel and special equipment. Refitting an entire fleet with advanced shielding would, admittedly, be somewhere in the millions or more because you have to tear out the interior of the planes, possibly alter its structure, and then rebuild it to exacting standards.

As for who would be paying for the research, in order of likelihood:
1) The airline manufacturers. Believe it or not, they have to do testing anyway. You know, to make sure it doesn't crash.
2) Aircraft manufacturers, on military funding. The effects of RF on electronics is of consequence when you're transporting troops that use radio equipment.
3) The air force, on military funding.
4) FAA, assuming they can get budgeting for it.

Re:Some activities warrant excessive caution ...

[suomynonAyletamitlU]

In order of silliness:

Uhh, do you know how instrument landings systems work? The problem is not the fly-by-wire nature of the aircraft, the problem is that the pilot can not see the runway and is relying on ground signals and onboard instruments to get him to the runway, perhaps even have the autopilot land. One area being investigated is if the emissions by onboard devices can degrade or otherwise introduce an error into those ground signals.

You do not test an ILS system by having no other way to land. You test it by pretending you need it, but being ready to land without it.

Fantasy, current designs do not offer that ability and it is not possible in some cases. Some modern fly-by-wire aircraft are in fact uncontrollable by human pilots.

You're quibbling. There are ways to make a secondary flight methods which are not going to be affected by RF of any reasonable intensity or frequency.

Why are you implying that safety margins are unnecessary, they exist for a good reason

One of those reasons is so that when a new, untested situation pops up, it will not have a high probability of causing disaster. Engineering to any other standard would be patently ridiculous.

Why are you assuming it was within the safety margin?

The lack of a mass, frothing, screaming panic by the engineers involved tips me off. Airlines may be less profitable than they were, but it's a huge industry that millions of people depend on for all their not-dying-a-flaming-death needs. If electronic devices were, all of a sudden, completely out of the safety margins, there would be a lot of very technically knowledgeable people who would be very scared about the implications. Instead, we have a f***ing press conference where they mention that some random-seeming problems that so far haven't caused much damage might be related to electronic radiation.

The technology exists, and methods exist, to actually find and shut off equipment were it actually a danger. The fact that they haven't implemented those procedures means the airlines don't ACTUALLY consider it a threat

That is a leap of faith.

In the legal system, yes. Because if the airlines actually consider it a dangerous and are not taking steps to stop the actual threats, unless I'm mistaken, that's criminal negligence at the very least.

2) I don't think you understand what I'm saying. There are runways out in the middle of the desert that you can make practice landings and takeoffs at all day, every day, for months. You can have a full complement of mock passengers in the back with phones on, off, or indifferent. ...

Fantasy, its not being done.

Actually, I'm quite certain that any aircraft that was designed recently, and therefore knows of the problem and has any RF shielding at all, goes through testing to check that shielding's efficacy. These sort of things actually happen a lot when you're trying to make something work, or when you have to deliver a fully functioning machine to someone.

That doesn't mean as much testing as should be done, is being done, but it can be, and that was part of my point.

That is exactly the issue to me. The fact that we have an extremely low probability but exceptionally high cost event paired with a trivial unnecessary benefit is the foundation of my opinion.

I have two main objections to this. One, you're saying that the design of the plane only vaguely factors into the situation, becoming a part of the "probability" of the event. Either there is, in fact, a vulnerability in the design, or not. You can argue that air flights should be halted, or electronics should be confiscated/turned off until that is determined if you like, but you can't suggest that the problem itself

Re:Some activities warrant excessive caution ...

[perpenso]

You can even make a plane to fly by actual, non-computer hydraulics in case of emergencies. If you did that, there would be absolutely zero of this "demonstrated signals over the acceptable limit" bullshit. They would fly a demonstration and say, "Here's the point at which the controls stop working and the plane starts to crash," or "Here's the point at which the ILS goes wonky, which means that in inclement weather, there's a 100% chance of death." And then they'd actually land the plane anyway,

Uhh, do you know how instrument landings systems work? The problem is not the fly-by-wire nature of the aircraft, the problem is that the pilot can not see the runway and is relying on ground signals and onboard instruments to get him to the runway, perhaps even have the autopilot land. One area being investigated is if the emissions by onboard devices can degrade or otherwise introduce an error into those ground signals.

You do not test an ILS system by having no other way to land. You test it by pretending you need it, but being ready to land without it.

Whether the instrument landing is practice, testing or operational your suggestion of an alternative hydraulic system is nonsense. The problem is *not* control of the aircraft, ie the failure is not the fly-by-wire control system, the problem is in the ground to aircraft signaling system that is indicating where the runway is.

You are consistently demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the problem.

Fantasy, current designs do not offer that ability and it is not possible in some cases. Some modern fly-by-wire aircraft are in fact uncontrollable by human pilots.

You're quibbling. There are ways to make a secondary flight methods which are not going to be affected by RF of any reasonable intensity or frequency.

Quibbling? Your laughable. I repeat, some aircraft are not controllable by humans, they *require* computers making hundreds of microcorrections on control surfaces per second to maintain stable flight. Your "non-computer hydraulics" can't manage this.

Why are you assuming it was within the safety margin?

The lack of a mass, frothing, screaming panic by the engineers involved tips me off. Airlines may be less profitable than they were, but it's a huge industry that millions of people depend on for all their not-dying-a-flaming-death needs. If electronic devices were, all of a sudden, completely out of the safety margins, there would be a lot of very technically knowledgeable people who would be very scared about the implications. Instead, we have a f***ing press conference where they mention that some random-seeming problems that so far haven't caused much damage might be related to electronic radiation.

You can attempt to divert attention by referring to the anecdotal reports by flight crews all you want, but the motivation of this article was testing done in Boeing laboratories that does show modern devices exceeding safe emissions levels. The technically knowledgable people are starting to show concern and they are offering actual evidence. You can continue to talk about other things but this fact remains.

That is exactly the issue to me. The fact that we have an extremely low probability but exceptionally high cost event paired with a trivial unnecessary benefit is the foundation of my opinion.

I have two main objections to this. One, you're saying that the design of the plane only vaguely factors into the situation, becoming a part of the "probability" of the event. Either there is, in fact, a vulnerability in the design, or not.

Quite the contrary. The design of the *various* planes and avionic systems are a factor, one that greatly complicates the fanciful ideas of testing you propose. We have per

Re:Some activities warrant excessive caution ...

[suomynonAyletamitlU]

You know, there are like at least 2-3 points that would have actually help make your point if you had made them earlier, and actually fail to make a point now, because we're not talking about the same thing anymore.

The problem is *not* control of the aircraft, ie the failure is not the fly-by-wire control system, the problem is in the ground to aircraft signaling system that is indicating where the runway is

This, for instance, makes absolutely zero sense and makes you look like an idiot (I'm talking about landing in the clear on manual control, which has zero to do with the ILS knowing your position, which is what makes it a goddamn test in the first place) without your later statement:

they *require* computers making hundreds of microcorrections on control surfaces per second to maintain stable flight.

In fact, without that, your entire discussion seems completely off the rails, and unless I'm mistaken, you haven't made it before.

Now, my halfassed knowledge of physics and above-average knowledge of flight only halfway make this make sense. For one, maintaining stable flight in terms of roll seems like a legitimate consideration, but determining "down" and keeping the plane steady is not really that high tech of an operation, and it's not something you can't build a backup for. Maintaining stable flight in terms of pitch and yaw aren't, to my knowledge, significantly difficult without significant wind conditions, which again, we're talking about tests.

I've only suggested that your design suggestions lack merit.

From where I sit, you've been trying to throw out my entire argument because of quibbles over my design decisions. You can see how that alters the way I'm going to continue somewhat. For example, focusing on "non-computer hydraulics" when I just said I'm talking about redundant failsafes in general is silly. If I was actually an aircraft engineer, I would have said so; short of that, I have knowledge gaps, and I don't need to be bludgeoned over the head with them.

You can attempt to divert attention by referring to the anecdotal reports by flight crews all you want, but the motivation of this article was testing done in Boeing laboratories that does show modern devices exceeding safe emissions levels. The technically knowledgable people are starting to show concern and they are offering actual evidence.

Diverting attention means steering the conversation. I'm ranting, and following at least 3-4 different threads of conversation. If I were going to derail anything, I'd do it by omission (possibly on accident), not sleight of hand.

You can continue to talk about other things but this fact remains.

What I'm discussing first and foremost is policy, and I don't think I've deviated from the start. They've known this was potentially an issue for a decade or more. I think we (travelers) have all been acting under the assumption that switching phones, etc, off was a stopgap measure, but it's not being treated as such; they're treating it like a solution when it isn't. That's retarded as a policy if you think that it's important, and retarded as a policy if you think it isn't a concern at all. They should have been doing continuous testing, probably at the government level. If this is them coming out and saying, "We've been monitoring the situation and we think it's finally getting toward serious," then that would be one thing, but it doesn't sound like it. It sounds like, "Oh hey. Uh, I guess this might have been dangerous the whole time?"

You're treating the situation like it's one you can't do science to, and thereafter engineering upon. I'm sure you will say you're not doing that, but I've been beating you over the head with the statement, "We can test it," because your argument boils down to, "Let's just keep implementing a stopgap measure as a matter of policy, indefinitely. A

Re:Some activities warrant excessive caution ...

[perpenso]

The problem is *not* control of the aircraft, ie the failure is not the fly-by-wire control system, the problem is in the ground to aircraft signaling system that is indicating where the runway is

This, for instance, makes absolutely zero sense and makes you look like an idiot (I'm talking about landing in the clear on manual control, which has zero to do with the ILS knowing your position, which is what makes it a goddamn test in the first place) without your later statement:

Sigh. The ILS issue was mentioned in the summary, in the article, etc. You didn't understand the issue and introduced your "non-computer hydraulics" meme which is irrelevant to the ILS issue being discussed. No one is following you off on that erroneous tangent.

they *require* computers making hundreds of microcorrections on control surfaces per second to maintain stable flight.

In fact, without that, your entire discussion seems completely off the rails, and unless I'm mistaken, you haven't made it before.

Oh no, you are mistaken. As you failed to understand the actual nature of the ILS issue you also failed to understand the underlying nature of phrases like "uncontrollable by human pilots".

Now, my halfassed knowledge of physics and above-average knowledge of flight ...

LMAO.

What I'm discussing first and foremost is policy, and I don't think I've deviated from the start. They've known this was potentially an issue for a decade or more.

And what you are ignoring is *new* evidence. For example the Boeing tests identifying the iPad as the device generating the greatest emissions beyond acceptable levels. A decade or more ago devices had less impact. And they have been addressing it in new designs of aircraft and avionics still on the drawing boards, well in the CAD/CAM systems. The problem is with the existing fleet out there. Turning off devices is a quite reasonable policy for the existing fleet.

... I've been beating you over the head with the statement, "We can test it," ...

Given the variety of aircraft and avionics systems out there, and the fact that catastrophic failures are often the result of multiple problems working in concert, I don't think you fully comprehend what would need to be tested in the context of the current fleet.

... because your argument boils down to, "Let's just keep implementing a stopgap measure as a matter of policy, indefinitely.

Not at all. Current designs under development are addressing the issue. However that does not address the reality of the day that travelers today are boarding aircraft designed decades ago. Add to this the ground based systems, like ILS, that were also designed decades ago. A lot of ground based infrastructure needs to have more modern designs as well.

Re:Some activities warrant excessive caution ...

[__aagmrb7289]

Consider that in the specific test offered by Boeing engineers the worst offender was an iPad. So it is an extremely recent experiment. Consumer technology has changed radically over time. Studies conducted five or ten years ago are becoming decreasingly relevant.

If you are going to change your argument so that you agree with mine, can you just admit it so we can all go on? After all, you have been arguing that anecdotal stories trump scientific studies. I disagreed. Now you are saying, but, well, there are scientific studies mentioned in the article that are more recent than the old ones. Duh. That's what I've been saying all along - there are currently scientific studies being done on the subject - so why should we legislate over anecdotal stories that are at best, questionable? As in, "not likely to be true"?

A far more important problem with the analogy is that using a car is more of a necessity for many individuals, whereas the use of a personal device during landing is a trivial and unnecessary act. Recall the cost-benefit analysis, a low frequency but high cost paired with a trivial benefit suggests forgoing the benefit while a highly useful benefit may suggest the risk is warranted. The later is pretty much a daily experience given the hazards of driving, one is more likely to get taken out by a drunk driver than a software failure in the brakes.

Argue against the analogy all you want - my inability to use a Kindle during takeoff, when the Kindle has zero emissions during use, because you are scared because some guy told you a story about a time when some unnamed device caused some sort of issue in a situation completely unrelated to, you know, the situation in which I'm actually using the Kindle - well, that's just silly, at best. And that is the actual reason why people are looking at your posts and thinking that you are a slight bit more than a little crazy.

Re:Some activities warrant excessive caution ...

[perpenso]

If you are going to change your argument so that you agree with mine, can you just admit it so we can all go on? After all, you have been arguing that anecdotal stories trump scientific studies.

Wrong. I have *never* said anecdotal stories trump scientific studies. I started the discussion with a cost-benefit type argument, that the trivial unnecessary benefit of using a personal device during landing is not warranted given the extremely high cost (100+ human lives) of a possible accident. Basically that even though the likelihood of such an event is extremely unlikely the trivial nature of the benefit suggests forgoing the benefit.

I believe any support I gave anecdotal stories was in the context of reports of F16 pilots who reported instrumentation problems, problems that inspections and testing were unable to confirm. Several F16 pilots died before cables rubbing on a rivet were found to create intermittent electrical shorts. None of this suggests anecdotal stories trumps scientific studies, it does however suggest that observations of highly trained and educated observers such as professional pilots should not be dismissed as readily as an observation by grandma that her car did something funny.

... my inability to use a Kindle during takeoff, when the Kindle has zero emissions during use, because you are scared because some guy told you a story ...

An uninformed guess on your part. Your kindle should be stowed during takeoff because the flight crew should not bear the responsibility of recognizing which devices emit and which do not. Note that a device comparable to your kindle, an iPad, was found to be the worst offender with respect to emissions. Furthermore, the flight crew should not take the owners word on what emits and what does not and the flight crew should not have to deal with passengers who are annoyed that someone else gets to keep their device while they have to stow theirs. Like my original argument, the trivial unnecessary benefit you experience from using your kindle during takeoff does not warrant the additional workload you will cause the flight crew.

Re:Some activities warrant excessive caution ...

[__aagmrb7289]

Wrong. I have *never* said anecdotal stories trump scientific studies. I started the discussion with a cost-benefit type argument, that the trivial unnecessary benefit of using a personal device during landing is not warranted given the extremely high cost (100+ human lives) of a possible accident. Basically that even though the likelihood of such an event is extremely unlikely the trivial nature of the benefit suggests forgoing the benefit.

And I've argued from the beginning that anecdotal stories do not trump scientific studies, which has always clearly been my point - so why are you even responding to me? If you agree, then just say so.

An uninformed guess on your part. Your kindle should be stowed during takeoff because the flight crew should not bear the responsibility of recognizing which devices emit and which do not. Note that a device comparable to your kindle, an iPad, was found to be the worst offender with respect to emissions. Furthermore, the flight crew should not take the owners word on what emits and what does not and the flight crew should not have to deal with passengers who are annoyed that someone else gets to keep their device while they have to stow theirs. Like my original argument, the trivial unnecessary benefit you experience from using your kindle during takeoff does not warrant the additional workload you will cause the flight crew.

There are MANY MANY MANY more sane ways to deal with this. Device certification, for example, would handle the issue. Having the ability to DETECT devices onboard that are emitting dangerous signals would be another. Hell, I'd expect you to, I don't know, want to see that more than a ban, since, as many people have already said to you - people are constantly using these devices and leaving them on every flight that goes up. Don't you think we should actually enforce the ban, you know, the one that was supposed to be temporary while studies were conducted to determine if there really was a problem?

I still, by the way, say that my right to read a friggin' book is more important than your right to exercise your unreasonable fear. Especially given more sane options to resolve the potential, and unlikely, issue.

Re:Some activities warrant excessive caution ...

[perpenso]

And I've argued from the beginning that anecdotal stories do not trump scientific studies, which has always clearly been my point - so why are you even responding to me?

I've argued against your false portrayal of my opinion. I'm not quite sure why you keep bringing up the anecdote vs science red herring.

Device certification, for example, would handle the issue.

OK, your Kindle is not certified so put it away. :-)

I still, by the way, say that my right to read a friggin' book is more important than your right to exercise your unreasonable fear.

Intentionally misrepresenting my opinion does not really enhance your argument. I did not say I feared your kindle. I said it added to the flight crew workload for no real benefit. You can read between take off and landing. We all make trivial accommodations during takeoff and landing for the comfort and safety of each other and the efficiency of the flight crew.

Re:Some activities warrant excessive caution ...

[__aagmrb7289]

I've argued against your false portrayal of my opinion. I'm not quite sure why you keep bringing up the anecdote vs science red herring.

This would be the first time you've said I've portrayed your opinion incorrectly, and if you bother to reread the thread here, you'll see that either you are intentionally misrepresenting the exchange, or you have somehow completely forgotten everything we've said.

Intentionally misrepresenting my opinion does not really enhance your argument. I did not say I feared your kindle. I said it added to the flight crew workload for no real benefit. You can read between take off and landing. We all make trivial accommodations during takeoff and landing for the comfort and safety of each other and the efficiency of the flight crew.

Arguing dishonestly doesn't make this a "win" for you. You have clearly NOT said that it "added to the flight crew workload for no benefit." You have repeatedly compared the "trivial use" of a banned electronic device (which includes the Kindle) should not be allowed because it may endanger everyone. That has nothing to do with crew workload, and everything to do with an unreasonable fear.

If you want to continue to shift your position, and deny what's been stated in the thread, then I suppose I will be forced to conclude that this conversation is a waste of time, as you are not only not having an honest conversation with me, but are apparently only discussing this issue for some imagined audience with which you are trying to gain some sort of "points" as if you can win somehow.

Re:Some activities warrant excessive caution ...

[perpenso]

I reviewed this thread to make sure I was not getting you mixed up with another poster.

This would be the first time you've said I've portrayed your opinion incorrectly

I wrote: "Say 100+ people in a fragile machine, surround by flammable liquids, moving at a high rate of speed and doing so with limited to no visibility outside the machine having a "mishap" because someone had to check twitter? There are some activities where an excess of caution is warranted, personally I believe that needing to use an ***instrument landing system because of bad weather*** is one such activity."

You responded: "And you say "Screw the science - anecdotal is good enough - cause it is dangerous!""

That is an inaccurate portrayal of "there are some activities where an excess of caution is warranted".

I stated my opinion is: "... cost-benefit analysis. When a highly unlikely event is paired with an extremely high cost, especially hundreds of human lives, then the benefit must be something non-trivial."

You characterized my opinion as: "After all, you have been arguing that anecdotal stories trump scientific studies."

You have clearly NOT said that it "added to the flight crew workload for no benefit."

I wrote: "Your kindle should be stowed during takeoff because the flight crew should not bear the responsibility of recognizing which devices emit and which do not. Note that a device comparable to your kindle, an iPad, was found to be the worst offender with respect to emissions. Furthermore, the flight crew should not take the owners word on what emits and what does not and the flight crew should not have to deal with passengers who are annoyed that someone else gets to keep their device while they have to stow theirs."

You have repeatedly compared the "trivial use" of a banned electronic device (which includes the Kindle) should not be allowed because it may endanger everyone.

That is a distorted and self serving interpretation of:

"... cost-benefit analysis. When a highly unlikely event is paired with an extremely high cost, especially hundreds of human lives, then the benefit must be something non-trivial"

As an example of a non-trivial use I offered driving a car despite the hypothetical reports of antilock braking problems you offered in an analogy.

Regarding the Kindle, I also pointed out how it resembles the iPad which Boeing identified as the worst offending device in their laboratory test - and the complication of requiring flight crews to know all the various devices on the market.

I call Bull****

[Anonymous Coward]

So they're telling us that they're going to leave the security of landing an airplane to the passengers knowing how to turn their "PEDs" off? My mom just bought an iPad - I suspect she doesn't know how to *really* turn it off. Same thing for all those iPhone/Blackberry/smartphone users.

If it *REALLY* was such a problem, then they should confiscate the PEDs and give them to us when the flight lands.

I Call BS

[bkr1_2k]

I call bullshit. These instruments are TEMPEST shielded to such a degree it's ridiculous. Personal devices also don't emit with enough power (unless modified) to affect anything further than a couple of feet away from them.

Re:I Call BS

[blueg3]

Cell phones emit enough power to induce measurable currents in the cell tower they're connected to, which is usually more than a couple feet away.

Re:I Call BS

[blair1q]

I call bullshit. There isn't one TEMPEST shielded item on any commercial aircraft.

Re:I Call BS

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

A cell phone has an effect on a cell tower MILES away, if it didn't, it wouldn't work!!!

First hand experience

[Anonymous Coward]

I had always been suspicious of the reality of small electronics and avionics interference, but now I have some first hand experience--I fly a small airplane (a Decathlon). Granted, it has much different RF characteristics than a large airliner. Like most airplanes, it is equipped with a transponder that encodes the airplane's altitude and transmits it when the air traffic control radar paints the airplane. Sometimes when my iPhone is turned on in the airplane, the altitude reported by my transponder varies wildly by several thousands of feet, and air traffic control tells me they are getting spurious signals. One day when this was happening, I thought ah heck and I turn off the phone, and the transponder settled down. I turned it back on, and the transponder started going wonky again. I've reproduced this on a few different days and most days with no issues with the phone turned on. I'd say it's 20% bad/80% good. I haven't figured out what conditions cause this to happen or not--could be poor equipment installation. Anyone else with actual experience of something like this happening?

Re:First hand experience

[NatasRevol]

So require the pilots of commercial planes to have no electronic devices. They sit next to most of the equipment anyway.

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/faa_approval_ipad_jeppesen_paper_chart_replacement_204145-1.html

Re:First hand experience

[jmottram08]

The pilot of our company (small) plane can tell before we take off if anyone has their cell phone on or not. Every time. I dont know how, but he can tell.

Re:First hand experience

[Andy Dodd]

1) FAA or no FAA, you're violating FCC rules. Cell phones are not licensed for airborne operation because it screws up the premise of a device only being able to "hear" towers in adjacent cells. (Special exception: shielded cabin combined with a microcell that causes the phone's automatic power control to kick in.)

2) GSM phones are notorious for bad EMI. (The classic "GSM buzz" at the GSM TDMA frame repetition rate.)

Re:First hand experience

[joe_frisch]

I have a bonanza - also a small aircraft. When I take photos from the plane (using a digital SLR - Nikon D70 at the time), I could see the nav needles twitch.

Airliners have different avionics, etc, but it at least shows that it is possible.

Also - there may be a difference between 10 operating cell phones in the cabin, and 350. The RF power from the phones and other devices would sum, and might decrease the available signal to noise for the aircraft nav system.

Re:First hand experience

[scharkalvin]

The Decathlon isn't exactly a well RF shielded aircraft. The skin is mostly dope covered fabric, and the wings internal structure is wood. The airframe is made of welded metal tubing which along with the aluminum cowl over the engine comprises just about ALL of the metal in the aircraft. I'm not sure to what the antennas are grounded to, probably just enough aluminum sheet under the fabric to make them work.
I used to own a share in a Citabria flying club, really miss flying that airplane.

Re:First hand experience

[dontbgay]

How was the integrity of your IFF system? Did you check to ensure your cables were properly shielded? Or did your plane receive shielded cables when the system was installed? Typically, shielding the wires removes any erroneous indications from outside radiation.

Re:First hand experience

[thegarbz]

I wonder if the FAA approved iPad will have WiFi and 3G enabled.

a) Pilots do not sit next to all of the gear. Many of the sensors are spread around the outside of a plane and cabled together.
b) A device designed to transmit RF emits RF, a device which doesn't ... doesn't for the most part. The FAA approval for the iPad is meaningless to a discussion centered mostly around mobile phones.

Re:First hand experience

[NatasRevol]

a) I said most, so why would you say all?
b) Not sure you understand what an iPad is. It is a mobile phone, from an RF point of view. See your first sentence.

Re:First hand experience

[thegarbz]

a) You're right, didn't read properly ;-)
b) An iPad is a RF device only if used as an RF device. They have this thing called (gosh) airplane mode. Just because the FAA approves something for use doesn't mean they say "Here it is, go your hardest." So repeat after me, "The pilot having an iPad does not mean I can turn on my mobile during the flight."

Re:First hand experience

[NatasRevol]

You're going to have to justify this.

The pilot having an iPad does not mean I can turn on my mobile during the flight.

Even in airplane mode, it still has power running though it which can send out RF signals, especially when right next to the instrumentation.

Re:First hand experience

[thegarbz]

You seem to be confusing a circuit which is designed to emit as little RF as possible to the surrounding components (especially the RF components which rely on a clean signal), with a circuit that is specifically designed to emit RF power as efficiently and effectively as possible.

There are many orders of magnitude difference in the RF power emitted, and the frequencies at which they are emitted. Both have a big impact into how interference is received by the other device.

So I've heard.

[crimsonshdw]

""There is a lot of anecdotal evidence out there, but it's not evidence at all," said Nance, a former Air Force and commercial pilot. "

Anecdotal evidence is the best kind of evidence so I've been told.

An engineer's reaction

[bughunter]

As an engineer who designs and integrates RF systems every day, all day, I have two impressions. And as a systems engineer, I'll describe them in terms of the two elements of risk: probability and impact.

FTFA: "In other events described in the report, a clock spun backwards and a GPS in cabin read incorrectly while two laptops were being used nearby."

First: Crap like that ain't supposed to happen. An airplane designed and built to standards for commercial passenger service must meet standards for electromagnetic susceptibility, interference tolerance, workmanship, etc. It's not the passengers' fault that things like that happen. Nor is it the direct fault of the manufacturer of the electronics that passengers carry. If something is that mission critical, and the cost of failure is measured in human lives, then engineers, inspectors, regulators, and operations crew damn well better make sure the likelihood of failure is as close to zero as can be.

Second: I know damn well that grounding and shielding is one of the most difficult aspects of any high-frequency electronics system. It's difficult to design, grounding and shielding design rules aren't generally taught as part of undergraduate EE curriculum (much less Aeromechanical, CS, etc.), and the manufacturing techniques are prone to failure and not easy to inspect and test. Therefore, statistically, a passenger that travels one or two times a year is likely to board a plane with a design flaw or manufacturing/maintenance flaw at some point in their lifetime. This doesn't mean they're going to notice it, or even have any effect on the flight, much less cause an emergency by forgetting a powered-up iPhone in their carryon. But the likelihood of failure will never be zero unless the passenger obeys the rules and turns off their devices.

So, turn your shit off when so instructed.

And consumer electronics designers: please give the consumer a switch that allows them to turn their shit off... not standby, but OFF.

Re:An engineer's reaction

[TheLink]

grounding and shielding design rules aren't generally taught as part of undergraduate EE curriculum

If the shielding isn't good enough, the chances of grounding go way up ;).

Re:An engineer's reaction

[jtseng]

If something is that mission critical, and the cost of failure is measured in human lives, then engineers, inspectors, regulators, and operations crew damn well better make sure the likelihood of failure is as close to zero as can be.

Your comment made me recall the causes of an airplane disaster:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Airlines_Flight_981#Cause

Per the article:

"In the aftermath of the Flight 96 incident, the NTSB made several recommendations. Its primary concern was the addition of venting in the rear cabin floor that would ensure that a cargo area decompression would equalize the cabin area, and not place additional loads onto the floor. In fact, most of the DC-10 fuselage had vents like these: it was only the rearmost hold that lacked them. Additionally, the NTSB suggested that upgrades to the locking mechanism and to the latching actuator electrical system be made compulsory. However, while the FAA agreed that the locking and electrical systems should be upgraded, the FAA also agreed with McDonnell Douglas that the additional venting would be too expensive to implement (emphasis mine), and the FAA did not demand that this change be made."

so what?

[parallel_prankster]

To me this just means that Boeing engineers need to do a better job of shielding their sensors. The world has advanced, people have such devices and flights are getting longer. I dont want to use/pay for the crappy entertainment system on the plane. I want to use my own. I understand that this might not be the priority for them right now, but it needs to happen sometime soon.

What about the terrorists?

[Ikkyu]

We spend hundreds of millions to keep me from bringing a bottle of water on a plane, but we can't manage to get protection from terrorist magic rays that will take down a plane just like in the movies? I thought all of these guys went to the Jack Bauer school of counter terrorism.

Re:What about the terrorists?

[TheLink]

1) Many airlines let you carry 1 litre of vodka onto their plane. That's definitely more dangerous than 1 litre of water :).
2) There is usually no penalty if they catch you, you're allowed to chuck the item into a bin. They assume it won't blow up the bin ;).

It's all "feel safe" crap that isn't making the passengers feel safe.

I'm still skeptical

[GrBear]

On a recent Delta flight from Orlando to Minneapolis, I had the pleasure to sit next to a Delta employee on the same trip. He didn't even bother turning his iPhone on airplane mode.. in fact he was checking his email during takeoff and landing.

I kept hoping and waiting for his phone to ring during flight.

Re:I'm still skeptical

[bugs2squash]

Why wait for it to ring ?

Re:I'm still skeptical

[GrBear]

...becasuse all delta employees are experts with EM.

No, but they above others should be more aware of flight rules and regulations than the average passenger.

This is a diversion

[billrp]

Boeing simply wants to divert attention from their own design/maintenance problems they've been having recently that have caused serious accidents. But I thought the main source of accidents/mishaps is really pilots. And PEDs have caused zero accidents.

What about PED-based charts (EFB's) ?

[oh-dark-thirty]

Like these: http://www.jeppesen.com/main/corporate/microsites/jeppesen-mobile-tc/

"The authorization process noted by the FAA allows the operator to use iPad and the Jeppesen Mobile TC App as the sole reference for electronic charts, even during taxi, takeoff and landing. "

Continue the lies.

[Seumas]

They've been lying about this for years. Let's use a little common sense to figure out the truth, here:

First, probably 90% of the people on every plane have one or more devices. Laptops, game devices, tablets, phones, and so on.

Second, there are several thousand flights in the US every single day.

Third, just because they say "turn off your devices" doesn't mean people do. In fact, I know people who intentionally don't turn their devices off, just as a personal point of spite.

Fourth, if these were a problem, planes would be fucking falling out of the sky. If you figure there are 300,000 to 500,000 people flying every single day, we should be seeing unexplained major airline catastrophes all the damn time.

Fifth - and finally - if this was even remotely a problem, they wouldn't have allowed devices all these years. In fact, if it was anything other than PROVEN to be safe, they wouldn't allow them. They would confiscate devices on entry and turn them off themselves or store them in some sort of Faraday cage kind of thing until you de-board.

Re:Continue the lies.

[Chowderbags]

Sixth - If all it took to bring down a plane was using a cell phone, "the terrorists" would have tried that long before they tried smuggling bombs attached to their junk.

Re:Continue the lies.

[Swiper]

The point is, the incidents which do occur rarely if ever get reported back to the cabin. The effects however are still there, and happen on a regular basis. Spurious instrument readings, interference on radio signals etc...these all happen due to passengers not shutting down their equipment, and its largely thanks to the multiple redundant designs of the aircraft that these effects don't lead to more serious consequences other than a pissed off pilot who had to manually intervene into what would normally be an automated process. The fact that you havn't died because of it has nothing to do with your haughty behaviour, and everything to do with pilot skill and robust airline system design.

TFS links to page 2

[xded]

TFS is not summarizing TFA. Is it also because it links to TFA's page 2?

Proper link: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/safe-cellphone-plane/story?id=13791569

Proper excerpt:

Asked if a cellphone's signal could really be that powerful, Carson said, "It is when it goes in the right place at the right time."

To prove his point, Carson took ABC News inside Boeing's electronic test chamber in Seattle, where engineers demonstrated the hidden signals from several electronic devices that were well over what Boeing considers the acceptable limit for aircraft equipment. A Blackberry and an iPhone were both over the limit, but the worst offender was an iPad. There are still doubters, including ABC News's own aviation expert, John Nance.

"There is a lot of anecdotal evidence out there, but it's not evidence at all," said Nance, a former Air Force and commercial pilot. "It's pilots, like myself, who thought they saw something but they couldn't pin it to anything in particular. And those stories are not rampant enough, considering 32,000 flights a day over the U.S., to be convincing."

747 brought down by an iPod..riiight.

[geekmux]

Ever heard of shielding, Boeing? Seriously.

If this were actually that bad of a threat, don't you think TSA/DHS would have adjusted their policies regarding PEDs onboard? Give me a break. Chances are they're crying wolf so they can try and secure a few billion in funding to upgrade all of their aircraft wiring and shielding under the guise of "homeland security", so taxpayers can somehow pay for it instead of the "poor starving" airlines.

Oh, and pay no attention to the terrorists lurking here taking notes (the real terrorists I mean, not your next-door-neighbors Grandmother caught trying to "smuggle" her Sams Club sized shampoo bottle on board). God forbid they find out an iPod is just as effective as a box cutter. Yet another reason I call BS on all this, as if had ANY semblance of truth, it certainly wouldn't be unclassified.

Then Develop a standard

[KDN]

If there is or may be a problem, then develop a standard for both the electronic device maker and the navigation system maker can work with. I'm sick and tired of airplane makers saying that everyone must shut down all possible electronic devices or the airplane will crash into the ocean Does that include pace makers? How about artificial limbs that are electrically powered? Navigation systems should be defined to work with a given amount of noise on various frequency bands. It is not reasonable in today's world to design a system that assumes that the only RF transmitter for 100 miles around is the proper transmitter. Think of what a terrorist could do if they find such a vulnerability that can let them remotely down an airplane.

Conversely, electronic device makers must start shielding their equipment and start certifying that they meet this same standard. I've seen too many devices that have the EMF of a telsa coil and wipe out any other wireless device within 30 feet. One device was not even a wireless device. It was a street light that ran on 2.4Ghz, and wiped out WiFi whenever it was on.

WiFi in planes

[DreamArcher]

Isn't American Airlines rolling out WiFi in some of there planes? I can't turn on my Gameboy but the operator can run their own wireless network? On the other hand is the price for me bring righteous is I have to pay with my life I'll just turn my shit off.

Re:WiFi in planes

[Andy Dodd]

No, they can't run their own wireless network when they're on final instrument landing approach.

There's a huge difference between cruise altitude (if anything in the cabin interferes with aircraft systems at this point, the aircraft manufacturer REALLY screwed up) and landing approach in bad weather - 100 foot navigational error can mean death, and the system used for such landings (ILS) is notoriously sensitive and finicky to the point where entire portions of airports have to be blocked off just so nothing reflects the ILS beam.

Re":...really?" ....really?

[dtmos]

I have no problems.

...except with the FCC, which limits amateur radio transmissions to a maximum of 1500 watts.

Re:Re":...really?" ....really?

[dtmos]

The rest of the world has lower regulations, often 400 W.

Anecdotal evidence is not evidence.

[EmagGeek]

And that's all I have to say about that.

Simple example of possible interference

[radionerd]

OK, let’s try a simple example. A passenger has a cheap FM broadcast receiver. This receiver’s intermediate frequency is 10.7 MHz. The receiver utilizes “high side” injection so its local oscillator frequency is 10.7 MHz higher than the operating frequency. The FM broadcast band is from 88 to 108 MHz, this puts the LO in the 98.7 to 118.7 MHz range. The aircraft navigation band is from 108 to 118 MHz with ILS signals at the bottom of the band and VOR signals all over the band. The broadcast receiver radiates a portion of its local oscillator energy, this is very hard to avoid. The LO appears to the navigation receiver as an interfering carrier. The broadcast receiver is very close to the navigation receiver, the navigation beacon is many miles away, the inverse square law of radio propagation is not your friend, the shielding will not help you, there is an antenna on the navigation receiver, and the LO signal will escape to get into the navigation receiver. This example is very simple, and uses dirt common equipment. There are an untold number of consumer devices that could radiate unintentional, unexpected, signals in navigation and communication bands. When I’m flying, I can see all my passengers, and I can insist that they do as I say or get the hell out of my airplane , a commercial pilot can’t keep track of a whole bus load of people.

...then ban the cell towers too!

[grangerg]

If this is true, then why aren't cell phones AND cell towers banned in a 2 mile radius from all airports? You've got loads of working cell phones inside the buildings (and likely on at least a few workers outside where the planes are). There's enough "signal" to get to and from the cell towers in both directions, and all of it's going through the planes.

So what's so special about the signal coming from a cell phone until it gets outside the plane as compared to the signal coming from the cell tower to your phone (also inside the plane)? That doesn't change if your cell phone is on or off.

Baysian analysis

[Ikkyu]

Lets generously assume that 1/10 flights has PED's on and that FTA there are 32000 flights per day and 75 actual PED incidents on 1/4 of the flights between 2003 and 2009. The probability that given an electronic device is on there will be an incident P(PED incident | PED on), is the probability that an incident happened and a PED was on divided by the probability a PED was on P(PED on ^ PED incident)/P(PED on)

(75 incidents/(32000flights*365days*7years*.25 of airlines surveyed))/(1/10 flights with PED on) = 0.003669% chance there will be an incident given that a PED is on

This is a gross understatement of the number of flights with PED's on my experience, in my opinion the claim that PED's will cause in interference is not borne out by the evidence presented.

Tomorrow's headlines

[glebd]

"IPHONE LIKELY TO CRASH PLANES. Apple declines to comment. Google says Android is safe because it is open. "There is no plane-crashing code in Android, anyone can see for themselves." Nokia promises additional aircraft safety for its WP7 phones once they are bricked over the air this fall."

Well

[SaroDarksbane]

It's downright fortuitous that they have had a 100% compliance rate of passengers turning off electronic devices prior to this evidence, or the burning carcasses of planes would no doubt be littering the US from ocean to ocean. I'm sure all the major airlines will cut their maintenance budgets to fund further studies of this dangerous phenomena, the consequences of which, I think we can all agree, we have been avoiding by sheer luck, what with the thousands of flights a day and zero accidents attributable to it.

Re:Dear Slashdot dweebs,

[Lemmy Caution]

Perhaps they only increase the rate of equipment failure by 1 or 2%. That wouldn't lead to aircraft remains scattered across the US (though it may lead to more delayed flights as parts are replaced, etc.)

Military vs civilian

[sjbe]

Thats what you need to keep avionics from being disrupted and vice versa according to the DoD, they've done a lot of testing on that stuff over the last 30 years.

You are comparing a weapon of war which *will* be aggressively attacked to a civilian plane which maybe, possibly, *might* experience brief interference from my cell phone? Talk about apples to oranges.

If interruptions from cell phones and other electronics were ACTUALLY a serious problem, they would either prohibit them from being transported, collect them prior to boarding or would take other measures to ensure they could not be used in a manner that could jeopardize the safety of the aircraft. Cell phones and similar items are not believed to be a meaningful threat to the safety of the aircraft or its passengers by the airlines or the FAA. The actions of the airlines and the FAA speak far louder than their words. Real threats would be acted upon. Simply asking us to turn off our phones and computers (they don't even check) means they don't really take the possibility of interference seriously.

Re:An engineer's reaction CORRECTED

[bananaendian]

Here we go again, every couple of years an article relating to avionics interference shows up in slashdot and I have to come out of my cave to save the world...

Here is something I wrote back in 2006 about this same issue.

Just because you are 'an engineer' who 'works with RF' doesn't mean you know tiddly about avionics. I actually work at an avionics lab and repair and test these devices and have actually measured RF interference of avionics systems, both on the ground and in the air. Its my job.

As a fellow engineer I could give you a 5 minute brief on how the ILS system works, another 15 to go through explaining all the board level receiver circuits, data busses and another 20 to go throught the navigation computer and autopilot at block diagram level - and afterwards you'd be rolling on the floor laughing to the very idea of a passenger ipod being able to interfere with 'the ILS system'... unfortunately my superiors are hunting me down to lock me back to my cave now.

For others see what I wrote about Ultracrepidarianism

Wrong question

[sjbe]

Because .. testing every possible consumer electronics device which might end up on an aircraft, against all the possible aircraft, and all of the possible variations of an aircraft is damned near impossible.

Don't need to. If you are actually worried about this being a problem, you simply either prohibit the device from being brought on board or you *require* it to be put it in a Faraday cage to prevent any transmissions from being problematic. Hundreds of thousands of pieces of consumer electronics fly every day and you can be sure many of them are not shut off no matter how much the flight attendants ask. The general public essentially acts as a flying test bed and there has NEVER ONCE been an accident caused by any cell phone or other piece of consumer electronics on any airline. Everyday use has proven this to be a non-issue.

While the risk may very well be greater than zero, the actual risk has to be extremely low. If it were a real problem, the airlines and the FAA would demand we not fly with our electronics. Actions speak louder than words.

Re:An engineer's reaction CORRECTED

[bananaendian]

See also my follow up reply with a link to an actual published academic study on avionics interference. Have fun.

If ringing phones were really so dangerous...

[ArsenneLupin]

... then why do the terrorists spend so much effort trying to smuggle bottles of shampoo and other toiletries past the TSA perverts?

Re:Who wrote this article?

[PPH]

Instrument Landing System. Visual Flight Rules.

Electronic Devices Prohibited by TSA

[SeeSp0tRun]

This is the first step to forcefully confiscating all travelers' cell phones and laptops, in an effort to make sure our airlines are secure.
Step 1: produce shoddy article, with circumstantial evidence.
Step 2: blame random plane issue X on PED Y.
Step 3: ban PED's on commercial flights.
Step 4: create ridiculous scanning device for "safety"
Step 5: PROFIT

Woah, almost lost my tinfoil hat in that rage!

Re:Dear Slashdot dweebs,

[geekmux]

Yes, I am sure that you are right. As usual, the experts with decades of experience in avionics are completely out to lunch, while the Slashdot braniacs who live in their parent's basement have all the easy answers. If only the experts would read the freshman level textbooks, how much better the world would be! Oh wait... they have.

Sorry. The experts in the field may be right to some extent, but man was not meant to fly above the earth at 30,000+ feet. ALL flying carries some element of risk, and if said experts have not voiced their concerns loud enough to effect policy, then policy must be changed the hard way, which unfortunately usually means deaths have to occur.

Policy changes, and the costs involved, are usually reactionary. So, I say to the experts, either prove your case with a bit more than "anecdotal" evidence, or politely be quiet. Might also want to get the FCC/CFR involved too, since they're the ones who set Part 15 baselines years ago that 99% of consumer electronics must conform to. Perhaps ensuring that all avionics meet shielding requirements for FCC/CFR Part 15 guidelines does sound like a "freshmen-level" answer, but perhaps that's because it makes the most sense. If you can't meet those requirements, don't put it on the aircraft, OR do not allow PEDs in aircraft, period. Sounds pretty damn cut and dry to me.

As it happens

[pablo_max]

I actually used to work on the ILS system back in my AF days. As i recall, the system was working in the 900 and 1800 bands, at least in the US. It uses a 90 and 150 Hz tone modulated onto the carrier. Naturally, it is simple modulation.
As it also happens nearly every single GSM mobile phone is quad band, which just happens to also operate in 900 and 1800. So, when you are flying around and have no signal, your phone is searching all bands.
And even though the freq is in a different part of the band, your phone is also making spurious emissions and harmonics, which can in some cases be only 10dB less than the carrier. That is enough to jam and ILS.

Re:An engineer's reaction CORRECTED

[nonsequitor]

It's all about money, it's expensive to get a device certified for operation during takeoff and landing. I've worked for a couple avionics companies myself, and getting the radiated/conducted emissions down to the approved levels is not always an easy task.

That being said, Amazon should pony up the dough to get the Kindle approved for use during takeoff and landing with the wireless off. I doubt there's much of a difference between the radiated emissions in its standby mode with the screen blank and when reading since it takes no power to maintain the text. They would have to test a bunch of page turns to get worse case radiated emissions and would maybe change some clock frequencies to avoid harmonics that can interfere with communication to air traffic control etc, but I doubt there would be any major hardware changes.

Open field EM testing and modifying the hardware to fix any deficiencies is not a cheap process, and it often takes many hardware revisions even when the design engineers are experienced dealing with the emission requirements.

Not a problem?

[PPH]

Of course, your cell phone, laptop, whatever aren't interfering with aircraft avionics or comm systems. Or we'd be seeing numerous instances of aircraft dropping out of the sky.

What you don't see is the occasional 'squak' that a GSM phone can generate or the 'tick, tick' noise that WiFi equipment produces on a receiver in the cockpit.

In most cases, the occasional burst of interference is no more than an annoyance to the flight crew. Maybe they'll have to request a transmission be repeated. That's nothing you'd notice, so there's no problem. Right. One of the deadliest aircraft disasters occurred at Tenerife in part due to garbled radio traffic between ATC and a flight crew.

So please, turn your fucking iPhone off. If you can't be without it's continuous companionship, then don't fly. And seek help.

Re:Not a problem?

[Seumas]

If it's that big of a problem, they wouldn't be allowing them on board AT ALL.

If it's so sure to cause significant problems, do you really think the FAA and whoever else would just rely on the fucking honor-system of the entire planet's worth of air-travelers?!

That guy might have a bomb, better finger his anus for wires! Go ahead and leave him his cell phone, though. I'm sure we can trust him to turn it completely off for the trip.

Deductive Fallacy

[sjbe]

Internal sources of radiation are many orders of magnitude more disruptive for their power level.

That is not the same thing as saying they actually disrupt the electronics of the aircraft itself. Even granting that the radiation is amplified, the logic of your statement is a deductive fallacy. Saying "avionics are susceptible to interference from radiation" and then saying "aircraft bodies amplify radiation from consumer electronics" does not get you to "avionics are disrupted from consumer electronics". A + B does not equal C.

Re:An engineer's reaction CORRECTED

[Sentrion]

Somewhere there is an engineer that argued quite vehemently that there is no way the air speed sensors on an Airbus A330 could possibly all fail while the plane is on autopilot, leading the engines to stall in mid-flight. And even if it did, there are so many other redundant systems and skilled pilots to prevent the plane from crashing. Of course, that was before French investigators found the black box from Air France 447.

Interesting fact, BAD ARGUMENT.

[gurps_npc]

Lets also assume that consumer electronics do in fact not only affect avionics, but can cause a serious disruption. Perhaps even resulting in death.

Should we:

a. Ignore the problem completely, letting anyone use electronics on board.

b. Tell people not do, trusting that they won't, with perhaps minimal checks by stewards etc that will only stop casual users.

c. FIX THE GODDAMN SECURITY PROBLEM. Shield the plane, or whatever you have to do to prevent terrorists/stupid consumers who left the devices on in their suitcase from killing a plane.

The current idea of having flight attendents walk around and tell people to turn them off is MORONIC. If it is a real problem, then a terrorist could easily design a device to maximize disruption, create an auto-on feature that turns itself on when air pressure indicates it is high up and then give those devices away to people as games. The moron that decided we should keep using method B should be investigated for ties to Al Queada and other terrorist organizations.

I recognize security problems exist. I don't object to real attempts to fix them. I do object to fake PRETEND attempts that do nothing at all to fix a problem, but instead make air travel even more miserable than it already is.

I do not want to have to trust my life to a flight attendant catching people using these devices incorrectly. If you want me to do that, then you have to pay me to fly, not the other way around.

Note, I don't actually believe the study is relevant. I think they found some odd occurences and blamed them on the personal devices.

high school students

[dominious]

jee /. you are acting like high school students that don't understand why they should hush. Every student thinks that a little quiet talk is not going to cause a problem, but if you are a lecturer you would understand that this coming out from 30+ students can cause a lot of noise!

The regulation is for everyone on the plane, not just for you.

Re:high school students

[Travelsonic]

... so? It may be for everybody, that does not however make it immune frm scrutiny. Jeeez, what is with the gross generalizations some people like to take about /., or any site? /. IS NOT A HIVE MIND.

Re:high school students

[mjwx]

jee /. you are acting like high school students that don't understand why they should hush. Every student thinks that a little quiet talk is not going to cause a problem, but if you are a lecturer you would understand that this coming out from 30+ students can cause a lot of noise!

The regulation is for everyone on the plane, not just for you.

Finally, someone pointed that out. The problem isn't with one device, or even one rouge or malfunctioning device, the problem is with one hundred devices.

People are also ignoring the effects of acceleration on items not screwed or strapped to the plane itself. When Joe Idiot loses grip on his Iphone during take off, it does have enough weight under that much acceleration that it can break someone's nose. So imagine what an 700g tablet or 3 KG laptop could do.

When people sue over coffee being too hot, they will sure as hell sue when their own laptop gives them a broken nose. I already think the price of an air ticket is too high and every lawsuit over a passengers idiocy will make liability insurance skyrocket (which is already a significant part of your ticket cost).

So please, do as your told, airlines have spent a lot more time thinking about what could possibly go wrong then you have.

Re:An engineer's reaction CORRECTED

[tweak13]

Somewhere there is an engineer that argued quite vehemently that there is no way the air speed sensors on an Airbus A330 could possibly all fail

There is/was no engineer that argued this. Instead the argument was, "if this happens, what can we do to improve safety in that event?" That failure mode was thought of, I have absolutely no doubt. Engineers thought it was covered, they may have been wrong about that but I'll discuss that later.

leading the engines to stall in mid-flight

An aircraft stalling does not involve the engines, it involves airflow over the wings. Do you have any knowledge of the topic at all? Nothing I've read indicates there was an engine failure on that flight.

The aircraft crashed because when readings became invalid, the computer automatically disconnected the autopilot / autothrottle (as it should have). The pilots then made control inputs that were inappropriate for the situation. They were probably confused by the relative lack of data they had, and the multitude of warnings a complete air data failure causes. The pilots then held a nose up attitude through multiple stall warnings, eventually entering a period of extremely high sink rate. The aircraft had pitched up in excess of 35 degrees through this period, and the pilots held full nose up control inputs through almost all of it. It was the exact opposite of what they should have been doing. The pilots held the stall all the way into the ocean, impacting the water while still in a nose up attitude of more than 16 degrees.

I know people like to get up in arms whenever a crash is blamed on pilot error, but it's pretty clear in this case that the pilot's actions were inappropriate and their inability to recover from the stall despite ample opportunity will almost certainly be listed as the main cause of the accident. There were many contributing factors, but the data suggests that the aircraft would have flown just fine if given proper stall recovery inputs.

What could the engineers have done better? Indicate in a more useful way what was going on and which instruments were reliable. The pilots should have been able to tell at a glance what they should pay attention to and what they should ignore. The avionics display design may not have been good enough for them to do that. The stall warning may have deactivated inappropriately based on the invalid speed, because the computer thought the aircraft was traveling too slow for the angle of attack indicators to function correctly. This failure mode should not exist in my opinion. Either the angle of attack indicator should function at lower speeds, or an alternate stall indication should be used instead. Or just keep the warning on, since the aircraft is quite obviously not in landing configuration. From what I read, they were probably assaulted with a whole host of failure warnings that were confusing and may have contributed to a panic reaction.
Also, pilot training needs to be improved in some areas, especially involving loss of pitot static data. There is no reason an airplane of any type should crash because of a clogged pitot tube. This should be drilled into pilots starting with the most basic beginning flight training. I know from experience the topic is not covered at that level, besides a couple questions that may appear on the knowledge test. In fact, if I had not actually had a pitot tube get clogged during my training, I would have never encountered the situation at all.

There's some fairly good discussion about the events of the flight here.

Re:Who wrote this article?

[tweak13]

ILS can't be used in bad weather. They will either switch you to VFR or make you change airports.

This is one of the dumber comments I've seen in this article. ILS is made for bad weather, for various definitions of 'bad'. Why else would you need it?

No, you won't be using it in the middle of a severe thunderstorm, but in moderate rain or heavy fog, it's the only way to reliably land in that situation.

Yeah Sure.

[wideBlueSkies]

Like we haven't figured out that they want to condition the regulators and lawmakers to believe this bunk. The ultimate goal of this is so that the airlines can go back to selling us ridiculously expensive phone calls and other services....

Relevant Penny Arcade comic

[naroom]

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

Re:An engineer's reaction CORRECTED

[santix]

Great post, very insightful.

From an electronic technician who's interested in avionics, is there a book you would recommend to get more specific knowledge on the subject?

terrorists.

[bronney]

so next time instead of a box cutter all they need is overclocking a cellphone? Will that disrupt the plane so much that the pilot lose control of the control surface, altimeter, landing gear, etc. If not the pilot should still be able to fly or land it.

Personal devices are evolving rapidly ...

[perpenso]

This is what I don't understand. With all the discussions over this, how has this not been fully tested and answered? How can we not have a definitive answer by now? And if it has been answered, why it is still being debated?

Personal devices are evolving rapidly. There is no finishing point for testing, no definitive answer. In the article you will find that Boeing has identified devices that exceed acceptable emissions levels, the worst offender was an iPad. Tests from several years ago are obsolete.

Teleportation, do you speak it?

[tanujt]

Well, isn't it high time we invented it?
Funding agencies need to start funding high risk projects like these. Enough of directed research and optimization. Time to do some real science.

Re:An engineer's reaction CORRECTED

[purpledinoz]

And the financial experts didn't see the 2008 financial crisis coming... So I'll continue turning off my phone on take-off and landing because I like to increase my chances of living, even it if might be by only 0.00000000001%.

Re:An engineer's reaction CORRECTED

[Ultracrepidarian]

Yes, I'll be sure to check out your piece on Ultracrepidarianism.

Waterproof, not hyper-shielded

[Chris.Nelson]

That bulky cable going into the thing on his lap is waterproof, oil-proof, vibration-resistant and possibly Kevlar-jacketed. No doubt there's some shield but not very much more than COTS cables. Military Ethernet switches (e.g., http://sixnet.com/product/8-port-ip67-gigabit-managed-or-unmanaged-switch-174.cfm) are filled with resin to protect them from the harsh environment but not don't have any extra shielding.

Faraday Cage

[uninformedLuddite]

911 911 911 - someone had to say it

Article Not Available

[Jeruvy]

How can anyone evaluate this when the Article Is Not Available.  (Page 404)?

Isn't it kinda stupid to post stories from sites that don't keep anything up for more than a couple days?