Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Time to Review FAA Gadget Policies

Posted by samzenpus on from the please-leave-on-electronic-devices dept.

Nick Bilton, Lead Technology writer for The New York Times Bits Blog, called the FAA to complain about its gadget policies on flights and got an unexpected reply. Laura J. Brown, deputy assistant administrator for public affairs, said that it might be time to change some of those policies and promised they'd take a “fresh look” at the use of personal electronics on planes. From the article: "Yes, you read that correctly. The F.A.A., which in the past has essentially said, 'No, because I said so,' is going to explore testing e-readers, tablets and certain other gadgets on planes. The last time this testing was done was 2006, long before iPads and most e-readers existed. (The bad, or good, news: The F.A.A. doesn’t yet want to include the 150 million smartphones in this revision.)"

15 of 292 comments (clear)

  1. About time common sense prevailed! by SultanCemil · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Obviously, electronic devices can't bring down a plane. Millions of fliers every week "forget" to turn off their devices, and nary a plane goes down. Can common sense finally prevail? Arbitrary rules reduce respect for the necessary ones. For example: No headphones during take-off? Makes perfect sense - take-off is one of the most sensitive times of the flight. If someone needs to yell directions, you need to hear them. Reading a book on your Kindle? Not so much.

    Having said that, of course, if my plane is going down, I'd probably take off my headphones. YMMV.

    --
    Cemil.
    1. Re:About time common sense prevailed! by 0123456 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So what would you think if you were the B777 pilot who's radio communication with air traffic control was interrupted by a passenger's cell phone call? Or if you were the captain in command of a B747 that unexpectedly lost autopilot after takeoff and did not get it back until 4, count 'em four passengers turned off their portable electronic devices?

      I would think that Boeing did a piss-poor job of protecting the aircraft against interference.

      Clearly terrorists are stupid when they try to sneak bombs on board; a dozen of them should bring iPads and iPhones onto a flight and turn them all on at the same time during takeoff.

    2. Re:About time common sense prevailed! by green1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Was any followup ever done on any of those 35 cases to see if the cell phones were actually the cause of the interference?

      Incident reports of that form are simply "the crew says this happened"... it would be a lot more convincing if some followup was done to see if it was actually cell phone interference, or other interference that just happened to abate some time after a known cell phone was turned off.

      It should be noted that the study linked stated that they weren't able to reproduce the results. Additionally the test they did that did show some interference had several unlikely assumptions. First of all, the equipment they used was that used in general aviation, not commercial aviation. It was also all old and outdated equipment unlikely to be in use on any airliner. Additionally the cell phone had to be on maximum power (I'm also not sure where they found a cell phone with a maximum power of 2 watts! I haven't seen one that powerful since the old brick phones of the late 1980s!) and less than 30cm from the equipment before it caused any interference.

      Hardly a reliable study for the current situation we are discussing.

    3. Re:About time common sense prevailed! by MacGyver2210 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A blogger citing one instance of a handheld GPS system interfering with the plane-mounted one? Gee, that's a whole lot of trouble given the last ~100 years of flying and how little PEDs have done to cause problems on planes.

      In the immortal words of Toby from The West Wing:

      Flight Attendant on AF1: "Sir you need to put away your phone, we're about to take off."
      Toby: "If my $36 phone from Radio Shack can bring down Air Force One, we have bigger problems than we thought."

      --
      If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
    4. Re:About time common sense prevailed! by MacGyver2210 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But they don't care if you have your electronics out. They don't care if you're holding your iPod. They just want it turned off.

      --
      If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
    5. Re:About time common sense prevailed! by hal2814 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      " Seriously. Just shut your fucking iPad off for five minutes."

      Tell that to the pilots and crew who are using them now instead of lugging around a flight bag full of charts. Their iPad is the same one you can buy anywhere. If their which are sitting right in the cockpit aren't gumming up the works, I fail to see how mine magically will.

  2. Re:What's so bad about their policies? by FatAlb3rt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You can ban pretty much anything in the name of safety.

  3. Re:some parts are fine by Nursie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    While I agree with what you're saying, and think it may be a good idea it doesn't seem to be the point of the rule -

    I'm perfectly allowed to read a hardcover book during these times.

  4. Re:The other side of the story by rwa2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Word.

    It doesn't even really matter if the device is capable of creating interference. The fact is, when the aircraft suddenly jumps and the lights flicker out and the oxygen masks drop from the overhead compartments, everyone and their flight attendants are going to be glaring down with dirty looks at the guy with the little glowing electronic device, thinking "what the FUCK did you DO?!" and they're not going to care one bit what the answer is. Not even the NTSB report that comes out months later is going to vindicate him or ease that guilt one bit.

    Yeah, I used to be that guy. :-P

  5. Re:The other side of the story by meerling · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You have to wonder about the planes when they claim they are vulnerable to em interference from a device who's em radiation is less than that of your watch, the microwave in the onplane galley, the lightning bolts that go off even on clear days, or the radio station 150 miles away.

    (Not all devices have this kind of shielding, but some do. Anything with wifi turned on definitely do NOT.)

  6. Re:What's so bad about their policies? by Keebler71 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    .. and whose job is it to maintain the list of which of the hundreds of thousands of consumer electronic devices comply and which failed? And do you expect the flight attendants to be able to tell the difference between every one? How do you implement this? Maybe a nice little (easily forged) sticker for the back of the device?

    --
    "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
  7. Re:The other side of the story by 0123456 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This raises a very serious question: Why are airplane electronics not designed for noise immunity? It seems like such an obvious solution, like adding security doors to the cockpit after 9/11.

    To be fair, much as it should be the airline's job to ensure the aircraft can't be affected, replacing the cockpit door is a heck of a lot easier than replacing aircraft avionics or rewiring them to prevent interference. Even before you consider the cost of the new hardware, that could require taking the aircraft out of service for weeks at a cost of six figures or more of lost revenue per week.

    Newer aircraft should be more robust, but the older ones will be around for decades yet.

  8. Re:The other side of the story by Nidi62 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This raises a very serious question: Why are airplane electronics not designed for noise immunity?

    You have to realize that most aircraft in service have been in service for decades. For example, Boeing 737s first came out in 1968. MD-88s/90s came out in 79/95. Except for the MD-90, these planes were designed and produced when a "personal electronic device" was a radio set that would fit on a table, maybe an 8-track or cassette player. It wasn't really expected that they'd run into much interference from passenger devices. It is very hard and expensive to retrofit aircraft already in service as well as to adjust production lines. A lot of people don't realize that the plane they're flying in very possibly was designed and built before they were born.

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  9. Oh stop by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    People trot this tired line out again and again with NO BACKING. If that is the case why isn't the order then "Everything must be put away for takeoff, no electronics, books, or anything else may be in your hands." They don't mind if you have a book out, I've done it many a time. Guess what? A book, particularly a hard cover one, will do more damage than a phone, yet only electronics are banned. That is not the reason for the ban. Sorry, try again (or just go look at the FAA's actual policies, they aren't a secret).

  10. Re:The other side of the story by beanpoppa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If they just used that as there reasoning- that they require everyone to pay attention, then they would have more credibility. However, they give the bogus excuse that it's for interference, that they lose all credibility. They confiscate my toothpaste and nail trimmers in the name of safety, and I'm supposed to believe that my ereader will bring down the plane and they let it slide?