Slashdot Mirror
Time to Review FAA Gadget Policies
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.)"
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.
the policy for putting away devices during take-off and landing is a sound one, for safety alone. take-off and landing are the most hazardous times during a flight. having small, solid, dense objects like cell phones, tablets, e-readers, game devices and the like unsecured during take-off or landing is just inviting trouble. for those times, it's probably better to avoid people being hit by the errant portable electronic device instead of allowing the "convenience" of their use.
...is the use of devices like Bluetooth mice and other short-range radio devices that don't communicate to a distance more than a few feet. I want to be able to use Bluetooth headphones and Bluetooth mice on a plane where getting tangled up with wires is a very unappealing prospect.
I'm not too worried about cell phones acting as such, as we'll be too high and going too fast to make that do any good (plus I don't want a plane full of chatterboxes), and I'm not terribly worried about wifi, as either the airline will provide a means for it or else they won't. The only time that for me, wifi might be useful is if I'm travelling with a group that's split up and we want to share text communication or else want to collaborate on documents. Then something ad-hoc might actually make sense.
That's about it.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
You can ban pretty much anything in the name of safety.
Wait, electric razors are permitted? Why? Do you really, _really_ need to shave during that 1-5 minute take-off/landing window? I thought there were two main reasons for this rule---interference, and potential for projectiles. The interference argument is probably weak for most devices, but the potential to act as unintended projectiles is real, and a limitation that makes very good sense to me.
Really people, just put back in the back for that period, you can survive without it for a few minutes: just talk to someone near you, stare vacantly and think of your next twinkie fix, whatever, just leave the heavy metal items in the bag.
I've been involved in this for a long time, including the Supplemental Type Certification and FAA processes to get WiFi on aircraft. Most of what happens to get you to turn them off during takeoff and landing has little to do with interference, it's to get your attention and to get you to follow directions. All of that is really important to your safety more-so than a nudeo-scan 5000 operated by the TSA. The other aspects such as Cellular Phone use during flights also isn't a technical risk to the aircraft but the annoyance factor to other passengers as well as coordination possibilities for terrorist activities.. Think "Ackbar we're over Chicago, what do I do?" That's why the damn in-flight position tracking on larger aircraft suddenly turns off when you're close to arrival. Some of this is a bit silly because we've allowed WiFi on planes and you can log into flight tracker or use the GOGO website to track where you are. The safety feature there is that it shuts off below 10,000 feet automatically and there's always a breaker in the cockpit that the pilots can use to shut it off.
If the FAA wants to review this then great but there's a lot more to it than just "possible" interference with aircraft systems and I don't expect that the airlines will open up the floodgates and let you use anything you want, when you want either just because of the annoyance issues.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
The question is whether it actually *does* affect safety.
It should be possible to certify a device as being physically impossible to cause a problem. Calculate the maximum possible short-circuit discharge current due to capacitance in the device. Calculate the maximum interference noise on frequencies of importance. Determine whether that could disrupt communication on those frequencies in a flight-threatening manner.
One could also compare devices to other existing sources of electronic noise -- the potential discharge of say, a digital wristwatch, a static spark from moving around in the plane, static from wind blowing across aircraft flight surfaces, etc.
Even if existing devices are too high power, there should be able to be a point in which you can say, "if your device is constructed thusly, we'll let your consumers use it on a plane". And then leave it up to manufacturers to get their maximum potential sources of interference down to spec.
Teach me to love you, you squishy poet from beyond the stars!
To be on a plane full of people yapping on their cellphones.
It will be just like going to the movies. Only you can't leave.
The head of the FAA of course!
Task Mangler
"Earlier this year, aviation journalist Christine Negroni obtained a copy of a confidential report from the International Air Transport Association that indicated the use of personal electronics on commercial aircraft had interfered with flight deck operations in 75 instances over the past seven years.
What kind of problems? I’m not sure you want to know. All cockpit systems were affected, flight controls, communication, navigation and emergency warnings. . . .
And
The use of PEDs [Personal Electronic Devices. –DS] on board will not – I repeat – will not cause a plane to go tumbling through the sky like something in a made-for-TV-disaster movie. What PEDs can and in fact have already done, is create a distraction for the flight crew. When that distraction comes at the wrong time it can lead to pants-wetting episodes and maybe even disaster. And that is why boys and girls, devices are supposed to be turned off as in OFF, below 10 thousand feet. The concept is that with sufficient altitude below us there is time to address any pesky error messages that might wind up being transmitted to the cockpit. Only now we know that those messages are pretty darn common."
Handhelds on Airplanes a Bigger Problem Than You Think
In small planes you certainly do, I've talked on a cell phone from within a cessna, and many headsets designed for small aircraft have bluetooth to connect to your cell phone (older ones had connectors for the wired jack on cell phones) so that you can talk on your cell phone despite the loud environment.
When I last flew on a military aircraft the flight engineer was talking on his cell phone to communicate with the rescue coordination centre when the HF radio failed.
Cell towers do aim somewhat downward, but at altitude you have nothing to block your signal, so they often work anyway.
That said, if cell phones were permitted on planes, you can bet the wireless carriers would rush to sign contracts to install small cell sites inside the planes. works better with their network, and you can bet they'd find a way to add a premium "airplane roaming charge" of some form.
In a perfect world I'd like to see it where you are allowed to use your cell phone all you want on a plane, as long as you don't talk on it. Texting and data are fine, but please don't chat on your phone for the whole flight, out of courtesy to the rest of the passengers!
had bad wiring on in-flight entertainment that started a fire.
And that makes the handhelds bump up their power to max to try to connect with the ones on the ground, increasing the problem (if any) from spurious transmissions.
Learn to love Alaska
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/travel/2009-03-22-electronics-fires-airlines_N.htm
It's pretty much common knowledge in the airline industry that the takeoff and landing blackout is more about controlling pax and being able to get their attention than any interference issue.
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
.. 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
How is this any more complicated than CE certification?
How is it any easier to fake than CE certification?
How is it any more complex for flight attendants than saying "If your device isn't certified for use on airplane during takeoff?"
Why wouldn't manufacturers advertise the heck out of whether their products are certified or not?
Why do you think that flight attendants wouldn't quickly learn the most common certified and non-certified products? Do they not talk with each other? Do they not see product ads?
How is the chance of people lying and using non-certified products any worse than people who "accidentally" leave their phones or other devices on today?
Teach me to love you, you squishy poet from beyond the stars!
I'd be much less interested in this getting changed, if this was just about take-offs and landings. But, here in Atlanta, the taxi-ing part of the trip sometimes seems like it is longer than the actual flight.
BS. If that were true why don't the frickin terrorist bring down every plane in the world simply by turning on a phone/computer/tablet during takeoff or landing? And you know that people have them on anyway. Can't tell you how many people I've witnessed on planes use these devices (hiding them when a flight attendant is near) and, geewhiz, no planes have crashed because of it.
The last time I flew on an airplane I took out my Android phone and turned on an app that uses GPS to track your elevation, speed, direction, pitch etc. It was a blast to watch how fast the plane accelerated down the runway, pitch as we would turn, and what the take-off, cruising, landing speeds. I then switched to google maps and watched as I zipped across states. It was a ton of fun.
And guess what? No ill effects on the airplane.
Faith is a willingness to accept something w/o complete proof and to act on it. Reason allows you to correct that faith.
I don't know why you'd want a GPS running on a plane anyway, but aren't they receivers? Does anybody here know what and how much they emit?
WiFi is approved for planes. I've been on multiple flights with it. They have little APs somewhere in the plane and you can turn your laptop on and get on the Internet, for a large fee. Bluetooth operates int eh same 2.4Ghz spectrum, just with less power. So I fail to see who it could cause problems that WiFi does not.
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).
And do you expect the flight attendants to be able to tell the difference between every one? How do you implement this?
The same way the airline does all of their other training. A short, 30 minute horribly produced instructional presentation with a little test at the end. And that's only if its really important. Something minor, they just have you click a button that says you read something you've actually never even seen.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
They just don't.
You don't even legally have to turn them off during take off or landing. That's why airplane mode exists on your smartphone. It is transmitting and receiving nothing. Therefore you can legally leave it on during all aspects of your flight. Just don't tell anybody, and they won't notice.
Get your free Dropbox account with 2 GB Free storage!
Anonymous Coward has been on the watch list for years.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
But there's no difference between a smart phone and tablet. One just has a bigger screen, and that's it. Obviously talking about 3g tablets, and ignoring the ipad which is artificially gimped to stop you from using it to send/recv text messages and calls without jailbreaking it. Android tablets are just big screen phones.
You can tell how powerful someone is by the magnitude of the crime they can commit and be able to get away with.
I'm sorry you have such trouble understanding basic physics.
His argument is not that objects flying about the cabin aren't hazardous, it's that small electronic devices are no more dangerous than books. I don't know about Australia, but on airlines in the USA, I've never been asked to put away a book or magazine for takeoff, while flight attendants regularly warn people that all electronic devices (Kindles, iPods, phones, etc) *must* be put away for takeoff.
Why do I have to put away my 8 ounce Kindle during takeoff when the guy next to me gets to read his thick 24 ounce hardcover book? Granted, if the book hits you in the right way (open pages against your body), it might hurt less than a phone hitting on you on edge, but surely airlines aren't relying on geometry of a book strike lessening the blow?
If your airlines make you put away all handheld objects, then they are much more consistent than our airlines.
In most cases, you're talking about a few minutes before and during takeoff and a few minutes during landing. During that time, read a book.
I've certainly used tablets, phones (for apps), and laptops all other times during flight.
There is no one on this planet who can't live without the Internet for the duration of a flight. If you are so insanely important, buy the plane's service.
Advice: on VPS providers
Well, I can assure you that if actual mobile phone use during flights is approved, as in allowing passengers to make and receive calls, I will be first in line to boycott air transportation. I sincerely hope this is not even on the table.
Can you imagine what a cacaphonic mess it would be if everyone was allowed to use their mobile phones during flights? It's bad enough that you are sitting in a tin can with hundreds of people in close quarters for several hours. Add in mobile phones ringing all the damn time and people talking continuously on their phones and it will be a nightmare to travel by air. No thanks.
As for the physics, here's a video where the acceleration is around 10 kph per second, which translates to about 0.3g. An object 2 meters in the air undergoing 0.3g horizontal and 1g vertical acceleration will hit the floor after about 0.64 seconds, traveling 0.6m horizontally in the process. That's hardly a projectile. If my book slipped it might hit the feet or ankles of the person behind me, but there's usually a seat in the way anyway. None of this sounds remotely dangerous.
As for your really crappy link, it doesn't support your statement inasmuch as it does not discuss objects becoming projectiles during takeoff or landing. It certainly makes me disinclined to believe the rest of your assertions.
do you really want be trying to get to an exit with everyone between you and that door trying to put a laptop away?
Yes, because I'll get there a lot faster if I'm climbing while everyone else is busy putting away laptops.
You have to realize that most aircraft in service have been in service for decades.
RF interference didn't exist back in the 70s?
But are you really that inconvenienced to turn off your device for 5 minutes out of a 5-hour long flight that that it is that much of an issue?
Sounds like the guy back thousands of years ago who suggested against going outside the cave at night, because of possible unforseeable danger. "Why not just stay indoors where it's safe? Are you really that inconvenienced to only go out in the day, when it's clear light out and you can see what you're doing?"
Airlines have a responsibility to limit such liability.
Good for them. Doesn't compel any action on my part. I paid hundreds of dollars for this plane ticket. I'm a big boy, with strong hands. Sorry that weak ass people drop books, but it isn't a problem for me and I have no need of a nanny. I can hold mine just fine, thanks.
OK, morally then. Morally they can go fuck themselves. I'll continue using my smart phone/PDA/whatever because I choose to, there's no reason I shouldn't, and nobody's going to make me do otherwise.Try arguing your way out of that one.
You really don't understand statistics, do you?
A laughably ironic statement, considering that statistics is nothing more than a way of evaluating risk.....which comes from unknowns.
What's the "chances" of an apple falling upwards if I drop it?
The correct solution to airline safety is not dreaming up fantastical "OMG WHAT IF" scenarios based on our fears, and fill the world full of unnecessarily restrictive rules, but to figure out the unknowns and identify the actual problem(s) (IF any actually exist), then take specific measures to solve them.
There is so much discussion and yet very little actual studies/experiments/tests/results. Lotsa this and that, people ask for citations and they get media articles. OK but they are all third-hand sources usually with cases of pilot noticing certain instruments behaving erratically but it stopped when four people were told to turn off their cellphones (OK like the guy said he flushed his toilet and it started raining, therefore flushing that guy's toilet will cause rain in SF). Then there is "OMG, PEDs will take down a plane" well then how come terrirists haven't used PEDs? I mean arrggg, where's a webpage or a report I can read from an authoritative source? I guess there is none, it's all sales and marketing. Pop quiz: how many cellphone users know what frequencies (or freq bands) do their devices use? Most users don't need to know but I would think "experts" should be able to answer the question. Temujin_12 had interesting post of using Android phone with app using GPS to track elevation, speed, direction, pitch.
They say about "back seat" phones but I haven't seen those in past ten years. OK I don't fly all the time but there isn't many of those around. I heard they removed these to prevent misinformation and panic in case of another hijacking. But really, can someone in authority give us an honest answer? I can understand putting devices away during takeoff and landings as these can become projectiles in case of a crash landing. If I could wave the magic wand, I'd have someone in authority (i.e. FAA chief) give us a straight forward answer why these procedures are in place (but probably get stuck with a politico appointee with no technical knowledge).
mfwright@batnet.com
There's no difference between a smartphone and a 3G Kindle.
I'm too lazy to dig up the study right now, but there have been more than one that show that talking on a cell phone is significantly more annoying to other people in the vicinity than talking to another person who is there. It's something to do with the way the mind parses hearing only one side of a conversation. If you can hear both sides of a conversation you can tune it out, hearing only one side you end up having to listen to each time the person starts talking again and can't tune it out as easily.
courtesy to the rest of the passengers!
That alone deserves "+5 - Wishful Thinking" ;)
Not everything that can be measured matters; Not everything that matters can be measured.