FAA To Reevaluate Inflight Electronic Device Use

coondoggie writes "If you have been on a commercial airline, the phrase 'The use of any portable electronic equipment while the aircraft is taxiing, during takeoff and climb, or during approach and landing,' is as ubiquitous but not quite as tedious as 'make sure your tray tables are in the secure locked upright position.' But the electronic equipment restrictions may change. The Federal Aviation Administration today said it was forming a government-industry group to study the current portable electronic device use policies commercial aviation use to determine when these devices can be used safely during flight."

Comments

Oh please no

[Anonymous Coward]

The last thing needed in a crowded airplane are self-important loud mouths blabbing on cell phones.

Re:Oh please no

[ThatsMyNick]

Or heaven forbid, silently reading their book on e-book reader.

Re:Oh please no

[Picass0]

I'd rather you were blabbing on the phone than talking to me.

Re:Oh please no

[Anonymous Coward]

Technically, it's not even on as long as you don't change the page.

Re:Oh please no

[zonky]

I can see why they don't want people using such devices during take off and landing. (i.e, paying attention to the crew in an emergency). If you're using the IFE system, they can interupt that - not if you're on an IPOD buried in a e-reader etc.

Re:Oh please no

[SomePgmr]

I don't see why it has to be all-or-nothing.

Readers, tablets, mp3 players? Cool.
Mobile phone conversations? No way.

And they probably don't need any justification, but they could just say, "we need to keep the obnoxious chatter to a minimum during those times so people will hear instructions and announcements from the crew."

Re:Oh please no

[jb11]

Second paragraph in the article. "The group however will not "consider the airborne use of cell phones for voice communications during flight.""

Re:Oh please no

[ThatsMyNick]

Exactly my point. I was responding to the knee jerk reaction of the anon.

Re:Oh please no

[poetmatt]

you mean like people do on trains, buses, etc?

god forbid you're forced to acknowledge that a ton of people are gigantic assholes (including the person who takes personal offense at others daring to communicate) and leave it to society to encourage them to not blab on the phone. You know, like functional society.

Re:Oh please no

[ThatsMyNick]

Not this again. This has been discussed to death. If they do not ask people to put away regular books, why should I be asked to put away my ebook reader. Either make a consistent rule that one should put away any sort of distraction away, for the sake of situation awareness or dont prohibit anything.

Re:Oh please no

[therealslartybardfas]

Cell phone use on commercial flights aren't banned because of the disruption they do to the airplane, they are banned because of the disruption they will do to the cell network. At 30,000 feet, your cell phone will attempt to connect to 100's of cells at once. This obviously causes network congestion. If people really did turn off their phones during commercial flights, we would have more cell bandwidth on the ground.

Re:Oh please no

[Anonymous Coward]

Ebooks make you look like a hipster. And it is the duty of every airline to harass the hipsters about their electronic shirts, anti-TSA logos, and funny electronics. But don't worry, pretty soon black rimmed glasses and mixed "vintage-inspired" clothing will get you put on the no-fly list.

In other news, Crocs will always be welcome (because they scare hipsters).

Re:Oh please no

[sortius_nod]

This is why on aircraft that are licensed to allow cell phone use carry their own femtocell style access points. There aren't many airlines/aircraft that are licensed, but the trials have been in place for some time.

The main problem with cell phones on planes is a customer problem: the cost. They charge at international roaming rates, so it's not worth it unless you're making money off the call.

Re:Oh please no

[Anonymous Coward]

Try explaining that to the stewardess or pilot, or anyone who's capable of kicking up a stink if you don't shut off your electronic device (even if it's a 100% non-transmitting device, like a GPS receiver) like a good little sheep.

Personally, I said 'screw it', and was mildly amused at watching the altitude and speed of the plane on my GPSr hidden beside me. Needed the antenna pretty much right at the window, but I was able to sit comfortably with it hidden, only to be glanced at every so often for amusement.

Do I feel even the slightest bit bad, or worried that I put others at risk? NO! I feel bad that it got shifted slightly and I lost the satellite connection for about 10 minutes in the middle, but that's it. It's not a transmitting device, ergo it is physically and electronically incapable of doing anything during takeoff, landing, or otherwise, and anyone who tries to say otherwise is an idiot. It's "output" if you can call it that, is whatever energy could have 'leaked' outside the device from two AA batteries being used at very low power. Kids shoes with those stupid LEDs that light up with every step would cause more of a problem, if not purely due to it being turned off and on repeatedly.

Re:Oh please no

[Russ1642]

GPS is a receive only technology. You weren't transmitting anything.

Re:Oh please no

[Anonymous Coward]

but you can't hear any announcements from the crew unless you are 3 rows away - my favorite spot, the very last row is like sitting in a wind tunnel - I can't hear screaming babies, or the drunks, or the dbags. It's wonderful - but hearing anything from the tiny little cabin speaker is futile.

Re:Oh please no

[hierophanta]

the difference that i see, is that I can take my 1000 page paperback and throw it as hard as i could and it would hardly even hurt you. the hardback of the same book will likely hurt, but the e-reader with its strong construction that is made to not give is most likely going to cause the most amount of damage. and if it hits something and comes apart it there could be flying glass all over the place.

my understanding of why the items need to be put away was that it is the same reasoning as to why you need to wear the seatbelt. its not to keep you safe in your seat, its more to keep you from becoming a projectile weapon.

Re:Oh please no

[hierophanta]

+1 the need for a functional society

Re:Oh please no

[verifine]

Here's an honest evaluation of "what's really going on." It's established that crew often use iPads or other tablets as their checklist reference. Fine, wonderful! OK, we're much closer to the instruments, and our CPU clock, refresh clock, etc. are much more likely to cause interference. I call B.S. on the whole thing. There are emissions and there are emissions.

If there are radio frequency emissions from your CPU, your GPU, etc., you *could* be interfering. If there are emissions from your RF-rich device that wasn't properly designed, why that's your problem (or more properly, the people who manufactured the iWhatsit).

FWIW, I once enjoyed an LAX->PDX (Los Angeles to Portland OR) flight where I used my pillow to hide the GPS antenna (we're talking Garmin GPS III here) that was jammed against the left window (hooray for window seats!) and used a WinXX laptop connected by serial cable to watch our progress, with some software I don't remember at the moment. The altimeter function of the GPS was pretty acurate, and it was fun to observe how the pilot strictly followed "IFR" (I Follow Roads) rules. We tracked Interstate 5 up to the Oregon border, then we cut across from Grass Pants (oops, Grant's Pass) direct to Portland. I didn't, in fact, blow up the airliner in flight - and we landed without incident. Those were the days.

The plane didn't suddenly swerve when I switched on the GPS, or for that matter, the laptop. Eternity did not stare the passengers right in the face. Calamity did not ensue.

This is not presented as an absolute refutation of claims made by various (too lazy to work) government employees. It's my personal experience. I ENJOYED seeing where we were. It didn't matter where we were, it was simply enjoyable to be empowered to the point where I had independent confirmation we weren't on a direct route to Miami FL (or pick some other destination.)

Much ado about nothing, sez I.

Re:Oh please no

[FrankSchwab]

Actually, the receiver will generate very low level signals that propagate out from the device as part of the Rx circuits. This is no big deal - unless your GPS is in your pocket, you're in the window seat, and the plane's GPS receiver is mounted between the plastic interior skin and the outer aluminum skin (what, you thought the plane's GPS RF section was in the cockpit?). Your GPS receiver will be putting out a tiny signal, but it may still swamp the signal being received from the satellites 12,000 miles (20000 km) away.

For example, there was a report to the NASA pilot safety program:
"In 2007, one pilot recounted an instance when the navigational equipment on his Boeing 737 had failed after takeoff. A flight attendant told a passenger to turn off a hand-held GPS device and the problem on the flight deck went away." (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/18/business/18devices.html). This is apocryphal, and even if true would likely be the result of a badly damaged or badly designed device that didn't meet FCC regulations - but if you're going to allow a million people to carry on any electronic device they might have, in whatever condition it might be in, you're going to run into these kinds of receive-only-devices-that-transmit-worrisome-amounts-of-unexpected_RF.

This (http://gpsinformation.net/airgps/gsm_intf1.pdf) discusses the likely interference caused by phones in an aircraft; the big worry isn't so much modern planes and electronics, as it is electronics and planes designed before 1984:
"From the above, by comparing the test results with the qualification levels given in Section 2, it
can be seen that interference levels produced by a portable telephone, used near the flight deck or
avionics equipment bay, will exceed demonstrated susceptibility levels for equipment qualified to
standards published prior to July 1984. Since equipment qualified to these standards are installed in older
aircraft, and can be installed (and is known to be installed) in newly built aircraft, current policy for
restricting the use of portable telephones on all aircraft will need to remain in force." Of course, this document is 12 years old now, discussing designs that were current 16 years previously.

Re:Oh please no

[SilverJets]

Yes but you have to look at it from the point of view of the cabin crew. They can't take the time to evaluate every single piece of electronic equipment passengers want to use during the flight to make sure that none of them are transmitting. God, look how long it takes everyone just to stow their bags and sit their asses down in their seats. Now imagine the cabin crew having to check everyone's devices individually as well. The plane would never take off. So its easier to use the blanket statement of "No electronic devices during take off and landing". Honestly, is it really that fucking hard to not fiddle with your gps, or phone, or kindle, or tablet, or ipad, or whatever for a few minutes? Read the damn sky mall magazine for fuck's sake.

Re:Oh please no

[Russ1642]

My point wasn't about stray RF emitted from a maltfunctioning device. There are just scores of people out there who think that their wimpy GPS receiver is transmitting signals to the GPS satellites.

Re:Oh please no

[Anonymous Coward]

I still record all my flights using my phone's GPS. I acquire a GPS lock, as soon as I am in the airport, then put it on Airplane mode so that it does transmit anything and record it using "My Tracks" app. I also occasionally turn on Osmand to track my flight, check the cities I am flying over, identify mountains and lakes I passing through.
 
I have done this in over 10 flights now, and atleast 4 international ones.

Re:Oh please no

[Anonymous Coward]

I know these devices don't usually cause problems during takeoff and landing because it's safe to assume there's already been thousands of people like you that have tested the avionics, dismissing any-and-all warnings, because they're sure it'll be fine and really want to play with their toys. So congratulations on your Best Buy grade equipment not causing any problems. I actually feel safer in the air because of it.

Re:Oh please no

[Anonymous Coward]

Do people actually turn off their devices in a plane? I put my phone on airplane mode in order to avoid major battery drainage but otherwise I simply hide my devices until they say we can take them out.

Re:Oh please no

[Anonymous Coward]

Leaving aside for a second whether or not cellular communications or wifi signals are actually BAD for a flight, it's fairly easy to see the difference between your ereader and a book. I've never seen a book with a 3G or a WiFi card. Can you imagine the bedlam it would created if the flight attendants had to memorize or verify the communication status of all the current ereaders out there? Simpler to just require them all to be off.

Re:Oh please no

[X0563511]

That's what he said. Look again :)

Re:Oh please no

[X0563511]

Read the damn sky mall magazine for fuck's sake.

Why would I want to read material that's 98% advertisement?

Re:Oh please no

[X0563511]

The flux compass doohickeys are not in the cockpit. Neither are the communications radios.

Those are all on the wings, belly, and back of the plane - around the passengers.

Re:Oh please no

[X0563511]

You must have bought that phone outside the US? (GPS need to shut themselves down above certain altitudes and velocities to be commercially sold in the US, for "weaponization" reasons)

Re:Oh please no

[Anonymous Coward]

You think his plane was over 59,000 feet and going more than 1100 miles/hour?

Re:Oh please no

[Wraithlyn]

I can understand the potential concern with transmission capabilities.

But many airlines will tell you that even if you can shut that off (ie, "Airplane Mode"), it's still not enough and the device must be completely shut off. Which makes no sense whatsoever.

Re:Oh please no

[GlassHeart]

So bring a book or magazine. Or chat with your seatmate. Or take a nap. It takes about half an hour for the plane to reach cruising altitude. You'll survive.

Re:Oh please no

[ColaMan]

The limits on GPS are a fair way beyond what you get with commercial passenger aircraft.

According to wikipedia the CoCom limits are "moving faster than 1,000 knots (1,900 km/h; 1,200 mph) at an altitude higher than 60,000 feet (18,000 m)"

Re:Oh please no

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh crap !

Now that you have uncovered this "fact", all that a terrorist needs to do is get a gps jammer (available on post order for a few $) and bring down an airplane.

We are doomed!
Doomed I tells you...

Re:Oh please no

[isorox]

Leaving aside for a second whether or not cellular communications or wifi signals are actually BAD for a flight, it's fairly easy to see the difference between your ereader and a book. I've never seen a book with a 3G or a WiFi card. Can you imagine the bedlam it would created if the flight attendants had to memorize or verify the communication status of all the current ereaders out there? Simpler to just require them all to be off.

Or much more likely, it will stay on, not in flight mode, in someone's bag. Along with their cellphone.

Re:Oh please no

[isorox]

This is why on aircraft that are licensed to allow cell phone use carry their own femtocell style access points. There aren't many airlines/aircraft that are licensed, but the trials have been in place for some time.

The main problem with cell phones on planes is a customer problem: the cost. They charge at international roaming rates, so it's not worth it unless you're making money off the call.

Most of us travelling on business have no problem paying $2-3 a minute for international calls. I ran up a $160 data bill this month. It's peanuts compared to the cost of sending me somewhere on a plane. Hell a flak jacket alone costs $100 to rent.

Re:Oh please no

[rastos1]

For some people a flight is a major event. They want to record it on the GPS, camera and camcorder.

Re:Oh please no

[MaskedSlacker]

So, you didn't read your parent's post then?

even if it's a 100% non-transmitting device, like a GPS receiver

Was what he said before telling the story. I know, I know, this is /. and no one reads what they're responding to.

Re:Oh please no

[MaskedSlacker]

e-reader with its strong construction that is made to not give is most likely going to cause the most amount of damage. and if it hits something and comes apart it there could be flying glass all over the place.

So, you've never seen a Kindle then.

Re:Oh please no

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, they can't.

Re:Oh please no

[FridgeFreezer]

Pretty much anything electronic generates some noise, as pretty much everything has some sort of oscillator in it, because these days everything has some sort of microprocessor in it. Even if your device is off, its battery might have its own processor ticking away. Any device which remembers the correct time through power-down must have *some* oscillator running ALL THE TIME. Your phone probably has 3-4 radios in it (1/2/3/4G, WiFi, Bluetooth, NFC, FM). There's so much complexity hidden in modern stuff (not just obvious electronic devices like phones/laptops) that people forget it's even there. And sometimes made very poorly.

Re:Oh please no

[prisoner-of-enigma]

At 30,000 feet, your cell phone will attempt to connect to 100's of cells at once.

Uh...nope. Cell towers don't have omnidirectional antennae, mindlessly broadcasting signal in all directions. They have sector antennae and are usually aimed slightly downards or, at best, level with the horizon. Your phone can't reach them at 30,000 feet and neither can they reach you.

Re:Oh please no

[X0563511]

True, I had a stupid moment.

That said, those are the maximal limits. Nothing stops the manufacturer from imposing lower limitations.

Re:Oh please no

[jep305]

If I can't use a Kindle (not the Kindle Fire, the plain old Kinlde), then II want them to make everyone take the batteries out of their LCD watches, because they're emitting about the same radio noise as my Kindle.

Re:Oh please no

[Rich0]

How do they know if it is in airplane mode, or that the airplane mode works? The device could be malfunctioning and transmitting a signal.

Granted, it might do that even if turned off, but the risk would likely be lower.

In any case, it makes more sense to design the planes to handle anything short of a jammer inside rather than try to control the behavior of hundreds of people. If it really were unsafe for somebody to leave a phone turned on in their purse then we'd have planes falling out of the sky left and right.

Re:Oh please no

[AK Marc]

You are on slashdot, aren't you?

Re:Oh please no

[X0563511]

I can use adblock on the internet. My eyes don't seem to have a compatible plugin interface.

Re:Oh please no

[AK Marc]

The content is slashvertisements and shills. Not just the ads on the side.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

Die from what? Angry passengers killing those that talk obnoxiously on the phone? No, but seriously, it's probably more likely that terrorists will use cell phones on planes to coordinate attacks then interference.

Are these devices that important?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why can't people just turn them off for the 30 minutes or so the plane needs to take off, climb-out, execute final approach and landing?

What's the big deal?

Re:Are these devices that important?

[Matt.Battey]

Because the reason they are banned isn't because of electromagnetic emissions, but rather because it is a crowd control technique. There's nothing special about the first 10 and last 10 minutes of a flight, other than it's the most likely time for a plane to crash land. The regulation is all about causing passengers to pay attention to flight attendants and nothing to do with avionics.

Re:Are these devices that important?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should people be commanded not to have these devices on for no reason?

Re:Are these devices that important?

[vlm]

What's the big deal?

Its mostly fear mongering FUD. We aren't exactly suffering from a lack of it. I'm sure we'll invent a new reason.

Another is what amounts to electrical smog makes it irrelevant over the developed world. Yeah, sure, from a EE perspective a microwatt level kindle is a big problem compared to a 100 kilowatt class TV transmitter.

The other thing is assuming you believe in the terrorist behind every tree stump mythos, the problem is intentional radiators are available at power levels 60 to 90 dB higher than your average unintentional radiator. So if you want a chance in hell of operating flight instruments thru an "attack" by someone with a hand held radio transmitter, you are inherently utterly impervious to the 90 dB down levels of any pacifistic consumer device.

I would like to see a new procedure for flying replacing the FUD with a genuine interference FAA and TSA reported emergency light and procedure. So in the infinitely unlikely event someone intentionally or unintentionally caused a problem, they'd track it. Not just untracked voodoo like now "well, we don't know why, but the VOR rx was acting up so we assume it must have been passenger electronics"

Re:Are these devices that important?

[Artraze]

It's called "freedom". You might have heard of it in history class. Basically, the idea is that things should be allowed unless there's a good reason to disallow them. An important part of that is exercising due diligence in studying those reasons.

Re:Are these devices that important?

[Andy Dodd]

On instrument descent, there is (understandable) concern regarding interference with ILS - ILS is an aging legacy system that is known to be very fragile and interference-prone.

That said - ILS landings are becoming rarer and rarer as improved precision instrument approach technologies are deployed (such as GPS with RAIM) - With ILS, you don't get a warning that the system is degraded due to interference, with GPS+RAIM you will. As a result, that leaves "crowd control" as the primary remaining item.

Re:Are these devices that important?

[kwerle]

Citation, please.

Re:Are these devices that important?

[onyxruby]

I used to travel for a living and I couldn't begin to tell you how many times I saw people leave their portable electronic devices on. Whether this was an accident or not I couldn't tell you of course, but I would have to imagine that if you were extrapolate a dozen cell phones a flight by a couple thousand flights a day etc.....

Point being that there is overwhelming real world evidence that portable electronic devices just don't bring airliners. If that was actually the case we would have had airliners falling out of the sky on a daily basis every day for many years now. The rules for turning the devices off have no basis in reality and are as outdated as the manual typewriter. They need overturned and left in the dustbin of history...

Re:Are these devices that important?

[FatAlb3rt]

Increased number of projectiles loose in the cabin in the event of an accident?

Re:Are these devices that important?

[Anonymous Coward]

In a world with 1E-9 targeted levels of safety, your anecdotal evidence is missing 2 things: 1) a large enough sample size, and 2) any data gathering. Sometimes odd shit happens on landing. Tehre's no way to demonstrate whether or not it's related to the random shit, or cell phones.

Re:Are these devices that important?

[Hognoxious]

There is no citation for common sense.

If you'd ever flown you'd know that they ask you to stow all personal effects - books, bags, coats. So it's clearly not EM emissions they're worried about.

Which by a process of elimination leaves a) attention and b) clutter. And c), both.

Re:Are these devices that important?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's nothing special about the first 10 and last 10 minutes of a flight, other than it's the most likely time for a plane to crash land.

That sounds pretty special to me.

Re:Are these devices that important?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit it is. Why can I read a book during this time but not listen to a tiny mp3 player? Large books are heavy and would be a hefty projectile in a crash, much like a phone/laptop. They just don't want to bother.

Re:Are these devices that important?

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, no.

That's going to be an importnat consideration in how to deal with this problem, but these two electromagnetic issues are non-trivial:

Low emissions.
              I have as yet to see a consumer device that meets any FAA approved low-emissions standards. Having your mystery widget caused guages in the cabin to be 10% off during a high altitude cruise only costs you time. At take off and landing it can cost you far more.

Cellphone topologies
              Once you stop insisting on "all the way off" kids (and some adults) will want to spend all their time texting and facebooking. The way cellphone towers work is to re-use the same frequencies on each side of a hill with the assumption that the people on the ground can't interfere with each other. When you have line-of-sight access to 10 different towers on the same frequencies, you create a mess.

              For this latter reason, even private pilots (who have their own full attention during take off and landing) are prohibited from using Cellphones on their planes except in an emergency.

              Personally, I'd like to see a low-emission cert. on my portable goods and get to listen to my music for an extra 40 minutes of flight time.

Re:Are these devices that important?

[AvitarX]

MP3 player blocks your ears, I actually can see how that makes sense.

Also, I think they ask you to put your books away, but don't give a shit.

Re:Are these devices that important?

[cygnwolf]

Speaking as someone who flies all the time for work, I've never been asked by a flight attendant to put away my paper book, or on the few times when I've had it out, my knitting, during takeoff OR landing. And this has been on flights where I have seen them getting on to people about electronic devices. The whole thing is a poorly enforced regulation that may have had a purpose in the early days of analog cell phones that put out a lot of interference and instruments that were possibly vulnerable to them, but these days it seems more than a bit out of date. And poorly enforced, I see people 'hiding' their cell phones all the time during takeoff and landing and just making sure they don't let the flight attendant see......

Re:Are these devices that important?

[Shagg]

There's nothing special about the first 10 and last 10 minutes of a flight, other than it's the most likely time for a plane to crash land.

Actually, that's exactly what's special about those times.

Re:Are these devices that important?

[Ambiguous Coward]

I fly all the time and have never once been asked to stow a book, including one I am actively reading.

Furthermore, they require the devices be OFF rather than simply stowed. If my phone is turned off and I can demonstrate it, they don't care if it's sitting in my hands and I'm playing with it, ineffectually pressing buttons and making wooshing sounds as I fly it around my immediate airspace. I say this from first-hand experience.

Which by process of elimination leaves...d) outdated paranoia?

Re:Are these devices that important?

[Anonymous Coward]

Lap babies FTW!

Re:Are these devices that important?

[redneckmother]

Serious question - do they still allow knitting needles on commercial flights?

I ask because I haven't flown commercial since 2000.

Re:Are these devices that important?

[TooMuchToDo]

Is ILS used at all at major airports anymore? I thought it was all GPS+WAAS now, since you could do Class III instrument landings with the proper GPS/WAAS fix.

Re:Are these devices that important?

[fwarren]

Once upon a time I would get to work and break into sections a 300 page printout and then leave it in my bosses office. One day I stayed to talk to my boss and watched at they transfered all 300 pages from there inbox to the trash. So I did a lttle research and it turned out a supervisor who had retiered over 10 years ago had wanted that report. One division of the compay ran that report off every day and had it shipped to where I was at. Then somenone in my building had the job of breaking it up into sections and puting it in an IN BOX, for more than 10 years after the need for the report was gone. Everyone was very happy when I told them to stop running that report.

Someone probably had a very good reason for making people put things away on a flight back in 1933 and now no one knows why. Everything now is a justification of a policy that they have always enforced.

Re:Are these devices that important?

[Anonymous Coward]

If this is true, they would not allow people to read books/magazines or sleep during these times.

Re:Are these devices that important?

[houghi]

http://escape.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/safety-card-fight-club.jpg and http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0137523/quotes?qt0479098

Re:Are these devices that important?

[Anonymous Coward]

Cool story bro.

Re:Are these devices that important?

[kwerle]

If you'd ever flown you'd know that they ask you to stow all personal effects - books, bags, coats. So it's clearly not EM emissions they're worried about.

http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsid=6275
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/list/AC%2091.21-1A/$FILE/AC91-21-1A.pdf

4. BACKGROUND. Section 91.21 (formerly 91.19) was initially established in May 1961 to prohibit the operation of portable frequency-modulated radio receivers aboard U.S. air carrier and U.S.-registered aircraft when the very high frequency omnidirectional range was being used for navigation purposes. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) subsequently determined that other PED’s could be potentially hazardous to aircraft communication and navigation equipment, if operated aboard aircraft. Amendment 91-35 amended the scope of former section 91.19 to prohibit the use of additional PED’s aboard certain U.S. civil aircraft. Earlier studies conducted by RTCA, Inc. (RTCA), Special Committee 156, Document No. RTCA/DO-199, Volumes 1 and 2, entitled “Potential Interference to Aircraft Electronic Equipment from Devices Carried Aboard,” have contributed greatly to an understanding of the operational effects of PED’s aboard aircraft. (See paragraph 7b for obtaining copies.)

Which by a process of elimination leaves a) attention and b) clutter. And c), both.

I think you missed one:

d) because someone told them their job depends on them repeating that magic phrase.

I don't fly nearly as frequently as I used to, but I've [also] never been asked to put away a book I've been reading.

The "pay attention" notion seems reasonable - which is why it probably is not true. Instead the truth seems to be that they are enforcing a rule from the 60's that probably doesn't make much sense [any more].

Common sense and federal regulations, eh?

Re:Are these devices that important?

[Obfuscant]

There's nothing special about the first 10 and last 10 minutes of a flight, other than it's the most likely time for a plane to crash land.

Well, you must be right. The last ten minutes of a flight will always have the highest incidence of crashes, since every flight that crashes has a last ten minutes. Except those that crash in the first ten.

But you're wrong in that the first and last ten minutes are not special. The first and last ten minutes of a normal flight are when the aircraft passes through the same airspace where all the VFR and IFR general aviation aircraft are, and are in the viscinity of an active airport where air traffic tends to congregate for some unknown reason. Getting above 10,000' means you've left most of the small private fleet behind, and once you hit 18,000' you're into IFR-only O2-carrying airspace (Class A), and that limits the amount of traffic even more. In bad weather, at either end of the flight, they need to concentrate on flying prescribed flight path so they don't run into anyone else, or into a big rock or whatever other hazard they need to avoid.

So you are actually wrong, the first and last ten are critical times in the flight profile, not just for those planes that are headed for a crash. That's why there is something called "sterile cockpit rules", where flight crews are prohibited from random chatter during important phases of the flight (like takeoff and landing).

In between, the workload is lighter and the pilots have a bit of time to deal with problems that crop up without them being a serious danger just by being a distraction. There is a common saying about flying, that a flight is "ten minutes of panic punctuated by hours of bordom in between." Or something like that.

The regulation is all about causing passengers to pay attention to flight attendants and nothing to do with avionics.

You are absurdly incorrect. The flight attendants don't need to include any instructions about electronic devices in order to need your attention to the briefing, it is a FEDERAL LAW that they give you that briefing and that it covers certain material. Those briefings aren't going to go away if the FAA and FCC change the rules about being able to use your cellphone during flight.

Re:Are these devices that important?

[Anonymous Coward]

Real world data, not bothering to post specific citations, do your own damn work. Let's assume, even in severely, heavily leaning towards your stupidity, that only in one in a hundred planes is there a cellphone accidentally left on. In all actuality, it's probably multiple per plane. But let's say it's 1 in a hundred, just for shits and giggles.

Number of flights per DAY, globally: 40,000 - 50,000 (simple google query)
Number of crashes per YEAR: in the 20's average = about .068 a day (again google, and simple math)

Now, of course EVERY SINGLE CRASH will not be caused by mysterious electronic interference. A quick google is useless, because god knows how many studies have shown zero accidents are caused by cell interference, or where cellphones were blamed to cover up pilot error, or the pilot texting while flying and losing control because he wasn't paying attention. But again, for shits and giggles, let's throw out ALL of that mountain of evidence, and let's say 1 in a hundred are directly caused by electronic device interference.

So, let's average. 45000 planes a day. That means about 450 of those will have a cellphone or other such device left on.

Are we seeing 450 crashes a day? Are we even seeing 1/1000th of that? Nope.

Well, looks like you're an idiot, and electronic devices are perfectly fine.

Re:Are these devices that important?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called "freedom". You might have heard of it in history class. Basically, the idea is that things should be allowed unless there's a good reason to disallow them. An important part of that is exercising due diligence in studying those reasons.

Uncertainty, as it relates to public safety, IS a reasonable cause to disallow the actions of individuals or industry when such actions might endanger the lives of others. It's a trivial matter for people on airplanes to forego the use of such devices until such time as the industry which profits has definitively proven an acceptable level of risk and the evidence for such a conclusion can be debated. That used to be the way the FDA approached medicine until the unwashed hoard of neo-conservatives forced the fast track system through Congress, and look at all the recalls resulting from unreasonably unsafe drugs that have occurred in the recent decades.

Pinheads like you who throw the world freedom around whenever they feel like it diminish the quality of the word by denying any level of responsibility or consideration for anyone but themselves. Freedom was never meant to trump responsibility in any moral system or ethics I've ever encountered.

Go back to your cave and study. Perhaps you can enlighten me on the source of your erudite opinion.

Trogolodyte!

Re:Are these devices that important?

[Anonymous Coward]

That and if cell towers have 400 cell phones registering at the same time and deregistering at a few seconds later all at the same time it can cause problems with terrestrial communications if those towers go down. Granted, there aren't many cell towers around 40000 ft., and cell signals don't generally reach that far anyway, but if you're near an airport it could cause an issue. This is probably mitigated by having a _free_ microcell in the plane itself though.

Re:Are these devices that important?

[Obfuscant]

MP3 player blocks your ears, I actually can see how that makes sense. Also, I think they ask you to put your books away, but don't give a shit.

There is no prohibition against reading a book at any time during taxi, takeoff, flight or landing. Nor is there a prohibition against having earbuds or headphones in place, only against the electronics being turned on.

In fact, if you have your headphones in place and plugged into the aircraft audio system, you are MORE likely to be able to hear the announcements than if you don't.

Re:Are these devices that important?

[dgatwood]

Darn the TSA.

Ba-da-bump.

Re:Are these devices that important?

[Anonymous Coward]

yes they do - as of two weeks ago anyway. I was on a flight with a coworker who brought her stainless steel crochet needles right through security and onto the plane. I was shocked as well - considering that Gatorade is contraband.

Re:Are these devices that important?

[gnapster]

I have often seen airline passengers asked to remove headphones and earbuds prior to takeoff.

Re:Are these devices that important?

[Score Whore]

Are you familiar with the concepts of sufficient and necessary? It's entirely possible that there are conditions that may arise in which a cell phone could cause a problem even though by itself a cellphone will never cause an accident.

Re:Are these devices that important?

[Nkwe]

There's nothing special about the first 10 and last 10 minutes of a flight, other than it's the most likely time for a plane to crash land.

Actually the last fraction of a second is the most likely time for a plane to crash land.

Re:Are these devices that important?

[mjwx]

Is ILS used at all at major airports anymore? I thought it was all GPS+WAAS now, since you could do Class III instrument landings with the proper GPS/WAAS fix.

Yes, it's a backup for the GPS.

It scares me that people place so much trust in just one technology to guide them safely to the ground. I'm glad aircraft engineers and FAA think differently.

Re:Are these devices that important?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's nothing special about the first 10 and last 10 minutes of a flight, other than it's the most likely time for a plane to crash land.

"Most likely time"?! I've never even heard of a plane crashing before the last 10 minutes of its flight. That'd be one helluva fucking bounce.

Re:Are these devices that important?

[Anonymous Coward]

nit picking: It's an Instrument Approach and not landing. The pilot must have the runway insight at or before the decision height. If at decision height the runway is not insight then the pilot must execute the miss-approach procedure defined for intended runway.

Re:Are these devices that important?

[hamster_nz]

All crash landings tend to occur in the last 10 minutes of flight...

Re:Are these devices that important?

[hamster_nz]

Just like cellphones in petrol stations... where it is about people's inattention and walking into the path of a car rather than cellphone causing a fire.

Re:Are these devices that important?

[Anonymous Coward]

First they are called incidents and not crashes since not all incidents result in a crash. Secondly, Take-off and landing are the two phases of flight where most incidents occur since there is a high workload associated with these phases.

Re:Are these devices that important?

[Anonymous Coward]

ROFL. Airport Security: It's so sad that it makes you laugh. Gotta love Security Theatre.

Re:Are these devices that important?

[Anonymous Coward]

As far as I know, GPS + WAAS is not (yet) certified for Cat II/III operations. You still need an ILS radio beacon, and other associated equipment to go below about 200' on the instruments.

Re:Are these devices that important?

[R3d M3rcury]

Are we seeing 450 crashes a day? Are we even seeing 1/1000th of that? Nope. [...] Well, looks like you're an idiot, and electronic devices are perfectly fine.

Keep in mind that you do have human beings in charge of airplanes who can usually figure around these things. Airplanes do have a few redundancies for things. You also have Air Traffic Controllers who check these things

Also, NASA has their ASRS database. It's a volunteer thing--pilots, FAs, etc report these things to NASA which keeps track of them. Because of this, this is certainly not an exhaustive list. For entertainment value, do a text search on PED in the narrative, though, and you'll see various cases where passenger electronic devices are believed to have affected the instruments.

Of course, there's no direct connection. These people aren't trying to prove or disprove anything. If there's a problem, they tell passengers to turn off electronic devices. If the problem goes away, it was the device. Also, some of the reported issues are with older planes--737s, MD80s, etc.--which may actually have issues versus a brand new Boeing 767 or Airbus A380. Also, from the equipment involved, your cheap-ass Dell may have a problem that my beautiful MacBook Pro doesn't have--or, if you prefer, your cheap-ass laptop may have more shielding than my super-thin less-is-more MacBook Air. Not to mention that air travel is international and a phone used by a Chinese or Australian person might not have the same requirements as a phone sold here in the states. Add to that overlapping radio problems--the interference only occurs when I'm using my iPhone in seat 23F and you're using your PSP in seat 17A.

There's no way to take all of these factors into account.

Re:Are these devices that important?

[Obfuscant]

I wear Bose over-the-ear noise cancelling headphones and have never been asked to take them off. I've been asked to turn them off, but never take them off.

You'd think they'd understand that with them in place but turned off, I hear almost nothing of the official announcements, a fact which I've conveyed to the flight crew with a reception similar to this.

It's not their call, it's the airline. Maybe some airlines do make people take them off, but none of the ones I've flown on have. I've simply taped over the little red light so they don't see it and they don't bother me. Other times I've simply worn some ear buds under the ear cups and plug into the system with them.

Re:Are these devices that important?

[Obfuscant]

Yeah, sure, from a EE perspective a microwatt level kindle is a big problem compared to a 100 kilowatt class TV transmitter.

100kW TV transmitters don't wander about the cockpit during a flight, they don't turn on suddenly during a descent. They are in well-known locations and the antennas are typically not in the instrument approach corridor for any airport.

When I flew out of Syracuse NY, there was a large FM station I'd pass over on the way south. It was always there, it was always a problem, and after the first time it screwed things up I knew what the cause was and that it would go away in a couple of minutes. None of that could be said about interference from a passenger's onboard device.

So if you want a chance in hell of operating flight instruments thru an "attack" by someone with a hand held radio transmitter,

Aircraft instruments aren't designed to operate through an attack by someone with a handheld transmitter. The cost would be too prohibitive, if it were even possible. There is no way to keep a handheld radio from blocking the single frequency being used for the glideslope signal on an ILS, from either inside or outside the plane. Ditto the VOR. Localizer. Voice. Data. Someone who wants to block those signals can do so easily.

What the rules are trying to stop is unintentional blocking of signals. Either way, intentional or unintentional, the system is still broken.

I would like to see a new procedure for flying replacing the FUD with a genuine interference FAA and TSA reported emergency light and procedure.

Huh? What are you trying to say?

So in the infinitely unlikely event someone intentionally or unintentionally caused a problem, they'd track it.

I'm sorry, but during the approach phase of a flight is NOT the time for the pilot to come out of the cockpit with a signal tracker looking for interference. Not even during the in-flight phase, since having to train crew to do that in addition to all the other things they are supposed to be doing is just silly. The simple solution is the best. Turn it off.

As for ground based interference, you can bet that it is tracked and people who do it are arrested. But in the the plane, with the limited amount of time and resources available, no, tracking it is not going to happen. As I recall, however, there have been cases of interference where the pilot has gotten on the intercom to remind people to turn things off, and the interference has gone away. No, I don't have a cite.

Re:Are these devices that important?

[QQBoss]

I thought take-off and landing were the two phases of flight where most incidents occur because the plane is most likely to interact with the ground in an unexpected fashion at those times, given that there is little opportunity to correct. Funny that.

Re:Are these devices that important?

[swillden]

Speaking as someone who flies all the time for work, I've never been asked by a flight attendant to put away my paper book

I have, but just once. And the same flight attendant angrily shushed my travel companions who were talking. She felt it was really, really important that everyone pay very close attention to the safety briefing. What a pain. And this was in the business cabin (flight from Tokyo to Hong Kong), where nearly everyone in the cabin spent more time sleeping in airline seats than in beds.

Re:Are these devices that important?

[Anonymous Coward]

Back in the day, we used to have these things called transistor radios. They were so small they could fit in your shirt pocket. The deluxe models had AM and FM. And just by chance they operated near or even within the air nav frequencies. The ADF would use the very same AM stations for directional info. And the VOR/ILS frequencies were just above the FM band. The heterodyne receivers in those pocket radios could spin the instruments around pretty good. Our new gadgets don't operate in those frequencies, but old rules die hard.

Re:Are these devices that important?

[isorox]

There is no citation for common sense.

If you'd ever flown you'd know that they ask you to stow all personal effects - books, bags, coats.

I've flown 50 flights this year. The floor area in some classes and at exit rows needs to be kept clear, but this doesn't mean you must put your book away. The rest of the plane, no problem.

Electronic devices are banned, mainly because of old rules, and that there is evidence they interfere with the plane. The last thing you want is a cell phone dit-dit-dit in the pilot's ear while 180 phones connect to the local tower just as the airport tells the plane to "Go Around". It does happen, but 90% of those cell phones are turned off on a flight, so the chances are lower.

The case against Kindles etc in flight mode is a lot more shaky, however even non-transmitting devices can theoretically interfere.

Re:Are these devices that important?

[MaskedSlacker]

If my phone is turned off and I can demonstrate it, they don't care if it's sitting in my hands and I'm playing with it, ineffectually pressing buttons and making wooshing sounds as I fly it around my immediate airspace. I say this from first-hand experience.

I want to know what the person sitting next to you was thinking during this...display.

Re:Are these devices that important?

[gnapster]

Yes, those particular rules are probably the domain of the airline.

Re:Are these devices that important?

[Ambiguous Coward]

I can't say for certain, but I suspect something along the lines of, "Why couldn't I have married a normal person?"

Re:Are these devices that important?

[AvitarX]

What does "please stow away your belongings and turn your attention to the front of the plane" mean?

I always assumed it.meant put the book away and pay attention (not that anybody does).

Re:Are these devices that important?

[Matt.Battey]

You're right! It's exactly in these moments that the flight-attendants are supposed to want your full attention, at least since 9-11 when their primary job has become flight "safety". In earlier days, when they were called stewards, it was more about comfort in a cramped environment, and the job focused on service. If you remember back, there was a time when the door on the aircraft had to be shut for 30 minutes before the flight, and passengers had to remain in their seats for 30 minutes prior to landing. Airlines didn't like those TSA rules much. Besides increasing the average 60 minute flight by 50%, passengers started to complain.

But service is still a virtue with some air-carriers outside the US. The makeup of US air crews is very different. At least they were three weeks ago when I flew Lufthansa to Munich, then had to return on a United flight. It seemed that a pension was much more important to US air crews, than the twenty-somethings working for the German airline.

Re:Are these devices that important?

[Matt.Battey]

I'll admit I'm wrong. Very wrong. But it was a ironic statement, crashing is very bad, and pretty darned special.

Re:Are these devices that important?

[Shagg]

Yep, which is why unexpected things happening to the avionics at those times is "Really Bad".

Re:Are these devices that important?

[Carnivore]

To add credibility to your argument:

They still explain to you, in detail, how to operate a seat belt. I can see changing it to something like this, "We require you to wear your seatbelts at all times. If you need assistance, contact a flight attendant."

Re:Are these devices that important?

[AK Marc]

Metal? No. Plastic? Probably not, if they ran across them, but they wouldn't get noticed unless come across for some other reason.

Re:Are these devices that important?

[AK Marc]

I can't say I recall ever having heard that exact phrase.. Every airline would announce it differently, but I can't recall anything indicating a book be put down any more than "please pay attention to the announcements"

Re:Are these devices that important?

[cygnwolf]

Actually, yes. http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/assistant/editorial_1252.shtm I use el cheapo aluminum when I travel, just in case, instead of my more expensive stainless or bamboo, but I've never been bothered about them at all.

Re:Are these devices that important?

[cygnwolf]

Yep. I even printed out the explicit allowance for them from the TSA Website to carry with me the first few times. I thought it odd that they allowed them when so many other things were banned, but decided to take full advantage of it. Now, after numerous trips, several of them through what I would think would be higher risk airports like Reagan, Dulles, and La Guardia, I've never even had an x-ray tech take a second look. Of course, as soon as I say that I know they WILL check next time, that's what I get for opening my big mouth...

Considering I fly multiple times a month

[Anonymous Coward]

with half a dozen mobile devices, or more - and most of them are on w/ cell signal while I'm flying...

They really should review that policy.

Re:Considering I fly multiple times a month

[MozeeToby]

Do you realize how fast you hop from tower to tower at 600 mph? I've heard that's one of the reasons cell phones in particular are a problem, millions of phones doing potentially dozens of tower hand offs per minute is enough to cause real problems with the cell phone infrastructure.

Re:Considering I fly multiple times a month

[swb]

So the ban is about protecting AT&T and Verizon, and not flyers?

I'd guess that there are more handoffs on the 405 freeway during rush hour than on any given flight.

Re:Considering I fly multiple times a month

[synapse7]

It has been a while since I've been on a plane, but do cell phones make connections to towers during flight?

Re:Considering I fly multiple times a month

[Anonymous Coward]

On the freeway your cell doesn't have near line of sight access to every tower in the city.

Re:Considering I fly multiple times a month

[AvitarX]

Mine doesn't, not that I've tried.

Re:Considering I fly multiple times a month

[neo8750]

Depend son how high the flight is. But i can say that the flight I am on right now at 32,000 feet my cell wont connect. Yeah i paid for wifi in the sky lol.

Re:Considering I fly multiple times a month

[Ambiguous Coward]

Nor is it trapped in near as splendid a faraday cage as it is in the sky.

Re:Considering I fly multiple times a month

[Obfuscant]

It has been a while since I've been on a plane, but do cell phones make connections to towers during flight?

Of course. Why wouldn't they?

I've gotten off a flight and found messages on my phone that had arrived while I was at 30,000 feet somewhere over Idaho.

Unfortunately for cellphone users, the ban on cellphone use in flight is not an FAA ban, it is an FCC ban, and has nothing to do with passenger safety. It is entirely to do with the specific allocation of the frequencies in use as LAND MOBILE and not AIR MOBILE. The FAA won't be able to change that.

Re:Considering I fly multiple times a month

[TooMuchToDo]

I've received text messages in-flight when I've forgotten to turn my phone off. Nexus One phone.

Re:Considering I fly multiple times a month

[bws111]

Well, since as soon as you land you are free to use your phone (and many people do), I think your faraday cage does not do what you think it does.

Re:Considering I fly multiple times a month

[bws111]

Of course they do. Remember the 'let's roll' cell phone call on 9/11?

Re:Considering I fly multiple times a month

[mrbester]

If your phone can connect to a tower 32,000’ away including all the scattering that buildings cause then there's no reason why it couldn't just because the signal is travelling in a more perpendicular direction with no obstacles.

Re:Considering I fly multiple times a month

[Anonymous Coward]

Just how fast can you drive on 405?

Re:Considering I fly multiple times a month

[Anonymous Coward]

Nor is it trapped in near as splendid a faraday cage as it is in the sky.

Passenger airplanes don't act as Faraday cages at cellular frequencies. The windows are too big compared to the wavelengths involved.

Re:Considering I fly multiple times a month

[mjwx]

Do you realize how fast you hop from tower to tower at 600 mph? I've heard that's one of the reasons cell phones in particular are a problem, millions of phones doing potentially dozens of tower hand offs per minute is enough to cause real problems with the cell phone infrastructure.

You know that distorted clicking sound your TV used to make when you received a phone call. That happens to the pilots headphones and it is very loud.

I don't know about you but I'd really rather that not happen to the people flying the plane.

Re:Considering I fly multiple times a month

[Ambiguous Coward]

That's certainly true, I suppose airplanes may actually be fairly crappy cages. However, I still suspect they're more effective than your average car.

I understand wifi is heavily affected by even moderate speeds such as those from a car on a freeway. Is cellular technology similarly affected? If so, the speed of the plane could have a large impact. Beyond that, are they perhaps actively jamming cell signals? Because I've never been able to pick up a signal above a few thousand feet from a commercial airliner.

Re:Considering I fly multiple times a month

[russotto]

You know that distorted clicking sound your TV used to make when you received a phone call. That happens to the pilots headphones and it is very loud.

Sure, if the pilot's phone is ringing. A phone in the cabin doesn't have enough power to induce the GSM buzz in the pilot's headphones.

Re:Considering I fly multiple times a month

[Anonymous Coward]

with half a dozen mobile devices, or more - and most of them are on w/ cell signal while I'm flying...

They really should review that policy.

And folks like you are why I have to listen to an intermittent CLICK CLICK CLICK BZZZZZZZZZZT while trying to communicate with the tracon.

Re:Considering I fly multiple times a month

[Anonymous Coward]

You have never driven on the 405 at rush hour, apparently. Having just crawled through the 10/405 interchange this evening, at 17mph, I don't think there is any threat of overtaxing the cell phone system

Re:Considering I fly multiple times a month

[pedrop357]

Those people weren't at 15000 feet, much less the more typical 27-35000 feet.

Re:Considering I fly multiple times a month

[pedrop357]

Only when I had an old blackberry. My last 3 phones make no such noises.

Re:Considering I fly multiple times a month

[rastos1]

... are they perhaps actively jamming cell signals? Because I've never been able to pick up a signal above a few thousand feet from a commercial airliner.

No. Just the nearest BTS is much closer to you when you are on the ground than when you are at the cruising altitude.

Re:Considering I fly multiple times a month

[rastos1]

I would find lifting the ban for cameras and GPS receivers entirely sufficient.

Re:Considering I fly multiple times a month

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that particular land mobile licence holders could fix this particular problem if they wanted to. For a fee ofcourse.

Re:Considering I fly multiple times a month

[Ozoner]

And if it did, it would be a design flaw in the Pilots headphone/intercom circuit, and not with the passengers phone.

Anything fitted to commercial aircraft is supposed to be exhaustively tested for EMC/EMI.
An intercom which is so badly designed that it responds to a low level cell phone signal should never have been approved for installation in a commercial airliner.

Re:Considering I fly multiple times a month

[Ozoner]

Probably because your old Blackberry was 2G (eg GSM) and your newer phones are 3G (eg W-CDMA)

GSM is heavily amplitude modulated, whilst W-CDMA is a constant amplitude signal.

If an amplifier (or whatever) responds to a phone signal, the fault is with the device, not with the phone.
There is nothing the GSM designer can to to reduce the problem (except reduce the power, which would make the phone unusable).

Re:Considering I fly multiple times a month

[bws111]

They were at 40000 feet when the calls were made.

Re:Considering I fly multiple times a month

[Richy_T]

<conspiracy-theory>Assuming that was made from in the air of course</conspiracy-theory>

Re:Considering I fly multiple times a month

[jelle]

Umm... Where is your ground wire when you're in the air?

Re:Considering I fly multiple times a month

[Anonymous Coward]

You should review your phone's frequency band, and find out whether that shares a harmonic with the ILS (Instrument Landing System) for the airport you are going to.

I would hate to be 'that guy' that fucked up an instrument-landing and killed a bunch of people...

Re:Considering I fly multiple times a month

[Obfuscant]

I would find lifting the ban for cameras and GPS receivers entirely sufficient.

Why do you need them? So you can take pictures of other people stuck in the same airplane with you while you are taking off and landing? You can use a camera during flight, why isn't that good enough?

And GPS? You know where you are -- stuck in a long round tin box somewhere between where you took off and where you landed. You aren't navigating so you don't need more information than that. You aren't going to go geocaching. You probably won't need a waypoint to find your way back to your seat from the loo. GPS receivers are radio equipment, and radio equipment has oscillators that can leak and interfere.

Yeah, it's cool that you could plot your course when you get home later, but hardly a "need".

Re:Considering I fly multiple times a month

[AK Marc]

Do you realize how fast you hop from tower to tower at 600 mph?

Yeah, never. At 30,000 ft, I'll never connect to a single tower. I may increase their noise floor, but I'll never get an actual full tower connection.

Re:Considering I fly multiple times a month

[rastos1]

You are mostly right. But I would turn the last sentence around: I don't need my course plot when I get home later, but it certainly would be cool ;-)

Re:Considering I fly multiple times a month

[Anonymous Coward]

No. How fast?

Well...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I'm ok with the FAA loosening up on those poor, persecuted, electromagnetic waves that have historically been singled out for persecution and discrimination.

However, I would like to see the draconian measures previously reserved for in-flight electronics applied with redoubled fury against those who have the temerity to emit high volume and/or pitch sound waves, or substantial levels of visible-range electromagnetic radiation during nighttime hours. Those are the true hazard to consumer aviation.

Permit wifi and crack down on screaming children.

Re:Well...

[swb]

Permit wifi and crack down on screaming children.

We all hate screaming children, especially those of us who fly with them.

What we hate even more are clueless assholes who don't have children telling us what rotten people we are because our three year old lost patience during the last hour of a 6 hour flight delayed two hours.

Re:Well...

[AvitarX]

I paid for WiFi on my last flight, never again. High latency always (250 - 2000 ms), 50+ % dropped packets for about 2/3rds the flight. I paiod for it, and ended up not using it even.

It may have just been priced too low at $5.00.

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

Like everywhere else: control your kids or if you can't stay home. I wasn't taken on an aircraft until I was 7 years old.
There times and places for letting them run around, scream and be 'themselves': 30 000ft /10km in the aisle isn't one of them.
Personally I think stressed out parents, passengers and kids are far bigger a hazard on aircraft than all the electronic devices.

Re:Well...

[trippytom]

I call BS here ... Families are way more geographically spread out than when you were a kid. People fly more, including people with kids. Get over it.

Re:Well...

[grumpyman]

Ok, explain how exactly one can 'crack down on screaming children'....

Re:Well...

[grumpyman]

A. That's an anecdote - is it the case your parents make a conscience decision that you're 100% guaranteed you won't scream and holler at age of 7, that they intentionally stopped you from flying before that? Or it just happened that's the first opportunity you flew? B. It's like "if you can't control your employee, don't hire any one".

Re:Well...

[raehl]

You seem to be confused about the problem.

The problem isn't that your 3-year-old lost patience at the end of a 6-hour flight.

The problem is that you put a 3-year-old on a 6-hour-flight.

Which does, indeed, make you a rotten person.

Leave 3-year-old home with babysitter or drive.

Re:Well...

[ThatsMyNick]

They probably gagged him, so that probably had the 100% guarantee.

Re:Well...

[ThatsMyNick]

Gag them, sedate them?

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd rather sit next to the kid than have you waste my oxygen. Get off my planet.

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

The FAA previously barred pilots from taking off if it MIGHT rain and it MIGHT be below freezing at altitude. Even during the summer, its easy to hit freezing temps in many planes. And year around, its impossible to fly where there isn't a slight change of rain. Yes, that was in the last five years. The regulation didn't last long. Right now the head of the FAA is not a pilot. He is a bureaucrat and is fairly clueless.

Its also pretty easy to prove the FAA makes flying more dangerous. The FAA literally keeps safety equipment out of planes. Their regulations prevent free market economics from applying to most things aviation. You want safer, cheaper flying, demand the FAA be cut and size and concentrate on pilot requirements and commercial aviation. The FAA literally doubles the cost of all things aviation.

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

Offer "family only" flights with smaller seats for children (with discounts) that are lower to the ground so their feet can touch SO THEY STOP KICKING THE SEAT IN FRONT and therefore increasing the capacity of the plane.

Parents understand that you cannot control a screaming child when they are tired, hungry, sick, sleep deprived or just shit their pants.

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's fairly simple. You don't take them on the flight if they are going to scream nonstop for two hours and annoy a hundred random strangers in the process. This is basic politeness. I wouldn't, say, take a boom-box on board, crank it up to max volume, and bust out rap tunes for the whole flight, because that would make me an asshole with no consideration for those around him. Same with screaming children. Wait until they are older.

But most people are selfish. They value their own convenience for 2 or 3 people over annoying a hundred other people. It's the same kind of entitlement, "me me me!" mentality that you see in plenty of other situations. They think it's fine to be as rude as they want to as many other people as they want for as long as they want.

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

When the alternative is to take a cruise liner and travel on it for weeks, I think I would take the annoying hundreds of other passengers for my own selfishness any day.

Re:Well...

[shentino]

Better yet would be for airline staff to start cracking down on this. Screaming baby that isn't quiet in 5 minutes -> kicked off the plane.

You'd see that problem disappear really fast.

Re:Well...

[Just Some Guy]

The problem is that you put a 3-year-old on a 6-hour-flight.

How do you get home for family emergencies? "Excuse me, Mom, but can you but grandpa's corpse on ice for a week while I drive from San Francisco to Buffalo for the funeral? I'd hate to mildly inconvenience some thin-skinned jackass for a couple of hours."

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

Having kids is a choice, like flying.
No one cares (at least I don't) if you kid cries for a couple of minutes.
The problem is parents who take babies 1 year old on the plane and let them cry constantly during a 9 hour flight.
Not only is it fucking annoying for everyone else, but who does that to their own kid?
 

Re:Well...

[swillden]

We all hate screaming children, especially those of us who fly with them.

Benadryl. Seriously. Yeah, yeah, it seems terrible to "drug your child"... but it's safe stuff that you give them many times for many other reasons (fevers and whatnot), and it will not only make the flight more pleasant for you and your neighbors, but for your child as well. Don't overdo it, just a normal dose will make the child sleepy enough to overcome the strangeness of the environment -- which is what is keeping the tired kid from going to sleep anyway -- and let him nod off.

Re:Well...

[rastos1]

our three year old lost patience during the last hour of a 6 hour flight delayed two hours.

Why do you need to take a 3 years old for a flight lasting 6 hours is beyond me. Is he going to appreciate and remember the trip?

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

Flush them?

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

If parents couldn't keep kids from screaming in inappropriate situations, we would all have been eaten by lions and died out a sa species. So the fault is still with you as a parent. Get your kids under control and keep them quiet. If it helps, tell yourself and your kids that there are monsters on three plane that are going to eat them if they don't shut up and keep quiet.

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

Benadryl does not always work. Some kids it wires up and they are even more hyper than before. With my son we tried Benedryl, Valarian, Melatonin, and several prescription medications (with a prescription and doctors consultation) and none worked. The best was the melatonin where my son walked over to the couch and lay down for a minute then got up and tore around the neighborhood. My wife DID NOT have a good 13 hour flight taking him to Japan to see his grandparents and there was nothing we could do about it.

Re:Well...

[swb]

That'd work really well at hour N-1 of an N hour flight, wouldn't it?

The "problem" of inconvenienced childless assholes would disappear if frustrated parents would be allowed to vent their frustrations on the faces of self-absorbed asshats like you.

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

Better yet would be for airline staff to start cracking down on this. Screaming baby that isn't quiet in 5 minutes -> kicked off the plane.

You'd see that problem disappear really fast.

This make sense, because you can always calm a baby in 5 minutes or less.

Seriously, you clearly don't have kids. I have flow with babies/small children multiple times. It is far more work than flying by yourself. When my wife and I plan to fly, we plan around our kids, not ourselves. We plan departures/arrival times, number of connecting flights, and lay over duration around the kids sleeping, eating, and play schedules. We try to minimize the impact of their normal routine, because that is what causes kids to get upset. Good parenting relies heavily on routine, and flying throws a huge wrench in both the normal routine and familiar environments.

I have flown by myself and been seated next to someone else’s crying kid and it doesn’t even phase me. I am just glad it is not my kid, that I don’t have to get up every 10 minutes to comfort them, or try to teach a 6 month old how to pop their ears, that I can sleep when I want, that I don’t have to be awake every minute they are awake, that I don’t have to fit in the world’s smallest bathroom with them, that I don’t have to feed them while the asshole in front has their seat back the whole flight, that I don’t have to worry about them being awaken every time someone decides to flush the toilet, or awaken by the PA system, or awaken by the seat belt alarm, or awaken by the flight attended asking for garbage...

Yea you have it really rough when you are flying by yourself. By the end of a 15 hours flight I don't give a shit if you or anyone else on the plane has a problem with a crying baby. That’s life, yea I don’t have to bring my kid on the plane, but by the same token you don’t have to bring yourself on the plane.

Re:Well...

[shentino]

Your crying baby would be able to annoy and make life hell for everyone else.

Going strictly by the numbers, all the other passengers can outvote you.

No lack of sympathy for whatever is making your kid cry like hell, but we have sensitive ears as well.

If you have a screaming kid, do both him and us a favor, and find a way to get him to stop crying.

Re:Well...

[ejasons]

You are clueless...

I don't even have kids, and don't particularly like them. I'd be completely with you if we were talking about people taking kids to a nice restaurant.

However, with travel parents simply don't have much other choice when it comes to their children. I've never seen a parent who wasn't embarassed about their crying kids, but there is often not much they can do.

Learn some empathy...

Re:Well...

[shentino]

Having a kid doesn't give you a blank check to be an irresponsible parent, either.

Re:Well...

[swillden]

If you use too large a dose, Benadryl has the result you describe.

Re:Well...

[AK Marc]

How do I drive from Anchorage, AK to Honolulu, HI? Most babysitters don't work multi-day shifts.

Let the wait begin...

[Anonymous Coward]

"The Federal Aviation Administration today said it was forming a government-industry group to study" = no changes for at least 5 years.

Mythbusters?

[KhabaLox]

Didn't Mythbusters cover this?

Yes.

Re:Mythbusters?

[rikkards]

Yep and I think most of the reasoning behind not allowing people to use "electronic devices" is to basically make sure when the shit hits the fan that no one can't hear the steward(ess) telling people to kiss their butts goodbye. I think when you get down to it that is the real reason but they throw up the EMI boogieman because Joe Q Public would ignore requests not to have their device off otherwise.

Re:Mythbusters?

[jb11]

Because Mythbusters is a shining example for accurate and effective testing through the use of the scientific process.

Re:Mythbusters?

[Anonymous Coward]

Think about this. Do you think every single electronic device is always turned off? I would bet cold hard cash that is not true. I have seen people pull their phone out of their pockets and go 'WHOOPS forgot to turn it off' after the flight... Now extrapolate all the other devices out there and those sorts of casual mistakes and the thousands of flights every day.

That was the mythbusters point. Which you missed. Oh on that same show they did find 1 device that 'sorta' interfered with one piece of equipment. IF it was held right next to it.

Re:Mythbusters?

[DerekLyons]

So? That's like noting Phineas and Ferb or Strawberry Shortcake covered it. Despite the hype surrounding them, the Mythbusters are not scientists and scientific accuracy and facts always take a backseat to a big boom or other entertainment.

Re:Mythbusters?

[Anonymous Coward]

They had what, two phones (that were probably operating properly, which is not a fair assumption given the quality of parts) on one fully-modern private plane? Throw in the full range of personal electronics, the full range of non-obvious component failures, and the full range of commercial aircraft (plus the full range of seats, location matters) and see if you get the same result.

Re:Mythbusters?

[jb11]

I was speaking generally about the show itself, rather than the point they tried make in that particular episode. IMO, the show (like many others) is just an excuse to spend money, blowing stuff up in the name of science, while in reality it is just another block of network time filled by unnecessary crap. While it may be entertaining at times, they hardly ever really prove or disprove any of the myths they are testing. I am just saying that using Mythbusters as a basis for any kind of argument is pointless because the facts can be learned from much more valid sources.

Re:Mythbusters?

[KhabaLox]

You have a fair point. They can't do *really* strict experimental science given their mandate (i.e. produce ratings). However, they do better than most television shows that purport to investigate questions such as this. And in this particular case, their desire to test in an environment that more closely resembled the real world was stymied by the FAA/FCC regulations.

Re:Mythbusters?

[bws111]

The mythbusters had no point except to provide entertainment. Everybody, including the FAA, knows that SOME devices are left on, and it has not been proven as of yet to have caused a crash. What the FAA (and I am guessing the mythbusters) have not been willing to say is that if ALL of the devices were left on (including ones that are not operating properly or have been damaged or modified) there is no concern.

Try this: ask the mythbusters to state that they guarantee (ie they have liability) no lives will be lost if everyone uses their devices. If they are not willing to make that guarantee then they have proved nothing.

How long would you have to flip a coin until in comes up heads 5 times in a row? Now have a whole plane full of people flip coins. I bet 5 heads in a row occurs much more frequently, per plane.

Re:Mythbusters?

[KhabaLox]

OMG, you're right. Mythbusters is exactly like an animated show with a target demo of preschool aged kids.

Re:Mythbusters?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank fucking god that we don't need TV for science then. The bottomline is that Mythbusters misrepresents science and tens of thousands of neckbeards across the nation think that they understand science because of this shit. It's nearly as pathetic as fucktards who actually believed that they could learn all they needed to know about global warming from a movie produced by a politician. May as well be looking to Michael Moore for an education in economics or Glenn Beck for an education in sociology.

Re:Mythbusters?

[Anonymous Coward]

So? That's like noting Phineas and Ferb or Strawberry Shortcake covered it

It isn't, and you don't believe that it is.

Lying makes your own point look weaker, not stronger.

The only question now is whether you were intentionally invoking this effect in some kind of clumsy attempt at reverse-shilling.

Re:Mythbusters?

[Anonymous Coward]

You realize that's an entertainment program?

Re:Mythbusters?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep and I think most of the reasoning behind not allowing people to use "electronic devices" is to basically make sure when the shit hits the fan that no one can't hear the steward(ess) telling people to kiss their butts goodbye. I think when you get down to it that is the real reason but they throw up the EMI boogieman because Joe Q Public would ignore requests not to have their device off otherwise.

Except that I am reading a book with earplugs in so it is not really working.

Re:Mythbusters?

[Anonymous Coward]

dick

http://xkcd.com/397/

Re:Mythbusters?

[shentino]

It's not about safety.

It never was.

This is just hush money from the cellphone cartel

Re:Mythbusters?

[myowntrueself]

Because Mythbusters is a shining example for accurate and effective testing through the use of the scientific process.

Mythbusters is to science as pro wrestling is to sport.

Re:Mythbusters?

[rsmith-mac]

Bollocks. Any scientific testing is better than none.

http://xkcd.com/397/

Re:Mythbusters?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't care why, all I care about is that I don't have to spend several hours listening to somebody nearby yelling on their cell phone about things that I don't care about. Things are tense enough when traveling by air without having to put up with that.

Re:Mythbusters?

[pedrop357]

You can still wear earplugs and sleep masks at all phases of the flight.

Re:Mythbusters?

[Anonymous Coward]

Discounting Mythbusters for being a television show is an ad hominem attack. They proceed with the scientific method as such: falsifiable hypothesis, experimentation, and assertion/conjecture. I find it a little hilarious that you are proposing ad hominem attack -> conjecture as a better alternative, while waving the flag of 'true science'.

Let's recap.

Myth: "The reason that you can't use your cellphone on an airplane is not because it will interfere with the in-flight instruments but because it forces you to use the in-flight phone on the back of your seat."

Conjecture: "The final explanation is that, even though the airplanes appear to be well-shielded against cellphone interference, there are so many different electronics in a cockpit, as well as so many different cellphones constantly coming out, the FAA doesn't want to do the necessary testing."

http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2006/04/episode_49_cellphones_on_plane.html

To which, your response is to have the Mythbusters accept liability for all EMI related flight incidents or they have not done 'science'? Or conjecture through analogy via coin flipping?

I dare say it is your use of the scientific method I find to be lacking.

"Good day sir, I said good day!" Adjusts monocle and scurries off.

Re:Mythbusters?

[Anonymous Coward]

What you don't get is, PILOTS are using these exact same devices in the COCKPIT.

The only guarantee in life is death and taxes.

What was your point? Oh ya...there wasn't one...

What we are really saying is that LAWYERS cause needlessly endless problems and endless expense to everyone living in a modern western society. Lawyers DOUBLE the cost of all things aviation in the modern, western, industrialized world.

If Congress wasn't full of corrupt lawyers, the economy and the pleasure of flight could be dramatically improved. And that's not hyperbole. Furthermore, flight safety would increase for both civil and commercial aviation.

Re:Mythbusters?

[T Murphy]

Maybe: Mythbusters is to science as a pickup game is to professional sport.

Re:Mythbusters?

[Thumper_SVX]

Mythbusters is to science as pro wrestling is to sport.

But it also encourages scientific thinking in children who are watching it. For that alone, I applaud them even if their methodologies are flawed.

Re:Mythbusters?

[myowntrueself]

Mythbusters is to science as pro wrestling is to sport.

But it also encourages scientific thinking in children who are watching it. For that alone, I applaud them even if their methodologies are flawed.

I don't think it even displays scientific thinking so I don't see how it encourages this in children watching it. The reasoning in their 'myth busted' lines is usually flawed and entirely script driven.

Re:Mythbusters?

[AK Marc]

My pre-schoolers like it because they are always shooting or blowing something up. Or is there any difference between pre-schoolers and American adults these days?

Re:Mythbusters?

[KhabaLox]

I think a preschooler who watches Mythbusters probably has a leg-up on the average American adult.

Re:Mythbusters?

[AK Marc]

Maybe my 5-year old son thinks Keri is hot?

Ongoing Experiments

[etherwalker]

I would bet that more than 50% of devices on planes are already left on for takeoff and landing. The only thing being turned off is the screen.

Re:Ongoing Experiments

[Belial6]

A good deal of people don't even understand that turning off the screen and turning off the device are not the same thing.

Re:Ongoing Experiments

[garcia]

Yup. I put mine in Airplane Mode and just put it to sleep. No sense in wasting battery on the 3G connection attempts or blowing through towers at the cost of other people's connections but I'm certainly not going to wait for my phone to boot up at landing to send a SMS to the person coming to pick me up.

It's bullshit and everyone has known it forever. We've already had a very large panel of experts prove this is a non-issue for over a decade. Let's not waste time now.

Re:Ongoing Experiments

[Anonymous Coward]

A good deal of people don't even understand that turning off the screen and turning off the device are not the same thing.

And the majority of those who do understand don't care.

I'll turn WiFi off on my ereader (mostly to preserve the battery), but I'm not turning the reader off - or even putting it away unless they explicitly tell me to.

(AC because I modded in this thread).

Re:Ongoing Experiments

[Idbar]

I do put mine in airplane mode, but I think the GP may be including some people that don't even know about the airplane mode in cellular devices.

I've even seen people texting during approach and landing.

Re:Ongoing Experiments

[R3d M3rcury]

but I'm certainly not going to wait for my phone to boot up at landing to send a SMS to the person coming to pick me up.

Hell, yeah! I mean, my iPhone takes about one minute to boot! THE HORROR!

Twit.

Re:Ongoing Experiments

[garcia]

Mine takes much longer than one minute to become usable.

Twit.

Re:Ongoing Experiments

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, the vast majority of devices switched "off" are still burning CPU cycles and continue to operate.

In addition, whatever small percentage of passengers leave their devices on and connected, that is still probably many devices per flight, and is many millions of devices active on flights per year.

Seriously, the data is already there that the number of instances of interference is minute and the mass of electronic devices that are active on planes is huge. The FAA knows for sure that the problem is virtually non-existant, and knows precisely which devices are problematic. The main issue for the FAA and for carriers is one of minimising conflict with staff and other passengers, and conducting flights peacably.

Re:Ongoing Experiments

[Richy_T]

My Palm TX could not actually be turned off at all. Nothing like coming in for landing and the alarm going off. I felt 6 inches tall...

hey editors

[noh8rz7]

the phrase 'The use of any portable electronic equipment while the aircraft is taxiing, during takeoff and climb, or during approach and landing,' is as ubiquitous

I've never heard that phrase before. usually they say somethigna bout the devices not being allowed, tho.

$$$ Won't let this happen...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think they'll reduce the restrictions much, if at all. If it were truly a case about interference and radio waves, then why do they have phones on the planes, tv's built into every head rest, and large tv's in front of the isles? All of those electronics are just fine to use whenever because you have to pay for them. If they start letting us use all of our own stuff up there then that'll be less profit.

Re:$$$ Won't let this happen...

[Em Adespoton]

I don't think they'll reduce the restrictions much, if at all. If it were truly a case about interference and radio waves, then why do they have phones on the planes, tv's built into every head rest, and large tv's in front of the isles? All of those electronics are just fine to use whenever because you have to pay for them. If they start letting us use all of our own stuff up there then that'll be less profit.

There are multiple issues here. First off, the issue is about crowd control. THEY control all the on-board electronics, and can turn them off at whim. This way, they can always ensure they have the attention of passengers, and can disable any malfunctioning electronics equipment.

Second, they have phones on the planes that are air-to-land or air-to-satellite linked, through a single antenna. The phone systems are shielded. Compare this to cellular phones, which ramp up signal strength depending on how far they are from the nearest cell. Plus, cell phones aren't meant to be used at those speeds; during takeoff and landing, the plane is close to the ground, but moving fast -- meaning constant hop from cell to cell, requiring signal boost from both the towers and the phones, potentially interrupting navigational equipment (the disruption would be just as much from the ground cells as from the phones).

This brings us to the third point: flight attendants are not EM experts, nor can they identify every electronic gadget made in the past 20 years at a glance. Much easier to have a blanket ban on devices than to have to figure out what sort of radio each device has inside, and what sort of potential EM output the device has.

So, the FAA has approved a few airline-controlled methods of communication and entertainment, and banned everything else.

Personally, I've always wondered why they seem to allow paperbacks, magazines and newspapers during takeoff and landing, even though they tell people to stow all their loose belongings.

Re:$$$ Won't let this happen...

[thegarbz]

Funny my last international long haul flight completely independent of the FAA had the flight attendants tell us that not only were we allowed to turn on electronic devices but we were also allowed to turn off flight mode and make use of the in-plane WiFi for internet and to make phone calls from our mobiles.

Worse even the rates were reasonable, imagine that!

EM concerns are a throwback to the 90s where people didn't have a clue what's going on. Last I recall all the devices which have been blamed for aircraft instrumentation interference have been unable to reproduce the issue.

Re:$$$ Won't let this happen...

[hawaiian717]

Your airplane contained a microcell and wifi base station. This reduces the transmitter power concerns because the mobile unit is able to reduce power because it's close to the base station. It also resolves the problem of a phone being present in many ground cells at once, since the mobile unit instead connects to the aircraft-based cell.

The most popular provider of inflight wifi in the US is Gogo, which uses a ground-based network of CDMA transmitters to link the aircraft's wifi base station with the Internet.

Re:$$$ Won't let this happen...

[Anonymous Coward]

Except there are no real concerns. RF interference has never been a concern at the power output of mobile devices. A typical mobile will never scale its power output more than a factor of 2-3, and is at absolute maximum capable of scaling by a factor of about 10 assuming that it is designed in triband to work in every country, and even then it will only scale if you swap SIM cards.

You know what's much worse than this? RF power radiated by non-approved poorly designed and untested switchmode powersupply units. There are PSUs out there that spew enough broadband garbage that can easily knock out cellphones yet we have no irrational fear of those.

Shielding RF radiation is trivial. It has been done for many years both inside and outside a plane. There reasons for banning use of electronic devices on flights were a limiting factor of RF cell services (towerhopping), the crowd control factor, and holding on to our past invalid opinions of the technology.

Re:$$$ Won't let this happen...

[Em Adespoton]

Exactly. I'd mod you up, except you're responding in my thread.

Proximity

[WebManWalking]

Hey, wait. Why is this post adjacent to "How Long Do You Want to Live?"

Re:Proximity

[Sez Zero]

Hey, wait. Why is this post adjacent to "How Long Do You Want to Live?"

Exactly. It should be adjacent to a post about TSA screening.

"Let's give them their electronic toys on take-off and landing. That will help them forget about the anal probe and molesting they got before boarding."

This Isn't Going to Solve the General Problem

[Arabian Nights]

The general problem on passenger aircraft is orders given by flight attendants over the speaker system that begin/end with "...in accordance with federal regulations..." are parroted and observed with no understanding of why they are in place.

Having the FAA remove the requirement that electronic devices are off does not solve the problem that commercial flying is laden with laws bearing heavy consequences that at times have no connection to common sense, like the electronic device issue.

Philip K Howard points out that the general problem goes much deeper than the FAA, but in the context of "rules on an airplane" the public is very comfortable blindly following laws seemingly without reason. If you disagree, try asking someone on board the next time you take off why you have to have the window shades up, or the seats upright, or the tray table stowed, etc.

Re:This Isn't Going to Solve the General Problem

[Aqualung812]

If you disagree, try asking someone on board the next time you take off why you have to have the window shades up, or the seats upright, or the tray table stowed, etc.

These are pretty obvious to me:
-Shades up so other planes can see you better while you are on the ground at night
-Seats upright so the seatbelt doesn't push your guts into your chest if you crash
-Tray table stowed for the above reason as well

Re:This Isn't Going to Solve the General Problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Tray table stowed: so in case of emergency abort of take off, you don't smash your head on the tray table.

Seats upright: so the person behind you doesn't smash his head on your seat if the taking off is aborted due to an emergency.

Re:This Isn't Going to Solve the General Problem

[hawaiian717]

-Shades up so other planes can see you better while you are on the ground at night

I haven't heard this reason before, and if you think about it, dedicated freighters don't have passenger windows at all for light to escape through.

One explanation that I have heard is that having the shades open provides better situational awareness during the critical landing and takeoff phases of fight. Suppose the port side engine catches fire. With the shades open, people will see this and the flight attendants will know to direct passengers to evacuate using the starboard side exits only.

Re:This Isn't Going to Solve the General Problem

[mrbester]

Given the amount of strobing lights on any commercial aircraft, driving into one and claiming that you couldn't see it because the shades were down isn't likely to be considered remotely plausible. This isn't a "Batman hiding amongst pursuit vehicles on a freeway by turning the headlights off" fantasy.

Re:This Isn't Going to Solve the General Problem

[pedrop357]

Not once in 24 years of flying have I heard a peep about window shades. That's a couple hundred flights on numerous airlines.

Re:This Isn't Going to Solve the General Problem

[Hognoxious]

try asking someone on board the next time you take off why you have to have the window shades up,

So you can see what's going on.

or the seats upright, or the tray table stowed, etc.

Because it's difficult to get out when the seat in front of you is at 45 degrees, and the trays get in the way too.

I'm guessing that most people have enough common sens to work it out. But in any case, just because you don't know the reason doesn't mean there isn't a reason, and it isn't an excuse for not obeying the instructions.

Re:This Isn't Going to Solve the General Problem

[AK Marc]

I've heard it mentioned on 3 of my last 4 flights.

Re:This Isn't Going to Solve the General Problem

[21mhz]

These are pretty obvious to me:
-Shades up so other planes can see you better while you are on the ground at night

Except they also dim the cabin lights. No, it's exactly to get the passengers ready and light-adapted to the conditions of a possible crash landing: cabin lights are out, possible smoke, yet the passengers need to see where to go.

-Seats upright so the seatbelt doesn't push your guts into your chest if you crash
-Tray table stowed for the above reason as well

That maybe, but it also removes obstacles in people's evacuation paths.

In this corner....

[swb]

...we have the safety zealots who believe that if bans of electronic devices in-flight reduce the risk of crashes by .00000001% then the ban makes sense, because, hey, who's in favor of crashing an airplane? (Those of you raising their hands in favor, please stay seated, a TSA agent will be with you shortly).

In the other corner, we have the airlines, who are opposed to in-flight use of devices to the extent that using such devices denies them their God-given right to monetize every last moment spent on an airliner and that even if making a cellular data connection call in flight wasn't likely to be unreliable, it might keep someone from having to spend $19.99 on BoGo in-flight internet service.

Watching, of course, are all the people who have inadvertently and intentionally left their electronics on and somehow managed to land safely at their destination with the most harrowing part of the flight being the gross weirdo in the seat next to them or the smell coming from the aft lavatory.

Re:In this corner....

[Obfuscant]

In the other corner,

And in the third corner are those people who are so enamored of themselves that they think nothing is more important than their ability to play Angry Birds during takeoff, or their right to call someone to tell them "we're about to land so come pick me up."

I've heard the intereference from electronic devices while flying, so I know it happens. And I know the last place you want to be is on an airplane where the pilots are distracted trying to figure out why the ILS or MLS or comm radio isn't working anymore as they are making an approach to land. They don't always crash, but there are NTSB reports where the pilots have been distracted at important points in the flight and have crashed because of it. Being a deliberate distraction is just stupid.

And before you claim it doesn't happen, you'll have a hard time convincing me. I've BEEN the pilot trying to figure out why the comm radio won't communicate with New York Center during IFR conditions around thuderstorms. It was interference from an electronic device.

Watching, of course, are all the people who have inadvertently and intentionally left their electronics on

You can't inadvertently and intentionally leave your electronic device on. One or the other. If it is intentional, you're playing with other people's lives and you need to stop. Leaving your electronics on just to see if you crash or not is absurdly stupid. You don't want people putting you at needless risk, I am sure, so give other people the same courtesy.

Re:In this corner....

[Anonymous Coward]

I've had my cell phone create static in a speaker if I hold them close together. The static goes completely away if I put the phone in airplane mode. If your consumer electronic device isn't deliberately transmitting and is FCC Class B approved (i.e. has enough EM suppression that it can be sold in the US), it's not going to be a problem. Something with the limited power capabilities of cell phones or tablets are even less likely to do so. Otherwise you would probably notice the uncomfortable heat levels in your hand or lap.

Re:In this corner....

[Anonymous Coward]

...we have the safety zealots who believe that if bans of electronic devices in-flight reduce the risk of crashes by .00000001% then the ban makes sense, because, hey, who's in favor of crashing an airplane? (Those of you raising their hands in favor, please stay seated, a TSA agent will be with you shortly).

And in the third corner we have people who realize that the most likely times for crashes to occur are during take off and landing—which is when devices have to be stowed away and all tables and chairs need to be reset.

If shit happens seconds can count, so you want people on the ball and paying attention to what's happening around them, not staring at a screen or with ear plugs in.

Re:In this corner....

[Obfuscant]

If your consumer electronic device isn't deliberately transmitting and is FCC Class B approved (i.e. has enough EM suppression that it can be sold in the US), it's not going to be a problem.

This is a canard. Your device may have passed Class B testing as an example or preproduction model made to perfect manufacturing standards that was sent to the lab, but the one you have in your hand has no clear guarantee that it would still pass Class B standards today.

Just one reason? The manufacturer is a cheap bastard who made a few copies with the original design, and then decided to cheap out on shielding or otherwise change the design in some way to save money. Who is going to notice that a device that has the same model number and same FCC id and looks the same on the outside wasn't manufactured to the same standards as the models that went to the testing lab?

And who is to say that the manufacturer didn't just lie?

Laptop "standards" are especially questionable, since they are deliberately tested with no peripherals attached (like that handy USB mouse you use instead of the touchpad, e.g.), and once you've opened up the laptop to add memory or replace a disk you can't say that it would pass testing at all.

You don't even know for sure that something hasn't broken in your device and it is radiating a huge amount. I was called in on an ELT search one Sunday morning to look for an ELT signal that nobody could pin down. It had no modulation, but the SARSATs were picking it up on every pass loud and clear. Long story short, it was a Toshiba television/DVD player combo in the apartment of a poor college student who was just trying to watch some PBS on a quiet Sunday morning. There was no external sign that the TV was radiating a massive signal on 121.5MHz, only the appearance of cops and CAP on his doorstep.

So no, the argument that "they've been tested" doesn't quite cover the reality of the situation.

What about hospitals?

[wisnoskij]

Here in Canada at least you are not supposed to use cell phones while you are in the building.
Very annoying, since when you go to the hospital you have no idea how long it will take and it can take longer than many flights.

Re:What about hospitals?

[Jesse_vd]

That's not true. The hospitals in my area (Fraser Valley, BC) only ask you to turn phones off near the Radiology lab. 15 years ago it was the whole hospital, though.

Re:What about hospitals?

[Em Adespoton]

If you're in the hospital as a patient, you likely aren't needing your cellphone (although the waiting room can addmittedly get boring). If you're in as a visitor, just step outside -- most hospitals have "phone bays" outside the main building where people can send and receive calls.

Re:What about hospitals?

[wisnoskij]

Most hospital visits are not performed when you are unconscious or in serious condition. Get a little cut and in addition to the waiting it might take an hour to sew up and bandage. You absolutely do have uses for your cell phone. Not only for the boredom but to phone your friends/work to reschedule and such.

Re:What about hospitals?

[mrbester]

When both myself and the wife had cause to be in hospital (at separate times) there was no restriction whatsoever on cell phones

Re:What about hospitals?

[Em Adespoton]

Most hospital visits are not performed when you are unconscious or in serious condition. Get a little cut and in addition to the waiting it might take an hour to sew up and bandage. You absolutely do have uses for your cell phone. Not only for the boredom but to phone your friends/work to reschedule and such.

...and this is exactly why ER is so backlogged in Canadian hospitals.

If you get a little cut, don't bog down the ER triage system even further -- it's not an emergency. Go to a local clinic and they'll do just as good a job sewing you up. Plus, they often let you use your cellphone in the lobby.

If it's enough of an emergency to go to the hospital, you should call someone to help you before/after. That person can be in charge of making your calls as well.
If you have no friends and need to/can make a call, use a payphone.

Re:What about hospitals?

[wisnoskij]

Do we really have many clinics here? Never been to one myself, but I hear they exist.
As far as anyone has ever told me the ER is for all medical care that cannot wait a few weeks, to get a appointment from your personal doctor. Maybe clinics are just a big city thing?

I think 99% of ER care are for these walking wounded. That is the point of the entire waiting room/receptionist setup. Obviously people who are actually dying from their injuries bet brought right past these.

If you think that hospitals are busy you are probably just going at the wrong time. Hospitals seem to have a deal with the average patient flow, but of course there are periods of high activity and low activity. I tend to get to see a doctor pretty much right away.

Pilots do it!

[Anonymous Coward]

I was listening to Mac Power Users today, and they had an interview with a pilot today that said nearly 50% of pilots use an iPad as a replacement for expensive, bulky and very short shelf-life paper maps. So the pilots are running an iPad during take off and landing!

Re:Pilots do it!

[Anonymous Coward]

Just before some jerk asks

• Maps are loaded pre-flight. The interviewer states he loads the maps for the states he's flying in and makes sure they're up to date (they last 28 days or so) before each flight as part of the pre-flight check.) They also make sure the iPad is fully charged as part of the pre-flight check.
• They're not using the GPS in the iPad to fly the plane with (it's not FAA certified.) They're just using it to quickly look up the part of the map that's relevent
• The pilot interviewed carries multiple iOS devices incase of a problem with the iPad (i.e. he loads the map onto his iPhone too that can run the same software)
• There are numerous other advantages to the iPad, for example it can help you be very clear about where on the map you are and even help avoid things like runway incursions (since it's helpful to avoid accidentally getting confused about which runway is which)

Re:Pilots do it!

[vlm]

If you think all the pilots are doing is looking at maps, this will blow your mind

http://www.aviation.levil.com/

Basically the all the glass cockpit displays are slowly coming to the ipad as apps. primary flight instruments, engine management displays, ADS-B rx, radar displays, you name it.

You can pay $10K to garmin for each dedicated appliance, or $500 to apple for whats officially called a backup device ...

I suppose its nothing new. Almost 20 years ago I knew pilots "sneaking" consumer GPS units and handheld air-band radios into their airplane as "backup devices"

It makes sense to me. Every pilot has a nightmare of full electrical failure at night in IFR conditions... so your flight bag has a flashlight or two, hand held gps, hand held radio, and now an ipad and some gadgetry and cables.

Re:Pilots do it!

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, aren't the pilots the ones who would know if something is potentially causing interference? "Hey, the fuel gauge goes nuts whenever I turn on this iPad." "Then stop turning on your iPad."

The Luddites will win this round too

[terraformer]

As others have said, this is not about electrical interference but social control. What's the difference between someone reading harry potter on a 1lb device or reading it in it's 10 lb hardcover form? The greater danger is from the projectile the book becomes in a crash. But since there is no FUD means for banning the book, they allow you to read it. But in reality there is no difference so long as the plane doesn't crash.

Re:The Luddites will win this round too

[Virtucon]

Exactly, the airlines want your complete attention during the most critical times in terms of flight safety. Some airlines allow you to have your headphones/ear buds in as long as they're powered off during taxi/takeoff/landing. Others won't allow them at all.

But come on folks, it's like 10 to 20 minutes per flight so is it such a hassle? Also nice "Prisoner" ref there in the sig.

Re:The Luddites will win this round too

[Anonymous Coward]

It's 10 to 20 minutes per flight when things are going OK. It's considerably longer than that when you're at a crowded airport, with lots of planes waiting to take off, after a thunderstorm has gone through. If you have screaming kids on board it's even worse. (And no, parents and apologists, I don't want to just "get over it". You can tell them to stop disturbing everyone else's peace and you can get your party escorted off the next leg of the flight if you can't do that.)

I was on a flight on an unnamed airline out of an unnamed very large Southern airport, just in case this gets anyone in trouble. We were awaiting takeoff when a storm approached the field, so we had to sit out there for quite a while. Massive boredom time. The captain came on and said he understood this, and that we could use electronic devices until takeoff provided that everyone was prepared to put them away on quick notice, so no large notebooks, etc. That was without doubt the best airline captain I've ever had the pleasure of flying with. Nobody abused it either, and everyone was just great about getting the plane ready to go when it was time. Treat children like children, and adults like adults and it actually works sometimes.

Re:The Luddites will win this round too

[Obfuscant]

Exactly, the airlines want your complete attention during the most critical times in terms of flight safety.

That can't be the reason. For the most part, I'm completely unconscious during the first and last ten minutes of the flight, and for a good part of the time in-between. Asleep. I fall asleep as soon as everyone in my row is in their seats and I've buckled in. Sometimes I wake up for the actual takeoff roll. Sometimes not.

Not once has a flight attendant deliberately woken me up to listen to the spiel.

But come on folks, it's like 10 to 20 minutes per flight so is it such a hassle?

But Virtucon, it's my right to chat on the phone with my BFF and tell him or her all about the minutia of this flight and how the gate agent was rude to me and the guy next to me snores and there are no peanuts and no movie and the airline sucks and my life sucks because I have to travel all the time and whatever. It's called "freedom", and damn it, I don't care who else is involved.

Re:The Luddites will win this round too

[pedrop357]

Whenever anything carries with it legal penalties, especially the heavy ones that violating air travel rules can, it's open for debate, even if the rule is supposedly only a minor inconvenience

Re:The Luddites will win this round too

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a slight difference in a 1lb device being broken in many small crystal/cutting pieces which can harm even a lot more of people without them noticing fast enough. Have you ever had a car windshield broken? You will find pieces of it even years after the incident no matter how well you clean the debris!

Re:The Luddites will win this round too

[Virtucon]

Well not to mention the folks who don't know what an inside voice is who talk forever during a flight and you have to hear about her father's surgery and how he now can't pee correctly. Yeah, that happened last year on a flight to Detroit. It's also worse in first class because of the Marie Antoinette philosophy of the people who sit up there. Sometimes you just have to deal with rude and obnoxious people, whether it's on a bus or at 35,000 feet in the air. The problem is you can't get off at the next corner when you're locked in a large aluminum skinned tube, pressurized, and the guy next to you keeps touching your leg and the kid behind you won't stop kicking your seat or the baby won't stop crying. Yeah, fly back from Rome, 9 hours then get on a 737 back to home and all the way have to listen to a kid whine and cry, even with the headphones on he was coming through. I was ready to kill the parents when that flight was over.

Even with noise cancelling headphones you still hear way too much. I think if I got a petition together Bose could make Quiet Comfort Isolation Zone headphones, no noise in at all!

But having worked for two airlines in the US, I can tell you that the policies exist for a reason, so for me having the first and last 10 to 20 minutes without electronics isn't a bother and I'm flying on two to four flights a week right now.

Re:The Luddites will win this round too

[Anonymous Coward]

And as the electrical engineers have said, this is about electromagnetic interference. I want you to turn your damn iPad off to reduce the chance that you just happen to be in the right seat to have the EMI generated by its screen momentarily disrupt important sensor data and have the plane sent back to the gate to get everything checked out, causing a delay that causes me to miss my connection. The odds of it are miniscule but non-zero and the odds of me being pissed off are about 1:1. No difference so long as the plane doesn't crash? You clearly have lower expectations from air travel.

To Better Frame The Discussion...

[guttentag]

This is taken straight from TFA, but this is really the meat of TFA
The FAA said it is looking for comments in the following areas:

• Operational, safety and security challenges associated with expanding PED use.
• Data sharing between aircraft operators and manufacturers to facilitate authorization of PED use.
• Necessity of new certification regulations requiring new aircraft designs to tolerate PED emissions.
• Information-sharing for manufacturers who already have proven PED and aircraft system compatibility to provide information to operators for new and modified aircraft.
• Development of consumer electronics industry standards for aircraft-friendly PEDs, or aircraft-compatible modes of operation.
• Required publication of aircraft operators' PED policies.
• Restriction of PED use during takeoff, approach, landing and abnormal conditions to avoid distracting passengers during safety briefings and prevent possible injury to passengers.
• Development of standards for systems that actively detect potentially hazardous PED emissions.
• Technical challenges associated with further PED usage, and support from PED manufacturers to commercial aircraft operators.

Comments can be emailed to: PEDcomment@faa.gov

Re:To Better Frame The Discussion...

[Anonymous Coward]

If that's what they're after, they should ask that Mitchell guy. I understand he wrote a big report about PED use for Major League Baseball or some other branch of the government ...

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[kaws]

They're not talking about using cell phones, cells will most likely be banned anyways because the cell connection could interfere with the airplane's equipment. Of course this could be completely false and cell phones don't create the kind of interference that the industry has assumed it does. tldr; Even if electronics in general are allowed all the time, radio transmission will probably not be.

What if they are not a threat?

[Anonymous Coward]

If they really were a threat to the flight safety, they would just confiscate it before departure, and give it back to you after landing.

Re:What if they are not a threat?

[shentino]

Confiscate means that they keep it and throw it away.

When the TSA makes you toss your sharp junk in the bin, they don't give it back.

Re:What if they are not a threat?

[Obfuscant]

If they really were a threat to the flight safety, they would just confiscate it before departure, and give it back to you after landing.

One fine day I flew from Schipol to someplace in the US. As I was going through security in the land below sea level, they noticed I was carrying a shortwave radio. A simple device, really. About the size of a deck of cards, maybe a bit larger. Certainly not the boom-box sized thing that brought down the flight over Lockerbee, Scotland.

OMG, you can't take that on the airplane, they said. "I know about turning things off, and I won't be using it anyway while on board". OMG, you can't take that on the airplane. Give it to us, they said, we'll give it to the Captain and they'll give it back to you when you land.

Well, that was a better option than having to throw it away, so I relented.

During the flight I started to look through the In Flight Shopping catalog. As I flipped the pages, I came across -- a shortwave radio. For sale. On board. Give them money, they'll hand it to you. On board. Not the same model, but same concept. For just $60 US, anyone could be a successful terrorist and convert my flight into a flaming heap of twisted, sinking to the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean metal.

I rang the call button. The fellow who came around turned out to be the purser. I held up the catalog and pointed. I was ready for a good argument and strong words. He said "oh, you must be Mr. Smith. Hold on a moment." He walked up to the front of the plane and came back with a yellow envelope with my name on it and handed it to me. Yes, my radio. I really could be trusted with such a nefarious device on board. He apologized for the overzealous security people and we both had a laugh.

Another flight, another country. I was carrying a bag full of tools, and had a Swiss army knife (official Victorinox) in my pocket. I put it in the bag to go through the x ray. The fellow at the xray asked me "do you have a Swiss army knife?" Why yes, I pulled it from the bag and showed it to him. No, you can't carry that on board. Give it to us, we'll give it to the pilot and you'll get it back at the end of the flight. Yes, that's what happened.

And exactly the same thing happened to the person I was travelling with as they followed me through. Her's was a smaller version, but still bagged and tagged and returned after landing.

So, don't say they would confiscate things if they were dangerous, because they have done it in the past. These were, however, non-US flagged carriers, in a day and age when the flying customer was respected and treated better than a cow.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[Hognoxious]

terrorists will use cell phones on planes to coordinate attacks then interference.

Surely if the attacks worked there'd be nothing left to interfere with?

Non story

[trancemission]

Heh - like you would get a signal at that height. I didn't read TFA but the only way you will get a decent signal on a plane will be via a system designed to work at 30000ft by people who would sooner their plane not crash because you sent a tweet.

How many planes have crashed due to somebody not switching their phone of?

Re:Non story

[Anonymous Coward]

Zero.

Nobody switches their phone off. The smart ones put it in "airplane mode" (read: "radio off") because you ain't getting service anyway so you might as well save battery, and then they turn the screen off and stuff it in a pocket when told to turn off all electronic devices. The dumber ones skip the airplane mode step.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[R3d M3rcury]

37.

Cell phone use on planes

[MadCow42]

The moment I have to sit and listen to the guy next to / behind / in front / etc. of me talk all flight long on his cell phone is the moment I stop flying. Cell phone usage should still be banned unless people can fully embrace the Japanese culture around public phone usage (i.e. go hide somewhere people can't hear you, and then still whisper and cover the phone).

MadCow.

Re:Cell phone use on planes

[Belial6]

Or you could pay $0.50 and get a pair of earplugs so that you can have your quite and they can have their conversations instead of you trying to demand that every other person in society bend their behavior to your whim.

Re:Cell phone use on planes

[PraiseBob]

So it is ok for some random TSA goon to feel your junk, look at you naked, or irradiate you with some equipment they swear is safe.... But having to listen to another person talk, that crosses the line!

Re:Cell phone use on planes

[Jon_S]

Yes, pretty much. That's how obnoxious it would be have to listen to someone talk on the phone while packed in next to you during a flight.

Re:Cell phone use on planes

[Anonymous Coward]

People on telephones often don't control their voices to match the environment, because the environment they are "in" in them, their phone and their caller. Someone talking softly on a phone next to you is fine - it's just like the person next to you having a conversation with the person on their other side. Loud phone users are as obnoxious as groups of teenage kids on planes.

Re:Cell phone use on planes

[bakes]

Or even worse, two adjacent people talking to EACH OTHER !!?! Oh, the horror.

spontaneous flames

[RichMan]

Are they more or less likely to spontaneously errupt in flames when on, or when off?

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[kimvette]

No, but seriously, it's probably more likely that terrorists will use cell phones on planes to coordinate attacks then interference.

Right, because terrorists would not attack anything were there laws prohibiting such attacks, ergo they would obey the electronics restrictions were they in place. The ONLY thing stopping them right now is not the fear of being killed by legitimate passengers, but the silly restriction against using electronics which CAN NOT and DO NOT interfere with properly-installed-and-maintained avionics.

Think! Idiots! Think!

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at the folks whining about the risks of interference, in this supposedly informed audience.

Think about it for a minute. If there was ANY real risk of a cell phone or any other electronic device IN ANY WAY interfering with aircraft electronics, do you really think that the FAA would even allow them aboard? Would they allow 150 cell phones, all supposedly capable of interfering with the electronics and bringing the plane down, onto every single flight? 150 terrorist weapons on every flight! Really?

Have you never seen anyone forget or simply refuse to turn off their devices and have no effect on the aircraft at all? Have you, as have I, not ever innocently forgotten the cell phone turned on in your pocket to no effect at all? I'll wager that 25% of them are left on during every flight.

They won't allow you to carry on more than four ounces of spring water(liquid)! But, they don't have any problem with this "dangerous" device on everyone's hip? Think people! Think!

P.S. For those of you that will now link to obscure pilots reports of "strange" behavior of the aircraft's electronics and their self attribution of that behavior to passenger electronics; forget it. These reports have been repeatedly debunked. The fact is that it is proven that many pilots are very capable of driving a plane while still being complete idiots; reporting interfering passenger electronics and flying saucer sightings and flybys.

Re:Think! Idiots! Think!

[Anonymous Coward]

When Bluetooth was first introduced the Ericsson development boards came with a CD containing various PDFs. Several of these were on the impact of electronic devices inside aircraft since the airlines wanted to use wireless in cabins for credit card readers.

The summary was that electronic stuff had a fairly large influence on the navigation equipment, but that there was enough reduncancy across the different systems that pilots could deal with the problems during level flight, the airlines didn't want to ban electronic devices totally as this would potentially reduce business flying.

Things like mice plugged into laptops were the worst offenders in the studies, so it makes sense to repeat the experiments with current devices.

Nobody ever bothers me

[phorm]

Nobody ever bothers me about my devices when the plane is in-flight. My phone is in "airplane mode", the wifi is off on my eReader, and the tablet similarly has wifi/bluetooth/etc turned off.

Nobody's ever given me any grief about it so long as the devices are off for takeoff/landing. Most airlines do mention having the cellphones turned off, but the rest are just suppose to be not broadcasting. I suppose if I wanted to game with other people in-flight through wifi it might be needed, but what's the issue here?

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[Joe_Dragon]

getting hit in the head by a flying laptop after a hard stop.

Im worried more about PEDs in the Cockpit

[RobertLTux]

what i don't want to hear is that a Pilot 1 Got a High Score in Angry Birds 2 "landed" a Plane in a Mountain

oh and for those that say "But I have an IPod Pico so why should i have to turn it off" i give you a lesson in basic Physics

Mass Times Acceleration = Force so even 2.31 grams flying about the cabin (at 45meters per second) can hurt somebody

(and btw im all for a Pilot having an iFly (Commercial Pilot edition) Ap installed just stay away from Angry Birds while In Flight)

Fuck the passengers

[fustakrakich]

Turn the goddamn off! Like that old joke, "Tray up, bitch!"

Please keep phones banned

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be nice.

Re:Please keep phones banned

[Skapare]

Yes. Then your local cell tower might have sufficient capacity to serve the hundred or so users it has, not having to deal with several thousand pounding on it from all those airplanes high up in the sky.

If my cell phone

[Anonymous Coward]

Interferes with the avionics equipment on a plane, then that equipment is poorly built, and I'd be more concerned about satellites and solar flares.

I know for a fact that two cell phones not in "airplane mode" don't affect anything and are not detectable. I don't know about an entire plane full of cell phones, but I would suspect there would be no interference.

Re:If my cell phone

[Skapare]

Imagine most of the cell phones in all the airplanes in the air bombarding their signals over the huge coverage areas they have when up at those heights (10km and up). Each tower is going to see several thousand cell phones hitting it all day long.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[RenderSeven]

Like it matters what they die from. What the FAA and every other entity has to worry about is what an ignorant populace, fear-mongering media, and money-grubbing lawyers will blame. Its easy to imagine headlines like "200 Dead In Fiery Crash, Was The Recently Lifted Cell Phone Ban To Blame?"

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[icebike]

Cell phone do not interfere with airplane equipment. Totally different frequency bands. Cell phones are used on planes (surreptitiously) every day. Occasionally and angry stewardess, but no other ill effects.

Cell phones are not allowed on planes at the behest of the FCC, because the cell systems we use today were never designed for hand off calls over vast regions at the speed of a plane, and a phone at cruise altitude could light up a thousand towers. This prohibition was always an FCC issue, and never much of a concern for the FAA.

WIFI would be just as likely to interfere as would cellular radio.
Yet wifi on the planes is already available on many flights.
With wifi, you can do voip. Almost every Android phone has Voip (internet calling) built in.

As of this time, none of the airlines allowing WIFI let you use any Voice app. They claim bandwidth issues.
However voice does not take as much bandwidth as most people think.

I suspect there is still some security concerns with allowing voice communications that are the real hold up here, I doubt there are any real technological issues in providing the bandwidth. On the other hand they do allow text chat apps, as well as email.

Actually there is....

[raehl]

If your phone can connect to a tower 32,000’ away including all the scattering that buildings cause then there's no reason why it couldn't just because the signal is travelling in a more perpendicular direction with no obstacles.

Cellular antennas are optimized to receive signals in a horizontal "circle" parallel to the ground, so reception above/below a tower is poor.

If you're in the air, you're not connecting to a tower 32,000' below you, you're connecting to a whole bunch of towers 32,000' feet below you and 20+ miles away. Cellular signals will actually go pretty far with clear LOS, although the phone has to up the signal strength quite a bit, which is why a phone with a cellular antenna left on in-flight will burn a ton of battery.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[Idbar]

You bring a very interesting point. I've been traveling a lot, and I've seen people that text during landing, and others that just tap the power button of their device thinking that's enough to power it off.

Since this behavior cannot be controlled and it's certainly not enforced, maybe the FAA should really look into it.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[cluedweasel]

I sat next to a relief pilot on a United flight from PHX to SFO. He talked on his cell phone from the moment we got on, until he lost his signal after takeoff. As soon as he got a signal again, he was talking all through the approach and landing. He still had it stuck to his ear as we walked off the plane. The cabin crew didn't say a word to him.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

42 actually

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

wouldn't voice talk at least as much as HD video from Netflix or Hulu? More likely they block voip so people aren't shouting over the noise

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[dgatwood]

You might be able to keep a call going during takeoff and landing, but otherwise, cellular phones are not likely to be usable for voice calls except on airplanes that provide internal picocells. You'd drop the call every minute or two. First, cellular phones have about a 10,000 foot ceiling, give or take, depending on how the towers are aimed. Second, cellular handoff barely works reliably at city street speeds, much less ten times that. Third, the cellular phone network isn't expecting a single phone to simultaneously see a couple of dozen towers spread out across a large distance. And because the ground isn't nearby to reduce signal propagation, it is even possible that GSM phones would suddenly be able to "see" towers beyond the 22 mile range limit, which could cause all sorts of fun problems that would not normally occur with phones near the ground.

Text messages, on the other hand, would probably work, albeit sporadically.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[hierophanta]

a phone at cruise altitude could light up a thousand towers.

so you are saying that if i leave my phone on, it can screw my devil worshiping service provider? duly noted sir!!

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[icebike]

They don't allow any streaming video either.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[hierophanta]

'Hey, hey you get back here'

Desperation

[Anonymous Coward]

They have to do something to get people to stand in line for a grope, er, I mean security pat down.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with VOIP on planes is latency (200+ms), not bandwidth.

And if the kid HAS TO COME

[RobertLTux]

Please for the love of all thats Holy make sure you maximize how "happy' the kid is.

1 dress the kid in clothes for Comfort Not Fashion
2 sort out enough "snax" to keep the kid fed
3 make sure you have enough changes for the kid (and please get a bag from the Staff to dispose of the "spent" changes)
4 invest in an airline capable power cable and earphones for the kids media device (have they started providing USB power ports in seats yet??
5 have a couple doses of any meds the kid is taking (allergy meds cough drops ect)

http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/children/index.shtm ---- note you can carry meds as needed

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ummm, what about the for-pay phones in the backs of seats you swipe your card through to make a call? I somehow doubt it's an issue of 'security concerns with allowing voice communications' at all.

Full of crap

[Charliemopps]

The electronic device ban has been kept in place at the airlines request... so they can sell you the bullshit back-of-the-seat movie/map thing for $30/flight. Now they are realizing that everyone's ignoring the damned rule so now they want to sell in-flight wifi and will ban cellular traffic "because it's dangerous"

If a 747 could be brought down by some random device I bought at best buy, I think terrorists would have a lot easier of a time doing their jobs.

Re:Full of crap

[Skapare]

Cell phone signals getting out of airplanes at height can burden cell towers as far away as 600km or more at typical long distance flight elevations. Imagine if cell phones in EVERY plane in the air was going like that. All the cell towers would be overloaded. It's the cell companies that support the ban on cell phones in the air. Special bands for air flight use that involve directional antennas are needed and hand held mobile devices are not equipped for this (maybe some day they can be, but today the costs would be huge).

Re:Full of crap

[pedrop357]

What about all the electronics that are not cell phones? My laptop, ereader,music player, etc. still have to be turned off until the captain says so

I also don't see why airplanes can't set up little pico cells that all the phones can connect to.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

> As of this time, none of the airlines allowing WIFI let you use any Voice app. They claim bandwidth issues.

They just want to protect the kind the costly in flight phones.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[X0563511]

You really don't have that much bandwidth to hand around. Depending on radio conditions you might have 100kb/s - for everyone to share.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[icebike]

You can't call another plane, and they can shut them off on approach and take off.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[icebike]

You really don't have that much bandwidth to hand around. Depending on radio conditions you might have 100kb/s - for everyone to share.

Sez who?
LTE can easily reach 6 miles, with acceptable performance at 18 miles. WiMax can push to 30 miles.

So simply optimizing an LTE radio for vertical lobes in addition to horizontal will easily service a couple hundred phones
thru an on-board femtocell, or an onboard wifi router.

Always been a red herring

[RubberDogBone]

This ban on wireless has always been a red herring. Mobile devices typically operate at a couple of watts, tops. Meanwhile, while taking off or landing, a plane is going to pass fairly close to many cell towers, each of which is belting out much more powerful, much more continuous signals.

And nothing happens.

Planes are also hit with radar from ATC, MET, TCAS, and more, plus massive signals from broadcast media. All the time.

And nothing happens.

Banning this stuff was partly out of what-if fears, and partly because it was an area where the agency and airlines could impose their control upon the public. They really and truly get off on being able to tell us to stand there, do this, don't do that, don't bring water, don't use your phone, don't use your GPS, don't use your laptop, and so on, with "it's against the law" as justification 1, "it's policy" as justification 2 and "We'll arrest you sucka!" as justification 3, and finally to sum up them all: "OMG the plane might crash!"

Statistics

[bef]

If it were likely that "accidental" cell phone use would crash airplanes it already would have happened. It doesn't even have to be very likely for a ban on bringing cell phones on planes. They even ban carry on shampoo. The whole thing is a farce.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[russotto]

You bring a very interesting point. I've been traveling a lot, and I've seen people that text during landing, and others that just tap the power button of their device thinking that's enough to power it off.

Or "just tap the power buton of their device thinking that's enough to convince the flight attendant it's off".

mobile devices could go mobile

[Anonymous Coward]

Well during an emergency maneuver or accident any quick deceleration might mean a mobile device could go airborne. I don't think I would like to get slammed in the back of the head with someone's mobile device. It should be stowed. Most aircraft equipment have 20g structural retention requirements so that in the event of an accident the equipment don't do any collateral damage. Remote possibility, but it could happen.

Cell phones on lanidng

[kubernet3s]

The thing that always gets me is the "cell phones but not other device" allowed until you reach the gate. How is is that, during the flight, cell phones send signals to the flight control and radar telling them to turn on their human masters, but everything else is okay, while once the plane is on the ground, cell phones are okay, but somehow if I use an mp3 player that DOESN'T have a phone plan attached to it, arcs of lightning will shoot out and melt everyone's eyeballs.

Re:Cell phones on lanidng

[Skapare]

Actually, cell are better shielded than SOME electronic devices. What the cell phones emit is in specific spectral bands that aircraft avionics has filters for. SOME electronic devices have NO shielding at all, and emit noise all over the spectrum. Even while taxing, aircraft need to be in constant communication with the tower and other systems are still in use to avoid ground collisions. The rule (and what the pilot or passenger attendants announce) cannot be in the form of "well shielded electronic devices can be operated" because people just don't know what is or is not. But they know cell phones are generally well shielded because they need to be and are tested for this to get certification. Most electronic devices are probably safe during taxing. The few that are no are not the cell phones. Hence the crazy sounding distinction.

Re:Cell phones on lanidng

[kubernet3s]

So then why are ALL electronic devices allowed during flight, but cell phones disallowed? Wouldn't you want the noisy stuff quiet at all times?

Another possible reason for the ban

[marciot]

Obviously it's really hard to pin down why this rule went into effect in the first place, but a flight instructor of mine said that the rule was put into place on behest of cell phone carriers to protect cell phone towers from getting overwhelmed. He argued that the signal from a single cell phone in the air would propagate much further than one on land, and thus put an undue burden on cell towers within line of sight of the plane, especially when we are talking about planes full of people taking off from major metropolitan airports.

I'm not sure if this is true or is bullshit, but I thought I would throw it out there as a possible reason.

-- Marcio

Re:Another possible reason for the ban

[Skapare]

Ham radio operators who also fly (in private planes) can tell you this is so. Hams have VHF and UHF band repeaters all over the place. A land based ham operator can generally activate just one repeater. Hams in the air would be activating dozens. Cell zones are now as numerous as ham repeaters. But ham repeaters are just one or a few frequencies each, so if a dozen are activated, a couple hundred are ignoring the ham op because they are on different frequencies. Cell towers are mostly on all frequencies, detecting devices near the boundaries to be ready to hand off. In the air a cell phone can easily activate hundreds of cell towers.

Cell phones are in power ranges under a watt. But that is still a lot of usable power when up high. Hams have launch weather balloons that go to 30km and up transmitting analog video with just one watt peak (sync) power (compared to 100kw and more land based TV). These one watt TV signals can go out 600km or more line of sight and be received with picture. The height makes a HUGE difference. Try taking an FM radio or TV receiver up in a private plane.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[kelemvor4]

Like it or not, harmonics and spurious emissions are a fact of life. So it is not inconceivable that a plane full of 200+ people with phones (which most commonly now have three or more transceivers each) could cause some interference. Some will have a phone and a laptop with one or more additional radios in the laptop. That comes out to quite a lot of rf noise. When the penalty for a problem could realistically be hundreds of people dying, why take the risk so someone can check their facebook in the air?

The FCC is handling this correctly. The people have an interest in using these devices so the FCC is studying what the impact will be and making decisions accordingly.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[icebike]

This study is being done by the FAA, and not be the FCC, and they are not considering phones.

No crash, but effects

[Anonymous Coward]

WHile there's never been a crash or serious incident, there ARE cases of probable interference in-flight. In general, they notice unexpected sensor readings, so they assume the sensor has failed or is otherwise unreliable, and move on.

Do you want to take the chance that it's something like, oh, the angle of attack or other airdata sensor when you're flying at altitude where small changes have big effects? (viz Air France plummeting to the ocean off Brazil).

That said, I think the real value is in getting people to take the earplugs out during takeoff and landing, when the documented probability of "bad things" happening is much higher.

Arm chair pilots

[kerneloops]

Nothing like passengers, that's you people, telling me in the cockpit how there is no interference. You are correct, if your mobile is a CDMA device, I won't hear it in my headset, but GSM is another matter, AT&T's frequency band being the worst offender. Granted the interference is subtle, but the "tower pinging" is most definitely there. Not all the time, typically around 10,000' and below. But please continue to explain how it doesn't bother me, or my fellow pilots. After all, you are the paying customer, and the customer is always correct.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[NotSanguine]

VOIP calls generally utilize somewhere (depending on the codec used) between 50-160kbps or so.

Then again, 50 people talking at once is ~8Mb/sec, which is a significant amount of bandwidth. At high utilization rates, call quality could be a problem as well.

Another consideration is the revenue stream that airlines derive from charging you to use *their* phones. We mustn't upset that apple cart. It could spell doom for the airlines. :)

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[MaskedSlacker]

Or some of us even know about airplane mode and know that with the radio off there is no difference between my cell phone and your ipod.

You're missing the point

[ArturoBandini77]

Electronic devices are forbidden because you get DISTRACTED in delicate moments of flight!!!!
Not because of some strange kepler belt related issue!!!

Please... Really... WAKE UP!!!

Old news?

[oyenamit]

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/03/faa-to-revisit-the-use-of-certain-personal-electronics-on-flights/

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[harl]

You're correct the "bandwidth" arguments is a lie.

They don't allow voice apps because they don't want people coordinating attacks with them.

It's impossible to coordinate something with irc, or email, or im, or twitter, or facebook.

Re:AMD Demos World's First Fusion APU

[X0563511]

Die in a fire, spammer. Forgot to log out?

Oh, btw: APU is already taken.

This has always been a stupid rule...

[ToddInSF]

They even make you turn off an analogue cassette player. Nonsensical.

If 're going to crash and burn on take off or landing, I want to at least enjoy it.

About time.

[Anonymous Coward]

As a pilot, and one who used to fly frequently prior to the DHS (our version of the Stasi) ruined all air travel in the US, I would routinely leave several cellular phones, and other electronics turned on for the duration of my commercial flights, and throughout the duration of my private flights.

NEVER have I ever encountered any disruption, or any signals interference with any of the communications, GPS, or electrical systems inside the aircraft that I was Pilot in Command of, and nor have there been ANY FAA incidents filed in any of the aircraft that I've flown commercially.

Simply put, if some idiot's smart phone could take down a commercial airliner, we'd have seen that done already. Has everyone forgotten that we're in a "war on terror!"? The terrorists would have already tried to do this.

The FAA has cow-toed to the big corporation's and their inability to keep their technology up with the changing times. The major issue on this restriction was the tower-hopping at >500mph, as the cellular network was never designed to handle that speed. It was only designed for ground vehicles, and ~100mph. The major problem is that they use a temporal algorithm to calculate your airtime charges, and when you travel too swiftly, you aren't properly charged for your air-time, and you "get away" with free service.

For those morons who believe that this will "destroy" an aircraft, keep dreaming. The FAA would NEVER give an airworthiness certificate to an aircraft with systems that could be so easily impacted by something as small or weak as a cellular telephone. If it were a 50W Military Radio, I could see some concern, however, cell phones aren't even close.

Games, text, web: fine. NO TALK.

[quixote9]

Air rage will be a major cause of interrupted flights, if people blather on their phones in the air like they do on the ground. Bus rides usually aren't that long. In trains you can move to a different car. But cooped up in a tin can on a long-haul trans-Pacific flight with someone who won't stop yakking?

Death penalty. It's the only punishment that fits the crime.

But how much do you want to bet that once they magnanimously allow blathering, the airlines will start charging more for seats outside the blather zone?

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[kaws]

There's a Myth Buster episode that someone referred to that showed that cellphones could interfere with airplane transmissions if the airplane isn't shielded properly. In my opinion it's completely bogus to not allow electronics in general during the whole flight. Especially since they're telling you to put away low powered devices that have no chance of creating interference. I'm just saying that the only remote possible thing that they could do is not allow cellphones during takeoff/landing and leave everything else alone. In the end they probably have some very stupid (non-safety reason) for not changing the policy.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[AK Marc]

50 calls at $1 per minute for a 1 hour flight is $3000 dollars. That'll pay for about a month of 8 Mbps, every single hour.. And VoIP is generally 120 kbps for the worst codec, and under 20 kbps for the best (16 kbps payload, plus overhead).