Slashdot Mirror
FCC Chief Urges FAA To Ease Airplane Electronics Ban
Hugh Pickens writes "AFP reports that Federal Communications Commission chairman Julius Genachowski is calling for an easing of the ban on using mobile phones and other electronic devices on airplanes during takeoff and landing, saying devices such as smartphones 'empower people' and can boost economic productivity. 'I write to urge the FAA to enable greater use of tablets, e-readers and other portable electronic devices during flight, consistent with public safety,' the FCC chief said in the letter to FAA Administrator Michael Huerta. The ban is in place based on the assumption that devices could interfere with an airplane's navigation equipment. But a number of news stories have questioned the validity of this claim, and many point out that some people forget to turn off their devices during flights. The FCC studied the question several years ago but found insufficient evidence to support lifting the ban at the time. But not everyone has been forced to put their gadgets away. Earlier this year the FAA approved iPads instead of paper flight manuals in the cockpit for pilots, but the agency still refuses to allow passengers to read on Kindles and iPads during takeoff and landing."
Wow... 10 minutes when I can't use my iPad. If this is your biggest problem in your life, celebrate like there's no tomorrow.
Is this for real? Can people really not go without using their stupid devices for 5 minutes at takeoff and another 5 minutes at landing?
SERIOUSLY! You're going to be in the plane, in the air, for an hour, if not far longer. A few minutes at the beginning and end of the trip won't have much impact at all on "economic productivity".
If they ease the ban and it turns out that there IS a device that could mess with an airplane's electronics, people will be complaining that the FAA didn't warn them. The FCC should stay out of matters that could potentially kill hundreds as well as cost airlines money and costumers. It's better to be safe than falling to your death from a couple of miles up.
Sorry, but no. Though the FAA considers the Surface tablet highly unlikely to bring down the jet you're on, it is a virtual lock to bring down English dominance by allowing downloads in Korean. (blogs.cio.com/mobilewireless/17626/microsoft-surface-tablet-review)
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
We all know that this is a tactic of giving people something to do so they'll shut up for a couple of minutes.
Allowing these devices during take off and landing gets us one step closer to cattle car flights.
Sure there's probably no risk of electronic devices causing problems in the air, but I really don't mind having to wait 10 minutes. People who do are just impatient assholes.
I always assumed it was because takeoff and landing are done at the lowest altitiudes, and have a higher risk of an emergency happening. Having items stowed and not being distracted may help in surviving an emergency. The fact that passengers can't even manage the feign interest in the safety instructions makes me question if people could pry their eyeballs away from their super important game of angry birds in the event of an emergency :) I've seen plenty of people (of all ages) get sucked into tv and computers so much that it appears they are in a trance and they don't respond to verbal directions as if they hadn't even heard them. I fly frequently, but I say keep them off.
Perhaps iPad shields off unwanted flight data interference better than plastics shell tablets. LoLz spilled around....
>" but the agency still refuses to allow passengers to read on Kindles and iPads during takeoff and landing."
Great! Then I can use my Xoom or Nexus 10!
And Bonus Round! You will be browsing with Internet Explorer right out of the box. No troublesome free downloading of the things you're used to off the internet either! Fear not, all software can be purchased safely from the Microsoft Windows store....meh!
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Honestly, do people *really* need to have phone and other electronic devices during takeoff and landing? They can't put the stuff aside for 15 minutes? Are they that dependent? What next, you HAVE to leave the tray table down, you MUST leave your seat back? You're on a fricking plane. Put your stuff away and prepare for landing/takeoff.
I've never really understood why it's so difficult to stop using these things during the crucial parts of the flight. Aside from the electronic signals part, it's also better not to have a bunch of hard, breakable glass, and/or relatively heavy objects floating around the cabin space. Stuff should be stowed below the seats in case there is turbulence or some other issue with the takeoff/landing. It might also be a good idea to have passengers' full attention in case the phrase "brace for impact" comes over the sound system.
I'm a pilot, and as much as I think the ban is BS, I also understand. The problem is that the FAA cannot (practically) garuentee any level of quality or standard compliance for any piece of electronics that a passenger may bring on board (think $50 imitation iPad that may have bad or poorly designed radio components and transmits way outside the frequency band and power limits of wifi).
Another half truth I've heard is that it keeps passengers more focused on their surroundings, so you may be able to take instructions from flight attendants faster if there were an emergency, versus oblivious to the outside world, buried in your work.
An account that was created today, has first post and endorses a Microsoft product? I've seen this before.
Shill.
If a random normal everyday wireless signal can cause any damage or impediment at all to an airplane, then that airplane has a faulty design.
End of story; No ifs, ands, or buts.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
If you demonstrate, for example, that a Nintendo does not cause interference, then the approval would apply only to the model tested, and not to any other gaming devices.
One could argue that this is overly cautious, but there are devices out there which do interfere with the aircraft. FM radios, for example, can and often do interfere with VOR navigation receivers. If they err, it is on the side of safety. It would take one really bad accident traced to an unapproved device to have the NTSB screaming for the head of everyone concerned.
Disclaimer: I hold airframe and powerplant mechanics certificates, an inspection authorization (lets me inspect aircraft on behalf of the FAA each year), and a general radiotelephone certificate.
I don't see why this has ever been an issue.
The FCC specifically cordons off certain frequencies for different purposes.
Airplane and Tower communications should be squared away in a band that no commercially available electronic device can legally use.
WiFi, bluetooth, etc. are all in their own frequency band. Gotta keep 'em separated!
I mean when was the last time you picked up the police channel while trying to tune in your favorite FM station? Doesn't happen.
It is not that the same problems have less meaning in a First World country than it has in a Third World one. It is that the usual problems in the former are considerably less grave. You severely underestimate African countries' problems by comparing them to US big cities. US doesn't have 30%+ of its population dying from tuberculosis (a disease that is far from being untreatable), there are no ethnic massacres of whole towns there.
Although there is a significant amount of Americans bellow the line of poverty, very few of them are bellow the line of misery and that makes all the difference in the world. It is the difference between living bearing difficulties and dying from starvation and disease at a very young age.
I didn't know these things were banned during flight. I've used my Kindle many times without an issue being raised by the cabin crew.
Of course, this means using them in air mode (no radio transceivers operating) and not during takeoff and landing. The reasons for a ban during these flight mode is two fold: These are the most critical (and dangerous) parts of flight and distractions from cabin crew instructions or PA announcements need to be minimized. Also, its not so much the nav equipment that interference might harm, its the VHF comm. between the flight crew and ground control. Navigation beacons, due to their steady state nature, are relatively immune to momentary interference (like GSM buzz). But voice communications can be momentarily blocked. This can be a problem during critical parts of a flight, particularly if there is an emergency or some other unusual situation requiring clear and prompt communications. The crash at Tenerife airport was caused in part by interference with cockpit/controller communications.
So, my point is: tablets and laptops don't seem to be banned during all flight modes. If you can't refrain from using them during takeoff and landing, or you must call or tweet continuously, don't fly. Seek mental help. I don't want to share the cabin with crazy people.
Have gnu, will travel.
Absolutely ban electronics during takeoff and landing! Those are the two most dangerous times of the entire flight and passengers need to be alert and attentive to flight attendants and the pilots should emergency information need to be conveyed. Passengers engrossed in their electronic devices are likely to miss important information. I'm not impressed with Julius Genachowski over this! Those bans are in place for a good reason. Furthermore, I think the ban on cellular phones should continue to be enforced during flight. The conditions are crowded enough on an airplane. The flights are long and the service is absolutely lacking unless you are lucky enough to be able to afford, or have the mileage to take avance of, first class.
unless you get stuck on a tarmac for hours on end, takeoff and landing is just a few minutes at each end of a flight... big deal. how the hell did you manage to go without being attached to your phone while getting molested at security? or while driving to the airport? (oh, you're one of THOSE)....
do your friggin texting, calling and web surfing before you get on the plane... and if you really gotta be reading a book during those times... i dunno... TAKE A FRIGGIN BOOK.
i'm all for a total ban on passenger electronics, just like the old days.
I hope the ban is NEVER lifted. Not because I'm worried about cell phones somehow affecting guidance or other electronics on the plane, but because I don't want to be stuck next to some jerk on a three-hour phone call.
And it relies on electronics to operate safely.
There's no practical way to ensure any arbitrary RF transmitter won't interfere with the electronics required for safe operation.
It doesn't matter how important you think you are.
Oops the tablet fell and the screen is damaged. Guess we don't have any emergency instructions. Too bad passengers, but your families will get a $5 credit to meTunes.
It is not that the same problems have less meaning in a First World country than it has in a Third World one. It is that the usual problems in the former are considerably less grave. You severely underestimate African countries' problems by comparing them to US big cities. US doesn't have 30%+ of its population dying from tuberculosis (a disease that is far from being untreatable), there are no ethnic massacres of whole towns there.
Although there is a significant amount of Americans bellow the line of poverty, very few of them are bellow the line of misery and that makes all the difference in the world. It is the difference between living bearing difficulties and dying from starvation and disease at a very young age.
The US "poverty" line is bogus anyway, at least when compared to real poverty. Which I supposed why you invented your "misery line".
The "poor" in the US are subject to "hunger". At worst. "Hunger". Not "malnutrition". Not "starvation". "Hunger".
Imagine a future where this ban is lifted. Phone/tablet manufacturers would probably do away with "airplane mode" in software. There is so much going on below the surface on these devices, you don't always know what it's doing.
Whether out of concern for being able to use the device without being tracked by your cell carrier, or without phoning home data to an app developer, or without using pulling any data when you are close to your monthly cap (which is becoming increasingly common... To the point where I hear non-techies saying they're afraid to upgrade their device because they might lose their old unlimited data plan... Which isn't necessarily true), or to quickly turn off power-hungry components to extend battery life, or some other reason... I for one like the idea that I have control over the device's connection to the outside world.
Without an FAA ban, this option will go away, or be replaced by an option that looks like it cuts off all communication but secretly gives the manufacturer or carrier and its "special partners" exclusive access. The carriers make more money if you blow through your data cap. Amazon has an interest in being able to delete content from your device without your permission whenever they want, wherever your device is.
Posting AC because I don't want to lose mod points.
The thing is, the FAA is overcautious. Case in point: we have to replace the lamps in the strobes on our 1300' tower every couple of years. They're just xenon flashtubes, I know the original supplier (it's an Italian company) and could get them for about $200 each. But because of FAA regulations, I MUST buy these from an "approved" manufacturer -- and in most cases, that means the original manufacturer -- at $750 each.
I even know why: if the lights should fail and we have an air accident, the Newscreatures will be all over it. "Why does the FAA allow uncertified lamps in towers?" So, it's easier just to make this ridiculously-restrictive rule. Same with electronic devices on an airplane. As a radio engineer, I know how unlikely it is that anything hand-held could affect the systems on that airplane.
(HINT: If they're THAT sensitive, flying through an electrical storm would be FAR MORE likely to cause problems than my little iPad or Android phone.)
The FAA isn't the only government agency that suffers from inertia and "cover-butt-itis." But they are one of the better (worse) examples.
If my tablet/phone/anything can bring down your fucking plane, you made the plane wrong, and why the fuck am I allowed to even have it on the aircraft in the firstplace?!? Oh, that's right, because it can't bring down a plane. At all. Not possible. The plane is flying over hundreds of thousands of cell towers during it's entire flight. During take off and landing it's within METERS of these towers broadcasting at several orders of magnitude more power than your damned phone.
The ban on these devices is simple. The airlines lobbied for it. Not because it keeps you safer, but because it makes you bored and more likely to buy their in-flight services like the ridiculous back of the seat computer bullshit. Learn to know when you're being manipulated.
I don't care if you use your smartphone/tablet to play games, read documents, write email whatever...
I just don't want to sit next to you for 6hours while you talk on the phone or use Skype/facetime, any more than I want to sit next to a screaming child for those same 6 hours.
As for the take-off and landing ban? That's what 15minutes and takeoff and 15minutes at landing? If you can't put that stuff down for 30minutes out of the entire flight, than you should stop referring to that device as your phone or tablet and start calling it your "binky" or "baby blanket" and should seek counseling.
Yes I'm serious. If people are so addicted to 'always on communication' that they can't be without their 'fixes' for an hour or so in total while flying then frankly they should be taken away by the men in white coats.
I've been flying to 50 years and IMHO this recent need for constant gratification is nothing more than a disease. It could well be more serious than some drug addictions because far more people seem to be suffering from it.
I'd willingly support a total ban on all electronics during flight. I'd get enough entertainment from watching the rest of my fellow travellers go 'cold turkey' especially if the flight was say from FRA to LAX.
I've flown about 200K miles this year mostly on business and use the time on flights to relax and chill out. I don't work and if I need to read, I take something in dead tree format. Life is stressful enough as it is.
Sheesh, these addicts need to 'get a life'. There is more to existence than seeing who has tweeted some inane factoid such as 'god, I have a hangover' or 'getting up'.
The misery and poverty lines are taught in Geography at least here in my country. I didn't invent them. I reckon that Geography is taught very differently from country to country, though.
it's my way of 'sticking it to The Man'
Shut up and do what you're told SHEEP!
Here is an interesting essay on the differences between poverty and misery, in case you are interested:
http://www.paulgoodmanfilm.com/decent-poverty-report-poverty-and-misery/
English, motherfucker; do you speak it!?
While you might like your Microsoft Surface Tablet, I do not think they specifically should be allowed on airplanes or in fact any public transport.
The user will soon start cursing and may potentially throw said Microsoft Surface Tablet in shear frustration, causing, at best, distractions with the possibility of bodily harm. An extreme case of Windows8-itis may cause said frustrated user to completely loose sanity, lashing out at those nearest him or her.
Android or iOS users may be uncomfortable being in the same cabin as a Microsoft Surface Tablet User, since the MSTU will require specially designed restraints to keep them under control.
That was downright painful.
Oh Crap, I'm an optimist.....
Fuck you Microsoft!!
Signed,
Linux
Boeing has an explanation of the rationale and the steps they've taken to examine the effects of electronics on aircraft in their "Aero" magazine. This is pretty old (2000) and would certainly benefit from an update, but they did real live technical investigation instead of just mixing assertions with quasi-technical arguments. A link to the full text:
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_10/interfere_textonly.html
TLDR Summary:
After receiving very specific, detailed claims/complaints from airlines, Boeing inspected the frequency range output and dB level of electromagnetic emissions from several specific devices. Their biggest concerns in the testing seemed to be the EMI due to frequency harmonics and interactions between devices--the premise and conceptual explanation seems unlikely but isn't completely meritless. No airplane susceptibility was demonstrated. Boeing clearly said that since they tested specific items, the testing was not conclusive for all devices and all interactions.
The excerpt on cell phones in particular deserves to be fully quoted, as it illustrates their thinking:
*Cell phone tests and analysis.*
Boeing conducted a laboratory and airplane test with 16 cell phones typical of those carried by passengers, to determine the emission characteristics of these intentionally transmitting PEDs. The laboratory results indicated that the phones not only produce emissions at the operating frequency, but also produce other emissions that fall within airplane communication/navigation frequency bands (automatic direction finder, high frequency, very high frequency [VHF] omni range/locator, and VHF communications and instrument landing system [ILS]). Emissions at the operating frequency were as high as 60 dB over the airplane equipment emission limits, but the other emissions were generally within airplane equipment emission limits. One concern about these other emissions from cell phones is that they may interfere with the operation of an airplane communication or navigation system if the levels are high enough.
Boeing also performed an airplane test on the ground with the same 16 phones. The airplane was placed in a flight mode and the flight deck instruments, control surfaces, and communication/navigation systems were monitored. No susceptibility was observed.
Telephones installed and certified on the airplane by Boeing or operators are not actually cell phones, but part of an airborne certified satellite system. These phones are electromagnetically compatible with the airplane systems because their emissions are controlled. In contrast, the emissions from passengers’ cell phones are not known or controlled in the same way as permanently installed equipment.
If interference could really be a problem (unlikely), then politely asking passengers to put their gadgets away is a laughably dumb solution, because it doesn't account for people forgetting to do so accidentally or willfully (say, terrorists). The only sane solution is to design the planes to be robust to interference, which I'm pretty sure they do already anyway.
This is the first time that I've broken English hilarious. While everybody else felt it was painful, it had proper capitalization and spelling along with the relatively intelligent-sounding "argument," which means there was actually some thought behind it. Congratulations on being a REAL grammar troll. :-)
I have been a captive in America my entire life. Everybody and everything uses customary units instead of metric.
The summary mentions "The FCC studied the question several years ago but found insufficient evidence to support lifting the ban at the time." It is not talking about the FAA ban.
The FCC also bans cell phones and some other wireless devices in aircraft, not only the FAA.
I always figured the idea was that enforcing a silly rule would agitate the people who were generally likely to make trouble, and get them thrown off the plane before it was in the air.
One of the biggest reasons why they don't want you to use those devices is so you are paying attention to your fucking surroundings. If something goes wrong, they want you to be paying attention to announcements that will help saving your stupid worthless lives.
It's 10 fucking minutes, big fucking deal. Do you hate your own existence that much that you need the distraction from how horrible your life is?
There would be few things in life worse than being stuck sitting next to some dipstick talking on their phone with no hope of reprieve or escape. I would vote for continued ban on phone calls and noisy electronics (MP3/Game/DVD player, etc) for the sheer nuisance factor. Use your phone menus, apps, camera, text messaging, fine. But no calls. Everything else is fair game... except I suppose electric shavers, that's just wrong.
In a crowded, enclosed space, I don't want to hear one end a few dozen phone calls. Or try to sleep or work amid the din of everyone talking, trying to be heard over the engines and each other. ...and to hear all those details that should not be discussed in front of others. The day cell phones become allowed after the doors shut is the day hate flying a bit more.
Do they also refuse to allow people to read paper books during those times?
If it's an attention issue, do they prohibit people from sleeping during those times?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
If a cell phone had ANY chance at all of interfering with a planes electronics to the point that there was ANY chance of bringing the plane down; do you think that they would allow 150 "terrorist" cell phones onboard every flight? Or would they ban cell phones entirely, not even permitting them in checked baggage for fear that they were left on?
I'll wager that 25% of the cell phones ON EVERY FLIGHT are not turned off. I've forgotten to turn mine off on a couple of flights. Have you never forgotten? Everyone that I have spoken to about it, that flies frequently for business, has confessed that they have forgotten to turn their phone off on occasion.
THERE IS ZERO CHANCE OF A CELL PHONE BRINGING A PLANE DOWN. ZERO CHANCE!
I don't see why people continue trying to argue for/against the "interference" issue. Maybe they're just stupid (if they believe the interference story) or they are stupid and think it's cool to be contrary for the sake of it (if they don't believe the interference story). If it were a serious concern, terrorists would just board planes and leave their cellphones on. I'm actually glad that the rules are in place, despite the *idiotic* justification. People are, generally speaking, incompetent. If I ever have to take the emergency exit to get out of a burning plane, I'd rather have just a line of idiots ahead of me in the queue to get out than a line of idiots *who are also distracted because they couldn't put down their phone/tablet/whatever* .
It helps to distract from the pressure equalisation of landing.
Admittedly there are bigger issues, but I think I just resent being treated as a terrorist, a peep show and then an idiot in quick succession.
I'm really confused how people still think this interference argument can at all be plausible. If any electronic device could interfere with a plane enough to affect the flight, every terrorist would bring a couple of these on every flight and "forget" to turn them off. If these devices can possibly be dangerous, we would know about it by now. Think about how much effort terrorists have spent concocting new attacks like liquid bombs, and then try and tell me they wouldn't just stick a broadcasting fm radio in their carry-on.
"English, motherfucker; do you speak it!?"
What?
Landing and takeoff are the two most dangerous times in a plane. You need your pax seated and with belts on. You need nothing in front of them (tray tables, luggage, briefcases) that they could be flung into ... and that group includes kindles, ipads and phones.
You know that person in front of you? Your phone is going to shoot out of your hand like a rocket, pierce his skull and splatter brains all over the cabin. And that's before he become obnoxious and lowered his backrest while you still eat.
Seriously, you don't even really want to be reading a paper book as you land or take off. Instead just lean back, relax and then when the seatbelt sign goes off grab your devices and go for it. (Apart from phones of course, unless the plane has a mini-cell)
It seems odd and somewhat hypocritical that mobile phones are permitted after landing but not notebooks, tablets, gameboys, and the like. I have come to personally appreciate the rule, however, because my goal is to get off the plane and if Mr. Aisleseat isn't quite finished with his movie by the time we taxi in, I know a flight attendant will correct the situation before it seriously inconveniences me and everyone behind us as we try to unboard.
The problem is no airplane manufacturer or air carrier purchasing passenger planes to date has paid for the exhaustive testing required to prove that a whole planeload of today's portable gadgets operating in flight-safe mode on a particular model airplane is safe during take-off or landing. If you have not been involved in the FAA certification of an aircraft, you really can't appreciate how much testing is required. The FAA has approved *two* iPads operating in the cockpit - nothing more, nothing less. Bottom-line is the two iPads in the cockpit are there to facilitate improved automation of crew tasks (flight check lists, approach plates, flight plans, etc), whereas passenger gadgets are entertainment. You want that to change, go lobby Boeing & Airbus or their customers that purchase these planes to spend more mega bucks to do the required testing so you and your seat mates can keep your gadgets turned on during take-off and landing. Then there is the problem of whether it is really in flight-safe mode. Every been on a plane where somebody's phone rings while taxiing to the runway? Much easier for the flight attendants to ascertain a device is turned off (or at least sleeping) vs. being flight-safe. Somebody will do the required testing eventually, but not without a solid business case to pay for it.
Most people already have heard audio interference from their cell phones. It usually happens just before it rings.
Aviation headsets, like most audio equipment, are not immune to this effect. This alone is not enough to cause a crash but it may interfere with important communication, possibly of the kind that would have prevented a major accident.
I heard that cell phones can interfere with ILS (instrument landing system) too.
Devices without a radio are probably safe but I think it is like putting metal in a microwave. You can put metal in a microwave under certain conditions, but rather than explaining relatively complex details, they prefer to ban it altogether.