Slashdot Mirror
FAA Device Rules Illustrate the Folly of a Regulated Internet
First time accepted submitter cathyreisenwitz writes "The New York Times' Bits blog has a great piece on the FAA's inconvenient, outdated and unhelpful rules regarding electronic devices on planes: 'Dealing with the F.A.A. on this topic is like arguing with a stubborn teenager. The agency has no proof that electronic devices can harm a plane's avionics, but it still perpetuates such claims, spreading irrational fear among millions of fliers.' The rules illustrate why we shouldn't let the government regulate the internet: Government regulations are nearly always outdated and too cautious."
Imagine if the avionics industry wasn't regulated?
love is just extroverted narcissism
Was not a book !!
Are allowed to use iPads in all phases of flight, but if I read a book on mine... It's trouble.
The agency has no proof that electronic devices can harm a plane's avionics
That is not how it work is aviation. The rule is you have to prove it is not harmful.
Don't like it ? change the rules, but then those rules apply to everyone and everything involved in aviation, not only consumer electronic devices.
And yet everyone here will exclaim vociferously and vehemently that we need the government to enforce network neutrality.
So which one is it? Should the government create and enforce laws about the internet or not?
I don't want to spend the flight time in the inevitable cacophony of the most mundane and trivial conversations.
the first plane crash after devices are allowed and people will change their tune real fast.
...this is kind of like saying "Since this one agency is finicky about technology, government regulation is ineffective and outdated. As such, the government shouldn't regulate medicine!"
Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
Is run by a bunch of morons who dont know anything about science doesn't mean all government agencies run like that. In fact many are run very efficiently, which is why when strives to privatize things are done they almost always end in being inefficient and always costing the government and the people massive amounts of money more than they would have had they remained government managed. Examples on a small scale would be public works and DMVs where when outsourced to private companies they have always ended up in being horribly cost ineffective and terribly run (NJ's privative DMV was so terrible that only in re-taking it over as the MVC did it become an effective organization again and lines go from 5-6 hours to 20-30 minutes max) On a large scale you have little else to look than the USPS which is only leaking money thanks to medaling by Republicans forcing them to pay for the pension and benefits of employees not even conceived yet. That being said no government should ever regulate the internet. So while the argument is stupid and pointless, the truth is still the same.
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
The blog uses a lot of charged words without saying anything of value. "Rules bad. Regulations bad. FAA dumb." And somehow this translates directly into "regulating the Internet is doomed to fail."
First, I completely disagree with the "FAA dumb" comment. The FAA may be cautious, yes, but their mandate is aircraft safety -- it's their job to be cautious. I don't disagree with the other sentiments, but there is no logical argument put forth that explains why the rules are bad, why the regulations fail, or why the approach taken by an agency whose job is human safety (and not human convenience) will somehow doom the internet.
John
There has to be proof that such devices CAN'T harm a plane's avionics. Once that is done, we'll be able to play with our toys.
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
politics fucks up things though. We are about to have a bunch of drones crashing into things because a bunch of right-wing authoritarians want to turn the country into a police state (right-wing apparently believes that government is only good if used to oppress/kill others).
Avionics are safety critical. Is playing with electronic toys that important to you?
Maybe you should pause from your obsession with continuous entertainment to think. That's the stuff some people do when they're not being entertained.
"The agency has no proof that electronic devices can harm a plane's avionics" - but until it can be proved electronic devices WON'T harm a planes avionics isn't it better to avoid using them?
I would like to thank samzenpus and cathyreisenwitz for this fair and balanced summary.
That you are inconvenienced with your electronics device isn't even on my list of things I care about on a flight.
I would suggest their stone age priorities at least are a sensible order of priorities. Meanwhile, your list of priorities is juvenile, superficial and clueless.
I would bet anybody here that there is currently RIGHT NOW a nonzero number of cell phones current in normal mode in flight (on commercial aircraft) BONUS BET there is currently at least one person on a cell phone equipped aircraft reading/posting to Slashdot RIGHT NOW
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
IF a plane could just pull over to the side of the road if their electronics were borked, I might say that the government is being too cautious. That's not the case, though. If their electronics get scrambled, the nearest stop is 5 miles straight down at terminal velocity.
Cover your ass
I learned about it in high school
The whiners are whining now but if there is an accident and the smallest shed of a hypothesis that someone's iPhone or droid caused the crash during takeoff or landing the same media and whiners will be calling for everyone to be fired for allowing it
While the FAA has rules regarding electronics usage, cell phones in airplanes are covered specifically by the FCC. The FCC bans them because of the tax it would put on the system with thousands of cell phones switching cell towers much more rapidly then if those same phones were driving. They were worried about the significant overhead this would cause the cell system. While I've seen and heard many people complain about how much they don't believe that their phones would interfere with any avionics in any way, and they should be allowed to use them, I've never seen anyone address this specifically. What bothers me even more is that I've heard so many people complain about this, yet a simple wiki search reveals the actual reasoning behind the ban. I'm not saying it's justified or not, but if you're going to complain about something, at least don't be ignorant about it. Even if they didn't interfere with the airplane, there's more to it than that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_on_aircraft specifically- United States: To prevent disruption to the cell phone network from the effects of fast-moving cell phones at altitude (see discussion below), the FCC has banned the use of cell phones on all aircraft in flight.
.. simply because REPUBLICANS have sabotaged it. The FAA, for example, does not have the funding it needs to really research this. So caution in favor of people's lives is the only remaining choice. Just look where this article is from.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
What would be the penalty if they found out that I do not put my phone in "airplane" mode or otherwise disable it when on a flight?
I have never heard of erring on the side of caution as being a really bad thing. Now if you want to argue the effectiveness of TSA I will stand up and protest with you, but to be overly cautious about electronic devices on take off and landing doesn't seems overly infringing on my time or liberties. So I am asked to power off a device -- or just to not use it for a total of 15 minutes of a flight. This is your fight?? Fight not to get irradiated trying to board a plane. Fight for your children to not get used to being suspected of carrying a bomb. Fight for your elderly right, fight for our sons and daughters to come home from war.
I am not going to fight to use a toy on a plane for 15 more minutes.
Yet allowing in-flight devices and seeing passenger safety threatened as a result could threaten funding, power, and end several promising bureaucratic careers.
Sure, maybe they only care about losing funding. But maybe, just maybe they care about that whole passenger safety thing.
AT&T was convinced that circuit switching (rather than packet switching) was the way to go. It took DARPA (you know, the government) years to convince them otherwise, in some cases going behind their backs to do so. They also spent decades telling people that only AT&T equipment can be installed in their homes, and there's no way you can use your own phone since it may damage their circuitry.
Don't think that only government comes up with crappy rules.
The agency has no proof that electronic devices can harm a plane's avionics
That's weird. Just ask an A+P mechanic who's had to track down weird interference problems on a plane.
Also its just gossip but most pilot lounges have had an informal conversation or two along the lines of "fly over that tower and your avionics get weird"
The killer is stuff like ancient NDB/ADF radios... as long as there's a published ILS NDB approach in the entire USA airspace, you'll be stuck with what amounts to AM radio avionics on planes which are pretty good at hearing interference. Its possible, although hard, to mess up a VOR rx. I'm guessing VHF FM land mobile hand held radios (like, police and fire radios) are never going to be permitted on flying aircraft unless permanently installed and tested. GPS seems pretty hard to jam, but now you've got a single point of failure. Maybe a GPS, glosnass, and galileo triple stack of satnav would be approved, in a couple decades. Maybe.
The FCC is uninterested in REALLY enforcing unintentional radiator regulations. Once in a while for a political stunt. The most /. famous story I can think of was the original class A rated TRS-80 model I being sold to class B residential users, that thing was so electrically noisy that the 'Shack gave up and released the model III instead of trying to patch up the model I. If they really enforced standards, then maybe the FAA could do some EMC/EMI work to prove a VOR rx cannot be interfered with, etc. But they don't, and there's a world full of noisy junk as any HF ham radio operator will attest, so...
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
I think you got that backwards.
The FAA does not have to prove that mobile devices endanger aircraft electronics. Those whose manufacture or those who want to use those devices on a plane need to prove that it doesn't.
Yes, I know that some people get a heart attack if they can't check their e-mail, FB and Twitter for 20 seconds, but last time I checked, we all agree that "default deny" is the proper firewall policy. So with all security systems. If you don't know something is harmless, you need to treat it as a potential danger, until it is proven to be safe.
And when a mistake can kill a few hundred people, you err on the side of caution. Always.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Let apple/samsung/microsoft foot the bill for a test plane and a bunch of devices. Certification for a life or death application should be VERY DIFFICULT, as far as I am concerned it is hard to be TOO conservative at 37000 ft. travelling 300 + mph. Besides what could possibly be so important that you couldn't wait till you landed ?
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
hopefully the malware will be called 'snakes'. people are already spoofing GPS, and countermeasures which don't require new satellites are not too good.
actually if i was going to bring down a plane i would prefer to do it from a nice apartment near the end of a runway, or better yet a parking garage. that way i could watch or tweet the crash without having to sacrifice much on my end.
the guy who crashed his plane into the austin irs office a few years ago could have just as easily rigged the plane up to fly pilotless if he had waited a few years. 'fly the friendly skies.'
let's not regulate the internet. let's instead try to retrofit every piece of hardware on the internet to handle a vastly messy solution to the ip address exhaustion problem, called ipv6, which has in its favor that it is very expensive, is now and will create more security holes than it fixes, and solves a problem that could have been solved much more easily at the ISP level without everyone needing to change all their stuff out. Damn the government for thinking up ipv6! What? It was designed by academics and hardware vendors? Not the government? Well damn the government for letting them do this anyway!
... is NOT that "because some government regulations are unfounded, all of their regulations will be so.". The argument against regulations in general is that they punish innocent people (by restricting their liberty) without proof that the regulated activity will harm anyone. This is distinguished from objectively-defined law, where:
a) the restricted activity (in the case of good law) is a violation of someone's rights.
b) the violation must be proved in court (including civil court).
So, to choose an example I know will piss off many slashdotters, regulation of "air pollutants" is not a valid exercise of government power, since this punishes people that might emit a certain quantity of some substance, without proof that such emissions will actually harm someone. We already have laws against polluting other people's property - if someone can be proved to be doing so, they should be punished. And, if someone believes that they are going to be harmed by emissions that have yet to occur, they can even go to civil court and present merely a preponderance of evidence that this harm will ensue in order to receive relief, including injunctive relieve to prevent the activity, That is the valid operation of coercive government power - to prevent objectively definable rights violations, not to pander to people's imagined fears.
In the case of the FAA device regulations, the issue is even more clear cut - the FAA should have nothing to say at all about what devices a private airline allows to be used on its planes. That should be the decision of the airline, and they can base this decision on what they consider to be the appropriate tradeoff between safety and passenger convenience. Then, passengers could decide how they feel about a given airline's policy, and this could be factored into their patronage decision. True, this requires that passengers would need to exercise some adult judgment in their choice of airlines. Oh, the horror. Such is part of the price of liberty.
If humans are mostly water, and beer is mostly water, then humans must be mostly beer.
I just RTFA. So “Cathy” says the FAA is dumb. OK. She doesn’t supply a last name, so I’m not sure that inspires confidence.
I once had a rather large aircraft manufacturer as a client. I asked one of the engineers about the cell-phones-off policy. He gave me several insights that were rather interesting.
One of the functions of his group is to customize aircraft with electronic devices used by government agencies. As part of that, they had to insure such devices would not interfere with the aircraft control and navigation systems – and they found minor changes in position would greatly affect the results. It turns out putting all that gear inside a metal tube creates all sorts of reflections and other fun stuff. He was of the opinion that some combination of cell phone quantities and positions would surely create an issue. Just because we get away with it does not mean it won’t happen.
This is outside my field, and he might be totally wrong. But I thought I should share a data point.
Place nail here >+
Given all that, I think we all know that most devices aren't going to be a problem. It seems that a change in the regulations is in order. Perhaps during certification of the aircraft, there should be some test of electronic shielding between the avionics and a wide variety of common passenger electronics located in passenger areas. But the FAA is pretty much powerless to change their stand unless the underlying regulations are modified.
I have. The lab I work in has signs posted on all the data acquisition cabinets based on experience. We do airplane flight controls stuff there. The place I used to work, I'll just say it was a mission critical sort of place, I watched my Motorola radio drive a piece of equipment batshit. I was on the radio saying "This generator is acting all funky. Oh hey there it goes again." After a few clicks of the talk button on my radio I figured it out.
It's not the sort of thing you want to happen at 30,000 feet. The rule is a good rule.
Regards,
Jason C. Wells
Because people are a) too stupid to understand RF interference, b) they know its bullshit, or c) don't understand English.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Last time I flew on a C-130 (January, I believe) we surfed, txt'd, listened to music, etc the entire time through taxi, takeoff, level flight, and landing and the plane did not fall out of the sky in an uncontrolled fashion. There was also no "Fasten Seatbelt" light everytime we hit even the smallest patch of turbulence either. In fact here was no seatbelt light at all. The loadmaster simply said when you see me buckled up, you should be, too. When you see me up, feel free to walk around as well. Kinda nice being treated like an adult again while flying.
The agency has no proof that electronic devices can harm a plane's avionics, but it still perpetuates such claims, spreading irrational fear among millions of fliers.
The null hypothesis here is that electronic devices may or may not harm a plane's avionics. The FAA is taking the safe approach and not allowing those devices to be used during takeoff and landing. The author, however, is attempting to assert that electronics do not harm a plane's avionics. Unless one can come up with a way to prove all electronics will not harm a plane's avionics, I don't think the FAA should change its opinion on the matter.
The rules illustrate why we shouldn't let the government regulate the internet: Government regulations are nearly always outdated and too cautious.
When trying to argue in favor of Net Neutrality, I'd hear this one a lot. "The FCC wants Net Neutrality. This is the same FCC that fines networks for showing part of a breast during the Superbowl. Therefore, Net Neutrality is bad." I always wondered why people weren't embarrassed to be told that they've made a fallacious argument; but by the same logic they applied to Net Neutrality, I guess they just assume that if the New York Times does it, it must be OK.
They don't harm avionics. Never have. Probably never will.
Read this from the FAA
http://tinyurl.com/b28pb9y
There is a petition on the White House's We the People page to have the ban ended unless the FAA starts providing some definite evidence of danger to the aircraft from the electronic devices... http://wh.gov/Uael
"Government regulations are nearly always outdated and too cautious."
Um, no, that is the opposite of the truth. Government regulations are nearly always up-to-date and too lenient -- but if you look hard enough, you can find the one or two exceptions, such as Kindles on airplanes. You can weigh that one single instance against, say, the hundreds of thousands of building codes and food safety regulations.
That's not to say we shouldn't clean up those rare exceptions when we find them. We should, and we should with this one instance. But only a libertarian would be so daft as to ignore the vast overwhelming evidence presented by reality in order to hole up inside a small dark den of anarchistic ideology.
I have been told that aircraft mechanics report that airplanes have a certain amount of Hell If We Know It Just Does in their behavior, and specifically that there are known instances where one SPECIFIC plane -- not a model line, just one specific plane -- will behave in slightly unexpected ways near some but not all electronics.
Which is to say: I think that the problem is that they *do* have some real evidence of cases in which electronic devices, especially poorly-shielded ones, or ones which had wireless emitters, had unexpected effects.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
"Government regulations are nearly always outdated and too cautious."
Next up on Slashdot: "Polar ice caps melting slightly faster than expected! Quickly, to the Regulatron!"
Which is it guys?
N4st0r, trixx0r h0bb1tz0rz! Th3y st0l3 0ur pr3c10uzz!
Regardless of whether a design passes FCC testing, devices that are defective, either through manufacturing, age or abuse, might cause unforeseen and/or unpredictable problems with aircraft navigation. Unfortunately the world isn't perfect--especially when it comes to passengers and their baggage--but to function properly, the avionics pretty much have to be, which is why they're routinely inspected.
There is a petition on the We the People webpage of the White House to have the FAA produce some evidence to support the ban of the use of electronic devices or have the ban lifted: http://wh.gov/Uael
The author seems to be assuming that the internet is not already regulated by governments. Even though the technology has improved, the idea of anonymously and freely exploring this new frontier can only be achieved by circumventing government policies enacted a decade ago. I remember the question "Should governments regulate the internet?" was met with a resounding "No!" even as it was being implemented. I think the topic is about 12 years too late.
I agree. Of the agencies I want to be extra cautious, FAA is at the top of the list along with the FDA. NHTSA, and other agencies that are responsible for making sure that the products and services we use don't kill us.
It's not like they can pull the plane over until they find out which device is screwing with the avionics, were such a thing to happen..
Apples are pretty much alike. This apple has worms, therefore all apples have worms. QED.
'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
They now know the devices won't make the plane fall out of the sky.
The problem is, how do they sell you multimedia if you can bring your own for free?
'Dealing with the F.A.A. on this topic is like arguing with a stubborn teenager.' .......
More like dealing with people who can't live without their electronics for 20min (10 at the start and 10 and the tail) is like dealing with a group of petulant teenagers.
Personally I think it is highly unlikely that interference from most electronic devices posses any serious issue on a common basis. That said it isn't going to be a common place event that poses the problem, its going to be a rare instance where a lot of small things snowball.
I'm more than willing to turn off my gizmos for (OMGWTFBBQ) 20 whole minutes..... just in freaking case, to ensure the safety of myself and those around me. To ensure some freak snowball of electronic interference actually do something that puts lives in jeopardy.
"The agency has no proof that electronic devices can harm a plane's avionics." I'd settle for evidence!
Those "outdated" FAA regulations that have been in force for more than 50 years require that any electronic devices used on a plane have been "determined not to interfere" with avionics. (FAR 91.21 and 121.306). I'm not sure whether "determining" is proof, but at least you don't have to prove an electronic device will crash a plane before you prohibit it.
http://appleinsider.com/articles/12/09/11/american_airlines_pilots_begin_using_apples_ipad_during_all_phases_of_flight
"American Airlines this month is expanding its iPad Electronic Flight Bag program, as 777 aircraft pilots begin using Apple's tablet during all phases of flight, helping to save an estimated $1.2 million per year on fuel costs."
The FAA's role is to be extremely cautious. Aviation's one of those things where minor mistakes can have disastrous consequences. Same kind of thing as with medical devices: they had better work, perfectly, every time. And since individual components can fail, the backup systems also need to just plain work. The more outside factors can interfere with the system, the harder it is to analyze down to some large number of 9's. So don't expect the FAA to move quickly when it comes to authorizing any changes, including RF that might or might not be generated from the cabin. Given the wide range of consumer electronics, they want to make sure that the worst case scenario won't come close to generating problems for the avionics, particularly during takeoff and landing. They'll get around to it, but only after doing lots of homework. I wouldn't want to fly on a plane whose owner is allowed to cut corners on safety; the airlines would do everything they could to save money.
The internet is a very different kind of system, and the role of government regulation is different. I *do* want government regulation of the form that protects us from "regulation" by private service providers -- things like upload/download limits, preferential treatment for certain kinds of content, functionality with all devices (I don't want to be told that I have to run Windows, for example). Net neutrality requires either effective government regulation or real competition, and for some strange reason, real competition in telecommunications doesn't seem to be a stable situation. Look at what's happened since ATT was broken up; the industry has reconsolidated around a couple of big companies that seem content to divide up the pie rather than seriously compete with one another.
Chattanooga, Tennessee is doing very nicely with public internet. Around here my only choice for fast internet seems to be Comcast, with its high prices and 250 GB monthly cap (I ran a script on my system, and found that it's not hard to hit half of that, on a much lower bandwidth DSL line). Verizon hasn't bothered to build out FIOS to my area, and while that may be fast compared to most of the US, it would be very slow in Chattanooga (or many other countries).
I just don't believe that that kind of situation is going to get fixed without government regulation. Google is in the process of building out Kansas City (?), but that kind of piecemeal approach isn't going to solve the broader problem.
14 CFR 91.21: Portable Electronic Devices
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may operate, nor may any operator or pilot in command of an aircraft allow the operation of, any portable electronic device on any of the following U.S.-registered civil aircraft:
(1) Aircraft operated by a holder of an air carrier operating certificate or an operating certificate; or
(2) Any other aircraft while it is operated under IFR.
(b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to—
(1) Portable voice recorders;
(2) Hearing aids;
(3) Heart pacemakers;
(4) Electric shavers; or
(5) Any other portable electronic device that the operator of the aircraft has determined will not cause interference with the navigation or communication system of the aircraft on which it is to be used.
(c) In the case of an aircraft operated by a holder of an air carrier operating certificate or an operating certificate, the determination required by paragraph (b)(5) of this section shall be made by that operator of the aircraft on which the particular device is to be used. In the case of other aircraft, the determination may be made by the pilot in command or other operator of the aircraft.
There is a problem with a difference between insufficient/ineffective regulation and NO regulation. Insufficient and Ineffective regulation at least provide some modicum of control to prevent the abuse of the system as a whole, while no regulation stops exactly nothing at all and prevents absolutely nobody in the private sector from taking advantage of the poor sods who will continue to pay higher and higher for less and less.
So in essence, regulation isn't immediately a bad thing as long as it is effective and relevant. The anti-regulation types are typically the sort that want to exploit the system beyond its intent and are exactly the types that the regulation is designed to put a -stop- to in the first place. So in essence, these are people that are digging holes under the supports of a bridge so they can install their own supports claiming that they have to install the new supports to prevent the bridge from collapsing but are then are whining because the construction company that built the bridge in the first place is telling them they can't dig holes under the supports or install their own supports. But many of the anti-regulation types have been trying to spin that the government is trying to steal control and put in regulation (that prevents the private sector from undermining the system) that somehow is supposely harming the whole system that they themselves can be the only solution for. You can't tell me that isn't insanity.
The rule is you have to prove it is not harmful.
Yep. And 10 years ago, my father and I tried turning on a laptop inside the single-engine plane on the ground, during engine-warmup/preflight checks.
Buzzing on the intercom, and the RDF/VOR both went bonkers, even when set to local beacons where there was strong signal. Turns out the cheap laptop was unbelievably poorly shielded, leaking RF coming from the screen's backlight and the various major clocks.
Do you really want your life to be endangered by the guy who brings some crappy laptop that isn't FCC/ECC certified onto the plane you're on?
I find it funny that plenty of Slashdotters are HAM operators or 'get' interference, but are absolutely RIPSHIT that they have to turn off their devices while flying. Grow up, and recognize that you have an addiction and entitlement issues. Read a damn book, take a nap, meditate, strike up a conversation. You're not ENTITLED to sit there and surf the net.
Please help metamoderate.
In one of the smaller aircraft I fly, some of the avionic's compass sensors are located in the under-seat storage bins. I noticed the magnetic compass didn't agree with the electronically driven compass (Look up flux-gate compass if your curious). So when we were on the ground I pulled everything out of those bins and the electronic compass swung back around to the same heading as the magnetic compass. I was curious so I took my cell phone out and plopped it right on top of the flux gate sensor and the electronic compass instantly started spinning in circles.
Obviously this is a worst case scenario, but it did give some credence to the cell phone bans in my mind.
Are allowed to use iPads in all phases of flight, but if I read a book on mine... It's trouble.
The pilots may have wifi only iPads, no cellular. The pilots can probably be trusted to put the device into airplane mode during takeoff and landing, or to turn them off. The iPads are replacing printed documentation for aircraft info, maps, etc; they may very well be off during takeoff and landing.
I flew a few days ago. We were only instructed to turn off devices during takeoff and landing, not the entire flight.
Boeing thinks there is interference:
"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."
"Operators of commercial airplanes have reported numerous cases of portable electronic devices affecting airplane systems during flight. These devices, including laptop and palmtop computers, audio players/recorders, electronic games, cell phones, compact-disc players, electronic toys, and laser pointers, have been suspected of causing such anomalous events as autopilot disconnects, erratic flight deck indications, airplanes turning off course, and uncommanded turns. Boeing has recommended that devices suspected of causing these anomalies be turned off during critical stages of flight (takeoff and landing). The company also recommends prohibiting the use of devices that intentionally transmit electromagnetic signals, such as cell phones, during all phases of flight."
The problem seems to be that anomalies observed in flight are being reproduced in a lab.
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_10/interfere_textonly.html
Gee you accuse the FAA of being a stubborn teenager by doggedly adhering to their ESTABLISHED practices to ensure safe, as in ten to the minus ninth probability, flight. You also accuse FAA of spreading irrational fears based on no proof. Even though there are MULTIPLE technical studies/reports out there that show EMI effects from commercial electronics on Avionics devices. Personally, I like the idea of an outdated and overly cautious FAA out there making certain that I get there in one piece. Quit being a whiny teenager because the BIG BAD GOVERNMENT won't let you play with your toys whenever you want.
Government regulations are nearly always outdated and too cautious.
The original article in the Times makes no such claim and the blog post that the /. article links to, which was based on the Times article offers no evidence that this sweeping claim has any validity. In fact, I remember bridges collapsing and financial institutions collapsing, which leads me to believe that there are many cases where regulations are not cautious enough.
So the aircraft can handle two iPad that are in the hands of trained pilots who ensure that the wifi and bluetooth transmitters are turned off. That does not mean that the aircraft can handle most of the 300+ passengers with cell phones, games machines, tablets and laptops all transmitting at the same time. A little noise being OK does not mean a lot of noise is also OK.
Ladies and gentlemen please power up all of your electronic devices while we line up and wait because if the avionics on this plane are so fragile that your Androids are going to have any effect on them in any way then we need to know about it now rather than at 15,000 ft which is when we normally would let you turn on your gizmos.
On March 11, 2010, Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, Dr. Ashton B. Carter testified before Congress that, "All studies show that that [organic support, i.e. using troops] is more expensive than contractors and a distraction from military functions for military people." Lying to Congress is a criminal offense, and one should only join the military if they want to kill people, that their nation decides should be killed.
http://www.dailytech.com/American+Airlines+Wins+FAA+Approval+to+Use+iPad+in+Cockpit+During+All+Phases+of+Flight/article27646.htm
Yea. A glass cockpit for a private single engine plane would maybe cost as much as a high end PC with a really fancy touch display.
Initially, then some company would figure out that they can make it even cheaper by eliminating some minor redundant system. That doesn't cause an accident so they keep on economizing until, eventually, something they have skimped on in the name of reducing cost does cause a plane to crash and people to die. Government regulation might be a real pain at times but there is no way I would get on a plane which had its avionics made by the lowest bidder in the absence of government regulation.
If they believed to even 0.001% of a chance that the bottle of water I'm drinking from is a potentially explosive material
They don't think that - the concern is that if you bring the right mix of chemicals in as liquids you can combine them to make an explosive. Even then tossing them in a bin is not enough. Apparently they have to be combined very carefully in order to have the reaction actually make the explosive. So technically there is nothing illogical about the disposing of liquids in a bin next to the security checkpoint.
The financial crisis and Deepwater Horizon are two major examples of the catastrophic effects of too little government regulation. If your countries regulations are old and outdated, maybe you should formulate more effective policies, instead of completely destroying them.By all means continue on your present course, there is no shortage of people around the world who are extremely willing to pick up the slack when you finally jump off the impeding cliff screaming, "Long live America".
Terrorism - using fear to goals - see government.
Planes are designed to handle the environments they fly through. Planes fly though the broadcast areas TV and radio towers as powerful as 500,000 watts daily as well as lightning storms.
People have used poorly shielded electronics on planes for years both in the US and even more in other countries.
I have never seen a plane crash documented by a reputable source to have been brought down by US or EU consumer electronics. In fact, even attempts to bring down planes on purpose with electronic weapons has proven hard and inefficient.
It's all about the upsell to a captive audience. The same reason movie theaters don't want you to bring your own snacks.
EMT Labs, an independent testing facility in Mountain View, Calif., say there is no difference in radio output between two iPads and 200.
The only way that is possible is if the iPad has no radio output at all. It is true that adding out of phase signals means that noise will increase in quadrature not linearly, so 200 is not 100 times worse than 2 (probably more like 10), but it does still mean that noise increases with increasing numbers of devices: the increase in radiated energy has to go somewhere!
Also concerning is the mention of that "100 volts/metre" rule from the FAA. Electrical interference can be highly sensitive to frequency, not just field magnitude, because the right frequency can cause resonances (for a physical example see Tacoma Narrows bridge - the magnitude of the wind was not the issue!). This might be just the article not explaining things but unless they are also looking at frequency they are missing something. This, coupled with the claims above, are concerning and makes it seem like they are trying to win the argument regardless of facts - this is not the attitude you want to see in people arguing to relax safety rules (even if I think they are probably ultimately correct!).
You neglected to mention that the cockpit iPads will be routinely inspected to be in proper working order.
The problem is not regulation.
One problem is regulation that never expires or is not reevaluated every year or so.
Another more significant problem is regulation that is designed to benefit a relative few making them rich beyond any reasonable want.
Regulation should be designed not to preserve the wealth of the rich but to preserve the rights of all
I never understood why I had to turn off my Mp3 player on take off of an aircraft as there is no broadcasting signals that I am aware of that would interfere with aircraft instruments. I've modified this opinion since becoming a frequent skydiver and going through my training with several hundred flights over the last summer in a cessna. One thing to keep in mind, yes commercial flights are extremly safe and you are more likely to win the lottery then die in a plane, but as a matter of safety you should not be playing with devices during takeoff or landing as these are the two most likely times where if sometime bad is going to happen, it will. Pay attention, if shit hits the fan and the pilot or crew are giving directions you need to be listening. (I can see a situation where someone could be staring out of a window with music blaring). Although turning off devices is unneccesary, it does get the job done for this situation.
who doesn't understand how the world works. Do you think the burden of proof is on the FDA to prove that a drug *isn't* safe? No, the burden is on the company to prove that it is safe, and that's exactly what the majority of people in the country voted for. Tyranny does not mean what you think it means.
At what point did /. become infested with such whiny delusional little children?
In Sweden we can have Wifi/Celluar always on when we are flying. Dont equal goverment with American goverment. Large part of the internet is ruled by some kind of goverment agency. Is it better that you have private companies with no public oversight to rule the internet, or do you want to be able to have democratic oversight where the amount of money, you have, does not matter?
Sure, leave the net alone, but...
Tablets and laptops are fine, but under NO circumstances do I want cellphones, or anything else people talk/yell into, allowed on an airplane. I use my ipad in my GA aircraft, but it's hard-mounted, and is almost never used to browse the net beyond weather info. I'm happy to have the ban on inflight electronics extended until such time as they find a way to create an effective 'cone of silence' around any airline passenger seat that requests it. Maybe a little sooner if they give us all lotsa legroom, free drinks and decent food again. Yeah, right.
Leave my net alone, but please don't ever allow electronics that people talk into or make noise. That's about the only good thing left in commercial aviation today, the relative quiet.
What we have here is multiple cases of an anomoly disappearing when a suspect device is turned off, then reliably reappearing when that device is turned back on.
Repeating this in the lab always fails.
What is missing in the lab, is the mix of OTHER devices that were likely active at the same time. Could this be a problem of beat frequencies being produced by the suspect device IN COMBINATION with OTHER devices on the aircraft?
There has to be proof that such devices CAN'T harm a plane's avionics. Once that is done, we'll be able to play with our toys.
I suspect that pilot's farts cause navigation systems to fail. I therefore demand that all aircraft be grounded until it can be proven that aircraft are invulnerable to pilot flatulence. That makes as much sense as banning iPads.
The article you quote (including the section you quote) indicates that 1) Boeing does not think there is interference from cell phones; all emissions outside the cell phone's operating frequency were within airplane equipment emissions limits. Airplane communications and navigation frequencies are separate from cell phone operating frequencies.
"Generally within" emissions limits, not a blanket within. The fact that the sample 16 phones did not exceed emission limits is hardly any guarantee that other phones do not, nor that one of those sampled phones with replacement firmware would not. The fact that they are emitting at all on navigation and landing frequencies is a reason to keep an open mind regarding interference.
2) Anomalies observed in flight are NOT being reproduced in the lab, despite efforts to do so.
I thought I said that after the quotes, but when I reread I see that I left out the word "not". Sorry for the confusion.
In any case I hardly think that dismisses observed behavior such as "A passenger’s palmtop computer was reported to cause the airplane to initiate a shallow bank turn. One minute after turning the PED off, the airplane returned to "on course." When the unit was brought to the flight deck, the flight crew noticed a strong correlation by turning the unit back on and watching the anomaly return, then turning the unit off and watching the anomaly stop. "
To translate things into terms that the slashdot audience may have an easier time understanding: The failure to reproduce a software bug on the programmer's system is hardly evidence that the software is fine.
Article 1:
If someone's life depends on it, don't connect it to the internet.
Article 2:
Make sure you've applied Article 1.
Mind the frickin' laser...
Any device with a lithium battery can catch fire and the huge concentrations of lithium batteries in "long lasting" devices multiplied by letting LOTS of them on a plane in use, dropped, accidentally sat on, spills. Its going to get very ugly in the sky fast and folks have another reason not to fly now besides the TSA gropings and health-harmful xray body scans. Look deep into Michael Chertoff's eyes( former DHS head ) you can trust all that gear he's halked is s-a-f-e, r-i-g-h-t?
A few years ago, ieee had an interesting article tht showed some of the effects of personal electronics on airplane navigation systems.
http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/aviation/unsafe-at-any-airspeed/0
I am a pilot, and I can say first hand that I have experienced interference from wireless transmitters in avionics - mostly in direction-finding equipment and other electronics-based sensors.
You could make that objection, or similar ones, to any test which could be made. Incompleteness of evidence against the proposition that there is interference does not constitute evidence of interference.
True. However given that there are unexplained observed anomalies in flight, some highly correlated with personal electronics, I think the somewhat academic argument offered is rightly less persuasive. If folks want to use personal electronics in flight during critical periods such as landing and takeoff it does seem reasonable to expect those devices to meet a higher standard of scrutiny, including a shifting of the burden of proof in some areas. Perhaps handset manufacturers should get some sort of airline rating for devices.
:-)
Or perhaps there could be a signal to put devices into "airplane mode" automatically. Aircraft could then broadcast this signal during takeoff and landing phases. This might be useful in school during exams, movie theaters, etc.
Out of band radiation is practically impossible to avoid completely with electronic equipment; that's why there are standards greater than zero for such emissions.
I'd just like to point out that Boeing said the tested phones "generally" met such emissions standards, implying that some did not.
I'd sure like to see some evidence behind the claim that onboard laser pointers can interfere with electronic flight systems.
The problem is not the visible light. The electronics generating that light may very well be emitting noise on other frequencies as an unintended side effect.
I never shut my devices off on a plane. The way I look at it, if it was such a huge danger then the plane shouldn't be flying in the first place, and in addition, they have had over 10 years to fix the issues so they need to just get over it.
Mine stay on.
But the proof of interference with avionics has been around for at least 3 years now, which is why you're required to stow your mobile phone into your hold baggage, turned off, before the pat-down and before you go for you flight briefing and issue, donning and inspection of your flight safety gear.
Or don't your civilian flight providers talk to the rest of the industry?
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Do you really think if an electronic device was capable of taking down an aircraft they'd allow you to take it on board?