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accepted submitter cathyreisenwitz writes "The New York Times' Bits blog has a great piece on the FAA's inconvenient, outdated and unhelpful rules regarding electronic devices on planes: 'Dealing with the F.A.A. on this topic is like arguing with a stubborn teenager.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rules illustrate why we shouldn't let the government regulate the internet: Government regulations are nearly always outdated and too cautious."

Comments

Wow

[avandesande]

Imagine if the avionics industry wasn't regulated?

Re:Wow

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Great, now you only have to mention an EMP bomb to drive your point home. What exactly makes it more illegal to run an unauthorized high-power transmitter on a plane instead of running it on the ground? And shall I turn off my wristwatch before I board the airplane? You know, there's electronics inside, too.

Re:Wow

[Faldgan]

There is a segment of the avionics industry that isn't regulated. Experimental aircraft. I speak (honestly I'm typing, but if you wanted I could read this whole comment out loud) from a position of some knowledge on this. I am a commercial pilot and a flight instructor and am also building my own experimental aircraft. (Go Velocity! - http://www.velocityaircraft.com/

A TSO'd two panel glass avionics display consisting of about 8 to 10 inch PFD (Primary Flight Display) and MFD (Multi-Functional Display) will cost you in the neighborhood of $70,000 for a certificated system. (http://www.avidyne.com/products/release-9/r9-cirrus.asp)
An experimental setup with similar capabilities can be had for perhaps $15,000. (http://www.dynonavionics.com/ http://www.grtavionics.com/ )

While I may personally think that the FAA has been overly cautious about allowing unknown devices on commercial flights, I would like to point out two things:

First, their goal is to make things SAFE. Not comfortable. Not convenient. Not mobile-app-enabled. Safe. And they have done a heck of a job of that. Look at the safety record of the commercial aviation industry in the US. It's incredible. More people die on the way to or from the airport than die after they get there.

Second, if device manufacturers wanted to pony up the cash to certify their devices they could. If Apple, Samsung and Motorola really wanted to they could pay to have their devices certified. But it's easier to simply blame the FAA. There is no budget in the FAA for certifying these devices. If they spent the money on this instead of other things the accident rate would go up. What do you think is the right choice for an organization whose goal is to make aviation safe?

Re:Wow

[AmiMoJo]

They don't think that wireless devices will interfere with the plane, they just don't have proof that they won't. Getting proof isn't as simple as just taking a few random devices on an aircraft and seeing if it still works, they have to check that there are no subtle errors introduced into instruments or problems with high power non-FCC approved devices bought overseas. It is paranoid, but the public seems to demand paranoid when it comes to aircraft.

Re:Wow

[jonwil]

I have watched many episodes of Air Crash Investigation where the incident turned out to be caused because the airline decided that the costs of maintanence to correct an issue (and the huge costs of having airplanes out of the air while the fix done) were big enough that it was judged to be worth the risk to keep flying with the flaw. (and in some cases it took multiple incidents caused by the same flaw before the airlines, aircraft manufacturer and FAA agreed to a timely fix)

The problems with the McDonnell Douglas DC-10 cargo door (which were first picked up during the investigation into American Airlines flight 96 and not actually fixed until after Turkish Airlines flight 981 had a similar mid-air cargo door blowout) is a good example. As is the very similar problem that affected the cargo door on the Boeing 747 in United Flight 811.

Its the same reason we have government regulation on automobiles covering everything from the shape of the headlights to the minimum number of airbags a car has to have. If we didn't the automobile manufacturers would skimp on safety anywhere they thought they could do it and still have customers buying their cars.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a retired military pilot currently employed in the military industrial complex. I call BS. All it requires is standards and a standards based certification process. You determine how much RFI the airplane can take (which I imagine is quite a bit considering it has to operate in close proximity to all kinds of high powered RF transmitters) and then you establish a standard that is some fraction of that (half/third). You then require certification as "FAA APPROVED". Manufacturers would be falling all over themselves to get certified and get the "FAA" sticker on the box. Throw your iPad in an anechoic chamber and figure out what the emissions are.

This ain't rocket science, however the FAA has the "You never know" safety mindset. The risk management decision for them is "does the benefit outweigh the risk? To the FAA, the benefit of allowing liberal use of electronics is zero, so unless the risk can also be proven to be zero, it is impossible to outweigh the risk (no matter how small). That type of thinking is often desirable in a high risk, high consequence business like aviation, however taken to extreme it drives out common sense and logical risk management.

burden of proof goes the other way

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:burden of proof goes the other way

[PPH]

Liberty ALWAYS comes first.

... he says as the TSA agent slips on that rubber glove.

Re:burden of proof goes the other way

[hawguy]

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.

If the FAA really thinks iPads, cellphones, and other devices are harmful or could be harmful, then they should treat them as such and require that the devices be stored in an RF shielded container, or that batteries be removed and held by the flight crew until it's safe to turn them back on.

The power button on my cell phone is easily pressed by accident when I stuff it in my carryon bag, so more times than not, it's turned itself on at some point after I put it in the bag. I'm sure there are dozens of cell phones on every flight tucked away in checked and carryon bags that are powered on. Ironically, if I was allowed to hold the phone in my hands during takeoff, it would not accidentally turn on. (yes, I know my 4 ounce phone could become a hazardous projectile in an emergency, but so could the 24 ounce hardback book my seatmate is reading)

If the FAA really thinks the devices may be harmful, they should treat them as harmful devices, instead of just looking the other way and ignoring them even though they know that the devices *are* in use during all phases of flight.

It's kind of like how the TSA makes people discard drinks and other liquids before going through security since they could be explosives or hazardous explosive components, yet the trash is not treated as the hazardous waste they suspect it is. If they really think that the liquids may be hazardous, then they should treat them as hazardous waste - why would they let the janitor haul out a bin full of suspected explosives?

Re:burden of proof goes the other way

[jbolden]

Liberty doesn't always come first. Liberty gets balanced all the time against other interests. There wouldn't be FAA regulation of what goes on between private ticket holders and private airlines at all if liberty always came first. They would just leave it up to the airlines. The airlines don't want that though, because they don't want ultimate responsibility they want shared responsibility.

The FAA is way too cautious about safety in a rational universe. But note that every time a plane goes down and few hundred people die it makes national news, often for several days. Which means the public weighs flight deaths much more heavily than deaths from heart attack or car accidents or poor nutrition. We live in a representative democracy and the FAA is irrational because the public is.

Re:burden of proof goes the other way

[Citizen of Earth]

That is not how it work is aviation. The rule is you have to prove it is not harmful.

It has been proven. Consider that 90% of flyers have a cell phone and 20% of them on every flight either forget to or refuse to turn off their transmission functions. (It's not like the stewards actually check this.) So, we have millions of experiments every year and not one single adverse effect. I doubt many other flight-safety regulations receive this level of testing.

Re:burden of proof goes the other way

[plover]

If they really think that the liquids may be hazardous, then they should treat them as hazardous waste - why would they let the janitor haul out a bin full of suspected explosives?

That's the part that always gets me. If they believed to even 0.001% of a chance that the bottle of water I'm drinking from is a potentially explosive material, would they really tolerate having me toss it in a plastic garbage can next to them?

If they're going to perform Mystery Security Theater 3000 and want us to believe in it, they should at least make sure that Tom Servo is reading from the same script.

As much as I don't want a regulated Internet...

[dyingtolive]

...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!"

Unhelpful article

[plover]

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.

The proof is inverted in an airplane

[stox]

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.

FCC, not FAA

[zerotorr]

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.

backwards

[Tom]

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.

Re:Pilots...

[plover]

There's still a strong argument against permitting passenger electronics, but it's convoluted and you'll have to stick through a few points.

• A portable device can adversely impact avionics. (DealExtreme used to sell GPS jammers that were the size of a pack of cards.)
• Portable electronic devices sold in the US must pass FCC certification.
• Counterfeit electronic devices do not pass FCC certification.
• Counterfeit electronic devices are not uncommon.
• A flight attendant cannot tell the difference between a certified device and an uncertified device.
• Aircraft are not designed with Faraday cages for the passenger compartment, nor are they equipped with RF interference detectors.
• Passenger convenience is less important than passenger safety.

When you add up all those factors, the FAA is playing it cautiously, but rationally. They don't get to say "let's see just how many flights are adversely impacted if we allow everyone to turn on randomly RF emitting electronics."

Sure, I know my iPad and iPhone and Kindle won't harm the plane's avionic system. You may know yours won't, either. But my nephew bought a cheap gray market phone that spews RF noise like a plague rat. How does a non-electronic-engineer flight attendant tell the difference?

Re:Just because one agency

[cusco]

On an even larger scale, look at the effect of the privatization of the military. When I was in high school ('70s) guys would go into the Army and when they got out they would at least know how to maintain a jeep, type, fix electronics, or drive a bulldozer. Hell, even Beetle Bailey did enough KP to work in a restaurant when he got out. Today all that's done by subcontractors that cost 5-20 times as much as having the grunts do it, and at the end of their service the only training the ex-soldiers have is how to kill people.

Boeing thinks there is interference ...

[perpenso]

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