FAA Pushed To Review Ban On Electronics

First time accepted submitter sfm writes "Ever tangle with a grumpy flight attendant over turning off your Kindle Fire before takeoff? This may change if the FAA reviews their policy for these devices. The FAA is under extreme pressure to either change the rules or give a good reason to keep them in place. From the article: 'According to people who work with an industry working group that the Federal Aviation Administration set up last year to study the use of portable electronics on planes, the agency hopes to announce by the end of this year that it will relax the rules for reading devices during takeoff and landing. The change would not include cellphones.'"

Comments

Avionics

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone who works with Comm/Nav systems for aircraft, let me be the firs to say:

Good. Nothing you have in your possession is going to adversely effect any of the systems used for take off and landing. These rules are stupid and were based on the fear of the unknown instead of actual studies and evidence.

Re:Avionics

[alen]

you must not understand how the media works

if a high profile crash takes place, the media hounds start looking for blame. anyone who works for the government knows to COVER YOUR ASS all the time otherwise the media hounds will call for your head on the slimmest bit of evidence

like when hurricane katrina hit and the idiot reporters were blaming bush based on a fictional book of a hurricane hitting the area. not that i liked bush, but...

Re:Avionics

[MickyTheIdiot]

The thing you mention about the book is obvious B.S., but I can't see how you can not give some of the blame for that clusterfuck of a response to the Bush administration. It's a textbook case of giving an important job to an idiot crony.

Re:Avionics

[Anonymous Coward]

Normally no consumer system should have any effect on aviation electronics. I always thought even the FAA understood this, and the worry is over electronics that may not be functioning correctly. An extreme example, is that about once a year you can find a story about rescue teams being mobilized because they see an emergency radio beacon signal, only to find out it is a malfunctioning TV or other device (well, appears functional to the user, but something is out of spec with the circuit and EMC goes to heck). While 99.999% of a particular product may be fine, there is concern that someone with one of the exceptionally bad or out of spec devices ends up on a plane. While the chances are rare and unlikely, it becomes a question of what is value of those couple minutes of electronics use during take off, and is people forgoing the electronics use for a few minutes a bigger cost than such a risk. And testing for it would not just be a matter of seeing the a plane works fine with a pile of electronics running in it, but trying to estimate how bad handheld electronics could be.

Re:Avionics

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

These rules are stupid and were based on the fear of the unknown instead of actual studies and evidence.

I have my concerns about cellphones... Not because they'll crash the plane; but because listening to 60 people babble loudly and relentlessly will make me wish that the would...

Anything silent, no problem; but if air travel features the TSA, little kids kicking the back of your seat, and cellphone chatter, it isn't going to be pretty.

Re:Avionics

[BMOC]

If that's the fear, then all consumer electronics should be banned from flying, just like guns. The random malfunction of consumer electronics potentially interacting with the comm/nav systems on a commercial jetliner has to be 5-10 orders of magnitude more rare than someone building a portable high-power RF white noise source and leaving it on during takeoff.

Re:Avionics

[cjjjer]

So says the AC...

Re:Avionics

[k6mfw]

I'd love to find a ***real*** analysis of consumer electronics including cellphone use on commercial aircraft. A study done by FAA, FCC, and NASA to have objective report of interference and performance issues of avionics systems. Occasionally we get these third-hand stories of interference does happen/does not happen (sorry but forum posts are interesting but not something I will use for TSO). Or vague studies by a govt agency but subject to suspicion per "regulatory capture." A study done by a company or a university funded by a company is bankrupt, i.e. cellphone company does research saying EM has no longterm effects on human body (probably doesn't but a cellphone company will never fund research that will result in showing longterm damage from their product).

Re:Avionics

[Alioth]

Well you're (slightly) wrong.

I was flying with a friend - it was his first time flying a real approach in real weather (and at night too!) - who had forgot to turn his phone off. ATC cleared us to intercept the localizer, and just at that moment, all audio from the comm radio was completely obliterated by "B-B BIP B BIP B BIP B BIP B BIP BRRRRRRRR" (if you've ever owned a GSM phone you'll be depressingly familiar with the noise - it interferes with pretty much any audio equipment) as his wife phoned him.

Fortunately, I was still instrument current at the time and could continue to fly the approach while he desperately fished in his clothing to find his phone (which is surprisingly complicated in the tight confines of a Grumman AA5A at night) to shut the damned thing off.

Of course, the loc/glideslope receivers were not affected (they continued to work absolutely normally) but if ATC had tried to say anything to us while the phone was ringing, we wouldn't have heard it. We could barely hear each other over the intercom with this racket going on in our headsets. The issue here isn't really the interference with the electronics, but rather the distraction it causes, and it's not optimal to be distracted while on an instrument approach.

Re:Avionics

[hedwards]

This is ignorant hogwash. The reason why those devices are banned during take off and landing is because most crashes happen at those points in the flight. Sure, some do crash midway through, but those are rare. Electronic devices are a distraction and something that can become a projectile.

The real question is why they permit people to have other things out and open during those periods of flight.

Re:Avionics

[X0563511]

You mean the same media responsible for this?

I just don't understand why we take these fools seriously anymore.

Re:Avionics

[hedwards]

But, Bush was responsible for appointing somebody that was completely inept to FEMA and failing to make any preparations before landfall. This isn't like an earthquake which strikes without any warning, we have various meteorologists and weather stations that track these sorts of things. The whole situation at the Superdome was completely unacceptable.

As was the days of supply shortages, FEMA should have been preparing for that in a much more thorough way before the hurricane struck.

Re:Avionics

[Joce640k]

These rules are stupid and were based on the fear of the unknown instead of actual studies and evidence.

The "unknown" is precisely what the rules are in place for. You can't expect cabin attendants to know every possible electronic gadget, what it can do and what might be connected to it via that wire leading to your pocket. The only sensible policy in this situation is to switch off all electronic items during critical phases of the flight. Either that or confiscate all electronic items at the boarding gate.

Re:Avionics

[interkin3tic]

Have you ever tried to use your cellphone on a plane? Out of curiosity, I did. (Spoiler: the plane did not explode, I did not die.) Reception was lost soon after we got very high in the air. I think I tried it again in mid-flight, but still no signal. This was one phone, not a comprehensive test, but I'd guess that the plane is moving too fast and is too high for most cell phones to get and maintain much of a connection. Plus, the dull roar of the engines in most planes drowns out most conversational tones, the reason children wailing is annoying is because you can hear them over the engines.

Where I'd like to see the FAA ban cell phones is once you have landed, while you're waiting to deplane. "OH HAI! WE JUST LANDED! ARE YOU OUTSIDE? I SAID ARE YOU OUTSIDE? NO, WE JUST LANDED! WAITING TO GET OFF. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA, YEAH, WHY DO THEY SERVE YOU SUCH SMALL BAGS OF PEANUTS? SO ARE YOU GOING TO PICK ME UP? NO, I SAID I JUST LANDED! AT THE AIRPORT! ARE YOU GOING TO PICK ME UP? I NEED TO GET MY BAGS! OKAY!"

Fucking text it morons. If not for politeness to the rest of us in earshot who are already impatient to get out of the plane, for efficiency. You can't hear them and they can't hear you, reading is much faster. Well, maybe not for idiots who can't wait until they get off the plane to announce multiple times that they've just landed and need to get their bags and can you pick them up...

Re:Avionics

[cwebster]

As someone who works in front of the door that says "Authorized Personnel Only" on airplanes, let me throw my 2 cents in.

The only interference I've personally experienced is that infamous noise TDMA and GSM phones make when transmitting data. I could hear the interference anytime myself, my copilot, the flight attendant or anyone in the first 3 rows of the airplane left a phone on and I had the crew audio selected on my audio panel. No effect on the com or nav radios.

The real reason for the ban on portable electronic devices (the cell phone ban dates back to an FCC reg on the adverse effect of having an old-school cell phone at altitude where it could see many towers) is not to protect against interference, it is to protect lives in case of evacuation. If a plane is going to have a survivable accident it is very likely this will occur as a botched takeoff or botched landing, and in these cases you have on the order of a hundred of seconds to get out of the plane before you cook in the fire or succumb to the smoke. Personally I think that people can close a laptop and get up and out of a plane, but past accidents suggest that people will instead close that laptop, attempt to retrieve its case/bag, put it away and perhaps get other bags out of the overhead before evacuating a burning airplane (see the air france overrun in canada a few years back). This is more of a problem with peoples mindset when it comes to protecting property when faced with certain loss, but I think that needs to be addressed before we lift the ban on portable electronics below 10k' .

Re:Avionics

[X0563511]

If you can hear 60 people babbling over the engines/wind... well, wow.

Re:Avionics

[Lumpy]

" It's a textbook case of giving an important job to an idiot crony."

This explains the FAA, the FCC, HomeLand Security, the TSA, and pretty much every other government agency.

Want to know why we have to be enhanced searched to get on a plane? An idiot crony though it was a good idea.

Re:Avionics

[Lumpy]

You are using low grade private aircraft systems. I know pilots that have cellphone conversations while landing a 737.

Re:Avionics

[jbmartin6]

If there was any real concern, they would be a lot more vigilant about enforcing the rules. Since anyone can put an active Kindle or cell phone into their bag and the airline doesn't send people around with wands to triangulate the signal, I assume the "danger" is effectively nil.

Re:Avionics

[alen]

FEMA was ready, but the trucks were out of the area

pretty dumb to put your relief supplies into the path of a hurricane where it will strike the worst. the roads being flooded made relief pretty hard

Re:Avionics

[CohibaVancouver]

Nothing you have in your possession is going to adversely effect any of the systems used for take off and landing. These rules are stupid and were based on the fear of the unknown instead of actual studies and evidence.

These rules are also in place so you are not distracted during the most dangerous periods of your flight - The landing and takeoff. Frankly, I don't understand why this is such a big deal. I flew 67 segments last year. How hard is it to read the inflight magazine during that 10 minutes?

Re:Avionics

[UnknowingFool]

I don't know about reporters blaming Bush but they were asking the obvious questions like: "Why the administration not prepared for the aftermath?" "What assessments did the administration have on damage and aftermath?" "Where as the federal assistance?". The last time I checked the president is the head of the administration.

Part of the problem was that Bush appointed an wholly unqualified Michael Brown as head of FEMA. Nothing in his background hinted that he could handle a federal agency much less one dedicated to disaster recovery. One of Bush's personal traits is unquestioning loyalty. And he would place this above competency and qualifications when selecting someone for a post. This would appear again when different members were found to be inept, unqualified, or may have committed illegal acts. He would always back them up rather take a hard look at whether he had appointed the right person for the job.

Also part of the problem was the administration on the whole felt that FEMA was an entitlement program and worked for years to weaken its role in the federal government. The state and local governments are not blameless either as they were ill prepared as well.

Book aside, a full year before Katrina. FEMA did a case study of what would happen if a Cat 3 hurricane would hit New Orleans. It projected extensive damage and casualties. Michael Brown was in charge of the study. Look up the hurricane Pam exercise. The result of the study should have been recommendations about how to avoid or mediate the aftermath. Instead funding was cut because it was an "entitlement" program.

Part of my dislike for Bush was that he can't be bothered with details. As president I think that this is part of the job. About a day before the storm hit, he was fully briefed on the projections (there is a video of this) and the projections were close to reality. He left it to his underlings and went on vacation.

Re:Avionics

[CKW]

> I know pilots that have cellphone conversations while landing a 737.

This wouldn't be the same pilots who missed a audible LORAN transmitter's approach turn signal in the Andes and killed 200 people crashing into a mountain?

Because of course, all pilots are "experts" at what they do and they never make poor choices killing hundreds of their clients.

Re:Avionics

[interkin3tic]

I didn't say it slowed anything down. It's just annoying. The "Hope the FAA bans it" was an intentional hyperbole.

Re:Avionics

[nurbles]

Thank you. My contention has always been that, if these devices had ANY possibility of effecting aircraft systems, then the "BAD GUYS" would obviously be ignoring the rules and not only leaving them on, but programming them to screw up aircraft. Frankly, I don't believe the "BAD GUYS" are as stupid as the people propagating this malarkey. Though the "BAD GUYS" might be trying to design purpose built devices that look enough like cell phones, laptops, etc. to that they could be smuggled onto an aircraft and "affect it."

If any of these devices are capable of effecting aircraft systems than NONE OF THEM should EVER be allowed on a plane. (And no plane so susceptible outside RF should be allowed to fly, either.)

Re:Avionics

[orgelspieler]

If it was about distractions, why can I read my dead tree book, or the Sky Mall catalog? My book certainly weighs more than my wife's iPhone, and would be a worse projectile. My kids can play with their plastic toys (as long as they don't look like knives or guns). And the lady next to me can knit while we're taking off. All of these things are worse distractions and projectiles, so don't pretend like there's any logic to these rules. They are capricious and stupid byproducts of a political system gone terribly awry.

OK, cell phones and RC cars, I can see banning. But an e-ink display puts off less noise than wristwatch. For that matter, they have TV screens showing Big Bang reruns on half the airplanes during takeoff and landing. So it's clearly not a distraction or electronic noise issue. Just BS rules to cover somebody's ass.

You seem concerned about somebody's book getting in your way when the plane crashes during takeoff or landing. I'd be more concerned with the fuselage getting in the way of my arteries, or the overhead bins getting in the way of my brain stem. If nothing like that happens during a plane crash, I'd be a pretty happy camper.

Re:Avionics

[BitZtream]

When the news says 'big hurricane coming' and you don't leave town, you deserve the result.

I grew up in Florida, had we been given the same notice, we would have boarded up our houses and moved inland.

Why exactly did any idiot stay in a location which is BELOW SEA LEVEL when the ocean and all its fury was about to be dumped on it is beyond me.

Couple that with the fact that the mayor and governor of the state wants cash rather than help, so they could pocket a good portion of it, should make it a little more clear. Don't let reality inform you, listen your favorite biased news program instead and by all means, swallow it whole while you're at it.

Re:Avionics

[Jawnn]

No, NOLA is notoriously corrupt. the Mayor of New Orleans did not want FEMA, the Governor of the state did not want FEMA. They wanted to rake in all the juicy kickback money for picking who get's what contracts.

[citation needed]

Re:Avionics

[Anonymous Coward]

FEMA was ready, but the trucks were out of the area

pretty dumb to put your relief supplies into the path of a hurricane where it will strike the worst. the roads being flooded made relief pretty hard

Of course, not building your home below sea level, next to the ocean, in a known flood zone, in a known hurricane zone, protected only by dikes/levees that are known not to withstand such hurricanes ... that helps too.

This should rightly be a Louisiana and New Orleans problem, not a US Government problem. Unless you can tell me why those of us who choose our homes with the slightest common sense should be required to subsidize (taxes) those who don't. I am sorry lots of people make bad decisions. I am sorry that sometimes this causes some real suffering. I am sorry that this typically causes people to get blinded by emotion when they see the sheer horror of the damage done, and they stop thinking rationally because they want to feel sorry.

If I choose consistently to eat more calories than I burn, I will gain weight. Eventually I will put on a lot of excess weight. If this causes me to have a heart attack one day that wouldn't have happened if I hadn't put such strain on my cardiovascular system, I don't expect you to feel sorry for me. In fact the most constructive thing you could possibly do is use my case as an example of what not to do. Then maybe someone else could learn from my failure and not have to experience the same suffering. That would be the actual compassionate thing to do that reduces suffering, not the phony feel-good kind that makes you look like a good person. It is the same with building your family's home in a known flood zone that is below sea level and next to the ocean and known to have inadequate protection.

Re:Avionics

[seebs]

That has been asserted, but never supported, and the paper trail shows clear, unambiguous, respects for FEMA's help, which were ignored because FEMA wasn't prepared to deal with them.

The theory about kickback money and so on is entirely off-topic; kickback money was weeks to months later, the early part was where emergency response was needed, but absent.

Re:Avionics

[fast turtle]

Tell that to the survivors of a flight that crashed in the DC area back in the 60's that affected by a portable recorder and all of the other flights that the FAA/DOT investigated that were caused by portable hardware screwing things up.

Another factor, I don't want to be sitting in first class getting hit in the head by some Joe Sixpacks kid's fucking kindle from the rear of the plane while landing. So shut it down and put the fucking thing away.

Re:Avionics

[BitZtream]

How stupid are you? You're talking about putting shit away so you aren't distracted ... but then you say 'read sky mall instead during those 10 minutes', which is exactly what you claim you're not supposed to be doing.

Why is reading the inflight mag different than reading my iPad other than the fact that my iPad isn't trying to sell me $150 slippers with headlights on them?

Re:Avionics

[Jawnn]

RFI from GSM devices will inject itself into just about any susceptible analog circuit, including the headsets and intercom in the close confines of your private aircraft, but it is extremely dependent on proximity. You may rest assured that even the flight attendant in the forward galley could fire up her mobile phone without having the same effect.

Re:Avionics

[Obfuscant]

The last time I checked the president is the head of the administration.

The federal administration. And the last time I checked, the governor was the head of the state administration. Guess who is responsible for asking the federal government for aide in time of disaster. Wrong, not the President. It's the governor's job to ask for aide, and if the governor refuses to ask, the federal government is not supposed to just waltz in and take over. It's called "United States" for a reason.

In every state of the Union, it is the governor who makes the request for federal disaster assistance, not the President who picks up the phone and says "we're sending stuff whether you like it or not". Most governors are proactive. The ones involved in Katrina weren't.

Part of my dislike for Bush was that he can't be bothered with details. As president I think that this is part of the job.

You've got to be kidding. The details of running a massive federal government are supposed to be dealt with at the level of a President? Do you realize just how LARGE the US government is? He has a cabinet for a reason. And each cabinet member has assistants and aides and such. No, being a 'detail man' is not part of the President's job and cannot possibly be.

About a day before the storm hit, he was fully briefed on the projections (there is a video of this) and the projections were close to reality. He left it to his underlings ...

You mean the governors of the states involved. They are not his underlings. They are elected officials who have the responsibility of dealing with the "details" of getting federal assistance when they want it.

... and went on vacation.

You do realize that "on vacation" for a President includes a complete mobile communications facility with secure communications with anyplace in the world, don't you? That had any governor stepped up to the plate and did his job, any requests that the President had to deal with himself would have been in his hands for approval within seconds of them being made. He cannot approve requests that are never made, or are made too late to be off any value.

Re:Avionics

[T.E.D.]

The real reason for the ban on portable electronic devices (the cell phone ban dates back to an FCC reg on the adverse effect of having an old-school cell phone at altitude where it could see many towers) is not to protect against interference, it is to protect lives in case of evacuation.

Are you sure about that? I mean honestly knowledgeably sure?

I ask this because this topic seems to come up here on Slashdot every couple of years. Slashdot being what it is, there's always an expert RF engineer, FAA worker, pilot, navigator, Aerospace engineer, or air-traffic controller piping up, and invariably what I see is:

Excuse X is bunk. The real reason they are banned is Excuse Y.

Where Excuse X is something the speaker is an expert on, while Excuse Y is something in one of those other domains.

Frankly, after 10 years of this (reference my uid length), I'm sick of hearing it. Its clear to me that nobody knows why this restriction is in place. it is meerly an demi-religous practice that people feel compelled to make up justifications for. We might as well send old guys in robes down the aisles swinging incence thuribles before takeoff to chase away the demons.

Re:Avionics

[OS24Ever]

As someone who sits behind you a lot maybe we should have a certification test where you have to go through crash sequences and shit can our device. I'd do that so I could read while we mindlessly taxi around DFW to the far away runway or sit behind 30 airplanes in LGA.

I agree with the assessment though, people are stupid and they'd be tangled in their headphones and dying before they just got up and followed directions out the plane in an emergency.

however pretending that everyone will die if a phone is left on is dumb, and it lets people like me argue with the rule makers (not the poor attendants) about it because saying it interferes with the radio and can cause a crash is bad. Interesting how unshielded the intercom is and how the GSM affects it. Has it gotten less as the EDGE network has disappeared and 3G/LTE takes over? i honestly haven't heard that dit dit-da-dit noise in a while. Used to hear it all the time on conference calls.

Re:Avionics

[Obfuscant]

If that's the fear, then all consumer electronics should be banned from flying, just like guns.

There is no need to ban them when they can be just turned off. And sadly, there are too many consumer electronic devices in use to simply ban them, so the best compromise is to turn them off.

I've seen at least one device interfere. All this "proof" that they don't is just junk science. "We tested 1000 new consumer devices and none of them caused interference, so we've proved that such devices do not cause interference." Right. In comes device number 1001.

The random malfunction of consumer electronics potentially interacting with the comm/nav systems on a commercial jetliner has to be 5-10 orders of magnitude more rare than someone building a portable high-power RF white noise source and leaving it on during takeoff.

Citation required. Pulling numbers out of your ... I'd say. I've seen interference. I've yet to see someone carrying a deliberate jammer, but since the current rules would make that a federal crime, I don't think we need another rule to deal with that. It's the inadvertent radiators (like a broken electronic device) that need to be dealt with, and since the wrong time to test each device is as one boards the aircraft, simply turning them off is the easiest solution.

What the hell is the problem anyway? For fifteen minutes at the beginning and end of a flight you can't use your iWhatever or eWhatsis. Big deal. Life is too short to get bent out of shape because of something so trivial.

The morning news was making a big deal of the fact that pilots can use iPads in the cockpit. This proves how safe they all are, they said. That's not true. It proves that those previously tested iPads aren't likely to cause interference, but more importantly, that if they do they are in the hands of the pilot/copilot who know they are being used and who can immediately turn them off if necessary. "Hey Bob, I saw you turn your iPad on and NAV2 went wonky. Try turning it off..."

Now imagine an iPad in the hands of passenger 32B during a critical phase of flight who turns it on and causes interference. The pilots don't know he just did that or where he is, so they first have to detect the interference and then try to work around it without being able to just turn the interfering device off. Yes, they can use the PA to ask people to turn things off (I've heard this before) but what if this jerk thinks "it's an iPad just like the one the pilot is using, it can't possibly be the cause, so I'll keep using it?"

The news guy also had this part exactly backwards: he asked whether you'd rather have an issue below 10,000 feet where the pilots are directly involved in flying the plane or above that where you're going 600 mph. His answer: below 10,000 feet. BZZZTTT.

Below 10,000', the sterile cockpit rules kick in for a very good reason. It is the time when everyone needs to concentrate on what he is doing -- like flying the plane or looking out the window to look for terrain or traffic. Below 10,000' is where the big iron mixes with the smaller stuff and there is more traffic to worry about. Below 10,000' is where the GROUND is, and where you will find almost all final approach courses and landing zones. Mistakes above 10,000' and in level flight give more time for correction than those at 1,000' while descending to land. Having an ILS or GPS failure while flying an approach is a much more serious issue than one that happens in the flight levels.

Re:Avionics

[bobbied]

I know pilots that have cellphone conversations while landing a 737.

Since 1981 this has been illegal. I'm guessing you don't know a pilot who really does this..

FAA Sterile cockpit rules make doing this illegal as all conversations must be limited to essential conversations during departure and landing. You can't discuss anything not directly related and essential to the current flight. Commercial pilots would be in serious trouble if they are on the cell phone while landing a 737. You cannot discuss work schedules, what you did last night, what you want to do later, where the aircraft is headed to next, what the weather is going to be in a few hours or what it was last week. You may only say things that are essential for flying the aircraft when below 10,000 Feet (generally). All other conversations are forbidden and thus phone calls are prohibited.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterile_Cockpit_Rule

Re:Avionics

[bobbied]

Actually, IF somebody actually knows of such a rules violation, they really should report this hot shot pilot who's landing a 737 while on his cell phone. In fact, the other guy in the cockpit would need to report this highly dangerous activity.

Re:Avionics

[icebike]

Normally no consumer system should have any effect on aviation electronics. I always thought even the FAA understood this, and the worry is over electronics that may not be functioning correctly.

The only reason for banning cell phones on airplanes are regulations by the FCC, not the FAA. Cell phones a mile up can light up to many towers simultaneously, and the cell transfer protocols were never designed to handle hand-off over hundreds of towers when all of them have equal signal strength. Earlier cell tower systems could not handle this.

As for the regulations on other electronics, these were always FAA regulations based on two different sections of the existing regulations (FAR).

The first objection dealt with objects flying around the cabin in turbulence or a hard landing, the second had to do with interference fears, largely unfounded, but in a couple in instances where pilots were able to trace a small navigation disturbance to an electronic game of a kid sitting in first class. Boeing bought the device off of the kid, tried to replicate the problem and never could. Still they left these regulations in place rather than opening Pandora's box to every possible device.

They weakened their own case when the let computers be used in flight (although still not in takeoff and landing, in deference to the flying object concerns). Laptops are RF nightmares, yet they allow them in flight. They have 30 years of data (or the lack thereof) showing no interference from digital devices.

Re:Avionics

[Obfuscant]

If it was about distractions, why can I read my dead tree book, or the Sky Mall catalog?

Because neither your dead tree book nor the Sky Mall catalog will create a distraction FOR THE PILOT, who is the critical part of the operation during landing and takeoff. You're a several stone lump of baggage as far as the system is concerned and distracting you from concentrating on the flight operation is not a problem of any kind.

But an e-ink display puts off less noise than wristwatch.

Depends on the display (which has a computer behind it, you know) and the watch. And whether the display is properly functioning and grounded/etc or not.

For that matter, they have TV screens showing Big Bang reruns on half the airplanes during takeoff and landing.

So you're being entertained. What's your problem? Those devices are installed in the system and have been tested in that use to determine if there is any interference. Your iPad hasn't.

If nothing like that happens during a plane crash, I'd be a pretty happy camper.

I'd prefer that there not be a crash in the first place. Commercial aviation is not supposed to be an e-ticket ride, even though most airlines deal only in etickets nowadays.

Re:Avionics

[Cid Highwind]

Shenanigans. Link to the NTSB crash reports, please.

Re:Avionics

[Obfuscant]

I'd love to find a ***real*** analysis of consumer electronics including cellphone use on commercial aircraft.

This is kind of like asking for a real analysis of the effects of an asteroid strike in central Kansas. I have a hard enough time tracking down intermittent issues with real systems to even imagine trying to get hard documented proof of exactly which consumer devices (out of billions) in which aircraft (out of hundreds of thousands) in which locations (out of tens of thousands) will cause interference.

Aviation regulations are, in large part, trying to prevent even many low probability issues from becoming headline news. For the small aircraft pilot, it's mostly "don't do something stupid", but as you proceed up the chain into commercial aviation it becomes much tighter.

Here's just one example. A Part 91 pilot (private) is allowed to attempt a landing in zero-zero conditions. He isn't allowed to actually make the landing unless there is a certain amount of flight visibility, but he can make the approach. (As an IFR pilot, I LOVE making approaches to 0/0.) The commercial guys cannot attempt an approach if the GROUND visibility is below their limit. (One difference: flight visibility is what the pilot sees -- and judges -- and ground is what the electronic devices on the ground say. Private pilots get to use their own judgement on visibility, commercial ones don't.)

An example of probability-based rules: mechanics cannot use just whatever bolt they have on hand to fix an airplane, they have to use one that is approved for that use in that airplane. The chances are that the cheaper generic will be just as good, but there are known cases when they weren't so the rules say "no".

And that's the kind of rule that covers electronic devices.

Re:Avionics

[cwebster]

The biggest threat there are the lap children. Children under 2 years old (or that can reasonably be passed off as that young) are not required to have a seat and can be held by their parents. I would much prefer a requirement that a seat be purchased and (FAA approved...) car seat used. In an event that would send an ipad flying, a kid flying around is a much bigger threat to itself and those around it.

Re:Avionics

[bdwebb]

This is the first rational argument I've heard supporting electronics bans below 10k. Personally, my laptop can die in the fire if we crash for all I care, but I know a lot more people who would do exactly as you say and fumble around until they are dead because they are panicked and can't prioritize properly under stress. I think if the aviation industry took this approach and informed customers properly there would be more support.

Lying to customers about the magical wireless gremlins that will rip the plane from the sky just makes intelligent people disregard their instructions because it is well known that (other than the TDMS/GSM noise) modern electronics do not interfere with instruments or communications. No one likes getting treated like a child.

Re:Avionics

[UnknowingFool]

The federal administration. And the last time I checked, the governor was the head of the state administration. Guess who is responsible for asking the federal government for aide in time of disaster. Wrong, not the President. It's the governor's job to ask for aide, and if the governor refuses to ask, the federal government is not supposed to just waltz in and take over. It's called "United States" for a reason.

I do not absolve the local or state government of their responsibilities of the mess. But I will not excuse the federal government's mishandling of the situation either. As for asking, the federal government was asked, however, the governor did not ask using the correct protocols according to FEMA's director. You know the same person who didn't realize that people were using the Superdome for days as a shelter. This was part of the disconnect of FEMA at the time. Everyone in the world knew there were refugees at the Superdome except the person who should have known.

You've got to be kidding. The details of running a massive federal government are supposed to be dealt with at the level of a President?

When someone tells me that they is likely to be massive devastation, I think these are significant details that the president should care about. Bush did not seemed to bothered or phased by it. He certainly did not ask any questions.

Do you realize just how LARGE the US government is? He has a cabinet for a reason. And each cabinet member has assistants and aides and such. No, being a 'detail man' is not part of the President's job and cannot possibly be.

I am not saying that the President should be involved in every single thing in the federal government. An impending crisis like a hurricane wrecking a major US city might be something a President should pay attention to. Especially one that had days of warning.

You do realize that "on vacation" for a President includes a complete mobile communications facility with secure communications with anyplace in the world, don't you? That had any governor stepped up to the plate and did his job, any requests that the President had to deal with himself would have been in his hands for approval within seconds of them being made. He cannot approve requests that are never made, or are made too late to be off any value.

The problem is not what equipment the President has/had. The problem has always been what did he do before/during the crisis. Something that years later that is not clear. One side the administration was not prepared. Why wasn't it prepared? The other side says that they were prepared. If that's true then why was help so inadequate? You seem intent on blaming everything on the governor. There are many to blame here including the President. Only one of us is willing to acknowledge that.

Re:Avionics

[cwebster]

The real reason for the ban on portable electronic devices (the cell phone ban dates back to an FCC reg on the adverse effect of having an old-school cell phone at altitude where it could see many towers) is not to protect against interference, it is to protect lives in case of evacuation.

Are you sure about that? I mean honestly knowledgeably sure?

Here are relevant regulations governing use of cell phones and portable electronic devices:

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.

47 CFR 22.925 Prohibition on airborne operation of cellular telephones.
Cellular telephones installed in or carried aboard airplanes, balloons or any other type of aircraft must not be operated while such aircraft are airborne (not touching the ground). When any aircraft leaves the ground, all cellular telephones on board that aircraft must be turned off. The following notice must be posted on or near each cellular telephone installed in any aircraft:
“The use of cellular telephones while this aircraft is airborne is prohibited by FCC rules, and the violation of this rule could result in suspension of service and/or a fine. The use of cellular telephones while this aircraft is on the ground is subject to FAA regulations.”

The FAA has a blanket ban on PEDs and the FCC further restricts cell phone use while airborne. The FCC reg dates back to analog phones and interference when the phone could talk to many towers at the same time, and continues to this day for the same reason, though it has not been shown to be a factor in modern networks. The FCC has a few rules planes have to follow. Every plane you ride on has a FCC radio station license on board, and pilots that may communicate with foreign ATC carry restricted radiotelephone operator (RR) permits from the FCC.

I dont really care about the cell phone ban, and people that do cite the reason as everyone talking on phones. That may be a factor on and near the ground, but at cruise good luck getting a signal (you are at least 7 miles from a tower) and phones these days will drain their batteries looking for a tower and you'll have a near-dead phone by the time you are low enough to actually make a call. You'll also notice that the flight attendant reminds you that you can turn on your phone and make calls as soon as the wheels touch the ground upon landing. The FCC reg on this is not likely to change.

The blanket ban on PEDs may get relaxed, and I am in favor of that. However, I think we'll still see a ban from the time the aircraft closes its doors until it is airborne, and another one sometime before landing until wheels touch down. The goal there is to have things put away during takeoff and landing. The problem is if you let them use things

Re:Avionics

[cwebster]

I haven't noticed it since HSDPA/WCDMA/LTE have taken over.

You are right about people. You could have 99 people on a plane that can close a laptop or hold a kindle and proceed to an exit. It'll be guy #100 that fiddles with putting the laptop in a sleeve and getting his bag out from under the seat to put it away, and luck will have it that he is sitting in an exit row, blocking people from getting off of the plane. Perhaps people who fail the certification can be seated furthest from the exits so they do not inconvenience the rest of us.

Cell phones though, as I posted above, is tied to an FCC rule. The FAA could completely overturn the PED ban, but you still couldn't use a phone from wheels up until wheels down until the FCC decides airborne cell phone use does not interfere with the ground network.

Re:Avionics

[Anonymous Psychopath]

This is kind of like asking for a real analysis of the effects of an asteroid strike in central Kansas. I have a hard enough time tracking down intermittent issues with real systems to even imagine trying to get hard documented proof of exactly which consumer devices (out of billions) in which aircraft (out of hundreds of thousands) in which locations (out of tens of thousands) will cause interference.

Mobile communication protocols aren't voodoo. The rules are so well-understood that you can go damn near anywhere on the planet where there's even basic infrastructure and use the same mobile device you bought at Walmart in Des Moine. Pilots seem to be fond of repeating that we simply can't understand all the possible effects of all mobile devices on aircraft instrumentation, but this is false. All these mobile devices communicate outside of themselves in a predictable, understood manner.

The public will accept that there are good reasons for disabling devices on takeoff and landing. The FAA needs to provide those reasons with an evidence-based approach. I suspect they will have a hard time doing so.

Re:Avionics

[Anonymous Coward]

"I've seen at least one device interfere."

What was it and what did it interfere with. What were the cirmstances? Did you report it to the FAA?

Re:Avionics

[Do You Smell That]

Ding ding ding. Well, I can't conclude that the danger is effectively nil, but it's definitely not something they're very worried about.

I fly very often. Most of the times the reminder to turn off the devices will come just before takeoff, and basic compliance checks even for the devices which the attendants saw out and being used tend not to be done. Often you could ignore the request and not have it asked again, since they'll finish their run up the aisle, then prepare for takeoff.

A few times, I've fallen asleep before takeoff (a good special power for a consultant to have) with the bright red light on my noise-cancelling headphones (connected to my phone for music) beaming towards the aisle, and not been awoken by the crew to turn it off. At least twice, my computer has refused to properly standby/hibernate before takeoff, so effectively was still running the whole time in my backpack. As you mention, this was never checked, nor questioned.

Re:Avionics

[maxwell demon]

For fifteen minutes at the beginning and end of a flight you can't use your iWhatever or eWhatsis.

And your digital camera. Given that exactly in that phase you'd get the interesting pictures, that sucks.

Re:Avionics

[Obfuscant]

When someone tells me that they is likely to be massive devastation, I think these are significant details that the president should care about.

You admitted he was briefed about it. You don't have any evidence that he didn't care. A you-tube video of him not asking any questions is pretty silly evidence of anything. It's just as damning as the video of him being notified of the 9/11 attacks and not immediately "doing something", as if there was anything immediate he could do.

The fact is, he had nothing to do until the state governments asked, and despite your claim to the contrary, they did not ask. "Asking in the right way" is part of the process and they have people whose job it is to know how to do that and what to say. Pretending that they just didn't ask "the right way" is proof that the feds failed is nonsense, and it's just another attempt at putting the blame where it does not belong.

An impending crisis like a hurricane wrecking a major US city might be something a President should pay attention to. Especially one that had days of warning.

You have no evidence he wasn't paying attention. An impending crisis for a state might be something the governor should pay attention to, but you have plenty of evidence that the state governors didn't care. They could have asked for proactive help and chose not to. They CHOSE not to ask. It was their responsibility to ask and they CHOSE to ignore the problem. THEY are the ones you should be ranting about, not someone who was legally proscribed from helping because THEY chose not to ask for it.

The problem has always been what did he do before/during the crisis.

In the US system of government, he had nothing to do until there was an official request from the state. The fact that he didn't send in national guard troops four days ahead of time isn't a black mark on him, it's a failure of the state government that didn't want help -- until it was too late to be effective. The fact that he "went on vacation" as you accusingly put it is irrelevant because any requests for aide could have been responded to instantly no matter where he was, and the important fact is that the requests weren't made. He's not responsible for that. Stop trying to blame him for it.

There are many to blame here including the President. Only one of us is willing to acknowledge that.

Because only one of us mistakenly thinks it is true. The other one understands the concept of federal government and state responsibility, and that the states fell down on this one. They'd like to find someone else to blame, and they thank you for playing along.

Re:Avionics

[DNS-and-BIND]

It wasn't the federal government's job to help. It was the people of New Orleans' responsibility to help themselves. I lived in the Gulf Coast for decades and Katrina was the first time I had heard of the federal government supposedly being responsible for ANYthing. Honest to God, I thought that the only thing that FEMA did was come in after the storm and offer loans. That's it. Loans, not grants. You have to pay the money back.

Ever seen the famous photo of the schoolbuses under water within a mile of the Superdome? This after the mayor of New Orleans complained that he had no transport to get people out?

Re:Avionics

[maxwell demon]

A switched-off iPad would hurt no less than a switched-on one.

Re:Avionics

[WGFCrafty]

I think parts of the presidency are more detailed than you think. Think of OBL raid in abottabad. There were probably several scenarios, each described in detail, and repercussions of each discussed. Then the president sat there with his cabinet and watched it unfold.

A lot is necessarily delegated, but on the important stuff, I bet all good presidents have been very well informed of varying plans, contingencies, pros and cons ect.

Re:Avionics

[WGFCrafty]

> I know pilots that have cellphone conversations while landing a 737.

This wouldn't be the same pilots who missed a audible LORAN transmitter's approach turn signal in the Andes and killed 200 people crashing into a mountain?

Because of course, all pilots are "experts" at what they do and they never make poor choices killing hundreds of their clients.

And it is a flagrant violation of FAAs clean cockpit rules.

Re:Avionics

[femtobyte]

If you're sufficiently interested in aerial photography --- enough for the takeoff/landing restrictions on camera use to register at a troublesome level of suckage --- then there are ways to have a lot more fun than grabbing a hasty tarmac snapshot through a grungy window. Find your nearest small/hobbyist airfield, and charter an hour to putter around in a little Cessna; you can dangle your camera straight out an open window (or at least through an intentionally pre-cleaned one), and swoop around to frame the best views on request. If you don't care enough to bother with this, then it is unlikely you are over-severely slighted of valuable opportunities on regular flights.

Re:Avionics

[rjstanford]

The goal there is to have things put away during takeoff and landing. The problem is if you let them use things during taxi it is not reasonable to expect them to follow the rules and put them away before takeoff.

If this were true, then presumably I wouldn't have been asked to turn off my e-ink Kindle while sitting next to the guy juggling a hardback book, a pizza (!), and a large cup of hot coffee in his lap. I totally get the argument against tray tables, since you can't just drop them to the floor in an emergency, but banning small electronics based on evacuation fears is groundless.

For that matter, you're even allowed to carry your laptop in your lap during takeoff and landing as long as its turned off. So... if the rule is about evacuation, its focussing on entirely the wrong areas.

Re:Avionics

[FatAlb3rt]

I do not absolve the local or state government of their responsibilities of the mess. But I'll completely neglect to mention it when it doesn't further my partisan agenda.

Re:Avionics

[billakay]

More than once I have forgotten to turn off my cell phone while flying from JFK to Moscow, and more than once I have arrived to find a nice friendly SMS "Welcome to Estonia!". The funny thing is that you can pick any random place in the flight and try to get signal, and you won't...they must really have some powerful cell towers up there...

Re:Avionics

[UnknowingFool]

You admitted he was briefed about it. You don't have any evidence that he didn't care

When did I say he didn't care? I said George W. Bush as a person is not someone who bothers with details. It has been his way for many years. If you don't believe me, this is what Karen Hughes, Bush Communications Director says about presenting for then governor, George Bush.

I've seen a lot of people come in with the big, thick briefing books, and they sit them on the table and try to open it up and flip through and read him the pages. You know, "Chart number one says- chart number two shows-" And usually, about three pages into this, the governor will say, "Can I stop you a minute? Let me let you close the book, and you tell me what you think is the most important thing I need to know to make this decision."

It's just as damning as the video of him being notified of the 9/11 attacks and not immediately "doing something", as if there was anything immediate he could do.

The video is simply proof that he was briefed which his administration cannot deny. But the larger question which still remains unresolved is what did he do a day before a hurricane. Did he mobilize the National Guard (somewhat common in these circumstances).? No. That was not until 4 days until after the storm when it was evident how bad the problem was.

As for after 9/11, I don't have issues with his behavior nor did I bring it up. If there was a recording of him being briefed about an impending terrorist attack on NYC and he did nothing, would you absolve him of any responsibility too?

The fact is, he had nothing to do until the state governments asked, and despite your claim to the contrary, they did not ask.

Where do you get your information? This is my source:

Gov. KATHLEEN BLANCO: You know, I asked for help, whatever help you can give me. If somebody asks me for help, and— I'll say, "OK, well, I can do this, this, this and this. What do you need?" But nobody ever told me the kinds of things that they could give me.

[CNN interview] My first conversation with President Bush was asking for all federal firepower. I mean, I meant everything. Just send it. Give me planes, give me boats, give me people.

MARTIN SMITH: You've been criticized for not asking for help in the right way, that you didn't understand the system—

Gov. KATHLEEN BLANCO: When you say, "Help, help," just, you know—

MARTIN SMITH: Well, did you ask for troops?

Gov. KATHLEEN BLANCO: I wanted, you know, more help. I wanted whatever assets they had.

NARRATOR: Mayor Nagin was asking the same questions of the governor.

MARTIN SMITH: What were you asking for?

Mayor RAY NAGIN: We need help. We need troops. We need resources. We need food. We need water. You name it, we need it.

MARTIN SMITH: And what did she say to you?

Mayor RAY NAGIN: She said she was going to help.

MARTIN SMITH: And then?

Mayor RAY NAGIN: Then time went on.

MICHAEL BROWN: With all due respect to them, I think they were just truly overwhelmed.

MARTIN SMITH: Well, as I understand it, when local officials are overwhelmed, that's why we have FEMA.

MICHAEL BROWN: That's correct. But FEMA does that based upon the priorities of what the state establishes. The state is still in control. We don't come in and take over. We don't have the resources to take over.

NARRATOR: And Brown claims that he couldn't really help Louisiana because officials didn't tell him what they wanted.

"Asking in the right way" is part of the process and they have people whose job it is to know how to do that and

Re:Avionics

[Obfuscant]

Mobile communication protocols aren't voodoo. The rules are so well-understood that you can go damn near anywhere on the planet where there's even basic infrastructure and use the same mobile device you bought at Walmart in Des Moine.

Nice, but irrelevant. Unless, of course, you actually believe that these rules mean that every "mobile device" is the same as every other and that you only need to test one to have an answer.

Pilots seem to be fond of repeating that we simply can't understand all the possible effects of all mobile devices on aircraft instrumentation, but this is false. All these mobile devices communicate outside of themselves in a predictable, understood manner.

The issue is not limited to intentional radiators operating within defined standards, and not all unintentional radiators are the same. Other than that, you might be right.

The public will accept that there are good reasons for disabling devices on takeoff and landing.

And yet you've just argued vigorously that there are no good reasons because all "mobile devices" behave in a well-known and well-defined manner and that all possible effects upon aircraft instrumentation are well known.

The FAA needs to provide those reasons with an evidence-based approach.

The FAA has better things to spend taxpayer dollars on than finding every instance of every "mobile device" that doesn't follow your well-defined protocols or behave in the well-defined way you claim they all do.

It's ten or fifteen minutes at the start and end of a flight. You'll live if you have to turn your phone off for that short a period of time. You won't suffer a massive brain aneurysm if you can't listen to Blue Oyster Cult on your earbuds. Stop buying into the "must always be electronically connected" nonsense the cell phone companies spout and you'll live a happier life.

Re:Avionics

[UnknowingFool]

From wikipedia

The agency's primary purpose is to coordinate the response to a disaster that has occurred in the United States and that overwhelms the resources of local and state authorities.

Re:Avionics

[T.E.D.]

This is the exact kind of thing I'm talking about. The balance of GP is "yes, there's a rule, here it is", then followed by a completely groundless rationalization for why its still a Good Thing today. Sure you can rebut that, but you shouldn't frigging have to. Then someone like him comes up with some other BS rationalization that someone else has to rebut, and we just chase mythology around in circles for another decade.

This is stupid, and it needs to stop now. The rule should be rescinded, and any problem that arises from that should attacked with a new rule that addresses the actual problem (eg: loose objects, distracting noises, RF interference, etc.)

Re:Avionics

[sl149q]

In point of fact there are real time tests of consumer electronics taking place daily in pretty much every commercial aircraft that flies for every flight. Even if only a small (say 1 in 10 or 20) people forget to turn off one of their (many) electronic devices, given the number of people and devices on EVERY flight its simple math to determine that a huge number of devices are simply NOT turned off during take off or landing.

And that totally ignores the people who intentionally leave their stuff on.

So we are left considering that there are thousands of commercial airflight's every day, world wide, that have some positive number of powered consumer devices in them for the duration of the flight. This has been happening (at an ever increasing rate) for several decades.

Which leads to some conclusion as to whether or not having them there is causing any problem.

Re:Avionics

[icebike]

No, they found just the opposite, and durther they found that the ruling came from the FCC just as I posted.
http://dsc.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/mythbusters-database/cell-phones-interfere-plane-instruments.htm

Re:Avionics

[MetalOne]

I took a flight when I was child 38 years ago, with a hand held video game. The game interfered with cockpit radio and I was told to turn it off. Today, my wireless router generates noises in my PC speakers. I would not be so sure that interference is not a problem.

Re:Avionics

[waveclaw]

What the hell is the problem anyway? For fifteen minutes at the beginning and end of a flight you can't use your iWhatever or eWhatsis. Big deal.

Because if these tiny sources (cube law, hello?) of random RF noise really were a problem, they don't suddenly become less of a problem while flying in the air at over 10,000 ft. Or when flying through or even remotely near a thunderstorm that produces many times that RF. Heaven help the poor pilots that get painted by a military radar or even the radar from the airport.

It's not like an airplane needs reliable controls when say, hurtling through the air at a couple hundred miles an hour over populated areas, is it?

At the best we can blame the aircraft designers for not doing their due diligence in properly shielding the route between servos and controllers and cockpit. After all, shielding is precious weight in paying passengers you'd have to give up in fuel. And we obviously don't have lighter weight communication medium that isn't RF sensitive.

Re:Avionics

[CrimsonAvenger]

I think parts of the presidency are more detailed than you think. Think of OBL raid in abottabad. There were probably several scenarios, each described in detail, and repercussions of each discussed. Then the president sat there with his cabinet and watched it unfold.

A lot is necessarily delegated, but on the important stuff, I bet all good presidents have been very well informed of varying plans, contingencies, pros and cons ect.

When LBJ did that sort of thing during the Vietnam War, it was decried as "micromanaging". Quite properly.

It's not the President's job to closely supervise an operation involving a few tens of people out of the millions of people working for the Pres....

Re:Avionics

[w_dragon]

You mean like those pilots that missed their airport by 200 miles a few years ago despite an atc yelling at them because they were on a laptop trying to figure out their company's new bidding system? People don't always follow the rules where there is a low probability of being caught, regardless of consequences.

Re:Avionics

[cwebster]

Hey, I'm all for letting you do what you want. If I ever botch it up enough to need to evacuate my passengers under duress, I have a window up front I can open for egress.

Re:Avionics

[hairyfish]

Have you ever tried to use your cellphone on a plane? Out of curiosity, I did.

I used to fly domestic every couple of weeks and so for fun I'd mute my phone and try making call to my home answer machine to see if I could connect successfully. I'd do it in the lounge, on the runway, waiting to taxi, while taxiing, taking off, mid flight etc etc Once the plane started moving it was a black hole, you might get the odd blip of signal, but never long enough to make a call. Even when circling the runway at a few hundred metres I still couldn't maintain signal
My conclusion is that there is zero effect to plane safety, but it does make me wonder how those recorded 9/11 messages made it through.

Re:Avionics

[Miamicanes]

Look, the truth of the matter is that pretty much EVERYONE, at every level of government, actively fucked up when it came to Katrina -- Federal, State, Parish ("county") *and* New Orleans itself, and the public misdeeds of *some* locals were the frosting on the most dysfunctional disaster cake in American history. There's so much blame to go around, it'll take historians another 50 years just to sift through the obvious low-hanging fruit and get to the *good* stuff. The state and local incompetence and corruption there were *so* breathtaking, it almost makes FEMA's *own* epic fuckup of biblical proportions look tame by comparison.

Re:Avionics

[TheGratefulNet]

not based on fear of unknown.

based entirely on 'damn, that guy's device is loud and its distracting me from hearing the safety-talk the nice lady up front is giving us'.

its never been about RF interference. that was always a BS answer.

Re:Avionics

[sir-gold]

An extreme example, is that about once a year you can find a story about rescue teams being mobilized because they see an emergency radio beacon signal, only to find out it is a malfunctioning TV or other device (well, appears functional to the user, but something is out of spec with the circuit and EMC goes to heck).

No.

It is not the TV that cause this, it is the cable TV system itself. If a coax cable breaks in the right way, all the RF that should be safely contained within the wire starts spewing out (at a fairly high power) and some of those RF signals are on the same frequency as the emergency radio beacons.

The cable companies have teams of people who do nothing except manually walk the lines every day looking for any small leaks before they get big enough.
(I worked with a guy that used to do this job. He told me how he was threatened at gunpoint several occasions (and even beat-up once) by people who thought he was a government spy, just because he was walking around with a big antenna array near their house, even though he was wearing a blaze-orange comcast vest)

Re:Avionics

[sir-gold]

I was wondering this too, he says " I have first-hand proof" then fails to mention even a single detail

Re:Avionics

[DNS-and-BIND]

Point being it shouldn't have overwhelmed them. Both the mayor and governor did nothing but scream for help and blame others. A hurricane was always a time to help your neighbors, or so I thought growing up.

Re:Avionics

[sir-gold]

The irony of the mythbusters test is that they never actually left the ground, because the FAA wouldn't let them test it for real (even in a private plane, even with a mythbusters-level insurance policy)

When the FAA bans independent research, it makes me suspicious of their motivations

Re:Avionics

[sir-gold]

it does make me wonder how those recorded 9/11 messages made it through.

Thats easy, those "hijack" calls were all recorded days in advance. (Funny how the plane that hit the pentagon just "happened" to hit the section that was COMPLETELY EMPTY at that exact moment in time, and how the outdoor security footage from the gas station across the highway from the pentagon was seized by the feds later that day, never to be seen again)

Re:Avionics

[icebike]

Unless you have a theory as to why radio waves might work differently at altitude, I can't see this as significant.

Re:Avionics

[sir-gold]

Tell that to the survivors of a flight that crashed in the DC area back in the 60's that affected by a portable recorder and all of the other flights that the FAA/DOT investigated that were caused by portable hardware screwing things up.

I'm fairly sure that radio and electronics technology has advanced enough in the last 50 years to the point where "examples" from the VACUUM TUBE era are of no value whatsoever

Another factor, I don't want to be sitting in first class getting hit in the head by some Joe Sixpacks kid's fucking kindle from the rear of the plane while landing. So shut it down and put the fucking thing away.

Getting hit in the back of the head with Joe Sixpack's hardcover book is somehow perfectly fine though.

Re:Avionics

[Anonymous Psychopath]

Who cares about cell phones during takeoff? I'd just like to continue reading my book during the 20 minutes of taxi/takeoff and the 20 minutes of approach/landing on my airplane-mode tablet.

And what I meant by the public accepting restrictions is that they would provided evidence the restrictions actually accomplish something. I think this was fairly obvious but I'm happy to have provided the clarification.

Re:Avionics

[JubilantShank]

My conclusion is that there is zero effect to plane safety, but it does make me wonder how those recorded 9/11 messages made it through.

I was always under the impression that those calls had mostly been made with the massively-overpriced seat-back phones. I could be (and probably am) wrong though.

Re:Avionics

[sir-gold]

The FAA clearly thinks that radio behaves differently in the air, otherwise there wouldn't need to be a blanket ban on ALL air-born cellphones, including ridiculousness like banning cellphones on hot air balloons. (the ban covers EVERYTHING that the FAA regulates, even unpowered craft)

I bet even those smartphone-on-a-weather-balloon photography projects managed to violate FAA rules too.

My main issue is that the FAA seems highly resistant to the idea of allowing any independent party to run any tests. The only reason the mythbusters were even able to do a ground test is because the FAA lacked the authority to stop them.

Re:Avionics

[icebike]

The ban on cell phones in the air is imposed by the FCC, not the FAA. Its because a cell phone a mile above the ground can light up every cell tower in a 25 mile circle ant the hand off and registration systems were never designed for this.

Re:Avionics

[chrismcb]

There is no need to ban them when they can be just turned off. And sadly, there are too many consumer electronic devices in use to simply ban them, so the best compromise is to turn them off.

And yet that didn't stop them from banning bottles of water.

Re:Avionics

[xenobyte]

" It's a textbook case of giving an important job to an idiot crony."

This explains the FAA, the FCC, HomeLand Security, the TSA, and pretty much every other government agency.

Want to know why we have to be enhanced searched to get on a plane? An idiot crony though it was a good idea.

Obviously - as none of the current measures work (pure security theater designed to make you 'feel safe') it has to be a stupid person that decided to waste billions on pure uselessness.

Re:Avionics

[Lumpy]

Have you seen the cockpit of any commercial aircraft. they are disgustingly dirty. Ungodly dirty, just ask any pilot.

Re:Avionics

[ai4px]

Actually, I think the requirement came from FM radios.... a superheterodyne radio offsets the local oscillator frequency by 10.7mhz... so if your radio is tuned to 100mhz the local oscillator is tuned to 110.7, right in the middle of the nav band. This is the only device that interferes with aircraft navigation instruments that I'm aware of. From there superstition took over and all equipment was outlawed by the bureaucrats.

Re:Avionics

[xenobyte]

Anything silent, no problem; but if air travel features the TSA, little kids kicking the back of your seat, and cellphone chatter, it isn't going to be pretty.

You missed one... Babies crying non-stop, kids kicking the back of your seat and cellphone chatter, all at once... The plane might even blow up, no explosives required, just because of this.

Re:Avionics

[bobbied]

They where *above* 10,000 feet where the sterile cockpit rules do not apply... Of course, somebody should be monitoring the plane and listening for ATC at all times so they got busted for neglecting their primary duty. When at cruse on autopilot, there is not all that much for pilots to actually do but watch, so staying awake and alert becomes more of an issue. Having a lively discussion is helpful and makes the time pass quickly, apparently too quickly in this case.

Commercial pilots, Under 10,000 feet are expected to remain focused on *flying* your aircraft because there is a LOT to do in a very short time and forgetting or doing something at the wrong time along the way could lead to serious problems. So you eliminate all the distractions you can for safety. If you go flying with me (private pilot) I'm going to pretty much ignore you during departure and approach. During preflight I usually tell passengers to expect me to ignore them at times, that I'm sorry in advance but my responsibility is to fly the plane first. I've had some passengers who tried to discuss something on short final get a bit upset with me, but I'd rather be safe and deal with interpersonal issues later.

Re:Avionics

[Patent Lover]

Uhhh, pilots in the cockpit are now using iPads.

Not the technology

[GerryHattrick]

Takeoff and landing, you're supposed to concentrate on safety instructions which (very rarely) you might need to think about right soon and seriously. Just... put down the gadget for a moment, and join the real and dangerous world of the paid staff.

Re:Not the technology

[MickyTheIdiot]

You are never going to get people to pay attention to those instructions. That's human nature.

Re:Not the technology

[earlzdotnet]

Heh, the last string of flights I was on consisted of some hilarious safety presentations. I mean, to make the traditional boring instructions interesting to listen to is true comedic talent. "SMOKINNNNN'.... is not allowed. " "OXYGEN.... We got it. And if you so happen to need it we attendants will wish we would have called in sick"

Re:Not the technology

[Aqualung812]

Real and dangerous?

Do you know how rare those situations really are?

Even if a situation comes up, most of the time, it is going to be along the lines of "Wait for the plane to crash & die or land safely". Someone strapped in a seat can do almost nothing to help.

If anything, I'd rather the passengers be oblivious to their potential doom with their earphones in rather than screaming bloody murder while the pilot attempts an emergency procedure.

Re:Not the technology

[damn_registrars]

Takeoff and landing, you're supposed to concentrate on safety instructions which (very rarely) you might need to think about right soon and seriously. Just... put down the gadget for a moment, and join the real and dangerous world of the paid staff.

I fly a fair bit. Not enough that I have enough frequent flier miles with any one airline to go anyplace good, but enough that I can tell you the aircraft I am flying on as soon as I step through the door (without looking at my ticket or the safety pamphlet in in the seatback). I've seen safety presentations from a number of different airlines on each plane that I have flown on over a number of years. I can tell you that if a Delta flight attendant accidentally stepped on to a United flight and gave the safety briefing nobody would know the difference (other than the slightly different uniforms).

In fact, I've been on the planes enough that I could give the safety talk myself (and I can tell you for several airlines which planes have automated talks that the attendants pantomime to and on which ones the attendants have to describe it verbally).

And I'm quite sure there are plenty of other passengers like me. We are the same ones who get through security with minimal fuss because we're prepared from that from experience as well. We know which planes our carryons will fit in the overhead bin in, and which ones we need to gate check it for. We have smartphones and we know what airplane mode is. We know how to make sure that our phones are really, truly, disconnected; why can't we check out calendars while the attendant is giving the same safety talk we've seen dozens - if not hundreds - of times? I'm not asking permission to play rugby in the aisle while they're talking, or even to use the bathroom during that sacred minute-and-a-half. I won't be distracting other passengers because I also know how to do such things silently and discretely.

The restrictions seem to be in place just to amuse the airline companies as this point. They certainly don't amuse me...

Re:Not the technology

[Dzimas]

Having experienced a runway overshoot, the issue is that things tend to go flying around the cabin in a really nasty way, I don't want my teeth knocked out by the tablet that was previously sitting in the lap of the kid three rows in front of me. I don't want you to sit in the aisle seat in confusion because you missed the cabin crew's instructions while listening to your iPod at full volume. Stow your crap and clear your ears during the most dangerous part of the flight and make sure you know how many rows away the emergency exits are.

Re:Not the technology

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

You are never going to get people to pay attention to those instructions. That's human nature.

"Hi kids! I'm Fuzzy, the natural selection wolf! Obey my instructions and you just might make it out alive!"

Re:Not the technology

[thoth]

Maybe the briefing was useful back in the early days of commercial aviation, but not anymore. Most people these days have flown so many times they already know about the flotation seat cushion and oxygen air masks.

Besides, if it were that critical, people with books and magazines would be forced to put them away and listen to the safety instructions. They'd also wake people up who were already napping. Do you see that happening?

Re:Not the technology

[cfulton]

Still the above is the only cogent reason I have ever heard for the rule. It is pretty clear that my phone or laptop is not going to crash the plane. But, it makes some sense that I need to pay attention at take off and landing in case the plane does crash for some other reason.

Re:Not the technology

[qwe4rty]

Problem is, there is absolutely no consistency. I can read a hard/paper back book but I can't read on my Kindle? How often do I need to hear about buckling my seat belt or putting on an oxygen mask in the event we lose cabin pressure? The only portion of the safety spiel I find important is the flight attendants making sure the people in the exit row are physically capable

Re:Not the technology

[xorsyst]

Most people these days have flown so many times they already know about the flotation seat cushion and oxygen air masks.

Perhaps in the US, but not so much in Europe.

Re:Not the technology

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Those oxygen mask things might have a nice muffling effect... Plus, depending on the gas mix, you might be able to kick the hyperventilating passengers into blissed-out euphoria, rather than dizziness and further panic.

Re:Not the technology

[0123456]

Having experienced a runway overshoot, the issue is that things tend to go flying around the cabin in a really nasty way, I don't want my teeth knocked out by the tablet that was previously sitting in the lap of the kid three rows in front of me.

But you'd presumably be quite happy to have them knocked out by a hardcover book?

Either make the rules apply to anything that could go flying around a cabin, or stop making me turn off my Kindle so I have to read a book that weighs five times as much instead.

Re:Not the technology

[GerryHattrick]

AF447, they probably never knew (mostly 1g, apart from the bumpy bits and the swaying they'd been warned about). But takeoff and landing? You really might need your wits about you, if only to help others. Flying is still not magic.

Re:Not the technology

[Wookact]

Quit yer whining. That happens what 1 out of every 10,000 flights?

Anyways from what I could find it is an extremely rare occurrence, and you'd have a fair chance of being dead anyways in a "runway overshoot"/

Re:Not the technology

[kwerle]

The announcement goes "turn off all phones, tablets, computers, or anything with an off switch."

It does not go "stop doing anything but pay attention." No mention of not sleeping. No mention of not reading a book/newspaper. No mention of putting down the crossword.

This is all about electronics interfering with equipment. And it's bogus and should go away.

Re:Not the technology

[saveferrousoxide]

that sacred minute-and-a-half

Jesus, that's a self-absorbed, egocentric post. You really can't delay checking your calendar while someone is talking to you for 90ish seconds? I'm pretty sure you can squeeze out that time from your busy schedule of sitting in one place for a couple of hours. The more people like you who can't be bothered to at least be polite enough to appear to pay attention, the more people who need to hear this will feel validated when they busy themselves checking their calendars.

That's awesome that you know so much about flying. That means that you'll know what to do when a yellow cup appears 2 inches from your face, you won't freak out when the bag doesn't appear to inflate, and you might even know whether to look for an inflatable vest under your seat or that your seat cushion can be used as a flotation device simply because you know on which plane you're flying.

awesome.

Not everyone is as awesome as you, but a lot people think they're that awesome and they are the ones who need to pay attention for 90 fucking seconds of their oh so important and busy lives.

Re:Not the technology

[hedwards]

The flights I've been on, they would never let you wear head phones during that part of the flight as they would have no idea as to whether or not the device was in operation.

Also, while it's ideal to have all that stuff stowed, you're implication that it's completely pointless because they aren't doing it 100% is just plain ignorant.

Re:Not the technology

[hedwards]

Not true, most people in those situations survive. Especially if you had the sense to choose an appropriate location in the plane.

Re:Not the technology

[Alioth]

Runway overshoots rarely result in fatalities. The probability of survival is generally inversely proportional to the angle of arrival, and in an overshoot generally the angle of arrival is nil, and you have to slide quite a while before you hit anything solid. While a few overshoots have resulted in fatalities, the vast majority result in everyone evacuating the aircraft.

Re:Not the technology

[MXPS]

So then why aren't books and other material not banned during these times? A large hardcover book will certain hurt just as much, if not more than my Kindle.

Re:Not the technology

[interkin3tic]

So that explains the 5 minutes they tell you how to use a seatbelt... what about the other 20 minutes or so in takeoff and landing?

Re:Not the technology

[X0563511]

I'd mod you if I had points.

I don't have problems with the rules themselves - I have problems with their lack of consistent thought.

Re:Not the technology

[X0563511]

If you've not watched this, you should!

Re:Not the technology

[X0563511]

Don't give me the RFI argument either.

I had my radio on AM with a low squelch, right near the band that air communications and nav equipment uses. My kindle was physically laying next to the antenna - and I barely heard a thing (for 2 seconds) when the kindle locked and redrew the screen.

Re:Not the technology

[mark-t]

Technically speaking,. human beings have an off-switch too.

Although shutting it off would either necessitate surgery or very bloody maiming.

Re:Not the technology

[mtmra70]

Further more, I can hold my Kindle, tablet, phone, etc, in my hands or lap....as long as it's powered off. I can also wear ear plugs at any point. So none of this has to do with "stuff flying around the cabin" or "being able to hear". It has to do with "oh no, the plane will blow up if you don't turn off your phone!"

Re:Not the technology

[mark-t]

If that were the reason, they would also request that people not read, sleep, or do anything distracting during those periods, but instead to remain alert and listen to instructions.

That's not what happens.

Re:Not the technology

[Etherwalk]

Any sensible person pays attention the first time they're on a particular model of plane, and then only listens if they've forgotten. Unless, like the crew, they are responsible for the safety of themselves *and others*.

Re:Not the technology

[nabsltd]

The flights I've been on, they would never let you wear head phones during that part of the flight as they would have no idea as to whether or not the device was in operation.

I've had no problem wearing my noise-canceling headphones at any time, even when they are turned on.

I have been asked several times if I am "listening to music" or "are they connected?" and I just hold up the dangling end and they are fine with it.

Re:Not the technology

[Lumpy]

So they read the skymall catalog instead. Sorry but did you change the location of the life vest from the last time I flew on this model of plane? no? well then I'm goign to shop for a solid gold dog watering bowl.

Re:Not the technology

[Lumpy]

"Having experienced a runway overshoot, the issue is that things tend to go flying around the cabin in a really nasty way, I don't want my teeth knocked out by the tablet that was previously sitting in the lap of the kid three rows in front of me. "

Does physics not work the normal way in your world? Because for me it is impossible for that tablet 3 rows ahead of me to hit me in the face when I am decelerating rapidly. Or does your country sit everyone backwards in the cabin and you all look to the tail of the plane?

Re:Not the technology

[Lumpy]

Why dont they make my friend turn off her hearing aids then?

Re:Not the technology

[djbckr]

Just so you (everybody reading) know: When I was getting my private pilot license, one of the things you do is read the FAR/AIM manual (Federal Aviation Regulations/Aeronautical Information Manual). Not a terribly easy read unless you like that stuff.

Anyway, even for a little two-seater plane, you must give the whole lecture about fastening seat belts, emergency exits, etc, even though there is only obviously one way out on a small plane. This is a good thing. Even though frequent flyers get annoyed by it, myself included, on an airline with a reasonable number of new flyers it is something quite necessary.

On another note, the FAA errs on the side of caution, which is also a good thing. However, it has become obvious that flight with portable electronics is safe. I know I've personally seen dozens of people with their phones on during takeoff/landing. This particular subject is ready to be looked at, and I think at some point we will not have to bother with this any more.

One other item of note: If you are a passenger on a plane, you have no rights. The FAA authorizes the pilot and crew full authority over what you can and cannot do on a plane. This is also (generally) a good thing. Without this kind of authority, we would have the potential for greater loss of life.

Re:Not the technology

[CodingHero]

Takeoff and landing, you're supposed to concentrate on safety instructions which (very rarely) you might need to think about right soon and seriously. Just... put down the gadget for a moment, and join the real and dangerous world of the paid staff.

Then why are non-electronic devices, such as books and magazines, allowed during said safety briefing?

Re:Not the technology

[Wookact]

Well to be fair, I said there was a fair chance of fatalities, not that the entire plane was going to die. I did just do some searching, and to be honest Id say fatalies is fairly possible on a runway overshoot. The counterpoint would be that many of those incidents were in third world countries, Indonesia I am looking at you.

Re:Not the technology

[Aqualung812]

No, it isn't magic, but situations that require passenger intervention are about as common as magic.

Odds of dying in a flight are around 5 million to 1. Odds of a lightening strike killing you while walking outside are around 280,000 to 1.

So, if we care about safety, we should require a warning message about lightening safety before we leave the house each day.

Flying is incomprehensibly safe, yet we treat it like it is some risky activity. The time spent on safety lessons before each flight are an absolute waste of time, and should be looked at just as hatefully as a mandatory lightening safety lesson each morning.

However, to bring this back on track, the main point of TFA has little to do with the few wasted minutes of safety. It has to do with around 30-60 minutes spent waiting on the tarmac, climbing to 10,000 feet (where the electrons suddenly are safe!), and the descending below 10,000 feet, circling the airport, etc. This is the part where people are really fed up with the stupidity of the FAA rules.

Re:Not the technology

[damn_registrars]

One other item of note: If you are a passenger on a plane, you have no rights. The FAA authorizes the pilot and crew full authority over what you can and cannot do on a plane.

I am well aware of that. When I purchase an airline ticket I am doing business with a private company who owns the aircraft I am paying to be transported on and they are entitled to do pretty well whatever they want while I am on their aircraft. And indeed there are some times when it is perfectly reasonable for them to do what they do. I'm just not sold on the importance of making me turn my phone completely off just so I can watch their safety talk for the 300th time, and then tell me I can't use it until we are at cruising altitude. I'm fine with turning off the radio functions, would it really be so terrible of me to check my calendar and do other work related functions on it while we're waiting though - so long as I'm not connecting to anything?

Re:Not the technology

[femtobyte]

why can't we check out calendars while the attendant is giving the same safety talk we've seen dozens - if not hundreds - of times?

Why can't you wait five minutes, and do so during the *long and boring* plane flight you're about to sit through? Do you regularly discover last-minute scheduling conflicts that need to be resolved by leaping from a plane mid-takeoff? Do you have less patience than the screaming three-year-old in the seat behind you? Is your quality productive work time aboard airplanes so valuable that you cannot afford a five minute break? I recommend you learn to relax once in a little while --- being in a constant state of hyperventilating panic is seriously bad for your life expectancy.

Re:Not the technology

[787style]

The point is the discrimination nature of the ban. You can read a book, look at a physical datebook, do a Suduko puzzle. Why is a Kindle singled out?

Re:Not the technology

[UnknownSoldier]

How _many_ times does a person need to listen to the same set of instructions over and over again when they fly every few weeks / months?

If they weren't focused on Security Theater they would ban books and other distractions from the training briefing as well.

Re:Not the technology

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Same thing with the ones with Richard Simmons. That was probably one of the best waste of times I have had in a while. Although I would have much preferred to be on this flight.

Re:Not the technology

[damn_registrars]

being in a constant state of hyperventilating panic

When you make such baseless and sweeping assumptions about other people you do little to make your side of the argument appear at all balanced and mature.

Re:Not the technology

[femtobyte]

Commentary in the polemical mode need not appear "balanced and mature" to make its point.

Re:Not the technology

[Bob the Super Hamste]

So they read the skymall catalog instead. Sorry but did you change the location of the life vest from the last time I flew on this model of plane? no? well then I'm goign to shop for a solid gold dog watering bowl.

I need to read through skymall more closely as most of the stuff I have seen is always cheap crap. At least a solid gold dog dish wouldn't be cheap and the dog probably wouldn't destroy it.

Re:Not the technology

[saveferrousoxide]

I don't know, that's not what I get from damn_registrar's post. I get from that post that they don't feel they should have to pay attention to the spiel at all. To your point about "the discriminatory nature of the ban," I have, albeit rarely, heard attendants ask that people stop reading their paper books during "The Talk."

I think the real discussion here is centered around the following:
do electronics by their nature disrupt communications or the electrical systems on planes? (spoiler: no)
do the radios in the devices disrupt communications?
- are people savvy enough to turn off these radios on their devices to reduce the noise to acceptable levels in a given population (of passengers)?
- is a list of "approved" electronics too onerous to maintain and enforce to be practical?

Re:Not the technology

[Anonymous Coward]

Not everyone is as awesome as you, but a lot people think they're that awesome and they are the ones who need to pay attention for 90 fucking seconds of their oh so important and busy lives.

If you're too goddamn stupid to know how to buckle a fucking seatbelt, maybe your guardian should adjust your bib and do it for you.

And if this is so goddamn important to re-hear the exact same thing over and over again, why not just fucking play a loop of the safety speech on a screen by security where you'll be waiting for half an hour anyway. Drill the exact same script into us there, and then when we get in the plane, we can just fucking hit the gas and go.

Re:Not the technology

[hawguy]

Why dont they make my friend turn off her hearing aids then?

If the goal is to keep people alert, shouldn't they require that anyone with hearing aids wear them and turn them *on*?

Re:Not the technology

[Jiro]

The phone is prophibited because the phone tries to connect to dozens of cell towers when it's in a plane in the air. That's a different reason thatn interference with the plane itself, which is the reason for the general electronics ban, so if the FAA gets rid of the ban it won't affect cellphones.

Re:Not the technology

[BitZtream]

One other item of note: If you are a passenger on a plane, you have no rights. The FAA authorizes the pilot and crew full authority over what you can and cannot do on a plane.

Wrong. The FAA, and specifically, the FARs do not override any other law or the constitution. Nice try though.

The FAA is not a law creation or enforcement agency and can do NEITHER. Everything it does that is made legally binding is run through Congress to do so.

You are NOT the pilot or airline's bitch just because you are on one of their flights. They more or less can throw you off the aircraft, thats about it from a legal perspective.

You need to stop spreading this bullshit like its true. It isn't. You're spreading FUD and this stupid shit results in more people thinking its acceptable that some stewardess cunt is legally allowed to treat them like shit.

Re:Not the technology

[damn_registrars]

Only if your point is that you learned how to "debate" on the internet.

Re:Not the technology

[damn_registrars]

When the style is that poor there remains no substance of merit. He could have presented his comment in a mature and balanced manner but instead opted for juvenile, assuming, and condescending. I am surprised he didn't follow up by accusing me of worshiping and/or providing sexual favors to (whomever he presumes to be) my favorite politician.

Re:Not the technology

[femtobyte]

If you think feisty disputation originated with the internet, you've missed out on all the fun parts of the last millennium-and-a-half-or-so of Western literature (and probably non-Western, too, but I'm unfamiliar with that canon).

Nevertheless, you are posting on Slashdot, so I'm afraid you'll have to move along if you are a purist for non-internet-style discourse ("I'm sorry, but this is abuse. ... Ah yes, you want room 12A, Just along the corridor.").

I, for one, am quite content not being "balanced and mature" --- especially if this means that I get to dance to the orchestra of fancy in my mind during takeoff and landing, instead of stewing in impotent rage against temporary electronics restrictions.

Re:Not the technology

[damn_registrars]

There you go again, insisting that some great anger exists just because you state it to be there. You can call yourself "feisty" if you so chose, but that is no more accurate than what you have been trying so desperately to label me as.

Care to pull any more shit out of your ass in this discussion, or are you done now?

Re:Not the technology

[sdoca]

Me too. For the last few years I've been able to wear mine as well, large Bose cover the ears ones, as long as I'm not plugged into anything. It's wonderful as the noise from the plane during takeoff can set my equilibrium off enough that putting them on after take-off can't be compensated for during the rest of the flight.

Re:Not the technology

[femtobyte]

Care to pull any more shit out of your ass in this discussion, or are you done now?

^^^ And there, ladies and gentlemen, is the rage-free tranquility of a balanced and mature mind.

Perhaps if we were all never separated from our smartphones, we too could achieve such an enlightened state.

Re:Not the technology

[Obfuscant]

Me too. For the last few years I've been able to wear mine as well, large Bose cover the ears ones, as long as I'm not plugged into anything.

Every Delta flight I've been on in the last few years has resulted in a demand that I turn them off, irrespective of whether they are plugged into anything. Not take them off, just turn them off.

United has mostly ignored them, but a few have asked me to turn them off. It got bad enough I contemplated bypassing the off switch, but it was just easier to put a piece of tape over the red LED.

I balance breaking the rules like this with the fact that by connecting into the plane's audio system I can actually hear and understand all the announcements, unless I turn off the headset which makes me deaf. Also I know that this audio device has no digital components that would radiate RF of any kind anyway.

Re:Not the technology

[damn_registrars]

You entered a civilized discussion as a babbling idiot spouting the classic symptoms of someone who has spent too much time memorizing pointless internet "debate" memes and too little time in the real world talking with actual people. You only got worse from there and you expect me to be kind to you now? Get lost, kid. If your goal was to de-civilize the discussion, take a look at the rest of it before you go and declare yourself victorious.

Re:Not the technology

[damn_registrars]

I don't know, that's not what I get from damn_registrar's post. I get from that post that they don't feel they should have to pay attention to the spiel at all

For a lot of us, the spiel is a giant waste of time. We've seen it many, many, many times before. I know how to buckle my seatbelt, I know where the emergency exits are, I know where the bathroom is and that I can be charged with a felony if I talk smack to the lavatory smoke detector. I know that the bags on the oxygen masks might not inflate under loss of cabin pressure, even with oxygen flowing - and that I should put on my own mask before helping others.

Every time I fly, I hear that talk at least 4 times before I get back home, because I can't fly anywhere useful without at least 1 connection. I could give the damn talk. Why do they care if I pay attention to it or not? Why can't I do something useful during that time period? And why do we have to wait until we are at cruising altitude before we turn on electronic devices?

And attached to the same, why can't I leave my phone in airplane mode when I'm on the airplane? They now make a point of saying that phones must be turned off, specifically that airplane mode is not sufficient.

- are people savvy enough to turn off these radios on their devices to reduce the noise to acceptable levels in a given population (of passengers)?

People who are smart enough to know how to access airplane mode on their phones are smart enough to use it, those who are not will turn them off completely. I don't see the problem with airplane mode on an airplane.

- is a list of "approved" electronics too onerous to maintain and enforce to be practical?

Every plane I have flown on has a list of approved devices either in the airline's magazine or in the safety brochure. Obviously it does not include specific models but it tells you enough that a person who is smart enough to own such a device can figure out whether or not said device is on the list.

Ultimately my point is that the airlines are wasting a lot of passengers' time. I'm not saying the safety talk needs to be ended, because it is important for plenty of fliers. I'm just saying they could allow some fliers to do other things without causing any safety risk whatsoever.

Re:Not the technology

[Kjella]

Every time I fly, I hear that talk at least 4 times before I get back home, because I can't fly anywhere useful without at least 1 connection. I could give the damn talk. Why do they care if I pay attention to it or not?

I've never noticed that they do, I've spent many a lecture reading the paper or a book or something like that and never heard any complaint. Here in Europe you can actually end up hearing it twice or in rare cases three times per flight going to and from different countries, which doesn't take much. I've literally heard it hundreds of times and the only thing I sorta pay attention to is where the emergency exists are to know if there's any over the wings or not.

Re:Not the technology

[gstoddart]

Takeoff and landing, you're supposed to concentrate on safety instructions

Do you have any idea of how many times some of us have heard those? Half of the people on any given plane could probably give them.

Seats and tray tables upright and locked, no headphones unless they're hooked up to the in-flight stuff, seatbelts work thusly, floor lighting here and here, cabin baggage stowed, put on my mask first (it might not inflate but that's normal), emergency exits front and rear and maybe at the wings -- look around you, non-smoking flight with smoke detectors in the lav, crash debris location indicators under your seat, you may need to inflate your life vest with these tubes (but only once you're out the door), look at the pretty card in the seat pocket. STFU and hold on.

Re:Not the technology

[maxwell demon]

You forgot the life vest.

Re:Not the technology

[femtobyte]

This is why I ascribe little value to demanding "civilized and mature" discussions: such dialog often degrades to puffery over who is more "civilized" and "mature," rather than engagement with issues of underlying substance. If you want more "maturity" in discussions, then either lead by example in upholding a higher standard of substantive engagement, or don't waste your time responding in kind to childish petulance.

Since your single-minded focus on "balance and maturity" diverted you from taking the high road and engaging with the substance rather than the irksome style of my original post, let me spell out more directly the basis of my original polemical critique:

Animus against the FAA's restrictive electronics regulations arises, on one level, from (valid) concerns that the system is arbitrary, autocratic, archaic, and unhelpfully over-conservative. However, typical responses to the FAA's problems are simultaneously symptomatic of another class of cultural dysfunction separate from (and, to me, more worrisome than) issues with bureaucratic/regulatory incompetence. Specifically, is society in the thrall of a techno-centric "cult of productivity," compelling people to feel that time not available for checking mobile-phone calendars is "wasted"? Is the concept of "patience," and the ability to engage one's mind in the temporary absence of electronic prostheses, being lost? I think it is a tragedy for people to forget (or, for a younger generation, never learn) what to do when confronted with the prospect of a few moments of time for the mind to wander (undirected by our omnipresent pocket-taskmasters), and consider such moments an affront rather than an opportunity.

Re:Not the technology

[damn_registrars]

You are far too late, and far too far down the road of foolish assumptions, for me to take you seriously in this discussion. You have no justifiable reason to attempt to talk down to me about any moral high ground with the way that you introduced yourself into this discussion. I offered a serious discussion and you went off with silly name calling and throwing of your utterly baseless assumptions.

Hence there is no reason whatsoever to expect that you are capable of holding a serious conversation of any depth. Go pester someone else. You couldn't even write your "critique" without throwing more silly insults at me, hence giving me no reason to read it.

Get off my lawn, kid.

Re:Not the technology

[marka63]

"Lift the buckle" is not the same as "push the button". Airplane seat belts have different mechanisms to most (not all) car seat belts and while you may use a car seat belt 600+ times a year, unless you are a frequent flyer you don't come anywhere close to that in a plane even going to the toilets. The message is telling the passengers that there is a different mechanism in the hope that it will save your life in the event of a survivable crash.

Re:Not the technology

[femtobyte]

Funny, you have "no reason to read" my posts, yet keep responding. Don't you have some important calendars to check? Or a "serious conversation of any depth" to bother with, instead of sputtering in thin-skinned indignation at internet insults? Five responses with your own "silly name calling and baseless assumptions," and you haven't figured out that you are simply highlighting the absurd hilarity of your claims to "maturity"?

Re:Not the technology

[quacking duck]

You are never going to get people to pay attention to those instructions. That's human nature.

"Hi kids! I'm Fuzzy, the natural selection wolf! Obey my instructions and you just might make it out alive!"

But then the creationist/intelligent design nuts will simply dismiss and ignore every safety instruction in the video... wait, never mind, carry on with this wonderful idea!

Re:Not the technology

[quacking duck]

(Except you know they'll then be the ones borking the evac procedures and prevent others from escaping)

Re:Not the technology

[damn_registrars]

So now you blame me for your lousy choice. Clearly your first comment told me all I needed to know about your lack of intent to have a discussion on this matter.

Re:Not the technology

[femtobyte]

So now you blame me for your lousy choice.

??? I'm afraid I've honestly lost the thread of what you are saying here --- what "lousy choice" of mine are you referring to?

Clearly your first comment told me all I needed to know about your lack of intent to have a discussion on this matter

In a sense, this is true --- I wasn't particularly initiating a discussion with the poster "damn_registrars," or personally aiming my comments at him/her. I have no idea who damn_registrars is, and don't particularly care, either. I was responding to a fictional image of my own creation --- a hypothetical uptight, phone-obsessed traveler gripped by irrational ire at the prospect of losing his pocket-brain for a few minutes (and displaying symptoms normally associated with impatient children). This may not be you --- indeed, it's probably not you --- but your post generated the opportunity to present the image (which I think is a "truthful stereotype" of our culture, symptomatic of worse problems than FAA bungling). The discussion (on a public discussion forum) was aimed to engage SlashDot as a whole, rather than a personal exchange of criticisms between "femtobyte" and "damn_registrars." Yet, you took my response quite personally (we're both pseudonymous strangers on an internet forum --- don't worry so much about what others say or read about you), and flung yourself into a moralistic mudslinging brawl, interspersing preachy comments about "maturity" and "civility" with evidence that you have mastered neither. I kept expecting you to eventually catch on --- either to start leading the conversation by example towards substantive discussion, or show the personal maturity and security to walk away from a childish spat. But, six responses in, and you still seem to revel in a discussion that you deemed worthless from the start.

Re:Not the technology

[sir-gold]

You are saying that a cell phone will still try to connect a tower, even when the cell radio is TURNED OFF (airplane mode)?

Re:Not the technology

[chrismcb]

Takeoff and landing, you're supposed to concentrate on safety instructions .

The ban on electronics has absolutely NOTHING to do with "concentration" or paying attention to safety instructions. NOTHING.

Re:Not the technology

[chrismcb]

So why limit it to electronic devices only? Just because you want people to pay attention doesn't mean that is why that rule is in place.

Re:Not the technology

[L4t3r4lu5]

In a recent Reddit AMA, flight crew stated similar things. Firstly, if it was a serious situation the passengers wouldn't know about it. The cabin staff don't need a riot while the plane is falling from the sky. Secondly, buckle your seat belts when they say so, stow your gear as they say you should. Turbulence isn't a massive issue until it is, and then it's a massive issue. The plane will drop, you will leave your chair and at best bump your head on the overhead locker and bite your tongue, at worst break your neck. Also, your food will end up all over the people at the back of the plane, as well as your laptop, hand luggage, iPad etc. Those people will wish you'd put your bag containing the hardback 50 Shades trilogy under the seat in front, as you should have.

Re:Not the technology

[Aqualung812]

In test after test it has been conclusively shown that passengers in a braced position are more likely to survive than those that are not...

I've listened to countless safety briefings & have not once heard about the braced position. So, again, the point about the safety briefing at the start of the flight is BS.

Re:Not the technology

[dgatwood]

A braced position might make you less likely to get head injuries, but I'd expect it to greatly increase the risk of neck injuries because of momentum driving you into the next seat. If you want ideal protection in a crash, airplane seats should all face the back of the plane, for precisely the same reason that child seats do.... And the closest approximation of that seems like it would involve getting down on your knees with your back to the back of the seat or bulkhead in front of you.

Re:Not the technology

[dgatwood]

It's actually backwards from that. The FCC and the FAA have the legal right to set limits on what happens on aircraft, using authority granted by Congress. The FAA authorizes the pilot and crew to relax those rules when it is useful to do so, but never to tighten them.

For example, IIRC, you cannot use commercial video gear on an aircraft, but you can if you have the pilot's permission. Similarly, you cannot use cell phones on an aircraft, but at least as far as the FAA is concerned, you can use them if you have the pilot's permission. Many small airplane pilots carry cell phones as an emergency means of contacting the tower in the event of a radio failure, for example. In the case of commercial airlines, the airlines themselves generally have rules limiting what sorts of exceptions the pilots can make.

Of course, the FCC has a ban on cell phone use at altitude, but that has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with the mess it makes of the spectrum having a bunch of phones shouting at towers twenty miles away and in line-of-sight to a dozen other towers, all of which are also twenty miles away. That might change at some point, but it hasn't happened yet.

Re:Not the technology

[saveferrousoxide]

For a lot of us,

right, but there's a significant flying population that hasn't heard it enough or at all and they shouldn't feel like they're the only ones listening.
Peer pressure works on adults who aren't sure of their surroundings, just like it did in grade school.

the spiel is a giant waste of time.

really? giant? let's take your 1.5 minute estimate for granted. that's 6 minutes per round trip. I don't know about you, but I probably blow 6 minutes every few hours on any given workday. Hell, with two kids under 5, it probably takes me 6 minutes to get from my door to driving out of the driveway. "Giant" is hyperbolic at best. A "waste of time" is only true from your perspective. That's actually my real point. If you are clearly not paying attention, even if you aren't being disruptive, you're adding to the peer pressure to not bother listening.

They now make a point of saying that phones must be turned off, specifically that airplane mode is not sufficient

I'm guessing this is because not enough people were turning the phone to "airplane mode" and so it was just easier to get everyone to turn off their phones.

a list of approved devices either in the airline's magazine or in the safety brochure

right, and do you think the attendants are really going to spot your device which isn't on the list and only then ask you to turn it off? Enforcement is the problem and I doubt very much that the list is either detailed or very current. At the rate new devices are hitting the market, testing them, adding them to the list and re-printing the brochure would be very expensive for an industry that doesn't leave a lot of room for financial errors.

do forgive any non-sequiturs, it's late and I'm very tired right now. You made a thoughtful reply however, and I wanted to return the favor. I'm sorry it got shoehorned in at the end of my day :s

The cellphone ban is overreaching, too

[damn_registrars]

Every flight I've been on recently has had an announcement of

you must turn OFF your cell phone until we reach cruising altitude, airplane mode is not ok

Which is rather stupid. Most people who know how to put their phones in airplane mode have seen the safety instructions enough times that they could give them for the staff, why not let them keep their cell phones on provided they aren't engaged in communication with them?

Re:The cellphone ban is overreaching, too

[netwarerip]

Seriously, if there was even an incremental risk that a powered on or active cellphone could cause a problem during a flight then they would not allow you to take them on the plane. They certainly wouldn't blindly trust people to follow the request given to turn the things off. That is just plain common sense. There is no risk at all, its simple bullshit, probably falling into the 'security theater' category.
I seem to recall John Dvorak writing an article maybe 10 or so years ago in which he theorized that the reason behind the ban was strictly accounting related. Something to do with the fact that someone on a call would switch towers too fast for calls to be tracked properly, and thusly billed properly. That makes a hell of a lot more sense to me.

Re:The cellphone ban is overreaching, too

[jittles]

One time I was flying on American and I was in the very last row of the plane (booked last minute). The flight attendant came up to me and asked me if she could put an unaccompanied minor next to me during the flight. She asked if I could just keep an eye out for him, and make sure he didn't disappear on the flight. I said it was no problem. When they closed the cabin doors and asked people to turn their devices off, he neglected to do so. He was still texting who knows who when the flight attendant made it back to us for the safety check. She gave me the worst tongue lashing ever because I didn't make the kid put his cell phone away. I am not his father, I am not there to tell the kid what to do. She can do that. Why she thought it was up to me to make sure the kid followed the rules is beyond me. She threatened to kick me off the flight for that. It was ridiculous. I'm not a big fan of the cell phone ban either.

Re:The cellphone ban is overreaching, too

[T.E.D.]

Why should the airlines care about minor billing issues with a completely unrelated cell phone company? We won't get to the truth here (which should be the goal) by wasting time arguing over silly conspiracy theories.

Re:The cellphone ban is overreaching, too

[westlake]

The flight attendant came up to me and asked me if she could put an unaccompanied minor next to me during the flight. She asked if I could just keep an eye out for him, and make sure he didn't disappear on the flight. I said it was no problem...

At that point, you agreed to share responsibility for the safety of this kid.

Re:The cellphone ban is overreaching, too

[SecurityGuy]

No, he agreed to make sure he didn't disappear. In that situation, I'd have words for the flight attendant and the news media when we land. When you put your child on a flight as an unaccompanied minor, do you think that means the airline is going to turn them over to the custody of some other random flier? I sure don't.

Do your job, flight attendant. This kid is officially solely YOUR responsibility now. I'm having nothing to do with him.

Re:The cellphone ban is overreaching, too

[CKW]

I'm not assaulting a kid and stealing his property while on an airplane.

Yes, these are exactly what the kid would claim the moment he started a fistfight over his frickin property, on an airplane.

And there you'd sit, trying to defend your actions after the plane had returned to the ground and both you and the kid kicked off the airplane and banned from flying that airline ever again.

No. Way.

Re:The cellphone ban is overreaching, too

[bobbied]

Cell phone where banned long before TWA 800 (not 900) departed the ground. Also, the proposed spark was likely generated by static charge buildup common on aircraft as they move though the air.

Re:Well

[alen]

yeah, because the pilots are using their ipads right at the moment of take off

Re:Well

[SuperKendall]

yeah, because the pilots are using their ipads right at the moment of take off

They may not be but they also are not turning them off for takeoff or landing.

I thought the cell phone ban was for batteries?

[GodfatherofSoul]

I accidentally left mine on one flight and it was drained afterwards.

Re:I thought the cell phone ban was for batteries?

[Bearhouse]

The main reason is not that it presents a danger for navigation equipment, but that it could play havoc with the cell towers, (when you are low enough, around t/o and landing). Imagine the towers around an airport with dozens of planes, each with potentially hundreds of cellphones, zipping past, demanding handshake, then nearly-instantaneously demanding hardover to next tower...

Yeah, it also kills your battery as the phone keeps trying to find a tower during your transoceanic trip.

Personally, I like the ban, since the idea of having people inches away from me, on each side, and behind and in front, all shouting away on a cell would drive me nuts. It's bad enough as it is now...

Re:I thought the cell phone ban was for batteries?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I accidentally left mine on one flight and it was drained afterwards.

This is obviously handset/chipset dependent; but many cellphones will adjust their RF power use depending on signal strength. No point in shouting if the tower is nearby, you do what you have to(within technical and FCC limits) if you are at the edge of range. At cruising altitude, your phone probably spent hours screaming desperately into an uncaring void for an answer that would never come...

Re:I thought the cell phone ban was for batteries?

[djrobxx]

Personally, I like the ban, since the idea of having people inches away from me, on each side, and behind and in front, all shouting away on a cell would drive me nuts. It's bad enough as it is now...

People can already use their cell phones in the plane, on the ground until the cabin doors closes. And, you're already legally allowed to use them when taxiing back to the gate after touchdown.

I'm not sure why so many people are trying to make this issue about something it's not. People wanting to be able to read a book on their kindle has nothing to do with annoying people yacking on a cell phone. If you leave the requirement to switch to "airplane mode", it will still stop cell phone chatter, but allow book reading. And anyone who uses the argument about it "only being fifteen minutes", clearly doesn't fly often enough to understand this issue.
 

Headphones

[PPH]

I have a set of Bose noise canceling headphones. These things are great for filtering out cabin noise. In addition, they make the entertainment system and the PA system much easier to hear over the screaming of nearby children.

However, I am required to turn them off during takeoff and landing. Not take them off, but turn their power off. They have a little green LED which gives away their powered status*. So now, I can't hear the PA system and safety instructions. How about allowing the use of these as long as they are plugged into the cabin entertainment system during takeoff and landing?

*I suppose I could just put a piece of electrical tape over the LED.

Re:Headphones

[PPH]

I have the QuietComfort 15 model and wasn't aware it would through in the PA system audio.

Same model. You just plug them into the passenger entertainment headphone jack. All PA announcements are broadcast over this system and preempt the entertainment audio.

Re:Headphones

[dkf]

All PA announcements are broadcast over this system and preempt the entertainment audio.

I wish they'd only do that for safety announcements, and not the frequent "oh, we want to sell things to you now" ones (I've never ever bought a gift on a flight; the concept mixes two forms of hell — flying long-haul and shopping — into one maelstrom of awfulness). It would also be nice if they didn't sometimes turn on the PA system without making an announcement at all. Just because. If you've got important information, I've no problem listening to it. But random interruption of the entertainment for miscellaneous other reasons is irritating.

Re:Headphones

[north.coaster]

I agree, and in fact I have been on several long haul overseas flights in business class where the flight attendants did not ask passengers to turn off noise cancelling headphones during take off and landing. These flights were on a US domestic airline, too. I suspect that this was not an official airline policy, but rather individual flight attendants who were cutting business and first class passengers some slack, since these passengers are usually business professionals who paid a lot more for their tickets.

Re:Headphones

[sdoca]

As stated in a previous post, for the last few years I've been able to wear mine as long as they're not plugged in to something other than the planes' system. Even turned on. Since I don't need to listen the safety instructions or other announcements at full blast, I just leave the headphone unplugged.

Re:Headphones

[blankinthefill]

They should have come with a two-plug airline adapter. They have an airline mode, and you turn them to airline mode and and use the adapter to plug in like the cheapo headphones they sell for $5 or whatever. I also have a pair of these, with said LED, and every time I fly I leave them on from when I get on the plane till when I get off the plane. I make sure my iPod isn't visible during the 'zomg no electronics' portion of the flight (generally in the seatback pocket), with the cord for the headphones in clear sight. I'm also always polite to the flight attendants, and I take the headphones off to listen to the safety presentation. They never give me a hard time, and I've never been told to turn anything off. I don't know if I'm just lucky, or if my conduct makes them more likely to ignore the violations, or what.

Re:Headphones

[chrismcb]

I recently sat in a bulk head seat and had to place my backpack with my hibernating laptop in it in the overhead. Someone had managed to also place a large container of liquid in the overhead as well. After we reached cruising altitude I got up to get my laptop, when it was discovered that this liquid spilled, and was dripping on the people underneath.
The stewardess came by to try and figure out whose liquid spilled, and to clean it up. Then she saw the blinking light on my laptop. I've never seen anyone so freaked out in my life. Never mind the liquid that is spilled and leaking out and dripping on people, because there is a blinking light. OMG we are all going to die!

Staten Island

[Picass0]

I'm sure the good people of New York will tell you Obama learned from Bush's mistakes and was careful to have a more coordinated response when a major hurricane happened on his watch. The people of Staten Island were well cared for in a timely manner in spite of the pressures of election day politics.

Oh, wait...

.

Re:Staten Island

[alen]

NYC is getting billions of federal money to pay for subway repair and other projects
FEMA was out there
Insurance companies were out there
what else was Oblama supposed to do? there are only so many contractors out there. i live outside the flood zone and a wine and cheese shop that was supposed to open months ago cannot because all the contractors are busy with hurricane clean up

if you have flood insurance then your insurance company cuts you a check. if not you go to FEMA and ask for a loan to rebuild your home. this is not the first time NYC suffered flooding like this and FEMA had flood maps available. some people chose NOT TO BUY FLOOD INSURANCE

Re:Staten Island

[somersault]

Jeez. Another political argument on Slashdot. Thanks, Obama!

Re:Staten Island

[maxwell demon]

what else was Oblama supposed to do?

Stop the hurricane, of course.

It's not too much to expect from a messiah, is it?

Re:Staten Island

[WGFCrafty]

I'm sure the good people of New York will tell you Obama learned from Bush's mistakes and was careful to have a more coordinated response when a major hurricane happened on his watch. The people of Staten Island were well cared for in a timely manner in spite of the pressures of election day politics.

Oh, wait...

.

If Obama had only gotten his congressional caucus to vote for Aid! Wait, you mean the President is head of the executive branch? You say it was the opposite party who blocked aid funds, while one individual (R) a few months before stood there and requested funds for damage from Katrina!

There is a reason (Gov of NJ- R) Christie had very much anger for his party in the legislature.

Again, all you have to do is compare the population vs death toll. With many multiples of people more, two digits of people died, instead of 1,xxx.

Re:Staten Island

[rhalstead]

Obama blamed Bush and then not only made the same mistakes, but amplified them and still blamed Bush It was a case of going from pretty bad to really, really bad. I'm not a fan of bush, but that add, "Do you miss me yet?" Is getting a lot of "Ohhh Yahhh" replies.

Witchcraft and Supersition

[scorp1us]

Our government is required to provide logical, reality-based legislation. Not legislation and mandates built on superstition, witchcraft and rumor. It maybe fine for a short time to prohibit certain things out of an abundance of caution until an answer can be found but now we've had more than enough time, and we have no scientific evidence of any interplay between avionics and solid state mobile devices. All the evidence is anecdotal in nature. This is not sufficient for limiting the freedoms of people.

Re:Witchcraft and Supersition

[SirGarlon]

Our government is required to provide logical, reality-based legislation.

Is this an actual requirement written down somewhere, or one that you just made up?

Democracy includes irrational people. Do you really think they should be denied any representation or influence? Who decides who's rational "enough" for you?

Re:Witchcraft and Supersition

[Trailer Trash]

Democracy includes irrational people. Do you really think they should be denied any representation or influence? Who decides who's rational "enough" for you?

This has nothing to do with Democracy or our Republic. The rules were made by stupid bureaucrats who lack any accountability and certainly aren't elected. It's surprising that a senator has to go to much effort to get something like this changed.

Re:Witchcraft and Supersition

[scorp1us]

It is not written, but it is heavily implied. It is enforced in the courts, where their charter of handing out more or less "equitable" judgments takes place. Generally the scientific data (theory, test, examination, wash rinse repeat) trumps unsubstantiated claims because courts are evidence based and science is all about evidence.

Meanwhile, claimant of "She turned me into a newt! ... I got better" would need to provide evidence. Of course there would be no evince of such claim being true. It is the mere lack of evidence favoring irrational decisions that produces the scientific bias.

Re:Witchcraft and Supersition

[Solandri]

we have no scientific evidence of any interplay between avionics and solid state mobile devices. All the evidence is anecdotal in nature. This is not sufficient for limiting the freedoms of people.

People get upset at the FAA and criticize it all the time for being a reactionary agency. That it only requires the airlines and aircraft manufacturers to fix things or change procedures after it causes a crash.

The one time the FAA does something precautionary, people get upset at it and criticize it for safeguarding against something that hasn't caused a crash.

Make up your minds, people!

Re:Witchcraft and Supersition

[sir-gold]

The difference is easy to see.

When the FAA has to give orders to an airline or aircraft maker, the FAA waits until AFTER deaths have occurred, but when it involves telling the PUBLIC what to do, then the FAA is all about precaution (a complete ban on cell phones in hot air balloons, for example)

Pretty obvious who the favorite child in this family is (hint: it's not the passengers)

Re:Witchcraft and Supersition

[poofmeisterp]

Our government is required to provide logical, reality-based legislation. Not legislation and mandates built on superstition, witchcraft and rumor. It maybe fine for a short time to prohibit certain things out of an abundance of caution until an answer can be found but now we've had more than enough time, and we have no scientific evidence of any interplay between avionics and solid state mobile devices. All the evidence is anecdotal in nature. This is not sufficient for limiting the freedoms of people.

But but but they've proven that all cell phones cause brain cancer... in the pilots' brains. Before the flight is complete.

Re:More coddling of the addicts

[somersault]

But you are apparently happy to have them waste those 15 minutes of your life for no actual reason. It's not about withdrawal, it's about letting idiots control your life.

So gleefully ignorant

[SoTerrified]

I just flew last weekend. As we're sitting in line for the runway (taking a good 15-20 mins) I'm on my nexus 7. The stewardess runs up and says "No electronic devices!" I say "It's in airplane mode, so it's not transmitting or receiving". And she says "We didn't invent airplane mode. Who knows what it does. You have to shut it off." (Keep in mind this isn't a safety/stow items issue... Everyone around me is reading books unmolested) Really? "You didn't invent it"? "Who knows what it does?" Are you kidding me that you haven't taken 5 minutes to investigate what airplane mode means on well known electronics like nexus and iPad? You're that gleefully ignorant? I'll give credit to the stewards and say they're probably just saying what's been directed from the top, but still, it would just be smarter to say it's a directive from up top instead of trying to claim you can't trust airplane mode.

Re:So gleefully ignorant

[gottabeme]

Unless the flight attendant was a male (or a hermaphrodite, as you imply), "stewardess" is correct terminology.

And unless the flight attendant is a hermaphrodite, I imagine she would be offended by your suggesting that she is one.

Re:So gleefully ignorant

[Rob the Bold]

The stewardess runs up and says "No electronic devices!" I say "It's in airplane mode, so it's not transmitting or receiving". And she says "We didn't invent airplane mode. Who knows what it does. You have to shut it off."

I understand her logic. That's why I insist on only flying in aircraft personally built and maintained by the pilot and crew.

Re:So gleefully ignorant

[UnknowingFool]

Are you kidding me that you haven't taken 5 minutes to investigate what airplane mode means on well known electronics like nexus and iPad? You're that gleefully ignorant?

No, you and the flight attendant both know what flight mode is supposed to be. But unless you've actually put that particular device in a lab, you can't be assured that it isn't transmitting. And neither can she. And she probably isn't an engineer in her spare time. For her, it's safer just to turn it off.

Re:More coddling of the addicts

[splutty]

You do realize we're talking about a book here, right? (Or at least, that's what it's generally used for), and actually reading a dead-tree book isn't an issue?

Right. Glad to get that out of the way. But don't let me stop your diatribe about gadgets.

Good

[onyxruby]

These rules are overdue for repeal and have been for at least a decade. I used to travel full time as a consultant for years and I can assure that on every single flight there are devices routinely left on and used when they are not supposed to be.

The empirical evidence is plain as day by way of millions of flights every year with every possible phone, game console, tablet that you could imagine that have /not/ crashed. This rule was made out of excessive paranoia and needs to be set aside as the act of sheer absurdity that it is.

on the other hand

[nozzo]

I was on a flight just coming in to land and the guy next to me answered his ringing phone - I almost grabbed it off him and stamped on it but as I'm British I would rather the plane went out of control and die in a fireball than to make a fuss. Other people tutted at him.
However nothing happened and here I am typing this today!

Re:on the other hand

[JMandingo]

I was sitting in first class next to a British chap on a morning flight out of Dallas. A very nasty lightning storm rolled up and they delayed us at the gate for 30 minutes. When the announcement came over the PA this British fella went bonkers and delivered a most awesome scathing 10 minute rant about how Americans are fucking idiots and we don't fucking understand fucking service etc., etc. It really was quite impressive. Then the flight attendant started handling out free cocktails and everything was lovely.

Safety at 150 miles per hour?

[BMOC]

Those instructions are worthless in all but the rarest of circumstances. I guarantee you your lap-belt + crash position or flotation device isn't going to save you when the ground is coming up and your ground speed is in excess of formula-1 racers. At that point it's just random chance that saves you. The Hudson river "landing" was remarkable simply because its one of the most rare forms of plane crash, the controlled crash where everyone managed to survive. Besides which, once you've flown 10-20 times, those instructions are obvious and easy to remember.

Re:Safety at 150 miles per hour?

[Alioth]

The actual experience is somewhat different to what you assume. In cases where the aircraft has arrived on the ground in a controlled manner, then usually pretty much everyone survives. The brace position will stop you from needlessly headbutting the seat in front, potentially meaning the difference between a nasty head injury and just bruises.

It's not the speed of arrival that's important, it's the deceleration. If the crew put the aircraft somewhere reasonably flat in a level attitude, and the aircraft has time to decelerate instead of coming to a sudden halt, the outcome is usually pretty good for the people on board. I'd wager that most plane crashes are like this, and the types of crashes where everyone dies are the rarer ones. If you have a look around airliners.net or the NTSB website, you'll see there's an awful lot of these kinds of incidents where no one gets killed (the majority being runway over/undershoots)

Tell me you do not know them already

[SuperKendall]

Takeoff and landing, you're supposed to concentrate on safety instructions

So after I have done that ONCE, why do I ever need to do that again?

Look for exits, floatation device under seat, oxygen masks from overhead. Why do I need to "pay attention" if I know all that already? As long as I have carefully noted where my nearest emergency exit is (which I did before I sat down thanks) what possible value can I gain by listening to what I know?

It's not like you could not easily do just about anything while half-listening for any possible deviation, but that's just how planes are.

Furthermore, the actual safety briefing takes a few minutes at most. So why should I continue to "put down that device" during the whole takeoff and landing process? Especially when all I want to do is read an ebook.

Re:In my experience

[ddd0004]

I like your new plan. I'll take all the crying kids you can put on an airplane if I can see a way too cocky guy having a cell phone conversation (probably via a bluetooth headset) get booted off a plane. Look we all understand you've been snapping necks and cashing checks after selling the Catalina Wine Mixer but we'll be where we are going in a couple hours. You can get with your brahs then.

Mythbusters.

[Anonymous Coward]

I vaguely recall mythbusters doing a test to see if any of these devices actually caused any interference.

The FAA(I think it was?) wouldn't let them fly while doing it, but on the ground, they received absolutely none.

This is another example of old farts going "In my day, this is how we did it!" and not moving forward with time.

Re:Mythbusters.

[stymy]

So Mythbusters tested every device that could possibly cause interference? The way rules on airplanes work is that stuff is banned by default, unless proven to be safe.

Re:Mythbusters.

[sir-gold]

They tested a cell tower simulator, which is hundreds of times more powerful than any cell phone.

To put it in perspective, if you could rig a cell phone to generate that kind of power, you would get about 5 minutes of talk time before you completely drained the battery

So, even with a device more powerful than an army of cellphones (and broadcasting on every possible cell frequency too), they were still unable to cause any effect whatsoever on the planes electronics.

what?

[letherial]

I just flew, and both the trip there and back i didnt turn off my phone or my tablet. I can only assume im not the only one, planes are not falling out of the sky yet they need a year to study this.

stupid stupid stupid goverment

Keep em Banned

[Kookus]

Really? Why are we arguing over something so trivial as turning off a device for 15 minutes until you're in the air? We need instant gratification 100% of the time? Deal with it.
I'd rather not even chance my safety over something as stupid as a cellphone or e-reader.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2003/may/22/thisweekssciencequestions

It's not about devices that are broadcasting under normal conditions, or intended conditions. It's about malfunctioning devices. The last thing we need on the news is a blackbox recording of the pilots trying to communicate with the tower about a situation in which another plane is approaching and to take immediate actions to avoid a collision only to be drowned out by static, squeals, or Samuel L Jackson giving his speech about Ezekiel 21 and a slew of gunshots.

I honestly don't give a rip about you trying to get a last "OMG! takeoffz!" text in.

Re:Keep em Banned

[hduff]

Really? Why are we arguing over something so trivial as turning off a device for 15 minutes until you're in the air? We need instant gratification 100% of the time? Deal with it.

I don't believe anybody would have a problem with the rule IF THE DEVICES ACTUALLY CAUSED A PROBLEM.

But since they do not cause problems, most people are not happy being subjected to a useless, arbitrary rule for no reason other than "Because we can, that's why".

If you feel comfortable obeying a rule like that, I suggest you get some counseling or just STFU.

Re:Keep em Banned

[SecurityGuy]

As one commenter posted already, it's about freedom. Not having your right to do something trivial taken away without good cause.

It's also a security issue. If your device can bring the plane down, you shouldn't be allowed to have the device on the plane at all. It's a nonsensical world we live in where the powers that be believe that can happen, but have to know planes take off and land every day with these devices on. If planes CAN be affected by these devices, we don't need to ban the devices, we need to fix the planes.

Re:Keep em Banned

[Kookus]

Prove that they don't cause a problem. Start by following the link I posted.

Oh, you can't? You know where to shove your reply then.

Re:Keep em Banned

[Kookus]

Freedom is a lovely word thrown around, but if everyone had that kind of freedom (to do whatever they want, whenever) then we'd still be in the stone age as we're clubbing people upside the head to satisfy our freedoms.

Let's phrase this in a more dramatic fashion. Let's calculate the chance of one of these devices interfering with the operations of a plane in such a fashion to cause a significant life impacting event on a plane.

Now, let's construct a gun that is loaded with a bullet and when you pull the trigger has the same odds of causing a significant life impacting event. Let's aim it at your head.

Go ahead, pull the trigger. If you lose, your head is blown off. If you win, nothing. Absolutely nothing of any significance changes in your life.

Regardless of how infinitesimally small the chances are of the gun going off, is it worth it?

Now, do you want to argue that you lose 15 minutes of your life sitting on your thumbs? How about that time when you were waiting in McDonald's behind an old guy who didn't know what he wanted? How about the 2 hours you waited in line to renew your driving license? The time you spend sleeping? The time you spent reading this post! I just wasted precious seconds of your time with just this paragraph! You wasted more time boarding the plane than the time you lost while waiting for it to get off the ground. Let's stop the ban on the bum-rush we so desperately want to board the plane as fast as we want! You're infringing my freedoms of boarding! Why should I have to wait for the people that need assistance to board first?

Re:Keep em Banned

[eclectro]

Well said. Clearly a new generation is posting to slashdot. Because in the past when this issue has come up (as it continually does now with increasing frequency) the engineers of old would explain with numerous posts that it's impossible for the FAA or anyone else to keep track of the countless electronic devices made and assure that each and every one does not jam the systems.

But apparently the 15 year olds of today can't live for a few minutes with their devices turned off.

Re:Keep em Banned

[mvdwege]

It's only about 'freedom' in the sense that a bunch of crying overgrown children are stamping their feet because the world refuses to give in to their entitlement complex.

Re:Keep em Banned

[hawguy]

It's not about devices that are broadcasting under normal conditions, or intended conditions. It's about malfunctioning devices. The last thing we need on the news is a blackbox recording of the pilots trying to communicate with the tower about a situation in which another plane is approaching and to take immediate actions to avoid a collision only to be drowned out by static, squeals,

If that were really the case, then why don't airlines require that the batteries be removed from devices and surrendered to the flight attendant or that the devices be placed into an RF shielded container?

Everything on a plane is heavily regulated with strict testing and installation regulations - if a passenger cell phone could really disrupt the flight, do you really think the FAA would leave it up to the customer to remember to turn it off?

On any given flight there are likely dozens of phones and other devices that have powered themselves on in carryon or checked bags - my phone doesn't have a removable battery and has an easily pressed power button, so most of the time I find that it's powered itself on at some point during the flight.

Re:Keep em Banned

[Kookus]

If that were really the case, then why don't airlines require that the batteries be removed from devices and surrendered to the flight attendant or that the devices be placed into an RF shielded container?

Because they figure you're a grown-up and can follow simple instructions to power them off.

Everything on a plane is heavily regulated with strict testing and installation regulations - if a passenger cell phone could really disrupt the flight, do you really think the FAA would leave it up to the customer to remember to turn it off?

They don't leave it up to you to remember. They actively instruct and watch out for your usage of the devices. More often now they have to watch out for people who blatantly disregard said instructions.
For some reason I think you have the idea that disrupting a flight means someone turning on their phone and causing the plane to go into a death spiral, or somehow become a remote controlled plane. Although pretty nifty sounding, the much more simple interruption of communications with the ground is about as far as I need to go with the discussion.

On any given flight there are likely dozens of phones and other devices that have powered themselves on in carryon or checked bags

Do you have any sources for that statistic? I find that statistic to be highly suspect. I'd wager more people try to hide their interactions with their powered on devices than devices turning themselves on through bumping into other objects while stowed away.

- my phone doesn't have a removable battery and has an easily pressed power button, so most of the time I find that it's powered itself on at some point during the flight.

Which phone do you have? And if you are checking it's power state during a flight often enough to see that it has turned itself on, where are you storing it?

Regardless of that, it's about minimizing risk. Turning off electronics are a low hanging fruit for the whole whopping 15 minutes that anyone cares.
And regardless of that, unless the pilots and tower peeps come out and say, go ahead, we're all good and trust our equipment to handle whatever piece of Chinese knockoff crap you bought on the street (I'm sure they care about FCC regulations) can throw at us... then I don't see why anyone's position on removing the ban matters.

-I deal with computers... software... various things built by "professionals". No matter where you go, how highly regulated things are, you WILL have absolutely brain-dead, how did you ever get a job here, kind of people working on those projects. So having complete faith that anything works perfectly and can handle all forms of unintended interference is quite laughable. Until we have AI, and the planes are designed/built by robots, we won't come near being able to assert that, and even then we might still have a hard time.

Re:Keep em Banned

[sir-gold]

Let's calculate the chance of one of these devices interfering with the operations of a plane in such a fashion to cause a significant life impacting event on a plane. Now, let's construct a gun that is loaded with a bullet and when you pull the trigger has the same odds of causing a significant life impacting event. Let's aim it at your head.

Go ahead, pull the trigger. If you lose, your head is blown off. If you win, nothing. Absolutely nothing of any significance changes in your life.

OK, you get started on that 10-million-chamber russian roulette. We will check back with you in a decade or so when its done.

You are more like to be struck by lighting TWICE than you are to be in an airplane crash.

Re:Keep em Banned

[Kookus]

You only need 1 chamber, a micro-controller, a 9 volt battery, some wiring, and a couple other odds n ends. Probably take an afternoon to construct.
But... I like your style of thinking! Find the most difficult way to solve a problem! You could probably work with those Rube Goldberg teams in some way, help them find more complicated ways to light a match.

I take it from your statistic about planes crashing that you admit there is a non-zero chance of a device interfering with the plane in some way.

So let's weight the cost/benefits of using those electronics again.

Use them = non-zero chance of death.
Don't use them = nothing

I find it humorous that people argue against the nothing, just so they can get nothing, all for the cost of possible death.

Sounds like a reasonable trade to me...

There's no point

[Anonymous Coward]

If there were any chance that passenger devices of any kind could seriously impact the safety of the plane, then a simple suggestion not to use such devices is ludicrous. Such devices would have to be detected and confiscated before boarding the plane. We don't ask people not to set off the explosives they brought on the plane, we make sure that they don't bring them on the plane in the first place. The fact that people are allowed to bring cell phones on the plane prove that they are not dangerous. If they were, that would be a huge problem - we really do not want planes to fall out of the sky just because of a bit of radio interference. It's a good thing that they don't, so now let's get rid of this stupid restriction.

Re:Well

[Joce640k]

Do they have the iPad radio transmitters enabled in the cockpit? Thought not.

There's a difference between a trained pilot with a properly configured device and a brat trying to get on Facebook during takeoff.

There is no reason for it . . .

[hduff]

. . . it's just our policy.

All or none...halfway makes no sense

[patmandu]

At the root of this is the flight attendant: The proposal is to allow readers...but not cellphones. Is a Kindle HD a reader? How about an iPad mini...with cell data? What about a Raspberry Pi based homebuilt device? How do they tell? All this would do would be push the problem into the attendant's laps and require them to be expert in what devices are allowed and be able to identify them by sight. It's easier to just say 'it's all gotta be turned off' than it is to sort out what's allowed and what's not. All or nothing, but...the halfway stuff is unenforceable nonsense.

Personally, I think they should allow it all Thousands of flights happen every day with cellphones powered on and active just by forgetfulness alone. Some smaller percentage of flights also happen every day with deliberate usage of these devices.

Attention during Instructions

[realsilly]

While it may be true that electronics pose no threat to the avionics, there is a good reason for turning off the items during take off and landing that has nothing to do with electronic interference. It's courtesy when listening to the flight attendants provide safety instructions and gate info. Most people barely listen to the flight attendants safety instructions, but they are repeated for every flight for a reason. In the event of an emergency, people who recent heard instructions or took the time to read them will be a little more prepared in an emergency. How many people can repeat what you need to do in an emergency (on a plane) right this moment? If you can, then you've listened/read and retained well. But I would guess most cannot.

From an airline's perspective, this attention to the flight attendance and repeating the emergency info on every flight is a CYA thing, but it is also the passenger's responsibility to know the risks of flying and understand what to do. Reading a book, listening to music, talking on the phone are all ways to tune out the world around you to make the flight a little more enjoyable.

If the most dangerous time on a flight is during takeoff and landing then this rule makes sense to me, even if I don't like it.

Re:Attention during Instructions

[mark-t]

It's courtesy when listening to the flight attendants provide safety instructions and gate info.

Then why don't they just say that instead of implicating that somehow electronics are to blame?

They say to shut off electronics, when they could just say that they want people to be paying attention during that time, and not be doing anything which distracts them. That would include using electronics... but would also including reading, sleeping, or even talking to the person next to you.

Re:Attention during Instructions

[rhsanborn]

Their rules aren't consistent enough to give this as a justification. They don't make passengers stop reading their books. They don't wake up sleeping passengers. They don't make passengers remove ear plugs. To say that this ban is for safety to force people to pay attention to the safety instructions doesn't work.

Difficult to enforce and adhere to

[udippel]

I myself am a culprit and lucky no plane crashed due my failure in following suggestions. :)
Recently, someone passed an old handy of his to me, I was travelling overseas, and for the first time didn't have to swap SIM-cards. So I plugged my Malaysian SIM card in the new phone and left the German in the old one. Ah, you can guess what happened. Sure, I switched off the phone I had in my pocket. Alas, one too few. Very sorry, fellow passengers! Luckily you and me survived.
Another scenario (aside from the multiple phones): I have an Android on me as well. So if it contains a SIM-card it needs to be switched off, though I am only reading or watching a movie; but if it doesn't, it is just a reading device? And what happens if I root a Swindle?
And what is actually 'off' on my Android tablet? Usually it kind of hibernates once I haven't touched it for some time. Totally shutting it off would be a procedure I usually don't do. Hibernation or whatnot is fine? Despite of me (not?) being able to make calls?
Personally, I consider myself a meticulous person. Not everyone is. And passenger Aunt Tilly will simply be unable to cope with the request in a 'technically correct way', and I wouldn't bet on her niece, an air-hostess, neither to differentiate properly.

This matter sounds as if a PhD in rocket science would be needed to follow instructions in a correct manner.

Re:Well

[X0563511]

Lets be fair - if interference was a valid argument at all (it isn't...) the antennas for anything important are not physically near the cockpit, but on the belly, back, or wings.

But would the airlines cooperate?

[Kyogreex]

The airlines or even the crew could still enforce these rules if they want to, which wouldn't surprise me.

Litigation

[Torodung]

Of course, all it takes is one lawyer to win a case. Contrary to popular belief, they don't need things like "evidence" to win a case, if the judge and jury are gullible enough. I think that's what the rules are based upon.

It's not about radio interference!

[badzilla]

It's about fire safety. If the plane crashes and I'm wearing this season's fashionable new look "shirt soaked in spilled jet fuel" then I really really do hope you damn well turned off your electrical gadgets.

Re:More coddling of the addicts

[Rob the Bold]

The level of technology addiction here is just pathetic.

I see what you did there.

How do they even know?

[Princeofcups]

There is no argument pro or con on this issue, since right now no one checks to make sure that devices are actually off. How many cell phones are still in pockets, turned on and accepting connections? How any iPads have their covers on but still powered up? Since no one does an RF sweep, then right now, as far as I'm concerned, all devices have been on and running during take off and landing the whole time. There is only an annoying show of compliance. Should they be on, or not? It doesn't matter. They've been on the whole time.

Re:Well

[north.coaster]

Yeah, but if the pilot suspects that their tablet was causing interference they can quickly turn it off. It would take a lot longer to locate an interfering device that's stored away in a random passenger's brief case.

Not worth the risk..

[Anonymous Coward]

I am a pilot and a flight instructor. I generally thought this was an unnecessary rule when I began flying.

Until, testing the rule, a fellow pilot made a call on his cell phone from the right seat and the compass turned 30 degrees off course.

More advanced aircraft use flux gates positioned in the wings and tail (great scott! they look like a flux capacitor) to determine magnetic heading. The position is intentional as it keeps the devices away from other electronic interference.

One cell phone on a 737 probably won't affect any of these instruments. Ten, probably not. But 100 passengers all trying to finish downloading a copy of Twilight: New Moon on their iPads before they lose 4G on takeoff? I wouldn't risk it.

Aeronautical risk management is about minimizing as many factors as possible, however small and seemingly inconsequential . Commercial air travel has a safety record better than all other forms of transportation, so disconnect from your electronics for ten whole minutes and let's keep it that way.

Re:Early Days:

[morgauxo]

I don't know anything about that particular video but I've heard stories of others who claimed personal experience with cellphones causing issues (which I also cannot verify)

That makes me think they are asking the wrong question. Shouldn't the question be 'why is any plane vulnerable to this and why are such planes legally allowed to fly?" Yes, I caught the fact that you were talking about planes from the 80s. I thought planes had pretty long 'lifespans' though. Aren't a lot of them still being flown? I hope they have been well upgraded if so. Besides all that, if something is vulnerable to a mere cellphone then what about natural sources of radio waves. How about RF from a nearby lightning strike for example? Lightning certainly existed in the 80s too!

If the fleet of planes that are out there are vulnerable to portable devices then it makes sense to ban them as a temporary measure but the long term solution should be mandating that all new planes are safe no matter what device a passenger uses on board. It shouldn't be that hard to accomplish. All important circuitry is built into shielded cases. Interconnecting cables are also sheilded. Any control lines over a certain length or going anywhere near the passenger compartment should carry high levels. For example, no wire should carry TTL level logic across the plane with an amplifier at the end to make up for losses which I suspect is how the plane worked in your video that you mentioned, if it is real.

Sound reasoning

[DaMattster]

Takeoff and landing are the two most dangerous points of the entire flight. I don't think people should be distracted by their electronic devices during these times. These rules are put into place for safety and I agree with them.

Re: Bush cut funding to the levees

[ArtemaOne]

He was very responsible. He diverted funds from the dyke renovation half a year before Katrina hit. He did not take his chevy to the levee, and it made it very not dry.

Re:Well

[BitZtream]

Actually, yes, they do, as most don't bother to turn them off.

The reality of it however is that the CPU itself is operating in the ghz range, which means its got all sorts of side bands and harmonics that can fall into the range that cockpit equipment uses.

You don't have to worry about a properly functioning radio transmitter causing an issue, its the broken ones that are an issue (if any), so leaving the CPU running is not really solving the real problem you're pretending exists.

Re:So Says Common Sense.

[dgatwood]

Ciommon sense says that if a GSM receiver can throw off enough EM noise to affect the ultra-high sensitivity receiver in your $20 walmart clock radio, then there's a distinct possibility that it might throw off enough EM noise to affect a receiver looking for a 5 watt transmitter halfway to GEO orbit. It could also, you know, put some noise on a radio that the pilots are using for air traffic control.

GSM receivers don't inherently do anything. GSM transmitters, however, rapidly power on and off their transmitter in a way that effectively creates a high-intensity transmission at a very low frequency (within the human hearing range) that is readily received and boosted by audio-frequency gain stages. That's a well-understood design flaw in the GSM encoding scheme.

I'm rather surprised that the iPads for pilots aren't 3G-capable. You could avoid all the GSM problems by using a CDMA (Verizon or Sprint) iPad with no SIM card installed, and the device would be a lot more useful when the pilot isn't in the air. And the Wi-Fi-only iPads don't have GPS receivers, which means they would be substantially less useful as an emergency backup in the event of a navigation system failure....

Re:Early Days:

[hawguy]

I don't know anything about that particular video but I've heard stories of others who claimed personal experience with cellphones causing issues (which I also cannot verify)

And out of the 10 million annual flights and 800 million passengers that fly each year, I'm sure you can find 2 passengers that claim to have seen the flying unicorns that keep the planes in the air. A few observations of something doesn't make it true.

Interference from passenger devices is tested millions of times/year as people inadvertantly (or puposely) leave their devices turned on, or the devices power one themselves when something pushes against the power switch. If there were really a problem, there would be more than a handful of reports of interference.

Then why are books allowed?

[Sycraft-fu]

I'm completely ok if the rule is "Everything has to go away during takeoff and landing, you must give your full attention to the staff." Ok, fine. I don't think it is useful, but I'll roll with it. However they are 100% ok with books, magazines, all that shit that is just as distracting as an electronic device but it is somehow ok.

The rule is based in nothing but bullshit. It is not because of distraction, it is because "We've always done it this way and can't admit we are wrong."

Then why is paper ok?

[Sycraft-fu]

If the issue was attention (it isn't) then why do they allow people to continue reading books and magazines? There's no difference between reading a novel on paper and reading it on a Kindle, attention wise.

Know why? Because that NOT the reason. That bullshit reason gets repeated online but it has nothing to do with anything. The reason for the electronics ban is one of "We've always done this and don't want to admit that we are wrong about it."

This is why so many people, including the FCC, are on them about it. They have NO REASON for a ban just on electronics. If they could truly interfere with a plane's operation, they'd be banned entirely and not only that we'd be redesigning planes since it would be easy to make a directed antenna for use on the ground to take planes out of the sky, invisibly.

This is just the FAA being stupid and stubborn.

Reading devices only?

[viperidaenz]

Even though a fair amount of reading devices include a cell radio? There is technically no difference when they're both in flight mode. They both contain disabled cell radios.

Real pilot here.

[Anonymous Coward]

As a real pilot I would be glad if you hand over those "pilots" names to the FAA.
On take off and landing left and right seat are dedicated to 1 job and 1 job only. They are not updating their face book status to "YOLO! Crashing plane!".
What you just said is worse than saying "I know pilots who fly 747s drunk!" and is an equally terminable offense.

Also as a note on electronics. Having my heading be off by 30 degrees (this has been documented) is not going to make me crash the plane on take off or landing. It may lead me to flying you to DFW from JFK instead of LAX like you planned, but it will not lead to a plane crash.
The idea is that the electronics can cause distraction during critical phases of flight. No one wants those. It is just a risk with no real justification and accepting a risk with no justification, is just bad risk management.

Re:Real pilot here.

[closer2it]

Damn... I wish I had mod points to mod parent up. :(

Re: Bush cut funding to the levees

[ElectricTurtle]

... and predictably some groupthinker mods me 'offtopic' which I would concede to the circumstances of the article if it weren't for the fact that the original posts that started this tangent are *not* being modded offtopic. So of course the only thing off topic is the truth that the green left agenda was what really got people killed during Katrina due to deliberate actions in court. Quick! It doesn't fit the narrative! Suppress the shit out of those facts!

Re: Bush cut funding to the levees

[ArtemaOne]

I think lobbies should be far more regulated, and they have no decision making capability. If my daughter begs me for McDonalds every meal of the day, she isn't to blame for getting obese. I am in control of what she eats. Same in this situation. I don't give a damn about your left and right crap. These people are individuals, and the party system is simply a way of saying it is not my fault.

Re:Training Standards & Loose Items in the Cab

[sir-gold]

You realize that if you did somehow manage to pull a "high-g maneuver" (the kind that the military and aerobatic planes do) in a large commercial jet, you would probably just rip the wings right off the plane, right?

You are far more likely to get hit in the head by a flying book while driving your car than you are while sitting in a plane.

TDMA

[poofmeisterp]

They're probably concerned about the few TDMA providers that are still in existence. They can cause annoying buzzing on the headsets (due to the output amplifiers on the radio equipment). Even HSDPA+ providers (AT&T for one) still have distance/signal backdown to EVDO (which is TDMA-based). Since they can't determine who has a TDMA device and who doesn't, they just tell everyone to keep their shit off.

Now switching to airplane mode, that's just plain dumb. If anyone can do it, they should be able to use their device......

But, It's just like childhood. Since we don't want to point fingers at the people with equipment that might get in the way of our pilots communicating without interference, and don't want to point out the idiots that can't properly enable airplane mode, everyone has to put down their toys.

Every flight takes off and lands with electronics

[hegstrom]

I'm pretty sure that every commercial flight takes off and lands with at least one electronic device powered on. I've seen it happen with my own eyes :-)

Re: Bush cut funding to the levees

[toddestan]

I totally forgot that the Sierra Club was running the country in 2005. Good thing we handed it over shortly thereafter to the NRA.