Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FAA May Let You Use Electronic Devices During Airplane Takeoff and Landing Soon

Posted by samzenpus on from the leave-it-on dept.

colinneagle writes "Members of an FAA advisory panel are reportedly meeting this week to make changes to the ban on the use of electronic devices on an airplane during takeoff and landing. The new regulations will allow the use of electronic devices to access content stored on the devices, including e-books, music, podcasts, and video. Sending emails, connecting to Wi-Fi, and making phone calls will still be prohibited. The announcement is expected to be made later this month, and the rules put into effect next year, according to the report."

13 of 166 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Burden of enforcement by sabri · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Seems ridiculous, they have a lot to do on take off and landing already.

    During take-off and landing they are usually strapped in their seats.

    But seriously, they're their to save your ass, not to kiss it.

    --
    I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
  2. Finally I can start flying again by multiben · · Score: 4, Funny

    That 20 minutes or so where I was disconnected from grid was intolerable. Sometimes it would be as long as half an hour! Half an hour without 'liking' anything! Also, my virtual farm was practically in ruins and my digital pets were thirsty.

  3. Test Team by dohzer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For the last ten years I've been part of an unofficial and unpaid test team that has been examining how safe it is to use mobile phones and similar transceivers during take-off and landing. My planes have never had problems.

    1. Re:Test Team by t4ng* · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Back in late 90's/early 00's I was working for Qualcomm on a system that used eight GlobalStar UTs in parallel to offer a mix of phone and data service. In the experimental jet we had wifi routers connected into this system, and the jet's diagnostic bus was wired into it too, also a GPS receiver going full time as well (part of the UTs actually). We had several laptops, webcams, and phone calls going all the time - on the ground, in the air, during take off and landing - not one single problem, ever.

      The ban on electronics, with the claim that it interferes with the plane's electronics, has always been bullshit. If that were true the ban would be for the entire duration of the flight, and it would be pretty scarey if flight electronics were so delicate that anyone with a cell phone turned on could screw it up. It's about controlling people, nothing more.

    2. Re:Test Team by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The ban on electronics, with the claim that it interferes with the plane's electronics, has always been bullshit.

      The old analog phones put a strong, continuous, signal in a narrow band. This was both an interference problem for communications and navigation equipment (due to effects like front-end quieting and intermodulation, even though the plane's gear wasn't operating on the same frequency) and a signal corruption problem for any electronic device with a metallic structure in its wiring that picked up enough signal to drive the electronics out of proper operating conditions.

      Digital cellphone signals, whether CDMA or OFDM based (as well as the OFDM based WiFi) are spread-spectrum. The energy is spread out over a broad band and looks like background radio noise to equipment that isn't designed to collect and concentrate it. This is much less of a problem. Any electronics that would be interfered with it (if the phone wasn't within inches of it) would also be interfered with by so much other stuff that it wouldn't be suitable for aircraft at all.

      Now that the Analog cellphone network is shut down (and most analog-capable cellphones are retired), and most modern portable computer gear is also designed with spread-spectrum clocks internally (to avoid generating narrowband radio interference due to all those gates switching simultaneously and periodically), these devices are much less of a source of problematic radio interference.

      Meanwhile, the avionics has gone through a couple more generations of engineering, with avoiding dangerous failures from passenger electronics interference as a design criterion.

      So now is a much safer time to let the passengers play with their toys than even a few years ago.

      If that were true the ban would be for the entire duration of the flight, and it would be pretty scarey if flight electronics were so delicate that anyone with a cell phone turned on could screw it up.

      "You can do anything you want [when flying] a plane, as long as you don't do it near the ground." This is doubly true for operating a not-designed-for-air-flight radio transmitter in the plane:

        - When flying "up there" you have a lot of room to manouver and a lot of time to correct errors or switch modes if something goes wrong with a system. When taking off or landing you have only seconds to react, and have to be accurate with a couple inches vertically, feet right-left, and tens of yards fore-aft to land ON, rather than under, beside, or off-the-end-of the runway (and avoid all the other planes, buildings, trees, antennas, etc.)

        - When taking off and landing you're using a LOT of additional electrical, and radio, systems.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  4. Who cares? by Culture20 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The FAA gives us some crumbs while the TSA takes the main course. I'd rather have my electronics have the batteries temporarily confiscated than have to endure radiation or gropings.

  5. Re:De facto allowed already... by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Yeah the phone ban is total theater security. I was flying last week. It was funny to see the older couple dig out their dumb phones when we landed and they both went "Oh, I guess we forgot to turn off our phones. Oh well."

    I had heard that supposedly when cell phones were the size of bricks and used a different band they *might* of caused interference at one point but I have never seen nor heard a plane lose access to its key navigation systems due to a phone or ever heard of it crash because of cell phones. I really wish MythBusters would have busted this "safety" myth years ago.

  6. Re:Burden of enforcement by mythosaz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...and this is why I miss the good old days of flying - when they WERE there to kiss it.

  7. Re:But the TSA... by tompaulco · · Score: 5, Interesting

    TSA will make it illegal

    Technically, the TSA cannot make anything illegal. But that is just the issue. Once upon a time, in order to control the citizenry, you had to make laws, and the citizenry had some say into what was law and what was not. Now, you have regulatory agencies that don't make laws at all but are given jurisdiction to make what is held as equivalent to law in that if you disobey their rules, you can be charged with a crime. This is not appropriate at all and everybody should be outraged that this is happening.

    --
    If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  8. Re:Burden of enforcement by JWSmythe · · Score: 5, Informative

    There are a few instances where they have found the specific piece of electronics that were causing problems, and in some cases purchased it from the passenger.

    http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_10/interfere_textonly.html

    1995, 737 airplane.
    A passenger laptop computer was reported to cause autopilot disconnects during cruise. Boeing purchased the computer from the passenger and performed a laboratory testing ...

    1996/1997, 767 airplane.
    Over a period of eight months, Boeing received five reports on interference with various navigation equipment (uncommanded rolls, displays blanking, flight management computer [FMC]/ autopilot/standby altimeter inoperative, and autopilot disconnects) caused by passenger operation of a popular handheld electronic game device. In one of these cases, the flight crew confirmed the interference by turning the unit on and off to observe the correlation.

    1998, 747 airplane.
    A passengerâ(TM)s palmtop computer was reported to cause the airplane to initiate a shallow bank turn. One minute after turning the PED off, the airplane returned to "on course." When the unit was brought to the flight deck, the flight crew noticed a strong correlation by turning the unit back on and watching the anomaly return, then turning the unit off and watching the anomaly stop. Boeing was not able to purchase the actual PED...

    Funny thing, all the cases of problems caused weren't cell phones.

    Farther down the page, they discuss cell phones. They do put out more noise on critical frequencies, sometimes over what the FAA permits for the aircraft itself. In testing, none actually caused problems.

    Boeing conducted a laboratory and airplane test with 16 cell phones typical of those carried by passengers, to determine the emission characteristics of these intentionally transmitting PEDs. The laboratory results indicated that the phones not only produce emissions at the operating frequency, but also produce other emissions that fall within airplane communication/navigation frequency bands ... Emissions at the operating frequency were as high as 60 dB over the airplane equipment emission limits ...

    Boeing also performed an airplane test on the ground with the same 16 phones. The airplane was placed in a flight mode and the flight deck instruments, control surfaces, and communication/navigation systems were monitored. No susceptibility was observed.

    --
    Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
  9. Re:Private Aircraft? It's Their Rules. by 0123456 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When you buy the ticket and board the plane, you agree to play by their rules. They have the property rights and have sold you limited rights to your seats with stipulations.

    It's not their rules. It's the FAA rules. The FAA is part of the US government. Hence the F.

  10. Re:Burden of enforcement by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    YES I DO. Because we had 1st class treatment all over the plane and we did not have cheapskates trying to stuff TWO carry ons that are too fat for the overhead in there or asking, "can you put this under your seat" No I cant take up my foot space because you are too damn cheap to check your fricking bag.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  11. Re: Burden of enforcement by michelcolman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I really suggest you read this article, about the actions of Asiana cabin crew during a crash and how many lives were saved by their training and dedication.

    http://confessionsofatrolleydolly.com/2013/07/13/angels-of-the-sky-asiana-airlines-flight-214/

    The most important function of cabin crew, and the main focus of their training, is safety. And that's a lot more complicated than demonstrating a life vest and pointing to emergency exits. You seem to have absolutely no idea how important that is.