FAA To Allow Use of Most Electronic Devices Throughout Flights

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FAA To Allow Use of Most Electronic Devices Throughout Flights

Posted by timothy on Thursday October 31, 2013 @04:23AM from the bright-spot-for-the-day dept.

alstor writes "As previously expected, the FAA has announced that most portable electronic devices may be used throughout the duration of a flight. Mobile phones may still only be used in airplane mode without cellular service."

45 of 221 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Best of both worlds by barlevg · 2013-10-31 04:25 · Score: 5, Insightful

Now you'll be able to read your kindle on the plane, but you still won't have to put up with the passenger next to you carrying on a loud phone conversation (save, maybe voip?).
1. Re:Best of both worlds by Obfuscant · 2013-10-31 04:54 · Score: 2
  
  but you still won't have to put up with the passenger next to you carrying on a loud phone conversation
  Yeah, but now us old hams can chat up the "local" repeater and talk about our surgeries and medications and how the weather is at 30,000 feet. I'll clip onto the plane's frame for an antenna and fire up my QRP rig and have a CW conversation. It's gonna be fun.
2. Re:Best of both worlds by bugs2squash · 2013-10-31 04:55 · Score: 2
  
  The willfully ignorant will just keep their phones turned on and when they make or receive a call they will simply say they did not understand the complex new rules.It comes from a deep rooted belief that rules simply do not apply to them, that all rules are silly.
  
  --
  Nullius in verba
3. Re:Best of both worlds by khr · 2013-10-31 05:13 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  that all rules are silly.
  Who believes that all rules are silly? It's only the rules people don't like that are silly. The ones that affect others are great.
4. Re:Best of both worlds by Obfuscant · 2013-10-31 05:26 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Who believes that all rules are silly? It's only the rules people don't like that are silly.
  No, it's rules that they don't understand that they think are silly. And evidence shows that many people who use cell phones believe there is some magic involved that carries their voice to the intended recipient. That's why back in the 90's a vocal group of idiots managed to get laws enacted to insure their privacy while using analog CDMA cell phones. After all, it was a CELL PHONE and they had every reason to expect privacy in their conversation, even though they were using RADIO to send their VOICE over the public's airwaves. Thus it became illegal, and remains illegal to this day, for the sale or import of certain kinds of radios that can receive frequencies allocated to cellular telephone services.
5. Re: Best of both worlds by X0563511 · 2013-10-31 05:48 · Score: 2
  
  LEO is a lot faster than the crusing speed of a 757. The doppler shift involved is almost completely negligible.
  Assuming the plane is moving directly away from you (maximal doppler shift) at 858km/h (typical cruise speed), with a wave speed of 'c' - you have a doppler shift of +/- 3.974975 kHz.
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
6. Re:Best of both worlds by Lumpy · 2013-10-31 05:51 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  This comes from people not smacking them or publicly ridiculing them. When an asshat in first class refuses to get off the phone, yelling "Hey moron! hang up the phone, are you too stupid to understand what the lady just said?" is the proper response instead of just sitting there. If there are no consequences they will never change their behavior.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
7. Re:Best of both worlds by eepok · 2013-10-31 05:58 · Score: 2
  
  I don't really like flying due to my height, but I *love* when this happens. I know, it's kinda cruel, but sometimes I just like seeing simple requirements enforced on those who are too cool to otherwise follow the rules.
8. Re:Best of both worlds by itsdapead · 2013-10-31 06:07 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Now you'll be able to read your kindle on the plane,
  Its ebooks that make the no-electronics-below 10000 feet rule intolerable. I can survive for an hour* without music or twitter, but the amount of entertainment that can be extracted from the in-flight magazine, duty free catalogue, in-flight safety card, back of the 'motion discomfort' bag etc. is strictly limited. Especially if its a return flight and you memorised it all on the way out...
  *Anybody who talks about '10 minutes during takeoff and landing' is clearly flying from different airports than me...
  
  --
  In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
9. Re:Best of both worlds by egcagrac0 · 2013-10-31 07:00 · Score: 2
  
  Pretty sure that's covered under Part 97.11...
  
  97.11 Stations aboard ships or aircraft.
  (a) The installation and operation of an amateur station on a ship or aircraft must be approved by the master of the ship or pilot in command of the aircraft.
  (b) The station must be separate from and independent of all other radio apparatus installed on the ship or aircraft, except a common antenna may be shared with a voluntary ship radio installation. The station's transmissions must not cause interference to any other apparatus installed on the ship or aircraft.
  (c) The station must not constitute a hazard to the safety of life or property. For a station aboard an aircraft, the apparatus shall not be operated while the aircraft is operating under Instrument Flight Rules, as defined by the FAA, unless the station has been found to comply with all applicable FAA Rules.
  So, as long as you get permission from the pilot in command, go for it. Just like before.
10. Re: Best of both worlds by sjames · 2013-10-31 07:02 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Affordable dentistry at last!
11. Re:Best of both worlds by jcochran · 2013-10-31 07:07 · Score: 2
  
  You might want to think again. Look at appendix B of http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_operators/airline_safety/info/all_infos/media/2013/InFO13010SUP.pdf which has some supplementary information on the actual report at http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/ped/media/ped_arc_final_report.pdf
  They specifically state that T-PED (Transmitting Personal Electronic Device) is covered by the ARC report. And handheld amateur radio transmitters with power from 1W to 7W are also specifically mentioned. Assuming that Obfuscant is using the normal definitions for QRP, his transmitter is 5 watts or less which ought to not cause any problems.
12. Re:Best of both worlds by Obfuscant · 2013-10-31 08:27 · Score: 2
  
  But then I guess that might force them to actually pay attention to what's going on around them. and (gasp) maybe actually talk to the person next to them.
  You might want to consider that the fellow next to you with his BOSE QC3 headset on and plugged into the aircraft audio system is actually better able to pay attention to what is going on because he is better able to hear any announcements that are made. That's especially true when the plane is taking off and engines are at full noise output.
Keep the phone ban by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-31 04:25 · Score: 2

Flying is annoying enough without someone sitting next to you babbling away on their phone the whole flight.
1. Re:Keep the phone ban by CameronNeil · 2013-10-31 04:36 · Score: 2
  
  That's because your phone is too close to the speakers. Someone's phone in row 32 much less row 2 won't give the pilots that RF interference to their headsets.
2. Re:Keep the phone ban by sribe · 2013-10-31 04:36 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  there is no way you will get a connection to a tower at 35000 feet moving at 500mph
  Yes you can. If you will recall, this was proven on 9/11/2001.
3. Re:Keep the phone ban by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2013-10-31 04:37 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Given that aircraft fly around in a veritable EM soup (AM, FM, VHF transmission towers, the spark gaps of an angry god, etc.), I would hope that every phone on the plane draining its battery in a coordinated RF scream would be a survivable event. Whether all the chatter raises the noise floor or introduces errors into sensitive measurements is a subtler but more likely issue.
4. Re:Keep the phone ban by rubycodez · 2013-10-31 04:40 · Score: 2
  
  not true. sporadic short connections can sometimes be made, I've done it in past from foreign-owned airlines that didn't care at over 25,000 feet.
  you might also be interested to know the maximum theoretical distance is much farther than that for stationary phone, over 22 miles.
5. Re:Keep the phone ban by beltsbear · 2013-10-31 04:42 · Score: 2
  
  They were not at 35000 feet during most of those calls. The speed of the plane is not an issue. It is the height. With a lower height a signal can make in through the windows for more time before dropping. At a higher height the cell towers are too far away or the angle is too sharp and less signal makes it in.
6. Re:Keep the phone ban by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2013-10-31 05:01 · Score: 2
  
  It also helps that cheap and dreadful audio systems (looking at you, PC speakers...) commonly have runs of unshielded signal cable sitting between the audio-out and the actual amplifier. Picking up enough RF interference to actually drive a speaker would be a bit alarming (with a high-efficiency mono earpiece, passive AM receivers can do it, crystal radio style; but that's because the whole system is built around the challenge of turning the whisper of power from a big AM antenna into sound); but enough RF interference to be faithfully amplified by the amplifier, which more or less just cranks up anything within its capabilities and dumps the output to the speaker, doesn't take much power.
  
  Noise on the low voltage, pre-amplifier side of things gets amplified, so its effects are disproportionately audible. Noise picked up by the big, chunky, post-amplifier speaker cables? usually trivial.
7. Re:Keep the phone ban by MrChips · 2013-10-31 05:11 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  I like to use this ABM1 - Passive Air Band Monitor when flying. I keep it discreet as I'm sure most flight crews won't understand how it's different from a typical radio receiver. I regularly hear that "bzz bzz bzz" of cell phones with this device. I then ask my girlfriend sitting next to me if she put her phone in airplane mode. If she hadn't and does it the noise usually goes away. If she had her's in airplane mode then I assume it's someone else sitting near me. Phones do cause interference in the aircraft frequency bands (at least at short range).
8. Re:Keep the phone ban by DaveAtFraud · 2013-10-31 05:14 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  there is no way you will get a connection to a tower at 35000 feet moving at 500mph
  Yes you can. If you will recall, this was proven on 9/11/2001.
  The prohibition on using cell phones was also at the request of the wireless carriers. The cellular system was not designed to handle someone using their phone at 35,000 fett and traveling at 500 mph. Your phone "sees" way too many towers and yet the towers have to hand off rapidly since you move out of coverage really fast at that speed. Seven miles up in an airplane is not that far from a tower and the signal is excellent.
  It's easier to "just say no" than it is to re-engineer the cellular network to also work with people using their phones in airplanes. Besides, the airlines want you to use their skyphone at their rates so it's in their interest to keep you from using your cell phone instead.
  Cheers,
  Dave
  
  --
  They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
  Ben
9. Re:Keep the phone ban by Alastor187 · 2013-10-31 05:22 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Given that aircraft fly around in a veritable EM soup (AM, FM, VHF transmission towers, the spark gaps of an angry god, etc.), I would hope that every phone on the plane draining its battery in a coordinated RF scream would be a survivable event. Whether all the chatter raises the noise floor or introduces errors into sensitive measurements is a subtler but more likely issue.
  What is outside the airplane is the least of the problems. A large commercial plane has racks of electronic equipment, dozens of radios, weather radar, flight displays, in-flight entertainment systems, power generation and distribution systems, pumps, servos,...etc.
  All of those are potential sources of EMI that need to work together as a system. The only reason a cell phone is considered 'risky' is because it un-tested. There is nothing unique about cell phone electronics from an avionics point of view. Similar, and more powerful, systems are already integrated into the airframe.
10. Re:Keep the phone ban by Lumpy · 2013-10-31 05:56 · Score: 2
  
  This is not an issue as Cellphone tower beam the signal to the earth not up in the sky. I've been in a private jet at 40,000 feet, even with the phone stuck to the window, NO service.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
11. Re:Keep the phone ban by Magnus+Pym · 2013-10-31 05:57 · Score: 2
  
  Actually, the speed is very much an issue. Most traditional CDMA/3G phones cannot service objects moving at high speeds (more than 128 Kmph) because their receivers cannot keep track; read up on finger tracking on rake receivers. A call may last for a few seconds (if that) before getting dropped. I understand a few cell towers designed in the past few years can support high speeds, but they are mostly deployed in Japan and are not in common use. 2G systems will almost surely not be able to support high speeds.
  The other issue is handoff, a particular tower serves a relatively small area (maybe a few km in urban areas). Assuming a 10 kilometer cell diameter, a plane traveling at 500 Mph would be switching between cells at a rate of one switch every 45 seconds. [10/ (500*1.6) ) * 3600. ] Now it is theoretically possible for CDMA & 3G systems to support this rate, but it is somewhat hard to imagine such handoffs happening reliably while the plane is moving so fast.
  I've worked in the cellular industry and I'm still not sure of how the calls from the 9/11 planes worked. In fact, many of the 9/11 truthers point to this inconsistency as support of their claims that the calls never happened :)
12. Re:Keep the phone ban by CohibaVancouver · 2013-10-31 06:01 · Score: 2
  
  If you will recall, this was proven on 9/11/2001.
  Most of the 9/11 calls were from Airfones, not cell phones -
  
  http://imgs.sfgate.com/blogs/images/sfgate/cmcginnis/2010/12/16/airfone250x187.jpg
  
  Airfones have mostly gone away, but a dozen years ago they were pretty common.
  
  When I notice my fellow passengers playing Candy Crush on their phones you can plainly see the NO SERVICE displayed on the top. This is because they don't know how to go into Airplane Mode so their radios are on, but the phone can't lock to a tower at 35K feet travelling at a ground speed of 500 mph.
13. Re:Keep the phone ban by foobar+bazbot · 2013-10-31 06:02 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I like to use this ABM1 - Passive Air Band Monitor when flying. I keep it discreet as I'm sure most flight crews won't understand how it's different from a typical radio receiver. I regularly hear that "bzz bzz bzz" of cell phones with this device. I then ask my girlfriend sitting next to me if she put her phone in airplane mode. If she hadn't and does it the noise usually goes away. If she had her's in airplane mode then I assume it's someone else sitting near me.
  Correct so far.
  
  Phones do cause interference in the aircraft frequency bands (at least at short range).
  And... you go off the rails.
  GSM phones cause interference in audio-frequency circuits because the phone transmits in regular bursts every 4.62 ms (this is why it doesn't affect CDMA, UMTS, etc., only 2G GSM/GPRS/EDGE, because they use TDMA). It turns out audio amplifiers generally tend to serve as decent wide-band AM receivers, so this is very easily picked up as a 217Hz buzz. However, this is all happening on the audio-frequency side, so calling it "interference in the aircraft frequency bands" is just plain wrong -- it will affect practically any unshielded or insufficiently-shielded device (it's only a couple watts or so transmitter, but within a meter or less the inverse-square law says you do need better shielding than a lot of consumer electronics have) with an amplified audio output, including all sorts of radios, and non-radio devices from MP3 players to cassette players.
  (for more on this, google or start here)
  Fortunately, it's a really easy problem to solve -- just keep your phone out of the cockpit. Thanks to the inverse-square law, it's really only a practical issue at very short range.
14. Re:Keep the phone ban by CohibaVancouver · 2013-10-31 06:08 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  And they were using cell phones.
  Most of the 9/11 calls were from Airfones, not cell phones -
  
  http://imgs.sfgate.com/blogs/images/sfgate/cmcginnis/2010/12/16/airfone250x187.jpg
  
  Airfones have mostly gone away, but a dozen years ago they were pretty common.
  
  When I notice my fellow passengers playing Candy Crush on their phones you can plainly see the NO SERVICE displayed on the top. This is because they don't know how to go into Airplane Mode so their radios are on, but the phone can't lock to a tower at 35K feet travelling at a ground speed of 500 mph.
15. Re:Keep the phone ban by BradMajors · 2013-10-31 06:26 · Score: 2
  
  Cells phone are not banned because of possible interference with cockpit electronics. Rather because they could cause problems with cell phone towers.
  The FCC prohibits cell phones on flights, not the FAA.
16. Re:Keep the phone ban by Lumpy · 2013-10-31 07:04 · Score: 2
  
  All cellphone towers by design aim the antennas towards the ground, this is how they can have multiple cellphone towers that dont cause issues. When you install it you tip them down to point at the ground that is 2/3 way between that tower and the next tower that way you have overlapping coverage but do not have coverage that causes phasing problems (picket fencing is a major problem to cause data issues) It's how the cellphone network has been designed from day one. you always have an antenna angle that shoots the signal into the ground at a reference point.
  The angle is extreme in urban areas where there is dense cellphone tower populations to attempt and handle the call load, you make "smaller" cell tower footprints by aiming the signal even more at the ground.
  
  --
  Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
17. Re:Keep the phone ban by shipofgold · 2013-10-31 07:27 · Score: 2
  
  If the FCC/FAA were to allow cellphone calls, I am guessing that the Airlines would install their own cellular antenna's on the planes and your phone would lock onto that. I haven't thought through the details but I am sure there is some way the airlines could make a buck on Roaming charges. The cell antenna to ground link would be out of the normal phone range.
  They do that with WIFI today.
  The phones automatically adjust their transmit power levels according to the distance to the tower and the messaging between the phones and the towers attempts to keep the RX power levels in a band. The (W)CDMA technologies spread that power over a wide frequency band (spread spectrum) with many phones transmitting in the same band, and each looking like RF noise to the others.
  If the towers are 5 miles straight down (flying over a city), or 8-10 miles at some angle to the ground, then the phone is going to be transmitting on maximum power attempting to connect. If the antenna is in the cabin, then the phone is going to be at minimum power.
The ban was always bullshit anyway by korbulon · 2013-10-31 04:29 · Score: 4, Insightful

Like the war on water, it's largely been about control and government rules abetting private interests. I suppose in this case airlines and the faa and whoever the fuck else stands to make a buck off of this realized it is more profitable to let the monkeys paw their gadgets 100% of the time, instead of the usual 96%.
1. Re:The ban was always bullshit anyway by ibwolf · 2013-10-31 04:37 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I thinks the reason this is being revised is because this rule has inconvenienced people that have the power to do something about it (e.g. US senators). I'm sure airport security screening would be greatly improved if everyone, with no exceptions, had to go through the same type of screening.
2. Re:The ban was always bullshit anyway by dicobalt · 2013-10-31 04:47 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Damn water. It doesn't know whether it want's to be an acid or base. Always flip flopping on the issue.
3. Re:The ban was always bullshit anyway by korbulon · 2013-10-31 04:53 · Score: 2
  
  Paid airline wi-fi access for one, especially for short-haul flights. Also reckon it was getting hard to justify the ban on all electronic devices with many airlines keeping the pay-per-view screens on during take-off and landing.
4. Re:The ban was always bullshit anyway by GameboyRMH · 2013-10-31 05:44 · Score: 2
  
  You're half right, the rules were bullshit but it's because of Air Rage. Some idiot blabbing on their phone next to you throughout the flight a few inches from your head would lead to more air rage incidents. That's why the new rules say that making calls specifically is not allowed, in addition to disabling radio functions.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Like we ever turned the things off anyways by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-31 04:40 · Score: 2, Funny

I haven't bothered in years
If my thoughtlessness would doom 150 people and a multimillion dollar jet airplane, the airlines have bigger problems on their hands
I always enjoy hearing my text message notification tone going off when the plane is in the early or final stages of takeoff/landing. The air bitches, I mean, maids, I mean stewardesses must really get pissed, but they're strapped into their chairs at that point.
Now... by the_skywise · 2013-10-31 04:53 · Score: 2

If you'll please pay attention to our safety demonstration and procedures speech...
>pewpewpew
Re:Differnent from current? by Obfuscant · 2013-10-31 05:03 · Score: 5, Insightful

How exactly does this differ from the policies from now? Airplane-mode only, check. Turned off during take-off and landing, check.

Uncheck. On for take-off and landings, except for special cases when visibility is low and the low visibility navigation systems are not PED certified.

Wi-fi allowed (if you want to pay the airline $20 for a couple hours' access), check.
Uncheck. Wi-fi and bluetooth allowed, with no requirement to pay the airline. I figure it will be interesting to run an open NAP and see how much data can be sniffed from devices trying to get a wi-fi connection. Or to spoof a lot of large online services to get login credentials. Fun.

Where's the big change?
/. commenter who hasn't bothered to read TFA, check. No change.
Zero accidents ever by sjbe · 2013-10-31 05:04 · Score: 4, Insightful

Actually I think it's more to do with the fact that old PCN & GSM phones gave off quite a bit of interference
Which caused precisely zero plane crashes.

Most phones these days hardly use those spectrums and anyway you've still got keep the phone in flight mode.
Not for any evidence based reason. There are social reasons to not allow cell phones (annoys your fellow passengers when you talk loudly) but thousands of phones are turned on every single day in airplanes for the entire duration of the flight (both intentionally and not) and there has not been a single accident ever as a result. If it were actually a safety risk then the ONLY effective solution would be to ban cell phones entirely from the plane. Based on the fact they haven't done this it is not a risk factor and the FAA knows it.
1. Re:Zero accidents ever by mythosaz · 2013-10-31 05:49 · Score: 2
  
  ... thousands of phones are turned on every single day in airplanes for the entire duration of the flight (both intentionally and not) and there has not been a single accident ever as a result.
  It's true. I was part of the unpaid, secret pilot program for this for many, many years.
2. Re:Zero accidents ever by slew · 2013-10-31 05:55 · Score: 2
  
  To my knowledge, boom boxes, smoking and heavy perfume and nudists haven't caused any plane accidents, and there currently social reasons to ban them as they can be quite annoying and might (in the case of smoking) cause future health problems.
  As for cell phone situation, it's a similar situation (and if there may EM-o-phobes that would complain about sitting next to someone with a cell-phone causing them future health problems).
  It's just a function of the times what we ban and don't ban. Right now everyone is addicted to electronics and need to be accommodated. 50 years ago people were addicted to smoking and needed to be accomodated. Maybe tomorrow, it will be people addicted to nudism that need to be accommodated. I'm just hoping that perfume isn't going to be big fad in the future...
"Safety" demonstration by sjbe · 2013-10-31 05:08 · Score: 3, Insightful

If you'll please pay attention to our safety demonstration and procedures speech...
You mean the one where they explain how to use a seatbelt for everyone who hasn't been in a car in the last 40 years?
Re:Kick in the balls by interval1066 · 2013-10-31 05:18 · Score: 2

The only non-emission mode for a cellphone is "battery removed"...
OMG. I know. Don't care. Not really relevant. Go play kick ball or whatever you do...

--
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
Still too limiting for short flights. by Ichijo · 2013-10-31 06:54 · Score: 2

Mobile phones may still only be used in airplane mode without cellular service.

This limitation and the tedious checkin process and the fact that airports are usually located outside of city centers make bullet trains more attractive to the business traveler than flying for trips up to about 400 miles.
High-speed rail is also very cheap to build. The expected construction cost of $68.4 billion for California's HSR line is much lower than the alternative of building 4,295 new lane-miles of freeway for $119.0 billion plus 115 new airport gates and 4 new runways for an additional $38.6 billion, all just to move the same number of people around. When it's built and the downtown-to-downtown time between San Francisco and Los Angeles is under 3 hours (try that with flying!), people will wonder why anyone would want to fly between those two cities anymore.

--
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.