Fliers Must Turn Off Devices, but It’s Not Clear Why
bits.blogs.nytimes.com
bits.blogs.nytimes.com
By far the most likely time for any accidents or incidents to occur is during takeoffs and landings. If everyone has 15 objects out and is busily typing away, it's going to be tht much more difficult for flight attendants to get everyone's attention to give instructions, and crucially, much much more difficult to evacuate the plane as quickly as possible.
This isn't controversial, complex or even hard to figure out. It's the same reason they aren't serving food and drinks at those times, and the same reason you have to stow your carry-ons and put your tray tables up at these times.
Disappointing that the Times did not bother to learn this or to write a more informative story.
From the author's submission history he has only ever submitted his own stories to Hacker News.
Regardless of what the FAA says, my reason is still valid. It is also not really in conflict with what you're saying...you're right that it's not really consistent since folks are still allowed to read books, but that doesn't invalidate my point either.
I would point out that people are not really as likely to take a crossword with them in an emergency as they would be a computer.
Also, you're frankly wrong in asserting that electronic devices are not more distracting than a paper book; think of anything involving headphones, for instance.
There are a reasonable set of restrictions for safety (i.e. headphones). There are others that are not. For a point of reference, JetBlue provides satellite radio and TV both in-flight and during landing (as well as sometimes during take-off). They've clearly chosen to prioritize passenger comfort in lieu of relaxed FAA regulations, and aren't concerned about the impact of distractions.
Did you come across anything like that?
If it was possible, I can't imagine that the TSA would let us carry as much as a 9-volt battery on board. Even if it were possible, couldn't you just put shielding between the passenger cabin and the cockpit? EM radiation is line-of-sight, after all.
It seems like a giant non-issue that exists mostly due to rulemakers' ignorance.
For an ILS approach to minimums in hard instrument conditions, it could be problematic - especially if you are off course and don't realize it. There are minimum safe altitudes on approach plates that could be violated if you are way off course (putting you into a TV tower, for example).
I'm not an airline pilot but I am pilot. I'm not aware of anything better than ILS for those types of conditions (very low ceilings and visibility). VOR/NDB approaches are non-precision approaches. The GPS I have access to does not permit a precision approach - maybe the airliners have something better.
But the checklist should check that the ILS is alive... and if it's centered horizontally and vertically the pilots should notice.
OTOH a crafty terrorist could wait for a bad weather day, unplug the airport ILS, and set up an alternate one in a nearby building. Still, the tower would probably notice something was amiss and just say 'go around'.
Don't forget PAR, which generally has mins comperable to, if not lower than, ILS.
Anywhoo, different airports, different frequencies, and differernt ways they might interfere. Since that time laptops have gotten better (and faster, they are all generally over a gigahertz on their various busses), and radios have gotten better too.
A AT&T friend actually mentioned that AT&T had asked the airlines to ban cellphone use (back in the 900Mhz analog days) because the towers couldn't deal with a cell phone that went by a 500 MPH. However I've never been able to confirm that with any public record so I consider it hearsay at best.
[1] http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/aero/adf.htm
[2] http://www.ntia.doc.gov/legacy/osmhome/redbook/4d.pdf Redbook see pages 4-172 thru 4-174
The cell phone ban is an FCC ban, not FAA like devices during takeoff and landing - http://www.fcc.gov/guides/wireless-devices-airplanes
In the old days of analog cell phones, a single cell phone would talk to all the towers in range and hog bandwidth on every one. On the ground not many towers were in range, once you got to 20,000 feet, there were a lot. If cell phones were on on all the planes over LA, it would be like a DDOS attack.
Possibly still an issue with digital phones, but they can do a lot of smart things, modulate power, drop calls to not overload the network LOL.
Not inside a metal tube, they're not.
This is not to say that I'm a "believer" one way or the other, but you should also think about it in comparison to the signals that the navigation equipment is trying to receive with its omnidirectional antenna. I.e., a strong CB radio 26,000 miles away. It wouldn't take any power at all to interfere with it, if the interfering signal were on the magic frequencies (which are continually changing due to doppler effects).
Doppler effects will be extremely small, since the greatest speed differential you'll see will be twice the speed of an airplane (when two planes are moving directly towards or away each other), which is not a substantial fraction of the speed of light. There will be some shift, but not nearly enough to bump a device from non-interference to interference. Or did I misunderstand something?
In any case, I don't think any airliner flying today is relying on VOR.
Whether this is 'friend of a friend' type tale that pilots like to say (and co-opt as their own story) or not is difficult to say.
The same pilot also told me the main reason they don't want you using cellphones on a flight was because the base stations couldn't triangulate properly and identify who was making the call - which is clearly BS. Same pilot also freely admitted to using his own phone during flights.
I guess my point is that the pilots at the same time kind-of believe the official excuses, yet at the same time flout them and make up ridiculous reasons why they are official.
He turned on his cell phone and showed that it wouldn't pick up a signal anyway.
This was about 10 years ago, so things have likely changed.
this said, i never power off my devices...just put them in airplane mode if they have them, or to sleep. i fly a lot, both domestically and internationally.
If you broadcast on the radio frequency the pilot is speaking on, you can jam their transmission.
If you broadcast on, say, the instrument landing frequency (ILS) frequency, the ILS needle the pilot is looking at will stay centered, no matter how much he deviates from the approach path.
The pilot would undoubtedly realize something was amiss, switch comm frequencies, use GPS etc. But it could cause some distraction and wreak some havoc.
Back in the 90s, there were cheap CD players and whatnot that would generate all kinds of crazy RF.
The FAA said, this is all unapproved electronics, we can't test it, it has to go off during takeoff and landing, unless the pilot OKs it. Of course, the corporate pilot will OK it for his CEO/passenger.
But some of the electronics are not in the cockpit.
As far as authority goes in general, and the FAA in particular, I think the FAA and Homeland Security are utterly full of it, most of the time. This issue is more evidence of that; I agree with those who point out that there is no reason to power off devices. Just pointing out that there is indeed a valid reason to want folks to put them away. Especially anything involving headphones.
Let's calculate that. There are about 800 million[0] passengers on domestic and foreign owned airlines in the US market, with many people flying more than once per year.
Each person is taxed between 1-2 hours in terms of "safety" regulations, ranging from backscatter scans to nail clipper seizures to water bottle appropriations. Once on the plane, they are again taxed by about 15-30 minutes on each end from the ban on use of laptops, including the emergency landing song-and-dance that the vast majority[1] of passengers have already seen.
So let's say conservatively about 2 hours in total. So 1.6 billion hours per year. At a conservative estimate of $10 per hour, that's $16 billion per year. This does not include the $8.1 billion wasted on the TSA itself.
[0] http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2010-03-29-airline-pa...
[1] In the unusual circumstance that a first time flyer is on board, a video could instead be played during check-in online, in the lounge, or on the seat back rather than slowing everyone down to look at the flight attendant. Would not be surprised if the percentage of first-time flyers on US domestic flights is less than 5%.
1.6 billion hours per year
= 182648 person years per year
Divided by forty (perhaps the average number of years of life expectancy remaining for fliers)
= 4566 remaining lifetimes stolen
= equivalent of 4566 deaths
which is more deaths than caused by 9/11. Every year.
Nonetheless, flying could be an amazing experience. But fliers are some of the least happy people because they are treated either like criminas, children, or cattle. If the time isn't quite stolen, it is at least spoiled.
Also, the driver can't use a laptop, but because of the driving activity itself, the driver is not so easily bored. Boredom is the main reason why I power on my laptop on a plane. Also, the other passengers can easily work on a laptop, watch a movie and so on. If you've got a 3G connection, the passengers can also go online - even I as the driven, I often find myself checking my emails while driving, plus I'm connected on Skype for the whole ride. The only problem here may be the comfort of your car, as you'll have problems having a laptop in your lap if the car is a small one. I also never get anything done on a plane when trying to work, especially because I don't have Internet connectivity, so I would rather listen to Podcasts or read a book and when driving Audio books are great btw.
So, related to comfort, I always prefer a couple of hours in my 10-year old Audi A6 over a plane ride. If the car ride is longer than some threshold, like the mentioned 6 hours, I do agree that a plane ride is better.
Why would you ever do that? If you don't care about your safety, at least make sure you're less likely to kill others, please...
Note: Number of lanes paints a much stronger picture, but I can't find a good map of that.
I'm quite fascinated by the interstate system; I think it's one of the more amazing things this country's managed to accomplish in the last century. I admit that I draw my sample set from just my experience -- I grew up in the SF Bay Area, go to school near Chicago, and spend summers in Seattle, so all my travel is huge E-W distances -- but I think even if you're right, you have a good argument for N-S rail systems and there's still enough E-W travel that air travel is still quite necessary.
By your reasoning, it would be wrong to complain about cars which have a speed limit of 40 miles an hour, since "the nearest competitor" (bikes, horses?) would still be still worse.
For ease of calculation we say that each person goes to the toilet twice during a workday.
And there are roughly 7 billion people on the planet.
That gives us 0.5 hour per person per day * 7 billion people = 3.5 billion wasted hours.
At a conservative estimate of $10 per hours, that's $35 billion per year. This does not include money wasted on water for flushing and washing hands!
It's clear from this that we have to stop people from going to the toilet during work hours...
</sarcasm>
You can buy yourself out of this miserable experience by renting a plane. Of course, you might still get a security briefing by the pilot, as part of a checklist that he's already gone through hundreds of times while wasting precious time.
No, really. Especially iff
- you are leaving the country (...)
- you are a foreigner (that is: Everything but a citizen)
Everybody around me (including the airport) tells me to arrive ~2.5 (some say 2. Some 3) hours early. The procedure consists of
1. waiting in line forever, waiting for the luggage to be scanned
2. a passport check in that line, asking you questions about where you're from, where you stayed, what you did in Israel and if you happen to carry weapons or presents that might be bombs. If they are inclined to waste some time they are going to ask you for more: Do you know people in Israel? What are their names? Where do _those_ live? What's your connection ... it's something between a 3-4 questions interview and a nice interrogation
3. Your luggage was scanned. Someone is going to tell you to go to that place over there and unpack it. If it's your birthday or Fortuna is with you: Go to step 5.
4. Some guy/girl is ripping apart your luggage. Some are gentler, some really completely mess everything up.
5. The ticket counter! Get your ticket..
6. Wait in line before the security check of you and your carry-on stuff, metal detector, shoe removal station. If you don't have a laptop with you, go to 8
7. Your laptop is suspicious. You have to wake it up from suspend. Close it again. They x-ray it three times. They need to take it to another room, for a special treatment. After 30min they return, the laptop is not suspended anymore. It's off. You are supposed to prove (again) that it's a laptop and not a weapon of mass destruction. Powering it on, booting, logging in is not enough. 'Open a file!'. If you open a picture or a random text file in Notepad, you're good to go.
8. Proceed to the gate, please. You are late for your flight. Remember that for next time and get to the airport earlier, stupid.
Yes, it's that bad. Nothing is invented here, all experienced by yours truely. Not all steps are that bad all the time, but .. I wouldn't bet my ticket on having a lucky day..
- Taking off shoes
- Going through scanner-of-the-day
- Can't take any liquids on the plane.
And same procedure applies also to Israelis as well not only to visitors.
- I had to remove my shoes at the Ben Gurion airport. Granted, only once so far
- Agreed (scanner)
- Braindead liquid rules still apply (maybe softened vs. the US? I cannot judge that)
And while Israelis have to do the same thing: If I travel with a coworker (we usually arrive separately) they pass all tests right away and have a couple of shortcuts (especially concerning passport control, inbound, for example). My experience with tourists, visitors and my own trips says that - well - foreigners start on the 'Might be a terrorist' scale at 3 out of 10, just because.
>- Braindead liquid rules still apply (maybe softened vs. the US? I cannot judge that)
I guess that it might apply more then usually when you fly to US. Flies to Europe/within Israel ok. You can buy whatever you want after security check and bring it with you.
Passport control shortcut, you probably mean electronic system. There is one like this in US for US citizens that I can't use :(
And yes, foreigners start with "Might be..." but usually it never goes beyond questions. "Luggage scan pass" Israeli might get only if they (scanners) are too loaded. In case line is short everybody goes through it. And Israelis can move to "might be" quickly in case they give "bad" answer. I once couldn't answer how old I am (I never know) and was questioned for 40minutes.
When I fly (as infrequently as possible), I have to budget at least 5.5 hours from my front door to boarding the plane. Here's my time budget based on 10 years of flying out of New York City from Newark (and occasionally JFK)
|-----------+----------------------------|
| Time (hr) | Activity |
|-----------+----------------------------|
| 1 | Drive to airport |
| 0.5 | Find parking |
| 0.5 | Shuttle to Terminal |
|-----------+----------------------------|
| 2 | ** Sub total ** |
|-----------+----------------------------|
| 1 | Check luggage |
| 1.5 | Security |
| 0.5 | To gate |
| 0.5 | Wait at Gate |
|-----------+----------------------------|
| 3.5 | ** Sub total ** |
|-----------+----------------------------|
| 5.5 | ** Total ** |
|-----------+----------------------------|
The numbers are high enough that some people (not me) may be downvoting you because they think you're exaggerating.
Maybe I'm lucky not dealing with flying out of new york, but I usually leave about 2hr before boarding. I expect steps to take about:
to airport: 45min (subway, subway, shuttle)
check luggage: 15min (usually omitted)
security: 15min
to gate: 15min
wait: 30min
The camera angles and lighting are a bit surreal when watching it after having been up for 96 hours though.
(It's probably really hard to get the blood off the screen)
I'd imagine the screaming, flailing, flickering lights, smoke, and vibrations would do a decent job of getting people to look up from their iPhones.
> It's the same reason they aren't serving food and drinks at those times, and the same reason you have to stow your carry-ons and put your tray tables up at these times.
None of those restrictions are in place to make you listen to the attendants. They are in place because takeoff/landing is generally the part of the flight that is bumpiest and with the most maneuvering. Flight attendants (legitimately) don't want to clean soda off the ceiling or get hit by a suitcase.
That's not the point. The fact that people have items out (and are possibly blocking exit rows etc), and are not fully aware of the events leading up to the situation is likely to have some impact on the eventual outcome.
> None of those restrictions are in place to make you listen to the attendants. They are in place because takeoff/landing is generally the part of the flight that is bumpiest and with the most maneuvering. Flight attendants (legitimately) don't want to clean soda off the ceiling or get hit by a suitcase.
This is a side benefit for flight attendants and other passengers. Having people and carts moving in the cabin at these times, and in the event of a situation on board makes for a much worse situation than would otherwise be the case. The additional blockages of exit rows, and obstacle of tables being down creates additional confusion. In addition having tables down will result in injuries to seated passengers who are slammed into them.
And devices really don't affect people blocking exit rows, etc.
Lean back for ten minutes and think deep and meaningful thoughts. :)
Edit: spelling, hardcopy thought added
Books and magazines present the same problems as a Kindle. So does a sleeping passenger. Safety should be taken as seriously as possible, but the inconsistent application of the rules only implies that no one has put any real thought into it thus far.
That said, if you you really do want to have them take away books and magazines and force everyone to stay awake during takeoff and landing, feel free to write a letter to the FAA.
The audiences at many concerts I've been to lately would speak to the opposite of this.
If people think the plane's going to crash you will have their undivided attention
I can still have 15 objects out. 10 books, eye mask for sleeping, my neck pillow, a sandwich, pen and pad of paper, candy. I can be just as distracted with those as with a kindle. So that logic doesn't hold.
You've never flown first class, I take it?
And there are plenty of things you could do that would alleviate problems during exiting the plane that have higher marginal value and lower marginal cost than prohibiting electronic devices. For example, you could mandate that close-toed shoes be worn, blankets not be utilized, food not be eaten, and probably a number of other things that I'm not mentioning. It seems likely that your reason is not even close to the actual reason for this policy.
Also, you're just inventing reasons out of thin air. This is not the reason why the FAA has such restrictions. The reason is that it is very difficult to test a plane as being immune to interference from every single possible handheld consumer electronic device, and it would be too complicated to enforce a selective ban.
My 500 ml bottle of water is strictly forbidden.
Couldn't a terrorist could come equipped with a collection of gameboys and tamagotchis to bring the plane down?
I've taken the plane more than a hundred times, I know the instructions and I know no one has ever bothered me when I leave my ipod/phone/nintendo ds turned on. Sometimes the flight attendance asked me to turn it off so I comply, otherwise I don't. Also especially because I like to listen to music when I take off and feel like I'm in a movie.
In addition, keeping passengers calm and relaxed is also a key point of security - roudy/drunk/agressive or even violent passengers can cause a lot of trouble on a flight when there are relatively few, fairly untrained flight attendants on board. Thus, if everybody was chatting away on their phones with annoying ring-tones going off every 2 minutes this would probably start aggravating people, so its just easier to say 'no mobile phones' - and if people have the impression it is a point of safety then they are more likely to obey them.
I have never seen a stewardess calling somebody's attention for reading a book. On the other hand, they'll quickly force you to stop using almost anything that has an on/off switch.
(And tangentially can anyone tell me what the safety grounds are for opening the window blinds? (Or is it just to make the turnaround quicker by not requiring cabin staff / cleaning crews to do it before the next flight boards?))
You come up with a rationale for a set of rules and believe it to be true. I'd argue that this is a circular reference. Natural maybe, to try to rationalize things. But still, please consider that you just try to justify things that have been like that for a long time without a canonical explanation.
In the event of an emergency, that laptop or iPad is likely to stop being a productivity tool and start being a projectile. Just like the carry-on bags they also require you to stow.
[1] http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2006/04/episode_49_cellphones_on_...
Note that GSM phones in particular _do_ interfere with radio systems - that irritating buzz you hear when a GSM phone is near a speaker amplifier can affect airplane systems as well (although it depends on where the phone is on the plane, of course). There can also be interference with _ground_ systems - cell networks aren't designed to deal with the rapid tower transfers caused by ultra-high-altitude phones moving at Mach 0.85.
> cell networks aren't designed to deal with the rapid
> tower transfers
So conclusion might be something along the lines of "it's not designed to do that", which seems like pretty good justification when you are talking about airplane safety.
> So conclusion might be something along the lines of
> "it's not designed to do that", which seems like
> pretty good justification when you are talking about
> airplane safety.
1. "it's not designed to do that" refers to cell-to-ground communication, nothing to do with the safety of the plane.
2. cell-to-ground communications issues only apply to cellphones, but the FAA policy applies to all electronics.
FAA's and related regulations are probably motivated by fact that it's essentially impossible to test that aircraft's systems work as intended even in presence of random consumer devices on board. EMC issues can be caused by almost any electronic device not only devices containing radio transmitters (eg. EU regulations require EMC certification for anything that, possibly internally, produces or uses signals >=1kHz).
Most cell towers have a lot of RF engineering put into them to direct the signals DOWN, not UP.
For cellphones, there have been many reported incidents of interference when pilots had them on (search Google). I'd assume testing on cell phones would officially commence with installs of pico cells on US airliners.
The degree of engineering incompetence that would be required to make that happen is nothing short of jaw-dropping.
So, should I be skeptical of you, or terrified in two weeks when I fly to Dallas?
I'm sure they could test airplanes to never be influenced by, say, a sub 2 Watt signal and certify cellphones of never exceeding 2 Watts of signal power.
This sums it up pretty well: "The regulatory agencies and aviation industry take the position that any increased risk is unacceptable if it is avoidable."
There's some technical channel sharing problems where phones have access to more towers than designed on land. The FCC can't predict what would happen if phones were allowed to stay on in regards to cell roaming. They also don't know the effects on the avionics.
It looks like they're developing 'picocells' to have an on-board tower, but there are struggles with the different cellular bands. Though, there are some European carriers that have been successful with just letting people keep their phones on.
That said - I think if your device doesn't have a radio on it, it should be allowed to stay on. Which probably won't fly given the 'if it's avoidable' rationale.
Everyone turning off everything successfully before takeoff is pure fiction.
* People reading newspapers, and books - both of which are larger, heavier, and just as distracting, and in the case of newspapers, a greater obstacle - are not told to put away their reading material - so the argument that "people need to pay attention on takeoff/landing" is not consistent.
* RF engineers haven't been able to prove that a kindle in airplane mode has a negligible likelihood of impacting the flight systems of an airplane. Really?
One solution, albeit a slightly annoying one, is to have a distinctively colored LED or indicator that is visible from the walkway of the airplane to a stewardess, but not annoying to the reader, which indicates whether a device has been placed in airplane mode.
The new motto then would be "Everyone please place their FAA certified equipment into airplane safety mode. All other electronics, iPads, kindles, laptops, gameboys, iPhones, iPods, must now be put away"
People, being people, would likely start putting the fake LEDs on their electronics to simulate the FAA approved one, unfortunately, not sure what to do about that.
Unless you're paying the ripoff $10 fee for in-flight Wifi, then the dangers are magically avoided.
ifconfig wlan0 HW ether DE:AD:00:00:BE:EF
But really, this is a pain, and deleting a cookie is much, much, much easier.
If there were any credible threat from leaving your phone on, or having it actively transmitting, then ALL phones would be outright banned from the plane. Otherwise, a group of terrorists could take down a plane simply by passively not turning their phones off? When you look at all of the other TSA security theater bullshit, it's a safe conclusion (IMO) that the RF from your phone will not interfere with the operation of the plane, based on the simple fact that they are not banned in the first place.
Not to mention, I think that if this were even a moderate concern it would be easy to equip the flight attendants with an RF monitoring device they could walk down the aisle with and detect close-proximity transmitters from cell phones.
On modern flights where coach seats have been spaced at the minimum allowable level and people are forced to bring everything as carry on to avoid bagge fees you see far more safety threats from under-seat luggage sticking out into the seating aisle, potentially inhibiting safe exit of the plane in an actual emergency.
All decisions are trade-offs, banning laptops and cellphones today would probably bankrupt the airlines since nobody would fly. Likewise, non-critical computer systems in an airplane have less stringent certification standards than critical systems (it's OK for the electronic flight bag laptop to occasionally crash if you keep a stack of paper charts in the cockpit).
It's not like a plane is likely to just go down because of interference, but instruments acting will certainly increase the workload of pilots, making an accident more likely. Likewise, people shining lasers at airplanes tell themselves that this is OK, surely the pilots can deal with a little light disturbing their night vision? They don't appreciate that the pilots already have a high workload during landing.
The wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_on_aircraft) has a link to a NASA study of interference events showing that they can in fact happen (although not often). Of course, you can still claim that these pilots are making stuff up or that this is another NASA conspiracy, but it's actually possible to read up on the subject instead of just offering wild theories and speculations based on your own opinion and wishes.
http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/aviation/unsafe-at-any-ai...
"In one telling incident, a flight crew stated that a 30-degree navigation error was immediately corrected after a passenger turned off a DVD player and that the error reoccurred when the curious crew asked the passenger to switch the player on again."
No?
1. It was already demonstrated that turning it off fixed it. If you see the instruments goof up again, you tell the guy to turn the player back off.
2. Pilots are extensively trained to deal with equipment failures, including total loss of power and instruments.
It was already demonstrated that turning it off fixed it. If you see the instruments goof up again, you tell the guy to turn the player back off.
It's unclear from the account whether this was an instrument error or an actual flight path deviation. The latter being a more serious and unpredictable error. Who in their right mind would want to repro this given the unknowns?
Pilots are extensively trained to deal with equipment failures, including total loss of power and instruments.
Pilots also operate in an environment of substantial regulation where I'm sure a policy exists for investigation of operational interference. I suspect this policy is in line with the FAA's stance that "avoidable interference is unacceptable" and certainly this incident describes an avoidable interference.
I don't see any reason to retract my position that this story is likely a myth.
EDIT: My position depends on a number of assumptions that may be faulty: that this incident took place in the USA, within the last decade, on a plane operated by a significant carrier.
Now, as I understand it, that lovely FCC stamp on the back of our electronics means the device must accept any interference received since it's a consumer product... but I'd also hate for my pilots to unexpectedly get my co-passenger's latest dubstep mix opposed to the air traffic controller during takeoff.
For the record: I'm the guy that intentionally leaves his phone on, in airplane mode, idling. I think this is good enough.
EMC is black magic and airplane safety is another and thus nobody is willing to say that using random RF devices onboard of plane is safe - for one reason it's almost impossible to test. By the way owner's manual for my new car contains paragraph that explicitly disallows usage of any RF transmitter inside the car that does not have external antenna (and I would assume that most car manufacturers include similar paragraph in their manuals and also that everybody ignores them).
Cellular networks and cell phones are not designed for relative speeds and RF propagation modes of high flying commercial aircraft. Most access methods of digital wireless networks depend on precise timing where propagation delays are significant and thus need to compensate for relative movement of phone and base station and there are pretty low limits of how fast movement can be compensated (it's almost practical to drive car faster than speed limit of GSM1800). Also higher levels of cellular protocol stacks are not exactly prepared for situation when phone sees large number of accessible cells with quite strong signal and this set changes very quickly.
Even if the risk is absolutely 0.0001% -- fear and CYA wins. Our system of regulation and collective transfer of responsibility to regulators ensures that like a federal subsidy, nonsensical regulations are forever.
There seems to be some sort of approval process for electronics to be vetted during takeoff and landing. Several in-chair entertainment systems seem to have this rating/designation and are allowed during takeoff/landing.
So, is there no dollar amount that could be paid to properly test a particular product? Let's say the Kindle or iPod. It may be millions of dollars, but wouldn't there be a huge word-of-mouth and marketing upside if you could get approved for such a thing?
Generally everything is designed so as to not interfere, but every once in a while something causes unexpected interference. Sometimes it's because the designers screwed up, sometimes it's because a bespoke item wasn't manufactured to the correct spec, and sometimes it's because of something nobody anticipated.
The problem with consumer electronics is that they haven't gone through this process. None of them should cause interference, but we can't be sure because they were never subjected to comprehensive EMC SOFT. Nor would it really make sense to spend that kind of time and money when we can just mitigate the risk of interference by having everyone turn everything off during critical phases of flight.
Delta... the only airline you can use your iPhone 4S from takeoff to landing...
EDIT: Almost forgot: After the testing is complete, you have to pay to have a test report written up and published, and then you have to pay for the FAA certification process. Probably not cheap.
Usually dangerous interference comes through hard-wired connections: a device that feeds back frequencies into the power system, which then disrupts other devices; or a device that puts noise on an avionics bus, disrupting communications on that bus.
However, sometimes a device, even a device not designed to transmit, can create significant RF interference. For example, a device that has an internal power supply or transformer of some sort. If that power supply is not working right, it might generate an oscillating signal. Maybe even the device itself is tolerant of a certain amount of oscillation in its power and so is not affected by this. Then, there just happens to be a wire inside the device, connected to the power supply that's just the right length to act as an antenna at that frequency, and now you've got an RF transmitter on your aircraft that you didn't expect or want. There are bazzillions of wires in most medium-to-large modern aircraft, and some of them are bound to be the right length to act as an antenna and receive that signal, passing interference into who-knows-what.
That example may sound highly unlikely, but it does happen.
Yet, turning off consumer electronics is enforced by the honor system? Is there something else going on that makes consumer electronics unlikely sources of interference that would justify this lazy approach to safety? Why aren't all of these devices confiscated and locked in Faraday cages?
It just strikes me as odd that failure to pass an EMC SOFT grounds the plane until the issue is debugged, but then they just allow an random passenger to bring any random radio aboard just so long as they promise/remember to turn it off during critical phases of the flight.
That example may sound highly unlikely, but it does happen.
So highly unlikely that an honor system approach is justified?
As I've explained elsewhere in this topic, aviation mishaps are almost always the result of multiple factors, where if any one factor had been removed the mishap would not have occurred. "Passenger with unauthorized active RF transmitter" could be one source, but it's probably not going to cause a mishap alone.
In aviation we define "risk" as a combination of probability and severity. You can drive down the risk for a particular hazard by either lowering the probability or lowering the severity. The only way to completely eliminate risk is to not fly, so every flight involves accepting some level of risk. It's really a question of residual risk you're willing to accept balanced against the costs (financial and otherwise) incurred by attempts to further reduce the risk. Several people in this topic have discussed the costs of just the current system of having everyone turn off their phones during critical phases of flight, and complaining that the FAA doesn't apparently care about such things. I disagree with them--if the FAA truly didn't care, they would do exactly what you say: confiscate all electronics at the gate and lock them in a shielded box.
>It just strikes me as odd that failure to pass an EMC SOFT grounds the plane until the issue is debugged, but then they just allow an random passenger to bring any random radio aboard just so long as they promise/remember to turn it off during critical phases of the flight.
Keep in mind that I'm flying in a developmental test environment. That means that we're dealing with a lot of stuff that has never flown before, or are using it in ways it has never been used before. Because of the nature of what we're doing, we already have a lot of risk baked into our flights that an ordinary flight does not have, so we tend to be a lot more conservative about the risk factors that we can control.
[EDIT to add quote for context]
Having flight safety depend on the (unverified) compliance of consumers is ridiculous. There are only two cases here:
1. Consumer electronics represent a real threat to air safety. They should be banned from planes or disabled (i.e. the battery removed and turned over until the flight ends.) There should be real penalties for non-compliance.
2. Consumer electronics are not really a threat to air safety. We should stop wasting everyone's time and adding unnecessary stress to the travel process.
Since it's much more likely that 1 out of 100 or 300 active devices will cause interference during takeoffs and landings than 1 out of 4-5 that are turned on by accident or ignorance, it's better to err on the side of safety and tell everyone to turn them off.
(BTW, I watched the folks in my row on the plane, and not one person besides me actually shut down their phone or Kindle. They all just either put them in airplane mode or standby by tapping the off key. So I'm guessing that the reality is that most devices are not actually shut off by non-technical users. Even typing this I realize my Kindle wasn't actually shut off, its 3G was still active.)
I find it hard to believe we exist exactly in the statistical sweet spot where voluntary compliance results in a materially safer outcome than broad non-compliance.
My main point was that it's not an either-or thing that so many commenters make it out to be. It's possible to want to mitigate the potential effects of interference even though this interference is not very likely to cause accidents.
As aircraft are being more thoroughly tested (for instance with WiFi networks and picocells) more and more devices will be allowed, and maybe one day we'll be able to use electronic devices during takeoffs and landings as well. But, like all things in the aviation world, it will take time.
What could happen however is that certain navigation systems become unreliable during landing. Add that to bad weather, bad information, human error, and bad luck and you have a potential disaster.
But it doesn't seem likely that a terrorist would find such a plan worthwhile to pursue. After all, they want to be the star of the show right? Would they martyr themselves so some pilot gets the blame for landing on the wrong runway during a thunderstorm?
Your point about the compound nature of risk is valid, but doesn't it also suggest that the actual risk of allowing electronics during takeoff/landing is quite low as well?
Terrorist attacks in the US are extremely rare, and they typically expend their resources with each attempt so they want a high probability of success. There are far better avenues for a technically sophisticated attacker these days than getting on a plane and emitting harmful radiofrequency interference in excess of FCC guidelines.
> drop the encoded versions on public repositories, and distribute the keys to the media upon successfully killing people
I'm far from an expert on the mindset of terrorists, but I really don't think that's going to check the box for those aspiring to martyrdom.
Edit: It's an interesting thought experiment though. Let's say the next time an Air France crashes mysteriously into the ocean, the next day some group sends a private key to the media which decrypts a file from Google Cache containing the flight number and their religious slogan of choice. How would the media around the world report that?
A "hoax terrorist" could also encrypt and upload files for _all_ the flight numbers, or perhaps have a smaller set of files that decrypt differently with different keys. If they used CBC mode, they could even choose part of the plaintext when they disclosed the IV. You'd have to trust a cryptographer to know how reliable of an indicator that actually is.
Or a counter-hoax-terrorist could do that to discredit you. Would kinda suck to martyr yourself and have no one believe you about it later. If the CIA were smart, they would be doing just that, in advance.
I'm not sure how big the EMP would need to be though. Probably too big to make it past security.
Those who can get explosives on planes don't need to bother with EMPs.
Another part is that the flight staff wants fewer things potentially flying around the cabin if there's trouble. of course, they don't usually ask you to put away books...
Cell phone companies want you to turn off your phones because they mess with the ground towers. Flying past towers rapidly puts load on the cell network to transfer your phone's connection between towers rapidly. Your phone can also see more towers than usual, causing it to possibly flap between them in unexpected ways.
The bit about it being unsafe due to messing with the plane's avionics is total bunk, though. I never turn off electronics on flights, except to save battery.
Everyone's phone plays movies now anyway. Isn't that good enough? Do we really have to be plugged in every second of the day? Americans are too spoiled. OMG I can't jabber on my phone while flying? waa waaa ='[
There's two Federal laws at play: one that requires crewmembers to tell you to power off the device (FAR 121.306), and one that requires you to comply with an lawful instruction given by a crewmember (49 USC Sec. 46504) (Since getting you to turn off the device is a crewmember duty spelled out by the FAA, your refusal to comply falls under "lessens the ability of the member or attendant to perform those duties". Intimidation seems to be broadly interpreted in courts as meaning anything other than cooperation. It doesn't matter if you refuse politely).
Thus the potential consequences are: you can be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both.
Disclaimer: IANAL
They also told us they had to "reboot Windows".
I'm pretty sure they were full of shit.
Thus, I turn the screen off for the 3 seconds it takes the flight attendant to walk by. I've been doing this for years. A fair compromise? Silly, but effective perhaps.
I think the dumbest thing is having to turn off a Kindle. Is that even possible? Pushing the power button just goes to screensaver which uses exactly as much power as when you're actually using it.
You can turn a kindle off by holding the power switch for a few seconds. I do this every time I fly, for both takeoff and landing (I leave the wireless off for the entire flight). Given how low-power a kindle is, I find it highly unlikely that it could cause interference (unless you leave the wireless on, which could definitely cause interference), but I've seen enough surprising results from Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) Safety of Flight Tests (SOFT) to know that you just can't make assumptions about stuff like that.
As soon as you make or receive a call your going to be confronted with lots of dirty looks from other passengers and an angry flight attendant who will pretty much make you turn it off anyway.
1: It is not a "safety charade." See my other posts about EMC in this topic.
2: Even if you don't care about anybody else's safety, or even your own for that matter, it's still in your own best interest to turn off your phone when you go flying: if you leave your phone on, it will spend the whole flight looking for a signal, and you'll land with a dead battery.
2. I put it into WiFi only mode about 10 minutes after takeoff when I can't get a signal anymore and just turn it back on when we are a half hour within landing. It allows me at least a half hour of emails and texts to come in at each end of the flight. That's a lot of productivity saved.
First of all, this is not true. I have read aviation safety reports that cite consumer electronics as a contributing factor. Second of all, the fact that no major mishap has been attributed to consumer electronics is probably due in large part to the controls in place. There may be a few individuals who don't care about safety who disregard the rules, but as long as the overwhelming majority of passengers comply, the chances of an incident are dramatically reduced.
Aviators are tought a "swiss cheese" model of mishaps: there are safety precautions in place (equipment, procedures, etc.) to prevent mishaps, which you can visualize as slices of swiss cheese, with holes in them. The holes represent things that prevent a particular precaution from working properly: broken equipment, failure to comply with procedures, etc. A hazard might make it past one precaution by slipping through one of these holes, but then get stopped by some other precaution. A mishap occurs when enough holes line up in a row for a hazard to get all of the way through. In most mishaps, there are three holes that lined up to make the mishap happen. For example, bad weather alone would probably not cause a mishap, nor would a hyrdaulic malfunction alone or a slightly low fuel load alone, but when you get all three together, shit gets out of hand and a mishap can happen. On a flight where nothing else goes wrong, consumer electronics alone are not going to cause a mishap, but on a flight where a couple of other things are going wrong, a single cell phone might be all it takes to tip the scales from "a really bad day for the pilots" to "mishap."
>Please stop the fear mongering on this.
I have personally experienced degradation of safety-critical systems in-flight due to EMI from on-board devices, including devices that are not designed to be transmitters. Nothing you carry onto a plane is going to cause it to explode without warning or go completely out of control (which are a couple of straw-men I have seen in this topic). What can, and does, happen, is that safety-critical avionics don't work right. During critical phases of flight (takeoff, departure, approach, and landing), this could be a contributor to a mishap. If your ILS goes haywire when you're in the middle of shooting an approach in actual IMC, you've got a big problem; likewise, if you can't talk on certain radio frequencies in the terminal area due to noise interference, you've got a problem.
>I put it into WiFi only mode about 10 minutes after takeoff when I can't get a signal anymore and just turn it back on when we are a half hour within landing.
If you have a GSM phone, then allow me to speak for every pilot you have ever been a passenger to: fuck you. No, really: fuck you. Put your GSM phone next to a cheap set of speakers: it will periodically make a noise (especially if you are sending/receiving calls or data, or if your phone is searching for the network). The same thing happens with most ILS receivers and with the ICS on many planes. So first, they'll have to use some other approach rather than ILS, which may not have been their primary plan. Then, imagine trying to run checklists and land a plane with that shit going off in your ears.
Even if you have a CDMA phone, there's a good chance you're interfering with something, making the lives of your pilots that much harder at a time when they can ill afford additional distractions.
http://www.bts.gov/press_releases/2010/bts015_10/html/bts015...
Do you have anything to support this? Most economic theories say that people make tradeoffs of time and money, but not risk. Risk is generally too nebulous a concept for an individual to make any kind of rational decisions about its allocation - we have no real concept of the risk we're incurring when driving a car or stepping on a plane (and generally, our gut feeling is wrong.)
Walking across a floor that is a cluttered mess, you might have a small chance of tripping. Cleaning up most of the mess might reduce the risk to negligible, even if you don't get everything.
That's the angle I would have liked to understand better.
Edit: added URL
> That would mean seven million people on 11 million flights endangered the lives of their fellow passengers.
0.01% of 712M is 71200. </pedantic>
I was immediately suspicious when it was implied that a 737 can hold 20,000 passengers.
Put your cellphone near your FM radio. Listen in amazement as the digital chatter between your phone and some remote tower causes interference in your radio reception and affects your listening pleasure. Now imagine that same thing happening to the digital signals in the airplane's electronics while attempting to operate the craft. Catastrophe, chaos, etc. ad nauseum.
Realistic? Doubtful for many reasons. But that's the fear the bureaucrats, pilots, and passengers possess.
If you plan to use this app for actual terror, be advised to buy an Android phone and not an iPhone, because there is no way this app will be accepted into the Apple app store.
Yet, a B737 or an A320 is a much more complex plane. For instance, it has a lot of different electronic systems, ranging from the displays to the multiple, backed-up computers that enable flight controls (manual flight) and manage auto-pilot inputs.
I've seen a CRJ-200's first officer's (copilot) flight PFD and ND gone black and reboot because someone in the back was trying to call home, without much success.
The thing is, that never happened to my friend pilot before even with passengers trying to call. And the power output of a phone trying to call without much coverage isn't the same as the power needed in the center of a big city (and at 8000ft, inside a huge metal tube, the cell reception isn't great).
That's one of the main reasons. Granted it shouldn't happen and plane manufacturers do test against these kind of things. And really important systems, like backup instruments (standby) or flight computers are hardly going to be affected by any kind of interference, so, no, the plane isn't just going to drop from the sky. Yet an automatic A/P disconnection on long final on the PF's (pilot flying) PFD and ND displays going nuts is something serious.
And on the side of that, you don't want people having unknown electronic devices sending signals when pilots have to be more focused (take off and landing) and you better have them keeping an eye outside (or at their newspaper, but you can't help that). That's pretty much the same reason why they ask you to have everything stowed and leave your window 'opened' (you can see if there's something wrong outside, like fire, and report it) during takeoff and landing.
I'm sure she's not the only one.
That would allow pilots to test their equipment and make sure there is no dangerous interference with passengers' mobile devices.
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2011/04/working-with-the-ch...
Perhaps eliminating restrictions on electronics use would have a similar effect. What if the FAA started out by allowing use on a select number of flights where the pilots were highly trained and aware of the supposed risks? Over time, restrictions could be lifted more broadly presuming these initial experiments showed no cause for concern.
Also don't forget with the 3.5 oz limitation someone did use that kind(Liquid) as an explosive to try and take down a airplane. poor electronics getting jolted from a peaceful sleep with a bullhorn.....
I'll take my chances with an iPad in somebody's hands flying into my face over a cup of scalding hot coffee splashing everywhere any day.
It's one thing to tell people to put things away or to watch out for safety's sake during important times like landing/takeoff and turbulent areas (and really, that should only extend to things like clearing the aisles and trays and armrests), and it's another to justify a questionable demand like "turn off your cell phone" in the name of "safety".
It makes good sense to minimise that risk.
I recall years ago you were not permitted to use a cellphone on the forecourt of a gas station. No one seems to remember or bother about that now.
Not really. To the extent a risk exists, the only response that would make any sense whatsoever would be to redesign the fueling and/or avionics systems to make them compatible with common consumer electronics. The fact that this isn't happening suggests that the warnings are all just so much hot air.
No one seems to remember or bother about that now.
Perhaps because there isn't a single documented case of a fire or explosion at a gas station being caused by RF energy at levels around one watt.
It's all myth and fud spread by a) people with ulterior motives (see above) b) people who are too uneducated or too stupid to make their own judgement. Like air hostesses, petrol attendants.
The probability that this happens is not zero or low, but very high.
No, it isn't. If it were, we wouldn't be depending on the honor system.
If it were true that the RF energy levels emitted by FCC Part 15-covered consumer electronics could interfere with aircraft systems, it would be utterly unthinkable to permit them on board in the first place, whether "powered off" or not. The TSA would be confiscating Game Boys, not bottles of water. Since that isn't happening, it's difficult to avoid the conclusion that the prohibition is just one more exercise in bureaucratic security theatre.
Some woman started yelling at me in a gas station forecourt last year (2010) because I was talking on the phone while sitting in my car with the door open. "You're going to blow us all up!" she yelled at me (twice), then sped off far too quickly to have been a safe speed for leaving a gas station parking lot. :/