For years we've been told that gadgets produce EMI—electromagnetic interference—that cause glitches in an aircraft's avionics. A cellphone could interrupt communication between pilots and the tower for a crucial second, or a child's Game Boy could cause a light on a flight computer to go on the fritz.

We can't take excess liquids on a plane on only the slimmest evidence of any real threat. If gadgets were such a threat to safety, they'd be banned entirely.

Instead, an arbitrary set of rules established by the FAA and extended by the airlines prohibits iPods during takeoff, but explicitly allow electric shavers to be used during flight.

Hundreds of travelers at this very moment are using electronic gadgets during takeoff after the flight attendants have taken their jump seats. We're told it's dangerous. It isn't. Let's drop the pretense.*

The EMI Lie

In 1993, the International Association of Transport Aircraft (IATA) suggested that airlines prohibit the use of personal electronic devices during takeoff and landing, despite a lack of evidence that these gadgets had caused a single accident. The IATA's Terry Denny then said, "We haven't been able to trace an accident to the use of one of these devices...but we are convinced that this could happen."

In the intervening decades, gadgets became something more than a toy for the rich or nerdy, but an intrinsic sidekick for nearly everyone. Especially the iPod.

In 2006, the Federal Aviation Administration commissioned a study to see if "intentionally transmitting" gadgets like cellphones and Wi-Fi caused interference with avionics. The final report "said there is insufficient information to support a wholesale change in policies that restrict use of PEDs." ("PEDs" is FAA-speak for a gadget, or "Personal Electronic Device(s)"; a PED with a radio transmitter is a "T-PED".)

Which is to say, they couldn't find a reason to change their policy—but there hadn't been a whole lot of evidence to begin with.

Yet the FAA has approved in-flight Wi-Fi service for a variety of airlines. While the routers and systems must undergo an FAA certification, there's nothing magical about the onboard 2.4GHz signal broadcast that prevents it from interfering with the plane's avionics. The thousands of flights completed safely each day—a marvelous and commendable record, it should be noted—clearly indicate that having activated gadgets on board aircraft does nothing of negative consequence.

So your laptop's Wi-Fi won't mess up the planes avionics, but your Kindle might? How fragile are these planes?

"But it's about paying attention"

I've had conversations with pilots and other employees of airlines about this issue before, and after they realize the electromagnetic interference argument isn't going to fly, they invariably change tack to "safety". "Takeoff and landing are the most dangerous parts of the flight," they say. "And it's important that passengers be able to hear instructions from the crew in case something goes wrong."

That's a nice idea, but look around the cabin of an embarking aircraft. Parents are soothing cranky kids. People are asleep. Many passengers are drunk or medicated to help address anxiety.

If there were an accident, alerting an unaware person with headphones would take no more effort than nudging a sleeping person next to you. It's not prohibited to sleep during takeoff, just as it isn't prohibited to read a book or magazine or to be deaf. (This also presumes that a passenger could do anything to protect themselves or others during a takeoff accident, even though we all know that in a majority of incidents, there's little to do except pray.)

Ah, but what about gadgets flying around the cabin as missiles if there is turbulence? It could happen, sure, but is a Kindle appreciably more dangerous than a hardcover book? If a Nintendo DS could hurt someone during an unexpected loss of altitude, why are they ever allowed to be unstowed? The answer is simply that the likelihood of these things happening is far less than the likelihood that customers will go absolutely apoplectic if they aren't allowed some sort of inflight entertainment.

If the airlines are already able to make a judgement between ultimate safety and convenience, why not loosen up just a little more?

Little things matter

I have a lot of sympathy for flight attendants. Herding and soothing a few dozen passengers, many of whom are belligerent and rude, is a thankless job. Their jobs should be easier. They're the ones who have to explain to passengers why the pilots were too busy playing with their laptops to land the plane.

But every time a flight attendant perpetuates the lie that these harmless gadgets are somehow a threat to safety, it erodes the faith that they should be cultivating with their customers. How are we to trust someone telling us that reading a Kindle during takeoff is dangerous as we stare across a field of EMI-spewing LCD seat-back screens?

Here's a deal: I'll listen attentively to the flight safety demonstration, make doubly sure to note where the exit doors are and who I'll have to climb over to get to them—and you guys will let me listen to my iPod after the flight attendants are in their seats and I'm making peace with my god.

Trust me, I'll be a lot more apt to listen to flight attendants commands if they don't start the flight with a well-intentioned deception. And more likely to believe the FAA and the TSA when it comes to other security and safety concerns when some of their policies aren't demonstrable half-truths.

* I'm not talking about using Wi-Fi or cellphones during takeoff. I'm in complete support of "Airplane Mode" during takeoff, if not the entire flight. What anecdotal evidence there is about EMI from gadgets is almost exclusively suspected to be from radios and other transmitters.

@joeljohnson deals primarily with first-world problems, but hopes it does not interfere with your pursuit of fixing third-world ones. This isn't the last he's got to say about this issue.

You may also remember that Google already said it would foot the bill for Virgin America Wi-Fi during the same period.

The catch? Once you log into the network, you'll be pestered if you want to set Google to your homepage or try Google Chrome. But that's it. I can deal with that. You'll also have the option to make a donation to Engineers Without Borders, the One Economy Corporation or the Climate Savers Computing Initiative.

Meanwhile, Yahoo is providing free Wi-Fi for an entire year in Times Square, and Microsoft and JiWire will give free Wi-Fi at airports and hotels if you make one search on Bing. I like free stuff! [Google]

Airports for Google-Sponsored Free Wi-Fi:

• Austin (AUS)
• Baltimore (BWI)
• Billings (BIL)
• Boston (BOS)
• Bozeman (BZN)
• Buffalo (BUF)
• Burbank (BUR)
• Central Wisconsin (CWA)
• Charlotte (CLT)
• Des Moines (DSM)
• El Paso (ELP)
• Fort Lauderdale (FLL)
• Fort Myers/SW (RSW)
• Greensboro (GSO)
• Houston (HOU)
• Houston Bush (IAH)
• Indianapolis (IND)
• Jacksonville (JIA)
• Kalamazoo (AZO)
• Las Vegas (LAS)
• Louisville (SDF)
• Madison (MSN)
• Memphis (MEM)
• Miami (MIA)
• Milwaukee (MKE)
• Monterey (MRY)
• Nashville (BNA)
• Newport News (PHF)
• Norfolk (ORF)
• Oklahoma City (OKC)
• Omaha (OMA)
• Orlando (MCO)
• Panama City (PFN)
• Pittsburgh (PIT)
• Portland (PWM)
• Sacramento (SMF)
• San Antonio (SAT)
• San Diego (SAN)
• San Jose (SJC)
• Seattle (SEA)
• South Bend (SBN)
• Spokane (GEG)
• St. Louis (STL)
• State College (SCE)
• Toledo (TOL)
• Traverse City (TVC)

Now, the FAA says the airlines need approval from the FAA's hazardous materials division, and has asked them not to store spare lithium ion batteries for the readers on planes. A few airlines went through some special training to get the okay, but at least Delta and JetBlue don't carry spares or charge the readers on board at all.

The current rate for gadgets exploding on planes is about one every four months, says a former NTSB dude. Which isn't so bad, considering there are millions of flights happening in that time period. Still, I have the feeling this xkcd comic is going to stay funny for the reasons it's funny now for like another year, max. [NYT]

http://xkcd.com/651/

The first problem is, nearly all electronics are lumped together, despite differences in their innards and the services they perform. The second problem is this constant generic request to turn them "off." Until airlines can speak coherently about ebooks, smartphones, tablets and other traveler-friendly gadgets—and address the various states of rest between "on" and "off"—the system remains in a sphere of stupidity. Whether this is mildly annoying or potentially deadly remains to be seen.

The last time I flew, I had in my carry-on bag three cameras, three laptops, a smartphone and a classic iPod. Judging from the long security lines, I wasn't the only one trucking plentiful gadgetry.

When I got on the plane, the flight attendant asked everyone to turn "off" phones and other portable electronics. She appeared at my side as I was switching my iPhone to airplane mode and repeated, "It's time to turn off your portable electronics." I replied, "That's what I'm doing." She sneered like a 1930s copper who'd just collared the dumbest guy in the bootlegging operation: "So flipping through screens is how you turn it off? There's no on-off switch on the side?" She thought she'd caught me in a lie. I just looked back in disbelief, made the screen magically go dark, and put my supposedly "off" phone back in my pocket, satisfying whatever interpretation of the rules was in this poor misinformed woman's head.

On another leg of our journey, just before takeoff, a flight attendant pointed to the ebook reader my wife was using and said in a stern voice, "Please turn off all portable electronics." She did not ask the gentleman seated next to us to turn off his digital watch, though it may well have been drawing more power at the time.

Worst of all, she did not check every single cellphone and laptop to make sure they were in a state where they could not emit a hefty dose of RF. Most of the smartphones on board were probably in standby (with some kind of radio emission still happening) and most laptops were probably closed but not powered down—hopefully sleeping.

The only command we're given is to turn stuff "off"—a command increasingly ignored for its incoherence. What does it mean for a phone or iPod to be "off"? Most people don't even know. If the command is this easy to ignore with no consequences, the likely conclusion is that the gear really isn't a threat. But if it is, the airlines may not discover their own boneheadedness until the danger reaches some lethal saturation point.

Here's the actual FAA regulation:

§ 121.306   Portable electronic devices.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may operate, nor may any operator or pilot in command of an aircraft allow the operation of, any portable electronic device on any U.S.-registered civil aircraft operating under this part.
(b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to—
(1) Portable voice recorders;
(2) Hearing aids;
(3) Heart pacemakers;
(4) Electric shavers; or
(5) Any other portable electronic device that the [airline] has determined will not cause interference with the navigation or communication system of the aircraft on which it is to be used.
(c) The determination required by paragraph (b)(5) of this section shall be made by that [airline] operating the particular device to be used.
[Doc. No. FAA–1998–4954, 64 FR 1080, Jan. 7, 1999]

You will have noticed the date, 1999, but still, that preamble speaks volumes: "no person may operate…any portable electronic device on any U.S.-registered civil aircraft…" followed by exception after exception. The mentality of that is old school, to put it politely. You will also note that the discretion is left up to the airline (with heavy support from the aircraft maker), layering on confusion in sugary heaps.

What is the issue? This suggests it is "interference with navigation or communication systems," and in that case, it's understandable that such potential for jamming is minimized during the most dangerous parts of the flight, take off and landing. All electronics give off a bit of radiation; communications devices like phones and laptops give off considerably more. Minimize the amount of RF emissions (including unpredictable radio "harmonics") and you will reduce the chances—however unlikely in the first place—that portable electronics will threaten the safety of the flight.

That was Boeing's recommendation to the feds 10 years ago, when cellphones were starting to boom, and it makes sense. Unfortunately, what's going on now is a mere pantomime true RF security. Here's why:

Smartphones
How many people actually know how to turn off their smartphone? When I carried a BlackBerry, I never turned it off, because it took like 5 minutes to power back on. At the same time, I was always finding it fully awake in my bag or pocket, long after I thought I'd secured it. You CrackBerry addicts are making fun of me right now, and that's fine, but the fact is, I can't possibly be alone. How many people know about airplane mode on iPhones or other phones? For flight attendants, turning off the screen is all that apparently matters, but there's no way that is truly compliant.

Laptops
When was the last time you shut off your laptop during the boarding process? When I run out of the house, I just slam the thing shut and shove it in my bag. When I am at the airport, I pop it open to do some work. So when I'm finally at an altitude where it is safe to use portable electronics, I pop it open and then remember to turn off Wi-Fi. And not so we don't plummet out of the air—more so I can save at least some battery life. My guess is that most people who carry laptops on board just let them sleep, with Wi-Fi engaged. And on certain Vista notebooks I've carried, just closing the lid didn't mean squat.

Handheld Gaming Systems
Back about 14 years ago, there were a spate of reports that Game Boys were causing interference with the operation of planes. According to Boeing, there was never any actual proof of this, though it did inspire one of the funniest Simpsons moments ever. The real joke is, back then, portable gaming systems didn't all come with embedded Wi-Fi and Bluetooth like they do now. My guess is that many a properly stowed Nintendo DS can still sniff around the plane for cute Nintendogs or whatever, even with the lid closed.

Ebook Readers
This one is going to need special attention. I often get quite a bit of quality reading done at take-off and landing, precisely because I can't pop open a device and watch a movie or a TV show. But when I carry a Kindle or some other reader, I can't use it during that happy time. The question is, why can't I? With the 3G radio turned off—a very easy maneuver—an ebook reader uses less battery life than the Bluetooth earbud on standby that you may have forgotten to take off your ear. There is no power needed to hold a picture on E-Ink, so the battery is only taxed when the page is turned. How's this for irony? If you are looking at a page of words, your reader actually is off.

Noise-Canceling Headphones
Here's where most airlines get it right. Anything that takes 35 hours to drain a single AAA battery and has no inherent telecommunication function probably isn't going to cause the plane to go into an "uncommanded roll." Armies of Bose addicts fly friendly and unfriendly skies every day, and are generally allowed to use their own big ole cans during take-off and landing, provided they're attached to the airlines' audio system and not their own iPod. This kind of common sense needs to be applied to other devices.

In the end, what we've really got is an increasing array of devices that are replacing the books and crosswords of yore, and almost none of them have an "on-off switch" on the side. They're powered up and doing their thing, often while still nestled inside our pockets or our bags. Some are perfectly harmless beyond a shadow of a doubt, some could easily join together to form a cloud of harmless or harmful electromagnetic radiation. So why are airlines so confused? Hell, they've made special dispensations permitting knitting needles, even foot-long metal suckers. Is it too much to ask that they give equal consideration to our many cherished gadgets?

Still something you wanna know? Send questions about airlines, the FAA or rolls (commanded, uncommanded, hot and buttered) to tips@gizmodo.com, with "Giz Explains" in the subject line. Oh, and if you're dying to look up FAA regulations whenever you damn well feel like it, check out this PilotFAR iPhone app that reader (and developer) Nick Hodapp just showed me.

(Click on the image to see it bigger.)

I have no idea whether or not all of the stats are true, but I believe the shit out of them. Peach versus baby blue is the new good versus evil. Apply haphazard census information to a bathroom guy graphic and it's un-freggin-questionable. That's the bathroom guy, after all. He's never abused my trust by leading me into a women's restroom only to laugh and laugh while recording the event for a little YouTube subscriber bait.

That's restraint.

Having flown both types of carriers, I'd have never known that a company like Air France has 10x the staff of a company like EasyJet. And I don't know the last time I was served a meal on a non-international flight, no matter how large or expensive the carrier or ticket. [Flickr via Digg]

After learning that the aircraft was experiencing a technical problem that would require an eight hour delay, the as yet unidentified passenger came forward claiming to be an aircraft engineer that was qualified to work on the Boeing 757-200. After following strict procedures to confirm his credentials, the man was allowed to work on the plane. In the end, the Thomas Cook flight arrived at its destination only 35 minutes late. Needless to say, I'll bet you can think of a personal situation where a dude like this would have come in really handy. [BBC via Slashdot]

There's obviously a cost in maintaining and expanding the air Wi-Fi network, but who should pay for it, the airlines or you? 50-50? Would you pay extra in a ticket to get Wi-Fi access? Maybe it should be free for longer flights?

Your answer in the comments. [Runway Girl]

In practice, that would mean a media server, mostly full of video and music content, would be added to the planes' local networks. Instead of accessing in-flight films and music through a seatback or fold-out screen, passengers could just view it as if it were on a home server, or in a more likely implementation, through a local HTTP interface or set of client apps.

It's an interesting idea, and one that both Aircell and Row 44, two of the biggest providers of in-flight wi-fi, are both actively considering. The main draw is cost, because a bank of hard drives and beefed up router cluster is a tiny investment compared to fitting a plane with individual passenger systems.

But there are some obvious drawbacks. The proposals talk about hosting media for playback on phones and laptops, which could create a compatibility nightmare for the airlines and passengers, and will create an IT nightmare for cabin crew. Then there's the matter of keeping all these gadgets charged: demanding that passengers all use DC adapters to keep their smartphones and laptops charged would work, but it's not exactly elegant.

Having locally hosted media as an option would be a nice additional perk for wi-fi users, and for airlines that don't already have entertainment systems built into their planes it could well be a cheap way to offer their passengers something to do during long flights, but as a total replacement for kickass system like Virgin's? Maybe not. [NYT]

All 100 of Virgin's daily flights will have Wi-Fi, costing $12.95 for flights > 3 hours, $9.95 for flights < 3 hours, $5.95 for red-eyes and $7.95 if you just want to use your cellphone/PSP. Virgin's already our favorite airline just for being a nice airline, so being able to get Wi-Fi on all flights just makes it better. [Virgin America]

That's right, AirTran is winning on two fronts. AirTran will be the first carrier to offer Wi-Fi on every single flight (granted, they're a smaller airline, so it's a much smaller feat than Delta is facing). And they charge a (slightly) reduced rate of $8 for using just your iPhone or BlackBerry on Wi-Fi, not the full $10 that's the going rate for flights under 3 hours.

Still, that little airlines like AirTran are ponying up is good for competition in one sense—the day before, Delta announced that half of their fleet had Wi-Fi and the rest will by September, a little ahead of schedule. And American Airlines is busy outfitting their fleet, too.

But the NYT raises a few sobering points about in-flight Wi-Fi: There's basically no evidence there's huge demand for the pricey service (nerds don't constitute huge demand and even some of them are skeptical, see point #1). Meaning the $100,000-per-plane systems could hobble the already gimply airline industry even more.

Also, many flights, unlike Virgin, don't have electrical outlets. Not to mention all the other stuff, like crappy bandwidth and the like. Still, I think the first flight I'm on with Wi-Fi, I'm going to at least try it. [NYT via ZDNet]

Because no humans besides the flight crew are allowed—and because there aren't exactly effective seat-belts that'll keep your pets from wrecking havoc on the plane—your dogs and cats will still have to travel locked up in a carrier. But at least they'll be seated in the main cabin with temperatures that are "just right," with fresh circulating airways away from the cargo hold. After all, says the cheesy announcer, "Our pets are not luggage... They're paw-sengers!" Get it?

Pet Airways will begin service this coming July, in limited runs from LA, Chicago and NYC, starting at $150 for a one-way ticket—actually not a lot more than what the airlines charge to stick your cat in the cargo hold. [Pet Airways via Laughing Squid]

A project including the joint efforts of NTT, KDDI and SoftBank, Japan's big three wireless carriers, data lines were actually run aside the entire track and use periodic wireless transmitters to connect to passengers.

From inside the train, users should enjoy speeds of 2Mbps even through tunnels, while those waiting at station concourses will be blessed with speeds up to 54Mbps (which happens to be the peak speed of wireless n routers, or about 6 times the speed of the only DSL service to offer wiring in my apartment building). [CrunchGear and Getty]

Ed note: Technically this shot is from China, but shhh, I just liked it.

Southwest is using a satellite-based system from Row 44, and not the cellular connection used by most other airlines with Aircell's GoGo service. So if you find yourself on that one (and soon to be handful) of Row 44-equipped planes, you can surf for free. [USA Today]

So when you're heading home for Christmas or the Festival of Lights, you might have the joy of checking in with your boss ever few seconds, rather than enjoy No Reservations for the upteenth time. No porn though, as Delta is one of the airlines who have vowed to block adult sites so flight attendants don't have to. [Press Release, Photo Cubbie in Vegas/Flickr]

The Air Data Inertial Reference System, which supplies position and attitude information to the plane's electronic instrumentation system, starting producing bogus data due to an internal error, not external interference. As funny as the ideas of an A330-controlling iPhone app or an Autopilot-B-Gone are, the general consensus of experts that spoke on this issue is that commercial jets are unlikely to be affected at all by personal electronics, let alone driven into the ground. [ABC AU via Slashdot]

A switch to GPS could save carriers $10 billion a year in fuel and it would also increase efficiency—allowing more planes to fly on more routes at the same time. In other words, it could be a financial windfall that would help the airline industry get back on its feet. Yes, making the switch would be extremely complex, but this is really a question about priorities. We simply cannot continue to bail out the airlines every time things go south. Unfortunately, the government does not believe they can get planes flying in a straight line until at least 2020. [USA Today via Digg]

This wouldn't be the first time Qantas has blamed passengers' gadgets for an in-flight mishap; in July, a Bluetooth mouse was said to have resulted in a Qantas jet's autopilot being thrown off course. Passengers on Tuesday's ill-fated altitude drop will now be questioned regarding what electronics they may have been using at the time of the incident.

The issue of whether everyday personal electronics can actually cause any significant problems on board an airliner is clouded, to say the least. On one hand, it's hard to see how such common devices that meet FCC and UL interference standards can affect airliners that are designed to be able to withstand lightning strikes—critical components on a commercial jet are shielded to prevent any kind of interference getting through. On the other side, claims of the insulation degrading in older jets making them more susceptible to interference make sense. Then of course there is the perfectly rational "why chance it" argument.

This Wiki page delves into the issue in more detail, and Patrick from Ask the Pilot, one of my favorite online columns, gave the issue a characteristically sober and level-headed look earlier this year (verdict: interference technically possible but highly unlikely). So why Qantas would be making a push for this line of reasoning is kind of a mystery.

[UPDATE: Nick from Giz OZ has let us know that this story may be in fact a result of a misunderstanding—apparently a reporter got the jet's onboard computers (for navigation, etc) mixed up with the computers of actual passengers in his original report. The NTSB is still not ruling out interference from passenger gadgets, though.]

What about you guys? Do you heed the warnings to turn off everything, or fly in the face of danger with iPod blaring away during takeoff. Must admit I've been guilty of the latter, occasionally.

Gawker Media polls require Javascript; if you're viewing this in an RSS reader, click through to view in your Javascript-enabled web browser.

[NZ Herald via Slashdot, Photo: Daquella Manera/Flickr]

So unhappy that the flight attendant union began putting pressure on American to block porn content on their just-launched service (would you want to be the person to come between some crazy perv and his porn on a cross-country haul? Me neither). Delta is now planning to nip a potential flight attendant strike before things get out of hand. The filter, according to Delta, will be limited only to "sites that few, if any, would question are inappropriate to be viewed on an aircraft." [Atlanta Journal Constitution via Electronista]

NOTE: Other international airlines have had in-flight net access, but this is the first international to use Aircell's Gogo service, which is being adopted quickly by US airlines.

Canada’s Largest Airline Selects Aircell’s Gogo Service for Inflight Wi-Fi

(Sept. 9, 2008 – WAEA Conference and Exhibition) – Aircell®, the world’s leading provider of airborne communications, and Air Canada, Canada’s largest airline, today announced that they have reached an agreement, whereby the airline intends to offer the Aircell mobile broadband service, Gogo™, to passengers on trans-border flights expanding Aircell’s North American footprint and making Air Canada the first Canadian airline to offer inflight Wi-Fi.

Under this agreement, Air Canada will roll out the Gogo system on select flights, initially installing the system on its Airbus A319 aircraft that fly across the border into the United States. The airline expects to begin its initial deployment by spring 2009.

The Gogo system on Air Canada’s trans-border routes will be available first in the U.S. and powered by Aircell’s existing U.S. network, making Air Canada’s initial rollout fast, economical and simple. Air Canada and Aircell expect that the Gogo service will eventually provide passengers with seamless coverage from key Air Canada cities such as Montreal and Toronto to every Air Canada market in the continental U.S. Additionally, Aircell looks forward to the licensing and roll out of a Canadian Air-to-Ground network that will facilitate Air Canada’s future fleet-wide deployment.

“Air Canada has long been recognized as a leader in cabin merchandising and we are pleased to have Gogo selected as part of that marketing strategy,” commented Jack Blumenstein, President and CEO, Aircell. “Adding Air Canada as Aircell’s newest airline partner and first international customer will mark yet another milestone for our company. As we continue to grow our U.S. network and explore our international expansion plans, Air Canada will have the distinction of being the first.”

“Air Canada prides itself on connecting Canada and the world and an important element of staying connected today is having use of the Internet. That is why Air Canada is taking a major step forward to becoming the first Canadian airline to provide its customers inflight, online access through Gogo. In cooperation with Aircell, and pending Canadian regulatory approvals, we plan to eventually offer internet access system-wide so customers can email, work and surf the net while flying, and more fully enjoy what is already a superior travel experience,” said Charles McKee, Vice President, Marketing, at Air Canada.

[Photo: Cubbie_n_Vegas]