Gizmodo 
Enter your username and password.
-
posts about #faaregulations more → 
Giz Explains: How To Fix the Airlines' Stupid Portable Gadget Rules
Tip your editors:
Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | | Twitter
Editor:
Jason Chen
| AIM | Twitter
Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
| Twitter
Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
| AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
| AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
| Twitter
Sean Fallon
| Twitter
Jack Loftus
| Twitter
John Herrman
| Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Chris Mascari
Kat Hannaford
| Twitter
Rosa Golijan
| Twitter
Chris Jacob
Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner
Interns:
Don Nguyen
Kyle VanHemert
Comment Account Questions:
| posts about #faaregulations more → |
Giz Explains: How To Fix the Airlines' Stupid Portable Gadget Rules |
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
09/24/09
Gasp I say, Gasp.
09/25/09
09/24/09
Here are some real world examples of how I did not die or cause a plane to crash by using my electronics:
1. On a flight over to Paris, France from Los Angeles, California I (get ready for this!) TURNED ON MY PORTABLE GPS UNIT WHILE IN THE AIR, DESENDING INTO CHICAGO!!! Yes, I was flying over Chicago at the time, and I wanted to see how fast the plane was actually going. As soon as I turned it on and data began to pour in, all communications on the plane were interrupted and the plane took a hurtling nose dive into the ocean and….oh, wait, no it didn’t. Absolutely nothing happened except I was able to see data pouring into my GPS unit. I kept it on for about 10 minutes before I got bored and put it away.
2. While on dozens of flights from Burbank Airport to Las Vegas I (ARE YOU FREKING READY FOR THIS????) LEFT MY CELL PHONE ON!!!!!1!1!!!! Each and every time I have done this, my plane has crashed into a fireball into the desert. Or……….…I landed safely without any incident just like the dozens of other folks who left their phones on in the same plane (some of whom were even….GASP….TEXTING!!!!). I'm going to keep the suspense going and let you GUESS at whether or not my planes crashed into the desert or if I landed without incident.
3. One time, while we were in the descent/landing process (PREPARE YOURSELF!!!!!!!!!!!) I ACTUALLY WITNESSED A 20 SOMETHING YEAR OLD SPEAKING ON HIS CELL PHONE TO SOMEONE!!!! OMFG!!!!!! The airplane instantly rolled over and crashed into the ground, causing a massive fireball that could be seen for miles………….whoops, wrong again. We actually landed without incident just like every other time I've left my portable electronics on.
So after taking those examples into consideration, perhaps we may conclude that either I (and apparently half of the passengers who I saw playing with electronics they were prohibited to play with) was INCREDIBLY LUCKY and, by the grace of God, landed safely when certainly the plane should have crashed….or…….perhaps we need to reevaluate these outdated (and unfounded) rules and regulations? But then again, I'm just basing that on my observation of numerous electronics being on during takeoff, flight, and descent which is the catalyst for me to raise questions based on actual real world examples and evidence which is, of course, JUST CRAZY TALK. Certainly, until something can be proven to NOT cause a plane to go down, it should be banned! Personally, I refuse to use soap and water on my body until it can be proven to NOT cause cancer of the RIGHT buttock (I almost certainly have cancer of the left buttock from keeping my intertubes turned on), and I think I made a wise decision. You all have FUN with your showers and ASS cancer; I'll just play it safe and not question the infallible logic of proving a negative!
09/24/09
The issue is not the frequencies but those random occurances where electronics are made incorrectly, that cause it to cause issues with the navigation equipment. It's rare but it happens, a friend of mine had one of those children laptops with a mouse (you know the learning laptops), that would result in a 10 degree deviation in the VOR when you moved the mouse in a particular direction.
10 degrees isn't much in cruise, but during landing, or take off in instrument conditions it can be the difference between another entry in the log book, or being a story in the news paper.
So in summary stop being lazy, and turn it off for a few minutes. You can live without it.
09/24/09
The FCC's concern appears to be based on the fact that a cell phone's reception is limited to line-of-sight with the tower, in general. When you're traveling at 40k feet, you're able to connect to just about every cell phone tower that isn't blocked by the curvature of the Earth.
09/24/09
I used to live with a pilot and numerous times I'd call him, hear a large noise in the background followed by "Uhh, can you call me back later, I'm trying to land this thing".
I still think the rule about it not being allowed is golden however, because quite simply, I like the idea of there being an area in the world where you CAN'T use these things.
For myself, flights are the one time I can sit, be and just do nothing and not feel bad about it. All the other times I'm either listening to something, writing something, replying to this, responding to that. A flight is pure isolation at it's finest.
There may be a cultural underpinning to these rules that we as tech-heads are over looking. My example is just for disallowing mobile usage. (In flight phones are different, at least for here in Aust. they aren't on anything other than international flights, and are prohibitively high on cost, so I'm kinda disregarding them)
09/24/09
Granted, I'm also the weird type of person that travels so much he actually enjoys it. You see me leaving the World Club with a smile on my face, and only after we land and disembark does my true travel worn face appear.
09/24/09
1. Air plane manufacturers are unaware of the electromagnetic properties of their plane's electronics, so they (and the FCC) have chosen the easy way of forbidding the use of active electronics on-board.
2. Electronics on board used by passengers ideally should comply to existing stringent regulations regarding their electromagnetic field emissions (the radio waves that may cause interference).
Ad1. Air planes (even modern ones) have been designed an eternity ago. At that time no cell phones existed, no wifi networks were invented and computer games did not exist. So the immunity measures against radio interference on air plane electronics have all been retrofit, or intentional, or unintentional at regular upgrades of equipment. Depending on the flight operator the EMC safety status varies.
Ad 2. The progress in electronics goes faster then EMC regulations can control them. Most electronics have been regulated by FCC (or CE-marking), but these regulations are not yet recognized world wide (not speaking about fraud), so it is possible that electronics in operation exceed regulatory levels as define in USA and EU and the modern East countries. Nevertheless, the emissions are very low in general and are not likely to interfere with navigation or communication equipment when used inside the plane. The problem lies in the rare cases were so-called harmonic frequencies radiate on exactly the same frequency as the used navigation or communication equipment, and do exceed regulatory levels. In these rare cases some problems may arise. With millions of passengers each day, each carrying up to 8 pieces of electronics (your words) the chance of creating interference becomes realistic. Don't expect planes to go down immediately, but the interference gets noticed, and alternate systems take over.
(lots of electronics redundancy on-board, including pilots)
Within the strict safety regime on-board of planes each of these occasions will lead to a investigation, that invariably leads to a no result, as the passenger has left the plane, and the interference has gone. The real problem for flight operators is the costs of these investigations, so an economic one.
Intentional radiators such as cellphones and WiFi networks do generate substantial amounts of "radio waves", and *can* interfere with electronics easily, however, the frequencies are known, and i would be very surprised if flight operators and manufacturers never verified their planes performance in the presence of these equipments. However, sometimes planes GO down without obvious reasons.
The author is very right in that the authorities need to re-evaluate their regulations, but more important they need to publish their communications and navigation frequencies that are essential for operation, so that EMC test houses world wide may test for emissions on these bands and issue a "flight safe" marking for equipment that is safe on-board.
Until then we are all requested to put phones in air planes in flight mode, and other electronics in sleep mode as the equipment we fly in (the planes) fails to comply with international regulations on safe operation in the electromagnetic environment they are intended to be used in.
Gert Gremmen
ce-test, qualified testing bv
09/24/09
Couple things to add/correct:
Airplane manufacturers _should_ know what sort of stuff will affect a brand-new airplane. What they don't know is how age/abuse will affect both the plane and any devices the passengers are carrying. They also don't know what a random planeful of devices will do that any single device won't.
Publishing specific EM bands that they need to keep free means that now anyone can find out what EM bands they can target to shut down communications (and I guarantee the FAA _won't_ go for that one).
Mostly, what it really comes down to is that you've only got one chance to get it right on an airplane. If your car breaks down, you pull over to the side of the road, call for help, and hope you aren't terribly inconvenienced in the process. If your plane breaks down, you crash and die.
Now, with some devices, it's simply easiest for the average person to be told to turn them off. Not everyone really knows how to properly operate the devices they own, and a cel phone that's left looking for a signal when it's way out of range could potentially be a fire hazard.
09/24/09
As far as other devices, it just makes sense that the flight crew would want your undivided attention in case of emergency.
I get the point of the article, but I disagree. Even things like the Kindle need to be off and stowed, since Kindle has mp3 ability, and could potentially be a distraction. It's fairly obvious that WiFi and Bluetooth will not affect an airplane's function, since flights take off and land every day with those things on.
09/24/09
If you've ever talked for a while on a cel phone when you're at the extreme far range of the closest tower, you'd know that they tend to get toasty warm pretty fast.
09/24/09
09/24/09
Sure the device even in a low power state has little or no effect on interference on navigation. Now in the unlikely event something goes wrong in takeoff or landing and it flies up and busts your teeth because the plane suddenly banks 40 degrees from a crosswind is the real issue at hand.
It also boils down to situational awareness, the idiot rocking out on his ipod might not hear what is going on during the most critical times of the flight.
Don't like turing your stuff on and off, take a train. No takeoff or landing.
09/24/09
09/23/09
Are you SO insecure that you can't live without an electronic umbilical or electronic pacifier for the 20 minutes it takes to taxi and climb to cruise altitude or the the 20 minutes that it takes from initial descent to gate?
Grow up and get a life.
09/23/09
Generally, I read with noise canceling headphones on, sometimes (I'm looking at you Mesa Air, primarily the singing stewardess) I'm asked to remove them, even if they are off. Sure, no problem, please turn off the screaming infant. Thank you.
09/23/09
My gripe isn't with the science behind the topic, it's with the attitude everyone is exhibiting.
None of us here are so special that we deserve to ignore the requests of those people that are responsible for our well being.
The iPhone for example: "Airplane Mode" is not the same as turning the device off, and to knowingly try to trick the flight attendant takes a lot of hubris.
Sure, Mythbusters has seemed to prove what we all suspect, but when I'm in an aluminum tube traveling at 400mph, I'd appreciate if everyone else follow some simple requests.
And as far as I'm concerned, it's not good enough that someone didn't crash last time they left their Black Berry on.
And to complain that one can't read their kindle during take off and landing.... Boo hoo. I'll be sure to complain when the turbulence shakes your ereader free of your hand and hits me in the face.
I know it's a hassle to power down devices or secure them, but I make sure to abide by these simple requests every time.
If the flight crew asks me to turn off my electronic devices, that's exactly what I do... and I do it without complaint.
I don't think I'm special or any more entitled than any of you... But I'm disappointed that I appear to be in the minority in thinking this way.
Until the rules are changed or clarified, is it too much to ask that we all take a step back and become considerate members of society?
/Rant
09/23/09
09/23/09
09/23/09
Since there isn't any way for gadgets and their people to uniformly conform to a state of "off," the only real solution is to ensure that planes can tolerate their various states of "on."
09/23/09
Also, the fact that the plane is almost a faraday cage for mobiles means you have very poor reception and the phones boost the transmit power. If you have 200 or 300 phones aboard, this can ammount, in theory, up to ~ 150W of transmit power. Believe me thats NOT a negligible ammount of RF power and can wreak havoc on quite a few systems. While this won't happen all the time, when the planes passes over the area of one cell to the next, most phones WILL "page" the new cell at a pretty close time. Will this bring a plane down, i doubt it (especially at 30K feet).. that's what the pilot is there for. But id rather reduce as much as possible any possible interference while at lower altitude where the Pilot's reflexes are what count.
Finally, the "please turn off ALL electornic devices during take off and landing" is to prevent your ipod / laptop / iphone / whatever from becoming a projectile at 100 Km/h if the plane has to abort landing or makes a sudden move. A book is not as hard as mobile or a laptop.
And except very few devices (watches, tokens, etc), they WILL turn off completely and when in stand-by (or deep sleep), they should be mostly harmless.
Finally, the no-headphone rules, just as the one to keep your carry on under the seat in front of you or on the top compartments, are meant to reduce distraction and any possible obstacle in case an abort landing is needed. You don't want anybody tripping over a cable, getting a big headset's cable stuck in an armrest or anything like that.
And im sorry, but you SHOULD be able stop working and checking your phone / mail / whatever for the 15 minutes of takeoff and 15 minutes of landing.
And now "really" finally, the fact that the air host(ess) is not able to distinguish off from sleeping from "screen off" does not mean the rule is worthless. Its not there to please THEM but rather to keep everyone just a bit safer. It turns out its their job to enforce the rule, but it should be just up to us instead.
09/23/09
09/24/09
Reduced risk isn't a bad thing.
09/23/09
09/23/09
I mean, yes the chances of phones causing a barrel roll into the ground is small, but you come off so arrogantly. When your kindle smashes your seatmate's head open by flying out of your hands at terminal velocity due to a botched takeoff, I hope you learn then. Just everybody else, do your part to make up for this guy
09/26/09