Bigelow's main space company—Bigelow Aerospace—already has two private test space stations in low Earth orbit: Genesis 1 and 2. His plan is to have a hotel in orbit, and he's steadily on course to achieve his objectives. The guy and his Errol Flynn mustache may seem eccentric to some, but he means business.

But Bigelow is also a man who truly loves space, and everything that has to do with it. His multi-million dollar investment is not only about hotels in space. Another of his companies is Bigelow Aerospace Advanced Space Studies. According to the last order by Federal Aviation Administration—issued on December 10—BAASS is now the organization to contact if you are a pilot or an air traffic controller who gets close to an Unidentified Flying Object:

Persons wanting to report UFO/unexplained phenomena activity should contact a UFO/ unex­ plained phenomena reporting data collection center, such as Bigelow Aerospace Advanced Space Studies (BAASS) (voice: 1-877-979-7444 or e-mail: Reporting@baass.org)

They don't list the number or email of the military, nor some special branch of the Secret Service, nor the CIA, nor the NASA. But BAASS. Is this a crazy company? Hardly so. Here's their own description:

Bigelow Aerospace Advanced Space Studies (BAASS), a sister company to Bigelow Aerospace, is a newly formed research organization that focuses on the identification, evaluation, and acquisition of novel and emerging future technologies worldwide as they specifically relate to spacecraft. BAASS is headquartered in Las Vegas, Nevada. We are seeking experienced scientists to join our research teams. If you are an inquisitive outside of the circle thinker, who is detail oriented and who is looking for a challenge, this is a unique and exciting opportunity to advance your career and to be a part of cutting edge research.

If I had the experience they are looking for, I would love to work there, in their secretive base in the Nevada desert. There has to be something going on when they are hiring astrophysics, biochemists, microbiologists, nanotechnolgists, physicists, and propulsion and stealth technology experts. And not only that:

A Masters or PhD in a relevant field is a plus. Candidates must qualify for secret and top secret clearances and must be willing to submit to a thorough background check.

For all positions, some travel - both nationally and internationally - may be required.

Seriously Mr. Bigelow, may I be your official blogger? Pretty please? [BAASS via As the Croft Flies]

The biggest airlines aren't budging—yet. Here's something Tim Smith of American Airlines sent me. It typifies the response from the big carriers:

The fact is (and as a technology expert you no doubt already know this) technology creates hundreds of new products each year at a pace that is so fast that we simply cannot keep up with it. We as a company do not have the time, nor the money to test every device that comes down the pike. Plus, even if we did that and one type of device were to be approved by testing, it adds a significant burden on our inflight staff to try and police whether something is actually an approved device or not. Many electronic devices and products often look alike – meaning it either takes an expert in such devices or someone who has the time to go from seat to seat with a list of devices trying to check the model numbers on each device prior to take-off or landing. That is not at all practical. There are many other things going on during that period of flight – several of them important, mandated safety-related steps.

Three obstacles are in the way:

• EMI, or electromagnetic interference, which most of the airlines are willing to admit is the least of their concerns.

• Regulation and the cost of compliance. Most of the airlines think that testing would be too expensive.

• Customer safety. More than anything, it seems most airlines are concerned with passengers being aware during safety briefings or in the case of an accident.

If things go to plan, I'll be joining others in showing how EMI from small gadgets is a non-issue sometime in the next week or so. But even the airlines know that dozens of iPods and Kindles and other non-transmitting devices are functioning without issue in planes every day.

As far as regulation from the FAA is concerned, FAA 14 CFR 91.21B pretty much punts this to the airlines: "It should be noted that the responsibility for
permitting passenger use of a particular PED technology lies solely with the operator."

And customer safety, well...it's an issue. An issue for which I have a lot of sympathy with the airlines. You don't want laptops flying around if there's turbulence—but you don't want that during any part of the flight, yet laptops are kosher at altitude. You want people to be able to listen to music or watch TV, but not miss announcements. As both a customer satisfaction and a customer safety issue, it gets murky very quickly.

But there is good news!

I'm happy to report that more than one airline responded to my queries with more than rote (if friendly) dismissal. And while nothing is for certain until it actually happens, it's looking like there's a chance the more progressive airlines are ready to take a look at the policy and question if it befits a modern airline with modern passengers.

More very soon. (With more terrible headlines.)

The Vectoring and Separation advanced learning game is designed to simulate New York City's Islip airspace, giving air traffic controllers an opportunity to test the waters of one of the busiest flight zones in the planet. It was developed as part of their contract with the FAA to develop their Air Traffic Control Optimum Training Solution over the course of ten years, which is why you and I would never get the opportunity to play it.

Instead of building airbags into plane seats or the bulkhead—that big flat wall at the front of the cabin—AmSafe, the biggest name in the I'm-guessing-not-terribly-crowded commercial jet passenger airbag industry, has hidden them in seat belts: the bag is mounted at shoulder height and connected to a trigger and helium inflation device underneath the seat.

AmSafe's Tom Barth, pictured here holding a comically oversized seat belt that's obviously hiding an airbag or something, told NPR:

The air bag seat belt looks pretty much like a standard seat belt. People don't really notice that it's there.

No need to deny the lumpiness, Tom—I think people will forgive a little bulk if it means they won't splatter their brains all over that darling floral bulkhead carpet next time a landing doesn't go quite as planned.

But alas, the rollout won't be universal. The FAA regulation doesn't require airbags per se, as long as aircraft manufacturers can somehow claim that a 16 G impact is survivable by way of padded seatbacks, open space, or better restraints. Only a handful of commercial jets have exploding seat belts airbags today—none of which have ever deployed, by the way—but the regulation, which only applies to new planes, should make these things a common sight. [NPR]

UPDATE: Now with added video edutainment:
—Thanks, Sergio!

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.

The FAA has issued an alert to airlines telling them to tell their pilots to turn their phones off.

The US FAA has issued an alert to airlines following an inspector's report that a first officer's cell phone began ringing at a critical phase of a takeoff recently, an incident the agency says was "a potentially serious hazard".

According to the FAA air safety inspector who was riding along on an unnamed airline's flight from the jump seat, just prior to reaching V1, the speed after which pilots generally are committed to taking off rather than aborting on the runway, a rather loud "warbling" sound was "detected" by both crewmembers.

"It was later determined that the sound came from the first officer's cellular phone, which had been left in the ON position," the Safety Alerts For Operators (SAFO) note reads.

"As a result the ring tone caused a distraction between the crewmembers during the takeoff phase and could have led the to crew to initiate an unnecessary rejected takeoff," the letter continues.

And even worse, he was totally being annoying and talking to his friends while other people were stuck in close quarters. How rude is that? [FlightGlobal]

Update: Oh and check out delays for airports around the country. As you can see from the image above, delays of 16 to 45 minutes are hitting flights EVERYWHERE.

Looking at the gamut of fuel cells (and not just the methanol ones covered in the ruling), the FAA appears to be afraid that the little chemical powerplants might explode. According to an FAA report from April 2: "Fuel sources [in fuel cells] range from highly flammable to relatively inert."

In addition to standard evaluation, the FAA says it will conduct "flammability tests...on existing fuel cartridges." And not just on individual units. From what I can tell of this report, somewhere the FAA will soon, or already has, set fire to bulk containers of fuel cells, and tried to ignite fuel cells that are in operation, connected to laptops or other electronics:And I thought my job was fun. [Press Release on DOT Ruling; FAA PDF on Flammability Testing]

In other words, despite the wait, if there's going to be cocktails we'll be there like shareware. [Aeros via Gizmag]

According to the press release, the machine can hover 10 feet off the ground and cruises at a speed of 50 mph. Because the M200G is classified as a recreation device and not an aircraft, it is not subject to FAA regulations and anybody can operate one. No official release date has been announced.

[Paleo-Future via Wired]

The U.S. Department of Transportation and FAA are no more progressive, with an "indefinite moratorium" on the "Wow." DoT CIO Daniel Mintz stated that "there appears to be no compelling technical or business case for upgrading to these new Microsoft software products. Furthermore, there appears to be specific reasons not to upgrade." Ouch.

If the ban is long-term, it could sting Microsoft's pocketbook more than its pride, as InfoWeek notes it "sells millions of dollars in software to the feds annually." It seems like some good Vista news can't come fast enough for Microsoft. Mediocre sales, driver and software compatibility issues, and middling reviews have dominated coverage, and this is after long delays getting it shipped.

Undoubtedly as a result, it hasn't been quite the boon to the bottom line that they had probably hoped. For what it's worth, I think Vista looks nice. – Matt Buchanan

Microsoft Hit By U.S. DOT Ban On Windows Vista, Explorer 7, and Office 2007 [InformationWeek via Fark]
Intel won't upgrade to Vista until SP1 [Between the Lines]

FAA will retain ban on wireless use in-flight [Mobileburn]