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.)

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.

While flying or flight helmets like these are great way to not only look like a cyborg, but to get some upgrades such as helmet-mounted display systems, I'd still prefer it if they had more appealing paint jobs. [Oobject]

This week, Gizmodo is exploring the enhanced human future in a segment we call This Cyborg Life. It's about what happens when we treat our body less as a sacred object and more as what it is: Nature's ultimate machine.

OK, so it looks like a flying condom.

NASA says that the six minute flight was a success. In fact, they said the vehicle flew better than expected. Good work, my dearest space boffins. Watch the video here.

Images by the AP

Southwest and Alaska Air are nearing tests of a new ad-supported Wi-Fi system. The hardware and software are installed by third parties with the goal to point fliers to an online catalog called the Skytown Center.

Whether you purchased Wi-Fi or not, you could do some shopping on the plane (with the participating retailers and advertisers footing the bill.) But the more tempting benefit is that airlines look to have most or all the costs associated with providing in-flight Wi-Fi covered under such sponsorships. So while there's no guarantee we'll be browsing the entire web for free, it seems a likely scenario that you'll be able to check your email if you're willing to deal with a few extra ads.

The service, powered by JiWire, will be launching this fall. [Marketing Vox via Mashable via Lifehacker]

Both phones use an enhanced TouchFLO 3D interface on top of WinMo 6.5, and here's how each breaks down:

The Tilt 2 is a QWERTY slider with "tilting" 3.6-inch WVGA touchscreen, dual speakers/microphones (with noise cancellation), and 3.2-megapixel camera. AT&T says it will be available in the coming weeks for $300 (after $50 rebate, with 2 year contract).

The Pure updates the Diamond2's look, and has a 3.2-inch WVGA touch screen, 5-megapixel autofocus camera, expandable memory, accelerometer, and ambient light sensor. It's available now for $150 (after $50 rebate, with 2 year contract).

Four New Opera-Powered Browser Phones

Samsung Mythic: A 3.3-inch touchscreen-only handset with Samsung's TouchWiz interface and access to AT&T Mobile TV, AT&T Navigator, AT&T Social Net, and att.net. Available in black come November for $200 (after $50 rebate; with 2 year contract). Pictured far-left.

Samsung Flight: A Vertical QWERTY slider with touchscreen geared for one-handed instant messaging. Available in red or silver in November: $100 (after $50 rebate; with 2 year contract). Pictured center.

Pantech Reveal: Arrives on October 18, and has a candy-bar style slide-down QWERTY keypad underneath a dedicated number pad. The Reveal is also 3G and GPS-equipped (with AT&T Navigator). No pricing/availability yet. Pictured far-right.

Pantech Impact: OLED touchscreen with haptic controls (you'll feel a soft, tactile buzz). Flipping the phone sideways reveals a QWERTY keyboard and second display. Will have tri-band 3G and be available in pink or blue. Again, stay tuned for pricing/availability. (Not pictured).

The modest distance (and height of about 5 feet) isn't a bad start in human-powered flight for a do-it-yourselfer. Dutchman Jesse van Kuijk hopes to go further in the future, without the bike chain powering his propeller slipping off its cog.

Though he's never flown in a real plane, Jesse says he studied self-powered craft like the Gossamer Condor and the English-Channel crossing Gossamer Albatross. He also got tips from the Albatross' pilot, American Bryan Allen, who is now a software engineer for the Mars exploration project.

So, what did you do this Summer? [Spiegel via Inhabitat]

As you can see in the video, it's all controllable in real-time. I'm not sure what they've got running this setup and these screens, but it's certainly powerful. And yeah, all the flight visualizations are awesome, I'd really love to get a game of Call of Duty rocking on this setup. [Fubiz via NotCot]

The Thunderbirds, aka the U.S. Air Force Air Demonstration Squadron, are comprised of eight pilots, four support officers, three civilians, and more than 130 enlisted personnel, say the folks at CNET who read over the unit's official fact sheet.

They typically fly for about an hour during an air show appearance, during which time they complete 30 jaw-dropping maneuvers and then presumably land. Although, not all the time. [CNET]

As many of you know, the steel or titanium black box is actually painted orange or red so it's easy to spot. And it's often actually two boxes (and in this case, one's a cylinder), with one "box" recording voice, one "box" recording data.

The voice recorder grabs two hours of audio feeds from pilot headsets and in-cockpit microphones. In recent years, it's gotten a digital upgrade that's less susceptible to environmental problems than tapes of yore.

The Flight Data Recorder (FDR) records measurements on about 88 different flight performance issues at an interval of once every few seconds. When the shit hits the fan (or, in some cases, the plane), the FDR records measurements at a faster rate.

But even with as neat as the black box may be from the standpoint of apocalyptic durability, it seems like a dated idea in an era when realtime wireless communication is available globally. [Wired and Getty]

[via gizmowatch]

UPDATE: According to The Telegraph, the device is called the JetLev-Flyer. It runs $227,000 and can be purchased here.

As Mark said, there's something strangely anthropomorphic about a giant, slightly-cartoony helium aircraft balloon going up, seen here at Flughafen Zürich. I love this almost as much as I love the word flughafen. Bring it to the US! [Aleksandra Mir via Like Cool]

Laughton's journey will commence from central London on Wednesday morning—on the ground, I presume—and will take him through some of Western Europe, then a large swath of Northern Africa. He'll take to flight when passing through the Pyrenees, then again to cross the Straits of Gibraltar and over the Moroccan Atlas Mountains.

His flight won't be limited though, and Laughton says he'll take off whenever he needs to, or feels like it.

The car was designed by the same team that put together the powered glider that (nearly) flew Bear Grylls over the top of Mount Everest for a TV stunt in 2007, but this machine is altogether more ambitious. Based on a ruggedized dune buggy, the Skycar carries a nylon "ParaWing" which can be fitted and deployed in about three minutes. By utilizing a giant propeller fan, the car is able to take off at about 45mph, after which it an reach a cruising speed of 70mph and an altitude of 3000ft, with the ceiling at a terrifying 15,000ft.

On the ground, the car is no slouch. It'll run 0-60mph in under five seconds, and top out at a bit above 100. Thought the car will spend most of its time on the ground, it can fly continuously for about 180 miles before needing to refuel.

The most interesting bit of this whole story isn't the gee-golly expedition, it's that the team, pending the success of the adventure, plans to sell the Skycar to the public. Though the project has so far cost them $380,000—much of which was dedicated to R&D—the boys think they could sell the whole kit, which would be street legal in the UK, for about $75,000. It's not exactly a Terrafugia, but it'll do. [Skycar via BBC]

The flight lasted just under an hour, and apparently all went according to plan. You can see some brief in-flight videos at Flightglobal.

I'm digging the design, resembling the two P-51s bolted together for the F-82 Twin Mustang—the last piston-engined fighter ever ordered into producation by the USAF. [Space Fellowship via Slashdot, Photo: Alan Radecki]

These delays are getting close to those Airbus saw with their A380 super jumbo—delays which nearly ruined the European consortium. The 787's most recent troubles are due to a 58-day machinist's strike at Boeing's plants here in the U.S. in September and October. The first test flight is now scheduled for second quarter 2009, with deliveries (first to Japan's ANA) beginning in 2010.[BBC, Photo: markjhandel/Flickr]

1. Your last bastion of Internet Free peace is gone. Forever. You'll be forced to work on flights instead of valium napping or reading comic books, and your boss will expect you to be checking email. Time to plan a camping trip.
2. Total bandwidth is not as fast as Cable Modem, but it seems faster than slow DSL. (We were sharing 3.6Mbps down and 1.8Mbps up, which isn't bad at all, on this Virgin America test flight, and it felt this fast when benching.)
3. But bandwidth is shared between customers. Aircell's GoGo a 3GHz EVDO-Rev A related tech modded for ground to air, started crawling as soon as other passengers signed on. (I got a test result measuring 66kbps down at one point, but Ryan showed about a mbit down. )
4. You have to pay. Virgin America charges, for example $9.95 for flights under 3 hours, and $12.95 on flights over 3 hours.
5. You will still need to close your laptops and shut off your devices until you reach cruising altitude.
6. Most airlines, even those that are not blocking ports, are blocking known VOIP ports. For our sanity. Although I WAS able to initiate a really solid iChat video session, but they may filter this on real flights. (See Below, courtesy of Nick Bilton from the NYTimes.)
7. Although plenty of airlines will have Wi-Fi by the end of next year, I prefer Virgin America because they've got 110v AC power plugs in coach.
8. WiFi porn won't be blocked by Virgin America (or American Airlines according to a test we performed earlier this week). But blocking porn is silly — people can easily play porn on DVDs or predownloaded files, but people generally have refrained so there's no reason to think they'll do otherwise now.
9. Flights using Go Go service will be able to connect to a VPN.
10. You can file share with other computers on the 802.11 a/b/g Wi-Fi network. That's good for gaming, but also, make sure your firewall is up.

Most of this applies to Virgin and GoGo's set up, but since GoGo will be providing service for companies like Delta and AA and eventually more, much of this will apply to other airlines.