FAA to lift mobile shut-down rule(zdnet.com)
zdnet.com
FAA to lift mobile shut-down rule
http://www.zdnet.com/faa-to-lift-mobile-shut-down-rule-7000021045/?s_cid=e550&ttag=e550
134 comments
As a commercial pilot I must say that cell phones and other electronics, have an influence in navigation and comunications.
It has evolved over time though, the past generation airliners (like B737-200 and MD80) that didn't have GPS or laser inertial navigation, used a magnetic sensor(it detects the earth magnetic fields and gives the data to the navigation instruments) that was easily disturbed by the first generation of cellphones. It could change your heading indication up to 40 degrees. The worst cases where due to the pilot's mobile. Also cd players and the first portable nintendos used to have a mesurable effect on those planes.
Modern airliners are better isolated and shielded, also modern electronics transmit with less watts and are better designed. It has become a smaller problem defenitely.
For example the problem with comunications is not a big one, it can be a bit annoying (like when you hear your car radio and the cell phone starts receiving a call), but I haven't hear of any mayor comunication failure or trouble caused by that.
The only problem remaining is that the most sensible fase of flight is a low visibility approach with the autopilot engaged. In this mode the airplane is using highly accurate radio signals from the ground station, and radio altimeter readings to guide itself till landing. The frecuencies are very different, but when you have 100 people trying to con ect their cellphones to call home and say that they are landing (while at 200 knots). The phones have to try very hard to connect to the ground antennas. This is not a problem if everything is working properly. But if a cable or a computer is in bad conditions(remember that avionics suffer from physical stress that is not usual to ground equipment: humity, vibration, shocks), that may cause bad signals that may triger a system failure (this is the best case as this way you may go around and try again safely), or just modify signals enough to degrade de autopilot behaviour but not trigger an alarm.
Although rare, this has happened and it's been the reason the prohibition has been kept all this time.
I suppose that the stadistical and technical study of this faults have led to understanding that this cases are more unusual than they used to be.
Also it's a fact that even if you ask people to shut down their electronics, there is always a part of the passengers that simply don't know how to do it (older people), have theirs at the checked luggage, forgot it on with the laptop(the rest of us), or simply ignore the crew and hide the phone. So effectively enforcing the prohibition was impossible.
I still recommend to set everything in flight mode at least for take off and landing, as we the pilots usually do (please don't tell anyone!), that way you'll also save battery.
> But if a cable or a computer is in bad conditions ... that may cause bad signals that may triger a system failure
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rusty_bolt_effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rusty_bolt_effect
Seems to me the answer is to put a cellphone "tower" in the plane so the phones all connect to that at low power and stay connected to one place. Meanwhile the plane itself can relay to ground via more sophisticated means designed for flight.
Or even not relay, depending. The point is to keep them at minimum power, not necessarily to allow phone calls.
I figure that if cellphones actually mattered, the FAA would have long since required such devices in airplanes.
I figure that if cellphones actually mattered, the FAA would have long since required such devices in airplanes.
Uh, I refuse to believe for a single second that any sane engineer would design an airplane that could be brought down by a cell phone in "bad conditions".
It's like building a house that can't stand rain.
It's like building a house that can't stand rain.
Most of today's airplanes were designed in the 70s at a time when the only small electronic devices were wristwatches and calculators. They've added shielding afterwards, but an airplane needs antennas and has to receive RF signals, so there will always be a possibility of interference. I exactly the same way that there will always be the possibility if a security hole in a computer connected to the internet, unless you mathematically prove every piece of code.
> there will always be the possibility [...] unless you mathematically prove
When people say "X is possible", they mean "X has a non-negligible chance of happening in practice", and is therefore worth worrying about.
They do NOT mean "Prob(X) > 0". You're already on the wrong track if you're talking about mathematical proofs of "possibility" in engineering.
When people say "X is possible", they mean "X has a non-negligible chance of happening in practice", and is therefore worth worrying about.
They do NOT mean "Prob(X) > 0". You're already on the wrong track if you're talking about mathematical proofs of "possibility" in engineering.
Unfortunately aviation safety is concerned with those 0.001% probabilities, because many of them tend to gang together and cause fatal accidents. Just like the sterile cockpit environment rule. What is the chance of some random thing being missed because the pilots were talking about an upcoming football game during landing, and moreover what is the chance of that oversight causing a real accident?
It's really, really, really small, with millions of successful flights done without problems. Yet accidents like those have happened, and have been prevented after that rule was put in place.
I was using mathematical proofs as an example of why in IT security, often times since you can't be sure, you do the proactive thing and don't run services exposed to the internet. If you have a database with credit card numbers, you don't let the DB listen for connections on a public IP, not because you think there is a security hole in the DB, but because you can't be sure there isn't.
It's really, really, really small, with millions of successful flights done without problems. Yet accidents like those have happened, and have been prevented after that rule was put in place.
I was using mathematical proofs as an example of why in IT security, often times since you can't be sure, you do the proactive thing and don't run services exposed to the internet. If you have a database with credit card numbers, you don't let the DB listen for connections on a public IP, not because you think there is a security hole in the DB, but because you can't be sure there isn't.
Yet accidents like those have happened, and have been prevented after that rule was put in place.
Links please?
Links please?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterile_Cockpit_Rule
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Air_Lines_Flight_212
Uh what? I thought we were talking about accidents caused by portable electronic devices.
The rule you point to was put in place because evidence strongly supported the fact that distracted pilots are a hazard.
No such evidence (that I know of) exists for portable electronic devices, and I don't believe for a single second that Boeing would make an airplane susceptible to harm by cell phones.
The rule you point to was put in place because evidence strongly supported the fact that distracted pilots are a hazard.
No such evidence (that I know of) exists for portable electronic devices, and I don't believe for a single second that Boeing would make an airplane susceptible to harm by cell phones.
I mentioned specific example of how very low probability events still caused accidents, you asked for links and I provided them.
If you want links to examples of PED interference, I've posted them elsewhere on this thread. All anecdotal of course, but there are enough examples that to say there's no chance if interference would imply a secret conspiracy amongst pilots to file false reports.
And again, you are misunderstanding the concern. It's not whether a cell phone can stop the airplane from working and make it fall out if the sky. It's whether, at a critical time such as during landing and takeoff, it may cause interference that can increase the pilots workload and contribute to an accident.
If you want links to examples of PED interference, I've posted them elsewhere on this thread. All anecdotal of course, but there are enough examples that to say there's no chance if interference would imply a secret conspiracy amongst pilots to file false reports.
And again, you are misunderstanding the concern. It's not whether a cell phone can stop the airplane from working and make it fall out if the sky. It's whether, at a critical time such as during landing and takeoff, it may cause interference that can increase the pilots workload and contribute to an accident.
Wow, thanks. Narrative 1 on the 55th page [1] is quite intriguing.
http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/docs/rpsts/ped.pdf
http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/docs/rpsts/ped.pdf
> but it drives me absolutely insane that flight attendants gripe at me about turning off my Kindle
I agree BUT you've got to remember that there are a ton of different devices in the world. You can't expect every flight attendant to know what the difference (visually) is between an iPhone and an iPod Touch is, let alone how to set every device to their equivalent "airplane mode."
Of all the rules I disagree with, this is the one that I understand the most.
> If they were actually that dangerous, we wouldn't be allowed to carry them on board.
My understanding (from a pilot friend of mine) that it is really about radio interference with the pilots' radios. Recall the older Edge (for ATT, whatever else for other providers) devices being put up near speakers and that sound made[0]. The rules are still there mainly to protect the pilots' ears from that noise and possibly dropping communication, though I don't know how possible that is. Yes, that isn't common place anymore now that radio frequencies have moved on but how is a flight attendant going to know the difference between an Edge device that causes interference and some 4G device that doesn't?
[0] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0O1_FYzbjw
I agree BUT you've got to remember that there are a ton of different devices in the world. You can't expect every flight attendant to know what the difference (visually) is between an iPhone and an iPod Touch is, let alone how to set every device to their equivalent "airplane mode."
Of all the rules I disagree with, this is the one that I understand the most.
> If they were actually that dangerous, we wouldn't be allowed to carry them on board.
My understanding (from a pilot friend of mine) that it is really about radio interference with the pilots' radios. Recall the older Edge (for ATT, whatever else for other providers) devices being put up near speakers and that sound made[0]. The rules are still there mainly to protect the pilots' ears from that noise and possibly dropping communication, though I don't know how possible that is. Yes, that isn't common place anymore now that radio frequencies have moved on but how is a flight attendant going to know the difference between an Edge device that causes interference and some 4G device that doesn't?
[0] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0O1_FYzbjw
Yeah, I feel the same way. If the FCC thinks it's fine, great. Otherwise, I can read a magazine for a few minutes.
The case that I suspect worries them isn't the well-manufactured, brand-new device on a shiny new plane. It's the older, banged-to-hell, third-rate Chinese knockoff against the oldest avionics in service. The question they have to answer isn't, "Should it be fine?" but "Can we prove it will never cause a glitch at the worst possible moment on the most problematic flight of the 10,000,000 we have each year?"
I'm astounded at the arrogance of random people who are sure they know the answer to that based on zero data and a strong sense of entitlement.
The case that I suspect worries them isn't the well-manufactured, brand-new device on a shiny new plane. It's the older, banged-to-hell, third-rate Chinese knockoff against the oldest avionics in service. The question they have to answer isn't, "Should it be fine?" but "Can we prove it will never cause a glitch at the worst possible moment on the most problematic flight of the 10,000,000 we have each year?"
I'm astounded at the arrogance of random people who are sure they know the answer to that based on zero data and a strong sense of entitlement.
If "older, banged-to-hell, third-rate Chinese knockoff against the oldest avionics in service" is, indeed, a threat scenario, then "Things which resemble a Gameboy" would rate at least as high as water on the "Stuff we will not let you take on a plane" list. Al Qaeda can procure old Chinese electronics, or custom-modded Arudinos in casings which resemble iPhones, for that matter.
[Edit for background:
The case against water is "Water is difficult to tell, by cursory visual inspection, from a binary explosive. We've never actually lost a plane to a binary explosive, but we know they were pretty serious about trying that, and we wargamed it out and it looks like one liter of binary explosive applied to the right part of the right airplane means we have a very bad day." ]
[Edit for background:
The case against water is "Water is difficult to tell, by cursory visual inspection, from a binary explosive. We've never actually lost a plane to a binary explosive, but we know they were pretty serious about trying that, and we wargamed it out and it looks like one liter of binary explosive applied to the right part of the right airplane means we have a very bad day." ]
I don't think so. The threat scenario that worries me for cheap electronics isn't "flying along in the blue sky and suddenly the plane crashes".
Its "distraction of pilot or minor technical disruption during a difficult landing at a moment that has become crucial because of other issues."
Al Qaeda can't afford to put terrorists with custom electronics on an appreciable fraction of our 10m flights a year hoping they get one of the 10 most vulnerable ones.
But those flights will have hundreds of electronic devices on them. Being 100% sure that there will be zero problems is tricky. And given that the tradeoff is, "people have to read a magazine for a few minutes" versus "fiery death for hundreds", I'm perfectly ok with them being conservative here.
Its "distraction of pilot or minor technical disruption during a difficult landing at a moment that has become crucial because of other issues."
Al Qaeda can't afford to put terrorists with custom electronics on an appreciable fraction of our 10m flights a year hoping they get one of the 10 most vulnerable ones.
But those flights will have hundreds of electronic devices on them. Being 100% sure that there will be zero problems is tricky. And given that the tradeoff is, "people have to read a magazine for a few minutes" versus "fiery death for hundreds", I'm perfectly ok with them being conservative here.
I'm astounded at the arrogance of random people who are sure they know the answer to that based on zero data and a strong sense of entitlement.
I keep getting back to what was already said above: if there was any actual risk whatsoever, we wouldn't be allowed to carry them on in the first place.
I keep getting back to what was already said above: if there was any actual risk whatsoever, we wouldn't be allowed to carry them on in the first place.
That's dumb, just because someone isn't willing to go to an extreme measure to prevent something doesn't mean that more moderate measures are unreasonable. Banning all electronic devices on airplanes would be a major headache for everyone involved and would probably be overkill, but the risk is still non-zero and asking passengers to turn devices off for a few minutes during the two most dangerous times in a flight is perfectly reasonable.
Banning all electronic devices on airplanes would be a major headache for everyone involved
I think we've seen that this is not a problem for the Powers that Be. It's not as if the TSA chairman ever has to fly coach.
and would probably be overkill
I'm certain that we've seen that this is not an obstacle for implementation by the government.
but the risk is still non-zero
(Shrug) Zero accidents out of tens of millions of flights in which you can be pretty sure that at least one passenger has left their phone on. Close enough to zero risk for me.
I think we've seen that this is not a problem for the Powers that Be. It's not as if the TSA chairman ever has to fly coach.
and would probably be overkill
I'm certain that we've seen that this is not an obstacle for implementation by the government.
but the risk is still non-zero
(Shrug) Zero accidents out of tens of millions of flights in which you can be pretty sure that at least one passenger has left their phone on. Close enough to zero risk for me.
You're still welcome to get a PPL and have as many cell phones as you wish turned on while you fly.
If you think anything that doesn't directly cause accidents aren't worth regulating, you don't truly appreciate why we have such good air safety.
Letting he pilots chit-chat when landing can't hurt either, right? Millions of successful flights before the sterile cockpit environment idea came about, would perhaps seem like close to zero risk for you, yet we are all safer now because of it.
If you think anything that doesn't directly cause accidents aren't worth regulating, you don't truly appreciate why we have such good air safety.
Letting he pilots chit-chat when landing can't hurt either, right? Millions of successful flights before the sterile cockpit environment idea came about, would perhaps seem like close to zero risk for you, yet we are all safer now because of it.
Life offers you no guarantees, and risk avoidance costs money, time, and convenience. How safe do you want to be? Speaking for myself, I was fine about three nines ago.
That's the problem though. You don't fly thousands of passengers each day and have seen several of your peers bankrupted or seriously financially wounded by a single high profile accident, so you might have a different view on the risks compared to the ones running the airline.
By definition I take far more risk when flying a single-prop light aircraft, and I'm fine with that. What I don't expect is to be able to force that risk level on other people.
By definition I take far more risk when flying a single-prop light aircraft, and I'm fine with that. What I don't expect is to be able to force that risk level on other people.
But you haven't shown that there is any risk, and neither has anyone else. Which (again) is why we're still allowed to bring electronic devices up to and including cell phones onboard passenger aircraft.
You can't run a civilization on the Precautionary Principle. You understand that, right? Most people understand that, but the TSA and (until now) FAA don't seem to.
You can't run a civilization on the Precautionary Principle. You understand that, right? Most people understand that, but the TSA and (until now) FAA don't seem to.
It's trivially easy to show that there is a risk of interference, the question is just how big the risk is, and whether turning devices off during takeoffs and landings is worth the inconvenience.
And as mentioned elsewhere there had been reproducible incidents of interference reported, which was the initial reason for the ban.
While I have long maintained that the ban is most likely not necessary, I'd much rather have he FAA make that decision and wait a few years until they have done enough studies and collected enough data.
I agree that we can't run the entire civilization on a precautionary principle, but then again that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about 10-20 minutes of inconvenience during critical flight phases. And believe me I hate the beurocracy and often overreaching rules of the FAA (or EASA in my case), but again I appreciate that we would not have he current air safety record without it. In fact, the FAA is usually reactionary in that they usually only act when fatal accidents have happened. (Pilot and crew rest hour limits is one very recent example).
And as mentioned elsewhere there had been reproducible incidents of interference reported, which was the initial reason for the ban.
While I have long maintained that the ban is most likely not necessary, I'd much rather have he FAA make that decision and wait a few years until they have done enough studies and collected enough data.
I agree that we can't run the entire civilization on a precautionary principle, but then again that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about 10-20 minutes of inconvenience during critical flight phases. And believe me I hate the beurocracy and often overreaching rules of the FAA (or EASA in my case), but again I appreciate that we would not have he current air safety record without it. In fact, the FAA is usually reactionary in that they usually only act when fatal accidents have happened. (Pilot and crew rest hour limits is one very recent example).
But you haven't shown that there is any risk, and neither has anyone else.
Shouldn't it be the other way around? Shouldn't the onus be on proving that there is no risk, not that there is?
Shouldn't it be the other way around? Shouldn't the onus be on proving that there is no risk, not that there is?
That's called the Precautionary Principle.
It would have kept us confined to the caves, if not the trees.
It would have kept us confined to the caves, if not the trees.
This rests on the false premise that everything is stacked against the consumer. It isn't; there's a balancing of risks that takes place, but you clearly have an axe to grind so I'll let you get on with it.
I'm the one with the axe to grind?!
Dude, if I said the sky was blue, you'd post a response to Hacker News insisting it was green.
Dude, if I said the sky was blue, you'd post a response to Hacker News insisting it was green.
Agreed. And there's been a few cases of (presumably poorly shielded) laptops in the 90s causing interference, to the point where the pilot would see the effect appearing/disappearing when the passenger turned on/off the laptop. The ban came about as a proactive measure because of these reports.
Remember that a radio is useless if you can't tune it to a certain channel. If the avionics can tune to various navigation channels, then they can probably reject noise from shitty electronics.
I wonder how much power it takes to desense a GPS receiver, however.
I wonder how much power it takes to desense a GPS receiver, however.
I wonder how much power it takes to desense a GPS receiver, however.
Terrifyingly little, it turns out. Signals from the GPS constellation are about as 'bright' as a light bulb several thousand miles away, and the modulation format usable by civilian receivers is not exactly jam-resistant.
Thankfully there's no reason for a GPS antenna on an aircraft to look anywhere but straight up. It can be well-shielded against interference from within the cabin. Still, GPS interference is a real, reproducible and documented issue, unlike the cargo-cult science being discussed here.
Terrifyingly little, it turns out. Signals from the GPS constellation are about as 'bright' as a light bulb several thousand miles away, and the modulation format usable by civilian receivers is not exactly jam-resistant.
Thankfully there's no reason for a GPS antenna on an aircraft to look anywhere but straight up. It can be well-shielded against interference from within the cabin. Still, GPS interference is a real, reproducible and documented issue, unlike the cargo-cult science being discussed here.
> My understanding (from a pilot friend of mine) that it is really about radio interference with the pilots' radios
If it was the case, this would be a complaint we hear from pilots every day. Think of how many people simply forget to turn off their cell phones...
If it was the case, this would be a complaint we hear from pilots every day. Think of how many people simply forget to turn off their cell phones...
In the past few years I've noticed this pattern more and more - flight attendant asks passenger to turn off iPhone, passenger simply pushes the top button to turn off the screen, flight attendant accepts this. So flight attendants either don't know or don't care that turning the screen off doesn't turn off the device.
I'd be willing to bet that most people don't bother to actually turn off devices / switch to airplane mode. On a flight last month I even watched a guy turn off the screen on his iPad when asked to shut it off, then as soon as the attendant walked away he turned it on again and continued to use it throughout take-off.
I'd be willing to bet that most people don't bother to actually turn off devices / switch to airplane mode. On a flight last month I even watched a guy turn off the screen on his iPad when asked to shut it off, then as soon as the attendant walked away he turned it on again and continued to use it throughout take-off.
Not necessarily. Avionics fail all the time and it's pretty much impossible for pilots to pinpoint a specific incident to cell phone interference. I've had at least one incident where the pilot came in the PA and asked us twice in flight to make sure all electronic devices were off, because they had problems with the instruments.
As far as I understand it [studied electronics engineering and a private pilot] the main problem is with faulty devices. Although it is very unlikely, a faulty device potentially can act as nasty source of interference at _any_ frequency. Effectively blocking this frequency.
And although it is not a problem for a pilot in normal conditions, it could be a factor that complicates things for a pilot. If the visibility on a takeoff/landing is bad, there is traffic congestion, air traffic control is stretched to the limit you'd definitely don't want a faulty cell phone suddenly jamming an ILS approach system ;)
And although it is not a problem for a pilot in normal conditions, it could be a factor that complicates things for a pilot. If the visibility on a takeoff/landing is bad, there is traffic congestion, air traffic control is stretched to the limit you'd definitely don't want a faulty cell phone suddenly jamming an ILS approach system ;)
I'd love to see some real-world examples of this sort of thing. The inverse-square law coupled with the power output of your average iPod makes me seriously question how effectively even a seriously fritzing device could interfere with communications.
I'm sure it happens (the post a bit back about the guy's laptop that was broadcasting mic input due to wacky wiring is a great example), but I'm really dubious that it's significant enough to actually interfere with comms from a system designed to throw radio signals 200 miles.
I'm sure it happens (the post a bit back about the guy's laptop that was broadcasting mic input due to wacky wiring is a great example), but I'm really dubious that it's significant enough to actually interfere with comms from a system designed to throw radio signals 200 miles.
The power density from a 5MW transmitter at 1km and 100 10W cell phones at 10m is about the same. But you have to remember that the navigation antennas are outside the metal body of the plane, so the phones probably don't matter.
Sometimes you hear interference from GSM phones because the TDMA time divisions are in the AF range, but that's really a function of the power envelope rather than the power of the transmitter. I don't even really count this because I've never seen a GSM phone interfere with a non-part-15 device. Radios have to reject nearby signals; noise well outside their frequency range is even easier to reject. (I've never heard anything like GSM interference while operating my HF radio, either, and I have a GSM phone.)
Sometimes you hear interference from GSM phones because the TDMA time divisions are in the AF range, but that's really a function of the power envelope rather than the power of the transmitter. I don't even really count this because I've never seen a GSM phone interfere with a non-part-15 device. Radios have to reject nearby signals; noise well outside their frequency range is even easier to reject. (I've never heard anything like GSM interference while operating my HF radio, either, and I have a GSM phone.)
Take a look at the description of ILS system. Markers - 75MhZ, 3 Watt; Localizer - 108 MhZ, 50 Watt.
These are local nav systems, not FM stations that put kilowatts into the air.
These are local nav systems, not FM stations that put kilowatts into the air.
Not any frequency, the radios have physical limitations that only allow them to transmit on a small range of frequencies. They can certainly cause interference outside of the bands they were designed to operate on, though.
Yes, any frequency. Remember we are talking about a faulty piece of electronic. With some pretty weird fault. Not just a transmitter operating in an almost normal mode.
Take an ILS (instrumental approach) frequency 108Mhz. Any piece of wire of around two feet (half dipole) can be a pretty effective antenna at that frequency. Say, headset cable + an output cascade of the amplifier self-excited at this frequency? Doesn't happen in real life, but still...
Take an ILS (instrumental approach) frequency 108Mhz. Any piece of wire of around two feet (half dipole) can be a pretty effective antenna at that frequency. Say, headset cable + an output cascade of the amplifier self-excited at this frequency? Doesn't happen in real life, but still...
Remember that your faulty headphones are inside a big faraday cage, and the nav antennas are outside.
I am not sure how much effect this has, but it's something to keep in mind.
I am not sure how much effect this has, but it's something to keep in mind.
Are airplanes really that effective as faraday cages? If they were, it wouldn't be possible to use a cellphone inside one at all, and this wouldn't have been a debate to begin with.
I find that having a nondescript black case for my kindle makes it look enough like a book or journal that flight attendants have plausible deniability to claim that it didn't look like an electronic device.
Call it the e-book equivalent to brown bagging a beer on the street.
Call it the e-book equivalent to brown bagging a beer on the street.
I fly twice a week and have found that the actual rule enforced by flight attendants seems to be, "Don't force me to see it."
This argument is false. It's a matter of reducing the possibility of interference, not eliminating it (which you can't do). Lithium batteries can and have caused in flight fires, would you start claiming that they physically can't, just because we are still allowed to bring them onboard?
Lithium batteries are the perfect example. We still bring them on board despite their dangers.
Also see http://xkcd.com/651/
I think almost every plane in the US these days has a bunch of phones with their radios fully active. People simply ignore the instructions. I'd love to see the raw signal and position data from cell towers near the airport.
You solution is to fly business or first class. IME, they just 'suggest' that you turn things off there.
It really, really, depends on the FAs and flight. Sometimes I'll openly have my tablet running, watching a movie or whatever, other times I've had an FA insist I actually power off a Kindle (hold down the switch).
Certainly. However, in cattle car, it's the rubber hose, and no warning.
Alec Baldwin disagrees.
Was it ever known if that was a marketing stunt for Zynga/Words with Friends? The articles I read about the incident pointed out the app specifically, which lead to some speculation.
Words with Friends kind of presupposes cellular connectivity, albeit not with a lot of traffic.
I believe Baldwin's plane was either still at the gate or parked on the runway at the time. He still could have turned it off prior to actual takeoff.
Yeah, it's a little annoying, but it really drives you absolutely insane? You really can't just turn it off for a few minutes without whining, "but, it's a kinnnnndle"?
I don't think flight attendants should be required to identify and evaluate each device and its capabilities. They are trying to keep planes flying safely and on-time.
Probably like most, I sensed (but didn't know for certain) that the rule might be overkill, but I don't think it's completely unreasonable and I assumed that someone must have seen some degree of at least theoretical risk, then traded that off against passengers reading a magazine or actually talking to a neighbor for a few minutes.
And, in any case, I certainly don't pin it on the flight attendants.
Something about that attitude of being irate or angry about it just comes off as entitled and bratty. Like, "how dare you pry me away from my precious device for a few minutes in the name of public safety".
Makes me think, "Wow. Get over yourself."
I don't think flight attendants should be required to identify and evaluate each device and its capabilities. They are trying to keep planes flying safely and on-time.
Probably like most, I sensed (but didn't know for certain) that the rule might be overkill, but I don't think it's completely unreasonable and I assumed that someone must have seen some degree of at least theoretical risk, then traded that off against passengers reading a magazine or actually talking to a neighbor for a few minutes.
And, in any case, I certainly don't pin it on the flight attendants.
Something about that attitude of being irate or angry about it just comes off as entitled and bratty. Like, "how dare you pry me away from my precious device for a few minutes in the name of public safety".
Makes me think, "Wow. Get over yourself."
To give cheald the benefit of the doubt, the rage may be more due to absurdity and illogic rather than entitlement. It would be like someone denying you an after-dinner mint because it might attract crocodiles.
>It would be like someone denying you an after-dinner mint because it might attract crocodiles.
That's pretty funny. But, no. It wouldn't.
That's pretty funny. But, no. It wouldn't.
The thing that gets me about these rules is what an insane threat to national security it would be if they were actually necessary. If anyone really thought that mobile devices could significantly interfere with instruments on an airplane, they should 1) raise hell over fixing our obviously broken planes, and 2) demand that we put some effort into actually making sure that people are turning their cell phones off (for instance, by actually checking, rather than asking politely).
It's a matter of trade-offs of convenience vs "better safe than sorry". It's not a binary either-or decision. Just like with lithium batteries, which can still cause nasty fires. Yet they aren't banned because if they were, it would be a huge inconvenience.
This looks like it will change little. You'll still not be able to listen to music on your device (even if the music is local to the drive) during takeoff and landing.
The only change is that you can leave your phone in airplane mode instead of having to power it down.
I don't know anybody that actually listened to the flight attendants. Most people just put their phones in airplane mode anyway.
So basically nothing actually changes. It would be nice to be able to listen to my music without having to hide my headphones so I don't get yelled at.
At least on Virgin they don't bother you because they just assume you're using their entertainment system (which I'd imagine generates more interference then whatever your little device does). I guess on their system you have to watch advertising though - makes it worth it to them.
The only change is that you can leave your phone in airplane mode instead of having to power it down.
I don't know anybody that actually listened to the flight attendants. Most people just put their phones in airplane mode anyway.
So basically nothing actually changes. It would be nice to be able to listen to my music without having to hide my headphones so I don't get yelled at.
At least on Virgin they don't bother you because they just assume you're using their entertainment system (which I'd imagine generates more interference then whatever your little device does). I guess on their system you have to watch advertising though - makes it worth it to them.
Huh. Why would you not be able to listen to music in airplane mode? I always do it on my phone, as I have them on my SD card. Now with the new rule when you will be able to keep the phones in airplane mode while take off and landing, I should be able to listen to music without interruption.
Taxi, takeoff and landing are the most critical parts of a flight. If something goes wrong and you can't hear instructions, chaos etc because your distracted with your music then you are a danger to yourself and your seatmates around you.
Is that actually an official position though? I've only ever heard it as post hoc rationalization. There might be a bit of sense to it, but on the other hand, it's not hard to jostle someone into paying attention, as I'm sure your neighbors would. They don't prevent you from going to sleep before takeoff or landing, and that's at least as difficult a context switch.
Nor do they forbid you from being deaf during takeoff. They may ask you to change seats, so perhaps it is reasonable to ask that people sitting in those particular seats not have headphones on, but otherwise listening to music seems fine to me.
At least in Canada, you're only allowed to have headphones on if they're earbuds (easy to quickly remove) and connected to the in-flight sound system (so you still hear announcements). I haven't paid attention to the onboard safety dance in ages, so I don't recall what it is elsewhere.
Justification being that earbuds don't get in the way as much as headphones.
There is literally no end to the inanity of bureaucracy.
There is literally no end to the inanity of bureaucracy.
My in-ear monitors are much more difficult to remove (not to mention get in) than headphones.
If something goes wrong, you're going to take your earbuds out well before you have a chance to actually do anything.
Agreed. Landing and takeoff are the most stressful parts of the flight. I need to be jamming out during those times to maintain a level of calmness.
And it's not like if something goes wrong I won't notice. They'll probably be a big thud or other loud noise to get my attention.
And it's not like if something goes wrong I won't notice. They'll probably be a big thud or other loud noise to get my attention.
They want your attention in case something goes wrong.
I understand this argument, but I've never seen anyone be asked to take out earplugs or stop reading their book to listen to the preflight briefing. It's silly policy with silly justifications.
It's silly until your plane skids sideways on the runway, requires an emergency evacuation, and you're the idiot in the exit row who has no idea what to do because you can't be bothered to give a shit about it.
It's silly when the plane is almost parked at the gate, everybody stands up, and then the plane jolts to a stop against the blocks, causing a whole plane full of people to fall all over each other and get hurt because they couldn't sit down for another ten seconds, until the bell rang, like they were told to.
It's silly when the cabin door opens at 10,000 feet after takeoff, nearly sucking out passengers who, thank god, decided not to ignore the "keep your seatbelt fastened" warnings (the plane descended/slowed down and the attendants were able to get the door closed. The flight continued to Germany without stopping).
Hey, you know that live/die seat up/down joke? Turns out it's not about you; it's about not making it difficult for the people in the row behind you to evacuate.
Can you imagine the sighs and groans of the first-world aggrieved, if they were instructed to temporarily cease their addictions?
It's silly when the plane is almost parked at the gate, everybody stands up, and then the plane jolts to a stop against the blocks, causing a whole plane full of people to fall all over each other and get hurt because they couldn't sit down for another ten seconds, until the bell rang, like they were told to.
It's silly when the cabin door opens at 10,000 feet after takeoff, nearly sucking out passengers who, thank god, decided not to ignore the "keep your seatbelt fastened" warnings (the plane descended/slowed down and the attendants were able to get the door closed. The flight continued to Germany without stopping).
Hey, you know that live/die seat up/down joke? Turns out it's not about you; it's about not making it difficult for the people in the row behind you to evacuate.
Can you imagine the sighs and groans of the first-world aggrieved, if they were instructed to temporarily cease their addictions?
You've managed to completely miss my point.
If the policy were about making sure that people were paying attention, then they would interrupt people sleeping, reading dead tree books, wearing earplugs, or doing anything else that takes their attention off of the attendant. They don't.
The policy has been retconned into being about attention, but the claim that it's about paying attention is belied by actual behavior.
If the policy were about making sure that people were paying attention, then they would interrupt people sleeping, reading dead tree books, wearing earplugs, or doing anything else that takes their attention off of the attendant. They don't.
The policy has been retconned into being about attention, but the claim that it's about paying attention is belied by actual behavior.
Wow. This is one of the most melodramatic and disconnected-from-reality comments I've ever seen on HN. And that's saying something, recently.
>It's silly until your plane skids sideways on the runway,
Um, so we're to believe it's the headphones that caused this? Most likely if the plane is skidding all over and there's a major emergency, the headphones aren't going to prevent someone from noticing. I'd be far more worried about sleepy passengers or something. In fact, in your scenarios, you wouldn't even be in an exit row, as you'd be apparently too disconnected from reality to verbally say OK to their request for assistance if needed prior to takeoff.
Um, so we're to believe it's the headphones that caused this? Most likely if the plane is skidding all over and there's a major emergency, the headphones aren't going to prevent someone from noticing. I'd be far more worried about sleepy passengers or something. In fact, in your scenarios, you wouldn't even be in an exit row, as you'd be apparently too disconnected from reality to verbally say OK to their request for assistance if needed prior to takeoff.
You really think if all of these is happening and you'd have no idea what's going on? And of course, for the first time flyers, it's still a good idea to listen to what they are talking about (they'd anyway do it). But those who are flying almost everyday, the instructions are not changing regularly. Who listens to them anyway on a regular basis?
Agreed it's a silly policy. Anecdotally I was asked to remove my headphones during a flight I took about three weeks ago. My headphones are Etymotic mc3 which I use as earplugs during takeoff and landings. I was sitting in an exit row across from a flight attendant who was facing me in her jumpseat. She had no problem with me wearing them (she could see they weren't connected to my iPod), but the head flight attendant came over and told me to remove them for takeoff.
As the engines were throttling up for take off, I put my fingers in my ears to (I'm an acoustical consultant and my livelihood depends on my ears so I'm a stickler for protecting my hearing) - the FA sitting across from me saw me do that and told me to go ahead and put my headphones back in.
As the engines were throttling up for take off, I put my fingers in my ears to (I'm an acoustical consultant and my livelihood depends on my ears so I'm a stickler for protecting my hearing) - the FA sitting across from me saw me do that and told me to go ahead and put my headphones back in.
if something goes wrong, I'm pretty anyone would take their headphones off!
This is all total nonsense, cell phones don't interfere with pilot communications and unless you put all the cellphones right next to the radios which are of course in a big shielded box up front!
This is all total nonsense, cell phones don't interfere with pilot communications and unless you put all the cellphones right next to the radios which are of course in a big shielded box up front!
the NYTimes article disagrees with you:
> The guidelines are expected to allow reading e-books or other publications, listening to podcasts, and watching videos, ...
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/23/technology/faa-nears-new-r...
> The guidelines are expected to allow reading e-books or other publications, listening to podcasts, and watching videos, ...
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/23/technology/faa-nears-new-r...
Wait a minute, really? Planes with onboard radio stations in the armrests broadcast during takeoff and landing, and I've used headphones with those. How would using your own advice be any different?
The armrest stations are interrupted for deafening announcements over the PA system.
They are different because you can't hear emergency announcements. The in-seat audio is able to cut across to an announcement if necessary.
I think those are wired.
In the past year, I've been on three flights where a passenger's phone started ringing during takeoff. Nobody seemed alarmed.
They've been getting more aggressive about saying: "Turn off your cell phones. Off means off. Not just airplane mode. Off."
Nobody listens. I certainly don't listen. My SOP is airplane mode for iPhone and iPad with MacBook Pro just sleeping.
They've been getting more aggressive about saying: "Turn off your cell phones. Off means off. Not just airplane mode. Off."
Nobody listens. I certainly don't listen. My SOP is airplane mode for iPhone and iPad with MacBook Pro just sleeping.
This is my experience as well, although on Royal Jordanian and Emirates, they actually have in flight cell phone service. Few people bothered to have their phones away, much less off, and nothing happened.
And these are on Boeing & Airbus aircraft, the very same ones that United & Delta are using.
I hope this rule does change. There's simply no reason to yell at people to turn cell phones off anymore.
I hope this rule does change. There's simply no reason to yell at people to turn cell phones off anymore.
The last flight I was on, there was a guy taking pics with his phone during take off. Nobody noticed.
All of these rules usually drive me crazy. I'm a private pilot and I'll take up friends and coworkers for fun all the time. The most common question before we take off is "Do I need to turn off my phone?" which I usually reply with "I leave mine on for backup GPS". I do understand the need to stow away items to prevent injuries if anything were to suddenly happen during takeoff and landing, but telling people to turn off their devices because, and I've heard this before, "they will interfere with the navigation systems" is just false.
All these rules are there for a reason. I completely agree with you that it is perfectly all right to leave electronics on when you are giving rides. Even in the very unlikely chance that a device that your friend has is faulty, and by some wild chance it self-excited at an entirely wrong frequency and started transmitting wildly at CTAF, so what... It is a perfect day, and you'll land no problem.
But airline pilots are routinely flying IMC. They do want their radio aids working. And there is just no knowing what faulty device of some shady manufacturing one of these five hundred passengers is using. Who knows. May as well " interfere with the navigation systems" at a wrong moment.
But airline pilots are routinely flying IMC. They do want their radio aids working. And there is just no knowing what faulty device of some shady manufacturing one of these five hundred passengers is using. Who knows. May as well " interfere with the navigation systems" at a wrong moment.
And there is just no knowing what faulty device of some shady manufacturing one of these five hundred passengers is using.
Except that faulty device is already on the plane, and the lowest estimate seems to be there's about a 1-in-3 chance it's powered on already, despite regulations saying it needs to be off.
As many people are at pains to point out, if there were sufficient risk to justify action, then we would not be needing to have a debate and point to anecdotes (of which there are some in this discussion) from commercial pilots who once experienced an equipment problem and said "well, I heard maybe a cell phone could cause that". We would know beyond question that something's up from the corresponding number of serious incidents.
Except that faulty device is already on the plane, and the lowest estimate seems to be there's about a 1-in-3 chance it's powered on already, despite regulations saying it needs to be off.
As many people are at pains to point out, if there were sufficient risk to justify action, then we would not be needing to have a debate and point to anecdotes (of which there are some in this discussion) from commercial pilots who once experienced an equipment problem and said "well, I heard maybe a cell phone could cause that". We would know beyond question that something's up from the corresponding number of serious incidents.
Planes crash due to their own mechanical failures far, far more often. If we were to use that logic, than flying itself is already unsafe.
If your phone is using the 800 MHz band (such as Verizon CDMA), then you are breaking FCC rules.
"Federal Communications Commission rules prohibit the use of cellular phones using the 800 MHz frequency and other wireless devices on airborne aircraft. The ban was put in place because of potential interference to wireless networks on the ground."
http://www.fcc.gov/guides/wireless-devices-airplanes
"Federal Communications Commission rules prohibit the use of cellular phones using the 800 MHz frequency and other wireless devices on airborne aircraft. The ban was put in place because of potential interference to wireless networks on the ground."
http://www.fcc.gov/guides/wireless-devices-airplanes
As a private pilot I've had to turn off GSM on tablets and phones to avoid interference in the headset. I still try to keep one cell phone on in case of an emergency.
There has been a few reported incidents with laptops etc causing interference with nav systems. While the rule may be too strict, I understand the "better safe than sorry" approach.
There has been a few reported incidents with laptops etc causing interference with nav systems. While the rule may be too strict, I understand the "better safe than sorry" approach.
>There has been a few reported incidents with laptops etc causing interference with nav systems.
Do you have a source for that?
Do you have a source for that?
http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/docs/rpsts/ped.pdf
Search for "laptop" and you have a few examples of spurious TCAS RAs.
In some older report there was a specific instance where the pilot out of curiosity had the passenger turn the device back on, and had the problem reappear (this was in cruise so there was more time to debug the problem). Google for NASA PED reports and it should be in one of them.
Search for "laptop" and you have a few examples of spurious TCAS RAs.
In some older report there was a specific instance where the pilot out of curiosity had the passenger turn the device back on, and had the problem reappear (this was in cruise so there was more time to debug the problem). Google for NASA PED reports and it should be in one of them.
What headset? I'm curious because I've never even heard of that happening.
Standard David Clark. I think it's a bigger problem with GSM which uses TDMA (the noise is caused by the cell phone transmitting only at specific intervals and therefore rapidly switching on and off, causing the buzzing noise).
Interesting. That's the same pair I use DC H10-13.4s and have never run into this. Good to know though.
I will be beyond happy to be able to listen to my own music, read off my iPad, and just begin the whole process of ignoring the goings-on in the flight. Travel will be so much better without the useless electronics rules.
Now to get rid of the TSA...
Now to get rid of the TSA...
Isn't this mainly an FCC restriction? [1]
I thought the main idea was to prevent phones from constantly jumping between towers... does the FAA have much to do with this in reality?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_on_aircraft
I thought the main idea was to prevent phones from constantly jumping between towers... does the FAA have much to do with this in reality?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_on_aircraft
>I thought
See, it is one of the problems caused when authorities lie to people.
>the main idea was to prevent phones from constantly jumping between towers.
Cell tower interference is the only reason that's ever been offered that even passes the giggle test, but even the FCC now is telling the FAA to ease up on the silly rules.
See, it is one of the problems caused when authorities lie to people.
>the main idea was to prevent phones from constantly jumping between towers.
Cell tower interference is the only reason that's ever been offered that even passes the giggle test, but even the FCC now is telling the FAA to ease up on the silly rules.
Good. These rules are ridiculous and not founded in reality. No consumer communication device is going to cause harmful interference with avionics or communications equipment, especially in modern planes with double redundancy and heavy shielding. These rules, just like many others, are rooted in nothing more than tradition and superstition.
long overdue, everytime i fly i probably see 50% of the people NOT turning off their phones. even more painful is seeing the flight attendant try to actually explain why people need to shut off their devices
Yeah, I understand the logic behind "The FCC/FAA cannot test every single device for airplane use" but as far as I can tell so many people ignore this rule that if it really were a problem, airplanes would be dropping out of the sky like bricks every day. Many, if not most, people ignore the rule, so it probably isn't a big deal in reality.
The issue is when shit hits the fan then will you be able to depend on communications with air traffic control? Other people will be reaching for their phones at the same time, surely radio congestion is a real concern.
Or it used to be.
Or it used to be.
When the shit hits the fan, I wouldn't expect people to be playing by the rules and leaving their phones off.
I strongly suspect that cellphone networks falling over because too many people are trying to call their families are not going to stop a pilot from talking with air traffic control. Maybe I'm wrong there, but I really don't think I am.
Regardless, that is what 'airplane mode' is for. Having the device on but not the radio isn't really about that.
Regardless, that is what 'airplane mode' is for. Having the device on but not the radio isn't really about that.
>The issue is when shit hits the fan then will you be able to depend on communications with air traffic control?
Yes, when the SHTF aircraft comms will work as designed, not even close to the same frequency bands, nor modulation techniques, nor power output levels. Not even a slight chance that cell phones will interfere.
In my minimal experience with airplane crashes[1], the aircraft's electrical system was kaput, and I relayed communications to/from ATC and Fire Dept. via ... wait for it, the pilot's personal cell phone.
[1] I ran an FBO at a tiny municipal airport during college (I re-fueled aircraft). I only participated in a few airplane crashes during my tenure there.
Yes, when the SHTF aircraft comms will work as designed, not even close to the same frequency bands, nor modulation techniques, nor power output levels. Not even a slight chance that cell phones will interfere.
In my minimal experience with airplane crashes[1], the aircraft's electrical system was kaput, and I relayed communications to/from ATC and Fire Dept. via ... wait for it, the pilot's personal cell phone.
[1] I ran an FBO at a tiny municipal airport during college (I re-fueled aircraft). I only participated in a few airplane crashes during my tenure there.
If you want to compare a commercial aircraft with 2-3 independent radios and electrical systems to a light aircraft, I can as well, and I'm happy to tell you that it's trivial to get a cell phone or tablet to cause annoying interference in the headset. I have to turn some of them off during flights, but always keep at least one of them on and away from the instrument panel, in case of an emergency or radio failure (which has actually happened to me once).
> I'm happy to tell you that it's trivial to get a cell phone or tablet to cause annoying interference in the headset.
I'm happy to tell you that your concerns are trivial. GSM chirping noises in your headset are merely annoying. There are all sorts of other electrical noise sources in light piston powered aircraft, and if they were ever a suspected cause of crashes, wouldn't be allowed to persist, specifically, alternator noise, strobe light generated noise, magneto noise from unshielded p-leads or plug wires, etc. Use shielded signal cable and noise filters on your intercoms if you don't want to hear it anymore (of course, it wouldn't actually go away).
>always keep at least one of them on and away from the instrument panel
Do you have some reason other than superstition to believe that a cell phone can affect the operation of even your light aircraft instruments? Have you observed your instruments malfunctioning while a cell phone is operating in close proximity, and if so, why would you fly with such obviously unsafe conditions?
I'm happy to tell you that your concerns are trivial. GSM chirping noises in your headset are merely annoying. There are all sorts of other electrical noise sources in light piston powered aircraft, and if they were ever a suspected cause of crashes, wouldn't be allowed to persist, specifically, alternator noise, strobe light generated noise, magneto noise from unshielded p-leads or plug wires, etc. Use shielded signal cable and noise filters on your intercoms if you don't want to hear it anymore (of course, it wouldn't actually go away).
>always keep at least one of them on and away from the instrument panel
Do you have some reason other than superstition to believe that a cell phone can affect the operation of even your light aircraft instruments? Have you observed your instruments malfunctioning while a cell phone is operating in close proximity, and if so, why would you fly with such obviously unsafe conditions?
I keep them away because of the noise, nothing else (except for the magnetic compass).
If this really were a problem, don't you think the bad guys would have already exploited this to cause terror?
Yeah, that's the other thing. If cellphones were so dangerous, imagine the havoc you could reap with a black trashbag full of old cellphones duct-taped into an old 10' satellite television parabolic dish.
[deleted]
The restrictions do have two benefits though as far as I'm aware: 1) your phone's battery doesn't drain as it's out of range and attempts to poll a tower every few sounds to no avail; and 2) if it does have service, it prevents the fairly large overhead associated with transferring between towers, decreasing network strain.
I'm probably not the only one who does not mind putting the phone in "airplane mode" (which I do anyway), but it is the stupid "must be powered all the way off" that bugs the hell out of me. I just want to listen to my music!
Strange. I thought the reason for shutting off your phone was so you were more likely to pay attention to wtf is going on. You know, for safety procedures etc.
They never bother you if you're reading the inflight magazine though.
When I've been lucky enough to fly private, they have not once said a peep about turning off my phone, which I'm sure they would have if they were legitimately concerned about safety. Of course, the service doesn't work at altitude, so I tend to put it in airplane mode anyway just to avoid the battery drain of it constantly searching for a signal.
I'm glad this is finally happening. I have had a number of very poor experiences with flight attendants just because they think that something I've got is turned on. Most of them demand to see the unplugged end of my earbuds if I'm ever wearing them, or stay to watch me power something down.
Tell them you have unbearable anxiety during takeoff, and are liable to have another panic attack / projectile vomiting / crap yourself incident. If they want us to suffer their lies, they may as well suffer ours.
Well, playing Words with Friends is still not allowed. Of course, that becomes next to impossible to prevent. I'm not sure why the transmitters need to be disable because in reality many won't be.
They want as many transmitters as possible off to reduce the _chance_ of interference. With in-flight Wifi and picocells it will be possible to have everyone connected without having lots of cell phones trying to connect to base stations far away using high power.
News like this makes me think there's a sliver of hope for America. (Then again the article makes it sound like they'll still want you to put your phone into airplane mode.)
Switching it to airplane mode makes sense, though.
Not long ago, there was a piece on the local news about a big lightning storm and how a plane was hit by lightning and they had a guy on from the FAA saying how it is nothing to worry about and that planes are designed such that a lightning strike would not harm it. So, if I am to understanding this correctly... A commercial airliner is in danger from my phone with a 3.7V battery but a million volt lightning strike will not harm anything? hmmmm, that does not add up, sorry. About time they drop this obviously ridiculous rule. Now please, the shoes off at the airport, come on.
I thought airplane mode was used for the entire flight. Does anyone turn their iphone completely off for takeoff?? or their macbook for that matter?
Wow, this is so much more prohibitive than what we have in Europe. I can not remember being asked to switch my phone off it had an airplane mode.
Does putting my iPhone into "Airplane Mode" automagically disable the NSA bugging processes?
This is a bad decision by the FAA. Do you know the most dangerous phase of flight? It's takeoff. The next most dangerous phase? Landing. It's a good idea to have everyone put their devices away for the first and last five minutes of the flight -- just in case quick action is required by passengers who, without headphone cords and loud entertainment, stand a better chance of following instructions.
A drunken asshole on a plane is irritating. A cell-wielding drunken asshole on a plane is unbearable.
A drunken asshole on a plane is irritating. A cell-wielding drunken asshole on a plane is unbearable.
Shutting down cell radios makes sense; as I understand it, a bunch of cellphones moving at a couple hundred miles per hour can do some nasty things to cell towers, but it drives me absolutely insane that flight attendants gripe at me about turning off my Kindle. I usually just turn the backlight off.