Lets face it, 90% of people with an internet connected device (or two or three) don't even bother to turn it off. So the rule isn't actually serving a purpose... it just annoys people.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
U.S. Senator Promising Legislative Action Allowing In-Air Use of Electronic Devices if FAA Doesn't Act
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
And republicans do what exactly? Work three days every other week in the House and filibuster in the Senate? Don't make me laugh.
Don't they have more important things to be worried about right now than whether people can play Angry Birds when their plane is taking off?
Why are the not allowed? Because the FAA says so.
Why are the not allowed? Because the FAA says so.
This is about the principle of the thing, though. Again, you reasons make some sense, but make a new regulation that reflects the actual reasoning behind it rather than one that lies to people. It just ain't right.
Why do they prohibit radios? All they do is receive EMR that is already in the air! They don't transmit anything. And yet, they have in-flight wifi...
----------
Yes, I've heard the interference. It occasionally happens... when my phone is RIGHT next to my speaker and is mid-call.
----------
@#$% that, I can use an SSH proxy server to avoid that (my Mac), and I do whenever someone blocks ports.
----------
Yes, I've heard the interference. It occasionally happens... when my phone is RIGHT next to my speaker and is mid-call.
----------
@#$% that, I can use an SSH proxy server to avoid that (my Mac), and I do whenever someone blocks ports.
Let me say this.
As an engineer that has been working on avionics software (Level A) and hardware for 15 years. As an engineer that knows the things that cause the hardware to go bump in the night. As an engineer that knows what it takes to bring the software down in many of the safety critical systems on various commercial and private aircraft...
I turn all my devices to Air Plane mode for a reason.
This politician needs to stick to politics and stay out of safety engineering. And the pilot on the first page has not clue what he is talking about.
PS: I would be inclined to keep RF transmitters ON on planes with 20+ years of service.
As an engineer that has been working on avionics software (Level A) and hardware for 15 years. As an engineer that knows the things that cause the hardware to go bump in the night. As an engineer that knows what it takes to bring the software down in many of the safety critical systems on various commercial and private aircraft...
I turn all my devices to Air Plane mode for a reason.
This politician needs to stick to politics and stay out of safety engineering. And the pilot on the first page has not clue what he is talking about.
PS: I would be inclined to keep RF transmitters ON on planes with 20+ years of service.
Why do you wish to continue to unnecessarily restrict what people do with their own personal property? How does it harm anyone if someone chooses to read a book (electronic or otherwise) from the moment they get in their seat until the moment they get up to leave the plane? It doesn't.
This isn't about people so addicted to their personal devices that they cannot live without them for a time. This is about an unnecessary regulation that does nothing to enhance the safety of air travel and restricts personal freedom. It is time for it to go.
Actually it does enhance safety. If something was to go wrong in take off or landing, causing a rapid stop or other wise jolting the plane, the last thing the cabling needs is 80+ iPads flying around in the cabin like missiles. It has nothing to do with effecting the electronics on the plane like we often think.
That is why they want them stowed.
Last edited:
Really? You turn on Air Plane mode? You realize that you are violating the regulations then? The rules you are defending say that you are supposed to turn the device OFF... in fact often the flight attendants now say "It is not enough to put it in airplane mode".
The argument the Senator is making is precisely that you should be able to use the device in airplane mode.
----------
But 80+ books flying around the cabin, each weighing more than an iPad is OK?
They CAN cause interference.
I am a private pilot, and can state unequivocally that these sorts of devices can cause interference. Take an iPhone 4S. Hook it up to an iSound 16kah external battery. Touch the iPhone to any metal surface (including a kneeboard). Bingo! NORDO (that's NO RaDiO for you non-pilots). This configuration has been tested in a Cessna 172 with G1000 avionics, a Cessna 172 with King avionics, and a Piper Arrow with Garmin GNS430 avionics. All the same result. We haven't determined if the problem is interference at the radio or audio (e.g. headset) level, but it really doesn't matter.
Now then, one could argue that it is a unique combination in a small plane, and not likely to happen in a big plane, but it begs the question: WHY TAKE THE CHANCE? Once the floodgates are opened to everyone using electronic devices during takeoff and landing, you won't be able to control the "combinations". Flight crews are not tech savvy enough to filter the bad from the good. And you won't know the bad combination until it causes a problem, and that problem could be fatal to those on board.
Some of the arguments presented in this forum and elsewhere:
1) "I've used (or others around me have used) my device secretly during takeoff for years, and it hasn't been a problem." Yes, and my daughter should continue doing backflips on the trampoline because she hasn't broken her neck.
2) "We shouldn't inconvenience passengers any more than they already are." Crashing on approach is a pretty big inconvenience. It will only take one, and a lot of people could be in for a very bad day.
3) "The iPads are approved for use in the cockpit." Yes, APPROVED CONFIGURATIONS are allowed in the cockpit. That is, they have been tested in a particular configuration so that they will not interfere. Pilots are not allowed to bring just any tablet into the cockpit environment, or physically modify (eg. add unapproved external connected electrical components) the approved equipment. There isn't any way to apply that same standard to the hundreds of different consumer devices that come on board.
I really don't think the FCC, a non-pilot Senator, and even the FAA are qualified to make the safety determination. When the NTSB says its safe, then I'll agree.
I am a private pilot, and can state unequivocally that these sorts of devices can cause interference. Take an iPhone 4S. Hook it up to an iSound 16kah external battery. Touch the iPhone to any metal surface (including a kneeboard). Bingo! NORDO (that's NO RaDiO for you non-pilots). This configuration has been tested in a Cessna 172 with G1000 avionics, a Cessna 172 with King avionics, and a Piper Arrow with Garmin GNS430 avionics. All the same result. We haven't determined if the problem is interference at the radio or audio (e.g. headset) level, but it really doesn't matter.
Now then, one could argue that it is a unique combination in a small plane, and not likely to happen in a big plane, but it begs the question: WHY TAKE THE CHANCE? Once the floodgates are opened to everyone using electronic devices during takeoff and landing, you won't be able to control the "combinations". Flight crews are not tech savvy enough to filter the bad from the good. And you won't know the bad combination until it causes a problem, and that problem could be fatal to those on board.
Some of the arguments presented in this forum and elsewhere:
1) "I've used (or others around me have used) my device secretly during takeoff for years, and it hasn't been a problem." Yes, and my daughter should continue doing backflips on the trampoline because she hasn't broken her neck.
2) "We shouldn't inconvenience passengers any more than they already are." Crashing on approach is a pretty big inconvenience. It will only take one, and a lot of people could be in for a very bad day.
3) "The iPads are approved for use in the cockpit." Yes, APPROVED CONFIGURATIONS are allowed in the cockpit. That is, they have been tested in a particular configuration so that they will not interfere. Pilots are not allowed to bring just any tablet into the cockpit environment, or physically modify (eg. add unapproved external connected electrical components) the approved equipment. There isn't any way to apply that same standard to the hundreds of different consumer devices that come on board.
I really don't think the FCC, a non-pilot Senator, and even the FAA are qualified to make the safety determination. When the NTSB says its safe, then I'll agree.
And what does Senator McCaskill base her great technical decision on? Don't get me wrong, as an EE for nearly 30 years, I think the ban is a crock, but it's not the place of some non-technical senator to push something like this.
Of course, this isn't nearly as good when I read about Senator Muskie, during the energy crisis of the early 70s, wanting to repeal the 2nd law of thermodynamics in order to permit perpetual motion.
Of course, this isn't nearly as good when I read about Senator Muskie, during the energy crisis of the early 70s, wanting to repeal the 2nd law of thermodynamics in order to permit perpetual motion.
The problem is that everything you say is equally true for reading books, newspapers or magazines, talking or sleeping; all of which are allowed. This is why she is getting involved. There is a double standard in place and a significant amount of data that indicates that the given reasons are bunk.
Surprised to see opposition
Airplanes continue their long path from luxury class to a flying bus. If I could Facetime on a flight, that might be cool. I don't want to interfere with another's conversation with his girlfriend. It's the people's airways, so there should be some cooperation between manufacturers and airlines, but it's tricky.
The modern iDevice has so many transmitters, it has its own magnetic field. Yes, I think it's absolutely sure that a cockpit with properly-insulated wiring has no trouble with all that electromagnetic buzz. But what if there's one lead that got frayed when the navigator manhandled it? Do you want to be the first pilot on record to crash because his navigation got screwed up by an Android phone? And everybody fell out of the sky?
No, you don't. I think this is a common sense measure. But it's hard to ask a regulatory body to undo a regulation once made. No bureaucrat wants to be that junior undersecretary after the FCC finds that I caused a jet to go down by watching YouTube.
Airplanes continue their long path from luxury class to a flying bus. If I could Facetime on a flight, that might be cool. I don't want to interfere with another's conversation with his girlfriend. It's the people's airways, so there should be some cooperation between manufacturers and airlines, but it's tricky.
The modern iDevice has so many transmitters, it has its own magnetic field. Yes, I think it's absolutely sure that a cockpit with properly-insulated wiring has no trouble with all that electromagnetic buzz. But what if there's one lead that got frayed when the navigator manhandled it? Do you want to be the first pilot on record to crash because his navigation got screwed up by an Android phone? And everybody fell out of the sky?
No, you don't. I think this is a common sense measure. But it's hard to ask a regulatory body to undo a regulation once made. No bureaucrat wants to be that junior undersecretary after the FCC finds that I caused a jet to go down by watching YouTube.
lol @ all the old people.
"kids n their communications skillz" is not a good reason.
or maybe we should ban them altogether then.
"kids n their communications skillz" is not a good reason.
or maybe we should ban them altogether then.
If you had read the linked article before taking the time to write all of that, you would have seen that she clearly states that existing authorities should continue to set the rules, but that the rules need revisiting in light of the massive changes that our culture has gone through recently, and that if those processes proceed too slowly, she is prepared to use legislative power to speed things along. This is exactly what our government should be doing.
Zhenya - You're right that books, newspapers or magazines are distracting, I agree. One could argue that they are less distracting than electronics but for this instance lets assume they are equally distracting.
Scenario: Take off roll, captain elects to reject the takeoff because another plane pulls onto the runway. Slams on brakes and stops but now the brakes heat up enough to start a fire. Captain orders an evacuation. Guy with the iPad out fumbles with it to put it in his bag as not to damage it...he certainly doesn't want anyone to trample over it. Guy with the Wall Street Journal throws it down and get out of the airplane.
Electronics are different from reading paper.
We care more about ourselves and our stuff more than we do the guy next to us and his safety.
Am I the only one who would vote for a senator for the rest of my life if I know they were part of fixing this terribly annoying problem? In my opinion, this is a politically smart move.
It's about safety. If you are preoccupied with a game or have on headphones you can't hear or react timely. The most dangerous portions of a flight, (and the most chance of survival) is take off and landing.
I am skeptical of electronic interference concerns with electronic devices, but I do agree that people should be giving their full undivided attention to special instructions made by the crew. If the Senator has not consider this, then maybe she isn't the right person pushing legislation for the entire country.
I just don't think it makes sense to make a law to prevent the possibility of something so remote. If saving lives was really a concern, we'd have far stricter tests for drivers licenses (as just one example that could save thousands of actual lives every year as opposed to 1 life maybe someday).