Airline Industry Remains Divided Over Personal Electronics Usage During Takeoff and Landing

hjkl · May 21, 2013

caesarp said:
No, but they should be changed because a mass experiment has already been conducted and is being conducted every day. As dozens if not hundreds of devices are left "on" (whether purposely or not) at all stages of flight.

As has been explained elsewhere in this thread, the current "mass experiment" does not cover the case in question. I would suggest that removing the rule would likely lead to an increase in device usage. The current empirical evidence involves the current, lower, level of device usage, and hence doesn't tell us what would happen with the increased level.

If you're claiming that the current evidence does apply you have to show that either:

removing the rule will not increase the level of device usage, or
the increased level of device usage will not increase the level of risk.

If you're aware of any studies covering those two options, please provide references. If you're not aware of any, then you have no argument.

What she meant was you are not thinking for yourself if you merely meekly follow rules that are patently absurd.

You are assuming they are patently absurd. You're also assuming that the answer to absurd rules is to ignore them - how about argue against them while continuing to follow?

And Mr. rule follower, how many times have you gone over the speed limit?

That's irrelevant. If I go over the speed limit, that's because I'm a flawed human being. It would be something that I recognise is wrong but do anyway due to weakness. What I don't do is encourage others to break the speed limit, saying (with no evidence) that it's all right to do so because speed limits are stupid.

One place where your analogy *is* helpful, however, is that it demonstrates nicely why it doesn't make sense to remove a rule just because it's widely flouted. As a policeman acquaintance of mine has pointed out - just because everybody drives at 40mph in a 30mph limit doesn't mean we should increase those limits to 40. If we did, everybody would drive at 50.

-- HJKL

ravenstar · May 21, 2013

nsayer said:
There are *standards* in place for unlicensed RF emissions. Go google for "FCC Part 15." In fact, just about every electronic device you own *somewhere* will have an FCC identification number on it that you could use to look up the RF emissions testing that exemplars of that device had to undergo in order to be legally sold in the United States.

No one is arguing that you should be able to bring and use *anything* on a plane.

What I am saying is that any airplane that cannot safely operate with FCC Part 15 compliant devices in operation within its cabin is not airworthy.

Unless you, or someone else, can counter that argument then the conclusion that must derive is either

1. A blanket rule is in place to make up for otherwise un-airworthy craft.

or

2. The rule is pointless.

Which is it?

You're trying to change reality. As I pointed out, even with a device that is part 15 compliant when it is sold there is no guarantee what happens after that. There is no way for the flight crew to determine that a device meets any kind of standards. I stand by my statement that there is no reason to gamble the lives of hundreds of people on something unprovable and which gains so little.

nsayer · May 22, 2013

Judas1 said:
And BTW, plane crashes are rare, but plane instruments behaving strangely and attributed to EMI is not.

[citation DESPERATELY needed]

----------

ravenstar said:
You're trying to change reality. As I pointed out, even with a device that is part 15 compliant when it is sold there is no guarantee what happens after that.

I will give you $100 right now if you can modify an iPad in such a way that it exceeds Part 15 emissions while in airplane mode (without connecting an accessory) and still remains operational within a reasonable approximation of Apple's specifications (modulo EM emissions).

Go on. I'll wait.

There is no way for the flight crew to determine that a device meets any kind of standards. I stand by my statement that there is no reason to gamble the lives of hundreds of people on something unprovable and which gains so little.

And I stand by my statement that the gains (little as they are) so far outweigh the risk that your position is entirely untenable.

Tinmania · May 22, 2013

ravenstar said:
You're trying to change reality. As I pointed out, even with a device that is part 15 compliant when it is sold there is no guarantee what happens after that. There is no way for the flight crew to determine that a device meets any kind of standards. I stand by my statement that there is no reason to gamble the lives of hundreds of people on something unprovable and which gains so little.

If your concern is about rogue devices then those lives have already been gambled. Right now there is nothing to stop someone from leaving such a device on, other than the honor system. Someone with ill-intent and a rogue device doesn't even need to take it out.

Besides this "not up to standards" red herring the rational I am seeing now is that removing this honor-system rule will somehow cross the tipping point. We don't know what that tipping point is, but surely allowing all to remain on will cross it. We don't even know what percentage of devices left on right now is, on average, to any meaningful degree of accuracy. But, apparently, we know it will be tragic if that percentage increased.

Michael

tbrinkma · May 22, 2013

nsayer said:
Cell phones are not relevant to the discussion. No one proposes to allow cell phones to be other than in Airplane mode. No one proposes to allow radio transmitters (other than those permitted by FCC Part 15) to operate at any phase of aircraft flight.

FCC Part 15 electronic devices are what we're discussing here. And, yes, those have been around longer than any airframe in commercial use as well.

Well, here's the post I was responding to:

MegamanX said:
considering many plans are 20+ years old and still flying means that they were designed before things like cell phones would be considered.

Conveniently enough, I quoted it directly above the response to which you replied. Perhaps you should tell *him*.

----------

NoNothing said:
tbrinkma said:

If the risk is *already* immeasurably small, it's probably not worth 'mitigating'.
In the hundreds of millions of flights since the advent of consumer electronics, not a single airline accident has been caused by interference from consumer electronics. So, right now, the measured odds you're concerned about 'mitigating' is already significantly *less* than 1/100,000,000 if you measure by flight, and in all likelihood less than 1/10,000,000,000 if you measure by consumer electronics device.

You're more likely to lose a plane full of passengers to a bit of debris on the runway than to consumer electronics.

Click to expand...

Don't forget to multiple that risk by the 25,000,000,000 processor hours incurred per fleet each year. Given that EMI has been shown (with certainty), to be a real risk it is prudent to minimize that risk especially if the risk mitigation is basically free and very very simple. And yes, I have seen some data suggesting a full cabin is more susceptible to small processor glitches (as in failsafes) than an empty cabin. This may (or may not) be a result of PED.

Ok, if you really want to, I'll be sure to multiply that risk. That gives us odds somewhere south of 1/2,500,000,000,000,000,000 to 1/250,000,000,000,000,000,000 per processor hour.

Something you should notice. Your figure was *already* included in mine (it was, because with all the flights with live consumer electronics on board, we've never had a flight downed, or even forced to *divert* by any of them). Those processors were already aboard the planes, so they were included in the calculation of the total number of definitively consumer-electronics-caused incidents (zero), per flight or per passenger flight.

hjkl · May 22, 2013

nsayer said:
I will give you $100 right now if you can modify an iPad in such a way that it exceeds Part 15 emissions while in airplane mode (without connecting an accessory) and still remains operational within a reasonable approximation of Apple's specifications (modulo EM emissions).

Go on. I'll wait.

Are you seriously doubting that such a failure is possible?

There are many hardware failures that can lead to increased emissions, but that's not the whole story.

You're placing far too much faith in part 15 - for example, software upgrades have an effect on emissions, but certified devices are not generally retested with each software release. So, all part 15 compliance says is that some particular instance of the device in question, running some particular version of software, met the standards. It says nothing about other instances of that device, and nothing about other software versions.

If you think that every device of a type which has part 15 certification meets the standard then you're sadly mistaken.

-- HJKL

tbrinkma · May 22, 2013

IJ Reilly said:
Yes, exactly -- that was my point. The problem being mitigated by the current rules on portable electronics usage has nothing to do with airplanes falling from the sky. Anything that can interfere with safety of flight is a serious issue. But in every thread I've ever seen on this subject several if not lots of people go straight for the ridiculous "proof" that if their iPhone has never caused an airplane to burst into flames, then it could not possibly be causing any safety of flight problems. Reductio ad absurdum.

You misunderstood. Several people in this thread have made the claim that the horrible issues almost certain to be caused by 'live' consumer electronics on board a plane will eventually cause one to fall from the sky.

Those of us arguing against that absurd notion simply point out that, over the decades of manned flight, there has *never* been such an incident despite hundreds of thousands of such devices being active on commercial flights every year. There hasn't even been an instance where some bit of CE has been confirmed (with actual testing) to be able to cause the sorts of issues being reported, much less the more significant ones being *imagined*.

So, when you claim that "nobody" says it's going to cause planes to fall from the sky, you should pay attention to the folks who appear to be on *your* side of the debate who explicitly *ARE* making that claim.

----------

rdlink said:
Actually you're very wrong. Those who would claim it's perfectly safe would need to prove their point before needlessly (quite needlessly) endangering the lives of others for a convenience.

Well, I hope you never get behind the wheel of a car (or ask anyone else to drive you anywhere). After all, you can't prove that it's 'perfectly safe'.

Meanwhile, us rational folks are simply acknowledging that there is absolutely no evidence that it's causing any problems, and asking the folks who claim it is (or will) to come up with *ANY* evidence to support their panicked claims.

nsayer · May 22, 2013

hjkl said:
Are you seriously doubting that such a failure is possible?

I am giving you a $PAID$ opportunity for an existence proof.

Still waiting.

There are many hardware failures that can lead to increased emissions, but that's not the whole story.

You're placing far too much faith in part 15 - for example, software upgrades have an effect on emissions, but certified devices are not generally retested with each software release. So, all part 15 compliance says is that some particular instance of the device in question, running some particular version of software, met the standards. It says nothing about other instances of that device, and nothing about other software versions.

If you think that every device of a type which has part 15 certification meets the standard then you're sadly mistaken.

-- HJKL

Fine. Find me one. Go.

tbrinkma · May 22, 2013

NoNothing said:
Actually that is not how science, engineering and (more specifically) safety systems work. You assume it is NOT safe until proven otherwise within a specific level of tolerance. We actually will sit at lunch discussing weird and esoteric failure modes that actually (sometimes) be replicated in lab environments.

You lack of understanding of how this works would be understandable if you are not involved in the industry.

We have a pretty good level of confidence at this point. There have been millions of commercial flights in the past decade that have had *some* bit of consumer electronics (including cell phones) 'live' through the entire flight (from gate to gate. At no point has a single flight-issue been confirmed to be caused by *any* bit of consumer electronics. There have been a number of 'possible sightings' of these events, but not a single one has been able to be replicated and confirmed, despite extensive testing.

So, the evidence is as follows:
Hundreds of thousands of commercial flights with active consumer electronics during all phases of the flights, but zero incidents confirmed to be caused by consumer electronics, vs. lots of supposition about what 'might happen if maybe...'.

That's a pretty huge level of statistical confidence.

nsayer · May 22, 2013

tbrinkma said:
So, the evidence is as follows:
Hundreds of thousands of commercial flights with active consumer electronics during all phases of the flights, but zero incidents confirmed to be caused by consumer electronics, vs. lots of supposition about what 'might happen if maybe...'.

That's a pretty huge level of statistical confidence.

And that right there is the best summation that there will likely be from the 18+ pages of comments on this story.

hjkl · May 22, 2013

nsayer said:
I am giving you a $PAID$ opportunity for an existence proof.

Still waiting.

Fine. Find me one. Go.

Will you provide the device to be modified and pay whatever shipping is required to get it to wherever you need it to be to verify its emissions? And the emissions testing? If so, let me know.

Answer me these questions:

Do you accept that hardware failures can increase emissions?
Do you accept that software changes can increase emissions?

-- HJKL

----------

nsayer said:
I am giving you a $PAID$ opportunity for an existence proof.

That's sidestepping the question.

It's a very straightforward question - do you or do you not accept that hardware failures and/or software changes can have an effect on EM emissions?

Yes or no.

-- HJKL

zhenya · May 22, 2013

hjkl said:
Will you provide the device to be modified and pay whatever shipping is required to get it to wherever you need it to be to verify its emissions? And the emissions testing? If so, let me know.

Answer me these questions:

Do you accept that hardware failures can increase emissions?

Do you accept that software changes can increase emissions?

-- HJKL

----------

That's sidestepping the question.

It's a very straightforward question - do you or do you not accept that hardware failures and/or software changes can have an effect on EM emissions.

Yes or no.

-- HJKL

It doesn't matter. Current policies don't try to screen for modified devices beyond a cursory examination of some items. Whether the policies change or stay the same there is effectively the same chance of someone trying to pull something like that off.

hjkl · May 22, 2013

zhenya said:
It doesn't matter. Current policies don't try to screen for modified devices beyond a cursory examination of some items. Whether the policies change or stay the same there is effectively the same chance of someone trying to pull something like that off.

This is going round in circles.

I'm not talking about people trying to "pull something off".

I'm not talking about unofficial software releases intended to increase EMI, I'm talking about official software upgrades. If you think that companies retest their devices for EMI with every software release, you're mistaken.

To repeat:

Answer me these questions:
Do you accept that hardware failures can increase emissions?
Do you accept that software changes can increase emissions?

My point is that removing the rules is likely to increase device usage. Do you agree or disagree?

-- HJKL

nsayer · May 22, 2013

hjkl said:
Answer me these questions:

Do you accept that hardware failures can increase emissions?

Do you accept that software changes can increase emissions?

I do not accept that hardware failures or software changes in a compliant device are likely enough to increase emissions, without simultaneously rendering the device unusable for its intended purpose, to make regulating their usage on an airplane to be a reasonable regulatory burden for the traveling public.

I continue to await an existence proof to the contrary.

danpass · May 23, 2013

zhenya said:
It's reasoning like this that is truly scary when you will just blindly follow orders without ever questioning whether they are based in sound reason. The airlines themselves can't give a straight answer as to why this is necessary. Learn to think for yourself.

[threadhijack] this is the wrong board to so blatantly promote that a person should develop critical thinking skills, and to do so without .gov permission

[/threadhijack]

pirateyarrr · May 25, 2013

NoNothing said:
Kicker is, it is not zero so you are just propogating a lie.

Oh, you SAID it, on an anonymous forum, so it must be true.

Let's see a citation, please. Don't have one? Shocking!

Your need to be "right" is getting in the way of your common sense, if you have any.

Supermule · May 28, 2013

John.B said:
For starters, my smartphone allows me to text my teenaged kid who's seemly always off doing his own thing, it's also my camera, it's the GPS navigation system for my rental car, it plays videos and music (Bluetooth car audio FTW!), it lets me track weather radar, and it holds all my reservation information for the trip. Oh, and it's a cellphone. Why on God's green Earth would I want to go on vacation without it?

Leave your - smartphone - at home. Not necessarily your phone. Bring a retro cellphone.

It was just a provoking statement. I dont get why people (you?) go on vacation to see and experience new things, and still bring your everyday music, videos ect. Bring a classic camera, or better dont bring one and instead enjoy it all 100 % and not through a linse. GPS-nav...use a map? Or get a little lost and see something unexpected you didn't plan!

I'm 29 but I sound like "the old man" compared to you. Dont (allways) experience life through a smartphone. Its not same. Trust me on this one.

squirrelist · May 30, 2013

Arcus said:
Are you trying to say that this is not compliant?

Not for takeoff and landing. Your phones and everything need to be OFF. Not airplane mode, not sleep mode. Airplane mode is just for when you're in the air.

spicynujac · Jun 6, 2013

notabadname said:
You are simply IGNORANT and uninformed. Oh, and WRONG. If you are going to be a little "wikipedia-search-boy", then maybe broaden your search parameter.

Ad hominem attacks on the internet are quite silly.
I simply value my freedom of thought, movement, and control over my body and personal effects over the miniscule odds of physical harm that a plane hijacking might cause. There are far more important things to worry about. If one is that concerned about one's health and safety, then we could start by banning cigarettes and alcohol. It would be a cheap fix, and save more people in a week than would be saved in a century of hijackings.

Statistically speaking, you are much more likely to die from a bee sting, lightning strike, shark, or metorite than from a plane hijacking. If you want to really worry about things that harm you, take a look at heart disease, automobile accidents, and, the #3 cause of death in the USA.. accidential death in a hospital. Society could become far safer by targeting those than by worrying about these emotional issues that are statistically meaningless.

The iphone in your pocket is more likely to give you a heart attack through stress of reading emails over many years than it is to cause a plane to malfunction.

notabadname · Jun 10, 2013

spicynujac said:
Ad hominem attacks on the internet are quite silly.
I simply value my freedom of thought, movement, and control over my body and personal effects over the miniscule odds of physical harm that a plane hijacking might cause. There are far more important things to worry about. If one is that concerned about one's health and safety, then we could start by banning cigarettes and alcohol. It would be a cheap fix, and save more people in a week than would be saved in a century of hijackings.

Statistically speaking, you are much more likely to die from a bee sting, lightning strike, shark, or metorite than from a plane hijacking. If you want to really worry about things that harm you, take a look at heart disease, automobile accidents, and, the #3 cause of death in the USA.. accidential death in a hospital. Society could become far safer by targeting those than by worrying about these emotional issues that are statistically meaningless.

The iphone in your pocket is more likely to give you a heart attack through stress of reading emails over many years than it is to cause a plane to malfunction.

Not an attack, an observation. Ignorant: Lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular. My comments made specific points contained in your post that were simply wrong.

And being an airline pilot, I am rather aware of how safe it is to fly, which is precisely my point. It is safe to fly, and far more so in the US - (with THE best commercial aviation safety record in the World), because we are extremely measured, patient, and cautious in how we approach changes that may affect the safety of our operations. Until those answers are definitively proven, we take a "wait and see" approach.

Your right to value: "freedom of thought, movement, and control over my body and personal effects over the miniscule odds of physical harm that a plane hijacking might cause", has little relevance to those passengers whom have died by the very method you stated "had never happened". When you make a post, stated as an absolute fact, and it proves to be absolutely wrong and ill-informed, then that is ignorance.

spicynujac · Jun 13, 2013

OK What I was referring to is that WATER IS NOT A DANGEROUS ITEM ON A PLANE AT ALL PERIOD.

What the above poster pointed out is that a water-like explosive substance caused the death of one person in the 1980s. I do know that such a thing as liquid explosives exist. I never knew or questioned whether they were used on a plane, but honestly it doesn't surprise me. I personally feel that an incident that happened ONE TIME 26 years ago in a violent 2nd or 3rd world contry is such a rare anomoly that it is meaningless to me. I actually did not know that fact, so, if it makes you feel better, yes, technically I was "ignorant" about that incident; however my point is that water and shampoo are never dangerous, and indeed hundreds of millions of passengers flew with water and shampoo for 20+ years after that incident happened.

But most importantly, that incident doesn't change how I feel about my ability to carry water, the universal solvent and material making up the vast majority of both the planet and my body, on an airplane or anywhere else, nor does it make me feel that I should shut off my cell phone during takeoff or landing. I suppose you were implying that by confiscating water our "TSA" is preventing such materials from getting on a plane. Well did you know that you can actually carry a bottle of water through one of the screening machines in your pocket undetected? The machines do not detect water (our body is mostly water). No need to call anyone ignorant for not knowing it, but the no water rule does NOT prevent an action like the one you mentioned from occurring (assuming it takes 500ml of liquid or less, which I have personally had in my shorts pocket and boarded a plane with).

I've worked in the airline industry as well, and I believe the best way to ensure safety is to FOCUS on a FEW important specific things. When you try to ban everything from nail clippers to matches to shampoo to use of phones during takeoff and landing, two things happen: 1) things slip through the cracks. Unless you are going to open everyones luggage and give body cavity searches, and triple the number of flight attendants to monitor phone usage, things will get through and 2) people lose respect for the rules. This article is proof of the second point, and for the first, reference the number of guns that make it through the TSA's own security tests.

I'm sorry but the bottom line is I'm not willing to give up my access to drinking water, shampoo to wash my hair with, deodorant to keep smelling clean, nail clippers to groom myself, or countless other items, because some substance that is similar to water caused one persons death 26 years ago. I and the majority of the travelling public will continue to use our phones until there is a scientific reason proven that it could cause harm. Could something bad happen by letting us have water bottles and play on our ipads? Yes, it could happen tomorrow. But you could also spontaneously combust. And statistically, the chances of that happening are far greater.

caesarp · Jun 21, 2013

hjkl said:
As has been explained elsewhere in this thread, the current "mass experiment" does not cover the case in question. I would suggest that removing the rule would likely lead to an increase in device usage. The current empirical evidence involves the current, lower, level of device usage, and hence doesn't tell us what would happen with the increased level.

If you're claiming that the current evidence does apply you have to show that either:

removing the rule will not increase the level of device usage, or

the increased level of device usage will not increase the level of risk.

If you're aware of any studies covering those two options, please provide references. If you're not aware of any, then you have no argument.

-- HJKL

Nah. It looks like common sense will in fact prevail. The mass testing that has taken place by the public is being cited as the reason to allow device use from gate to gate:

"The committee also cited reports showing that passengers often forget to turn off gadgets without any consequences and that airlines, left to enact their own rules, are much too conservative."

http://www.engadget.com/2013/06/21/wsj-faa-to-ease-in-flight-electronics-rules/

----------

nsayer said:
And that right there is the best summation that there will likely be from the 18+ pages of comments on this story.

And it looks like the FAA agrees (or will officially soon):

http://www.engadget.com/2013/06/21/wsj-faa-to-ease-in-flight-electronics-rules/

http://gizmodo.com/wsj-the-faa-is-ready-to-ease-restrictions-on-in-flight-528724592

Airline Industry Remains Divided Over Personal Electronics Usage During Takeoff and Landing

macrumors newbie

macrumors 6502

macrumors 65816

macrumors 68040

macrumors 68000

macrumors newbie

macrumors 68000

macrumors 65816

macrumors 68000

macrumors 65816

macrumors newbie

macrumors 604

macrumors newbie

macrumors 65816

macrumors 68030

macrumors regular

macrumors regular

macrumors regular

macrumors 6502

macrumors 68000

macrumors 6502

macrumors 65816

Our Staff