U.S. Senator Promising Legislative Action Allowing In-Air Use of Electronic Devices if FAA Doesn't Act

[johnbro23]

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.

[pdcorlis]

Originally Posted by OtherJesus

I see our Government Democrats at hard at work on the most pressing issues. Thank you!

And republicans do what exactly? Work three days every other week in the House and filibuster in the Senate? Don't make me laugh.

[ART5000]

Originally Posted by WardC

Haven't you ever heard the interference that a cellular phone can cause with electronic speakers? For this reason, the FAA wants ALL Cellular and Radio-transmission equipped devices turned off, when RADIO COMMUNICATION from the tower to the cockpit is vital, and necessary to ensure the safety of the flight.

If an Airplane radio transmission receives too much interference, and is inaudibe to the pilots, the pilots might miss a runway or hit another plane. You DON'T WANT THAT HAPPENING!!!

Show us prove of this. link, please. this is just a crock of BS.

[i-John]

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.

[jcaspar1]

Thank God our Senators are finally focusing on something extremely important! The budget, trade deficit and civil rights can wait!

[ThirteenXIII]

just hoping the pilots arent using 'Apple Maps'.....


...then we should be Okay!

[iWe]

Originally Posted by MozMan68

The concern should not be the electronic devices themselves, but instead the headphones blaring music preventing passengers from hearing emergency instructions (most likely to happen during takeoff and landing).

Also, I don't want to deal with the idiots having conversations on their phones while I'm trapped with them on a plane. They can already Skype or FaceTime if there is wifi on the plane...with wifi becoming ubiquitous (even on smaller planes) I'm worried I'll never be able to escape these people.

Well said.

[Sun-Wukong]

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.

[faroZ06]

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...

----------

Originally Posted by WardC

Haven't you ever heard the interference that a cellular phone can cause with electronic speakers? For this reason, the FAA wants ALL Cellular and Radio-transmission equipped devices turned off, when RADIO COMMUNICATION from the tower to the cockpit is vital, and necessary to ensure the safety of the flight.

If an Airplane radio transmission receives too much interference, and is inaudibe to the pilots, the pilots might miss a runway or hit another plane. You DON'T WANT THAT HAPPENING!!!

Yes, I've heard the interference. It occasionally happens... when my phone is RIGHT next to my speaker and is mid-call.

----------

Originally Posted by Patriot24

Really? I was under the impression that in-flight wi-fi systems blocked the ports necessary for most VoIP/Video Chat functionality?

@#$% that, I can use an SSH proxy server to avoid that (my Mac), and I do whenever someone blocks ports.

[NoNothing]

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.

[Hirth]

Originally Posted by onigami

This is about turning it off during take-off and landing. Passing time during a flight, that's fine. But if you need on the entire duration of the flight, and you cannot handle being without it for the 30 or so minutes that take-off and landing take up, something's wrong with you.

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.

[Pklink04]

Originally Posted by Hirth

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.

[a.phoenicis]

Originally Posted by NoNothing

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.

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.

----------

Originally Posted by Pklink04

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.

But 80+ books flying around the cabin, each weighing more than an iPad is OK?

[noisypilot]

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.

[tominco]

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.

[zhenya]

Originally Posted by leavinonajet

Duke,
Apologize for not taking the time to better clean up my post for this particular forum. Reference my first point about giving my words up publicly to trolls. I guess I feel as if some Senator (or you) or anyone else walked up to someone who spent years in school, tens of thousands on that school, sacrificed life, love, etc. for their career...lets say...like a neural surgeon...you have every right to freak out when when said someone speaks publicly and wrongly about the reality of the importance of how a job is done and done correctly and safely. It hits home when you know there are 300 people behind you that have their life in your hands. Those people count on me following the rules whether I know every single minute detail as to why they are there.

The argument that you've heard the instructions before does not apply. I've heard takeoff and landing clearance THOUSANDS of times...but not one single time can I afford to be complacent about it. Every airplane you're ever on is different which is why you should listen. One scary thing about plane crashes is almost invariably investigators find dead bodies with broken thumbs. Broken thumbs why? Because they were trying to operate the seatbelt like it had a button and not a lifting latch. They burned to death trying to simply operate a seat belt. That's reality and yes it does happen. I wonder how many times those people had heard the safety briefing?

To clarify the rules: Basically when you're below 10,000 feet electronics are off. So you can use your devices on climb or on decent, just not under 10k. From experience, the time most people want to use those devices is between the time of closing the door to takeoff...some taxi outs are long or there is traffic. The answer to this not easy because it would be nice to have that extra few minutes of phone time...but I seem to remember a year or so ago where the biggest passenger airplane in service (Air France) ran down a regional jet (Delta) at JFK right after the RJ had pushed back from the gate. It hit with some pretty impressive force. So accidents even happen during the times when we would like to use those devices most.

Additionally, what if you're the guy sitting at the exit row when an emergency happens? What if you're too busy on your iPad to open that door and allow others to escape? Its easy to think that WE are capable of using electronics while we shouldn't, or WE can txt and drive...but those other guys...sheesh...they just can't handle it like I can.

It's not a big deal - turn your phone off, listen, wait a few minutes and *then* enjoy your tunes.

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.

[Swift]

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.

[FrauHasSpoken]

lol @ all the old people.

"kids n their communications skillz" is not a good reason.


or maybe we should ban them altogether then.

[zhenya]

Originally Posted by noisypilot

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.

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.

[JAT]

Originally Posted by leavinonajet

Duke,
Apologize for not taking the time to better clean up my post for this particular forum. Reference my first point about giving my words up publicly to trolls. I guess I feel as if some Senator (or you) or anyone else walked up to someone who spent years in school, tens of thousands on that school, sacrificed life, love, etc. for their career...lets say...like a neural surgeon...you have every right to freak out when when said someone speaks publicly and wrongly about the reality of the importance of how a job is done and done correctly and safely. It hits home when you know there are 300 people behind you that have their life in your hands. Those people count on me following the rules whether I know every single minute detail as to why they are there.

The argument that you've heard the instructions before does not apply. I've heard takeoff and landing clearance THOUSANDS of times...but not one single time can I afford to be complacent about it. Every airplane you're ever on is different which is why you should listen. One scary thing about plane crashes is almost invariably investigators find dead bodies with broken thumbs. Broken thumbs why? Because they were trying to operate the seatbelt like it had a button and not a lifting latch. They burned to death trying to simply operate a seat belt. That's reality and yes it does happen. I wonder how many times those people had heard the safety briefing?

To clarify the rules: Basically when you're below 10,000 feet electronics are off. So you can use your devices on climb or on decent, just not under 10k. From experience, the time most people want to use those devices is between the time of closing the door to takeoff...some taxi outs are long or there is traffic. The answer to this not easy because it would be nice to have that extra few minutes of phone time...but I seem to remember a year or so ago where the biggest passenger airplane in service (Air France) ran down a regional jet (Delta) at JFK right after the RJ had pushed back from the gate. It hit with some pretty impressive force. So accidents even happen during the times when we would like to use those devices most.

Additionally, what if you're the guy sitting at the exit row when an emergency happens? What if you're too busy on your iPad to open that door and allow others to escape? Its easy to think that WE are capable of using electronics while we shouldn't, or WE can txt and drive...but those other guys...sheesh...they just can't handle it like I can.

It's not a big deal - turn your phone off, listen, wait a few minutes and *then* enjoy your tunes.

Holy ****, I am never flying again. You might be the pilot.

[leavinonajet]

Originally Posted by zhenya

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.

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.

[larrylaffer]

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.

[WissMAN]

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.

[VenusianSky]

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.

[zhenya]

Originally Posted by leavinonajet

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.

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).