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

[NoNothing]

Originally Posted by Yumbo

NOT a problem if the cabin is shielded. More likely the case after 9/11.

I asked a pilot.

Not all safety critical avionics are in the forward cabin and much are kept in the Aft sections. Pilots (that are not software/electrical engineers) know little about avionics from a design/EMI standpoint.

[ilujon]

Originally Posted by MultiMediaWill

(5) Any other portable electronic device that the operator of the aircraft has determined will not cause interference with the navigation or communication system of the aircraft on which it is to be used.

(c) In the case of an aircraft operated by a holder of an air carrier operating certificate or an operating certificate, the determination required by paragraph (b)(5) of this section shall be made by that operator of the aircraft on which the particular device is to be used. In the case of other aircraft, the determination may be made by the pilot in command or other operator of the aircraft.

Sounds like it's already an airline's option to allow electronic devices to be on.

[NoNothing]

Originally Posted by bradl

I have worn a headset with communicating with ATC. Not only that, but I have friends that work at ZLA (Los Angeles Center), Las Vegas, SoCal and NorCal TRACONs, and LAX Tower. I've listened in directly to their comms both in the tower and in the left seat of the Skyhawk and Skylane (C172 and C182) I'm training in. I've had my phone go off while I'm talking to them, and have heard absolutely NOTHING of what you mention.

The Skylane has GPS and a glass panel, none of which were affected while using my Phone as the GPS as well as taking a call on it. The Skyhawk was a 35 year old model without any updated avionics in it (all still hydraulic), and it wasn't affected either.

Even if I didn't have personal experience with flying, I'd still call bollocks to what you are stating.

BL.

You are dealing with antidotal evidence that holds little bearing (and a 35 year old plane). As planes get more and more sophisticated and rely on software for more and more operations (everything is fly-by-wire now), interference is more than just headsets.

Oddly, I find the quality of many basic consumer electronics better than some top-end avionics electronics. Why? Volume. Apple will make 100,000,000 iPhone 5 phones in 1 year. Rockwell will make 1,000 787 avionics cabinets in 10 years.

The testing on the avionics equipment is pretty intense but there are times where items will fly with various dispositions. I have seen many devices that fail EMI but will fly and cert with a disposition. I know of a C-17 sub-system designed in the '70's is still flying with the original disposition.

We deal with lots of safety numbers looking at things in the 1x10^-9 and 1X10^-12. We are looking at somewhere around 1x10^6 to 2x10^6 commercial flights/year.

I turn "off" (sleep in airplane mode) my devices for a reason.

----------

Originally Posted by ilujon

Sounds like it's already an airline's option to allow electronic devices to be on.

"operator of the aircraft has determined will not cause interference"

Don't forget about that "has determined" clause. That requires TESTING. This is why the iPad is allowed on the flight deck for some uses.

[JuBe]

Originally Posted by Patriot24

First congress is against PEDs, now they're for them?!!?!?

I've never understood the argument that an electronic device is a safety risk during takeoff. Assuming the wireless radios are off, how is reading something on a Kindle or iPad any different than reading a newspaper or book as many often do from a safety standpoint?

I concur that antiquated rules need to be looked at. I'm not sure that legal action by a Senator is required. You'd think they have more important things to worry about right now, you know, like the financial future of the country.

My understanding is that the devices still emit signals (as does just about any electronic device) and the reason the FAA implemented this policy is so that they would not have to test every single PED with every single aircraft to ensure that there was not any sort of interference during the time that the pilot(s) needed to communicate with the towers.

The reason the FAA did the iPads is because they conducted testing that found it was safe and served to help the pilots in keeping up-to-date charts and what not.

[bernuli]

Originally Posted by bradl

The Skylane has GPS and a glass panel, none of which were affected while using my Phone as the GPS as well as taking a call on it. The Skyhawk was a 35 year old model without any updated avionics in it (all still hydraulic), and it wasn't affected either.

Even if I didn't have personal experience with flying, I'd still call bollocks to what you are stating.

BL.

I have heard the interference in the headset as well as over the frequency from other planes when they are transmitting, it carries through. I even heard it once from a tower controller.

It does happen, maybe not in your particular case with mysterious hydraulic avionics. But in other, non fantasy equipped airplanes, the interference can be heard.

Would it help you to shut it off if I told you that running a cell phone at altitude is just about the quickest way to run down the battery.


B

----------

Originally Posted by chrisbru

Really? Take off and landing isn't any less droll than the rest of the flight. Why should I have to stop working and listening to music during those parts of the flight?

You need to stop working and pray the guys up front aren't playing words with friends, but have uninterrupted focus on what they are doing, without any extra noises in their headset.

B

[topmounter]

Restricting use during take-off and landing is really more about keeping everything in order so if there is a problem (unexpected turbulence, engine failure, landing gear failure, evasive maneuvers, etc... all far more likely during take-off and landing), then you don't have so much crap flying around the cabin hitting people in the head and bags blocking folks from making a safe emergency exit (and if you've ever been on a commercial airliner during an emergency landing, then this is going to make sense).

The whole "interference with aircraft systems" rant has become a ruse that keeps them from having to switch their story to one of "safety in the event of an emergency".

Regardless, it is a little silly that I can't read my Kindle, but it is perfectly ok to read a hardcover textbook

[milo]

Bravo. Especially ridiculous when they insist on turning off devices with no network capabilities at all, like basic iPods. Nobody is stupid enough to believe that those would pose any risk at all.

[bradl]

Originally Posted by NoNothing

You are dealing with antidotal evidence that holds little bearing (and a 35 year old plane). As planes get more and more sophisticated and rely on software for more and more operations (everything is fly-by-wire now), interference is more than just headsets.

I did also mention that I was working in a Cessna Skylane as well, did I not? That Skylane was built in 2008 with GPS and Glass Panel, all from Garmin. For all intents and purposes it would be /G equipped, and if it weren't for having a slower ceiling, it would suffice for /L equipped for RVSM.

To recap, I've flown a 35 year old plane and a 4 year old plane. My evidence still stands.

Don't forget about that "has determined" clause. That requires TESTING. This is why the iPad is allowed on the flight deck for some uses.

So this is the reason why QFA, AAL, and ASA are all deploying iPads out to the passengers and crew on their flights, and UAE is deploying Windows 8 tablets on all of their flights, right?

Testing is done. It's already being deployed. With that, there is no reason to have that regulation in effect on Part 121 operations.

BTW.. If this (radio interference) were a problem, UAL's Ch. 9 service in their IFE would have been shot down decades ago. It hasn't, is still being used, and is also being deployed on the fleet they inherited from COA.

Originally Posted by bernuli

I have heard the interference in the headset as well as over the frequency from other planes when they are transmitting, it carries through. I even heard it once from a tower controller.

Sure it wasn't a heterodyne, from two people transmitting at the same time? Range also plays a part in it, but I seriously doubt that it has to do with any part of a PED being used in the range of the avionics. ATC wouldn't know it was there either. And in all of the tours I ave been on at various facilities (aforementioned NorCal TRACON, which I live 3 miles from, SoCAL TRACON, Las Vegas TRACON, Omaha TRACON, ZOA Center, and the FAA training Academy), nothing like this has been raised as an issue or concern.

It does happen, maybe not in your particular case with mysterious hydraulic avionics. But in other, non fantasy equipped airplanes, the interference can be heard.

Would it help you to shut it off if I told you that running a cell phone at altitude is just about the quickest way to run down the battery.

Spoken like a true non-pilot that doesn't have the slightest idea of what he's talking about. But just to shut up talk about 'fantasy':

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_182

Cessna cites the 1990s resumption in producing general aviation aircraft such as this model due to change in U.S. liability laws. In 2005, Cessna began offering the Garmin G1000 glass cockpit as an optional upgrade to the Skylane. Subsequently the glass cockpit became standard equipment.

Rule #1 of debate: know what you are talking about before talking about it. Otherwise facts get in your way and you get burned (like you are now).

You need to stop working and pray the guys up front aren't playing words with friends, but have uninterrupted focus on what they are doing, without any extra noises in their headset.

B

Again, you don't know a damn thing about what you're talking about. And before you reference NWA123, there are regs in place that prevent the pilots from using their PEDs while in flight in Part 121 operations. We are talking about these being used by passengers. Pilots already have enough to worry about than the non-issue you're trying to bring up.

BL.

[Yumbo]

Originally Posted by NoNothing

Not all safety critical avionics are in the forward cabin and much are kept in the Aft sections. Pilots (that are not software/electrical engineers) know little about avionics from a design/EMI standpoint.

It's implied that the cabin includes all safety critical equipment that needs to be shielded.
Pretty silly to state that captains shouldn't worry about anything outside of the cabin.

[Apple Hobo]

Originally Posted by bradl

Sure it wasn't a heterodyne, from two people transmitting at the same time? Range also plays a part in it, but I seriously doubt that it has to do with any part of a PED being used in the range of the avionics. ATC wouldn't know it was there either. And in all of the tours I ave been on at various facilities (aforementioned NorCal TRACON, which I live 3 miles from, SoCAL TRACON, Las Vegas TRACON, Omaha TRACON, ZOA Center, and the FAA training Academy), nothing like this has been raised as an issue or concern.

I, too, have heard cell phone interference while flying. It was mostly a minor annoyance, but it was still quite audible. I also know the difference between phone interference and two people stepping on each other on the mic. BTW, are your controller friends allowed to have their phones turned on while they work the scopes?

From SoCal TRACON:

Cell phones must be off while in the classroom and operations/control room. You may use them on your breaks in an area away from the operations room. This is strictly adhered to as an interference with air traffic systems could occur if they are on in the control room. The control room must be free from distractions at all times. If there is an unusual circumstance requiring you to be available please discuss this with the FLM in your area. Cell phones also must be off while in the classroom and lab during instruction as well.

Originally Posted by bradl

Spoken like a true non-pilot that doesn't have the slightest idea of what he's talking about. But just to shut up talk about 'fantasy'

You mentioned "hydraulic" avionics on the previous page, and bernuli made a comment about it. Perhaps you meant "analog." Maybe you should focus on passing your checkride instead of flaming people.

[bradl]

Originally Posted by Apple Hobo

I, too, have heard cell phone interference while flying. It was mostly a minor annoyance, but it was still quite audible. I also know the difference between phone interference and two people stepping on each other on the mic. BTW, are your controller friends allowed to have their phones turned on while they work the scopes?

From SoCal TRACON:

Never mentioned that they used them while on the scope, as the question was if they *heard* them while on scope, because of the pilots having the PEDs on while transmitting and PIC. But it's already an understood thing outside of explicitly stated that they aren't to be on their phones while on the scopes. There were a number of incidents that occurred while that happened, where the local (tower) controller was on his phone and had a few deals (operational errors). But nothing mentioned about hearing it in from the pilot due to them having their PED on and running while PIC.

You mentioned "hydraulic" avionics on the previous page, and bernuli made a comment about it. I'd also like to know what "hydraulic" Cessna avionics are. Maybe you should focus on passing your checkride instead of flaming people.

The entire panel is not entirely electronic as you would have in modern cockpit avionics. VOR indicator, altimeter, attitude indicator, speed indicator, the bulk of classic instrument panels were not glass, but gyroscopic. Those got replaced by modern glass panels, starting with the Space Shuttles back in the early 80s. Responses to those indicators were handled by hydraulics; like the Classic B737 series, instead of FBW, found in the Airbus A320 series, E170 series from Embraer, or the B787.

As for my checkride, I'm sure to pass it. It is when some people who are telling us who do fly that what we are personally seeing and experiencing is wrong without being up in the plane with us is what ticks people off. Armchair quarterback/backseat driver, etc.

EDIT: you are correct. I did misspeak about 'hydraulic', though that still does play a part in the older models. analog and gyroscopic are the better/proper terms.

BL.

[pxbr]

here's how i see it & yes i'm probably repeating much of what's already been said: the faa's rules are there to address a combination of common sense + safety issues:

1) it's not unreasonable to expect passengers to pay attention during take-off & landing (no matter how many flights you've been on) - you may not feel you are a risk to yourself, but, you could be a risk to someone else

2) laptops, ipads, etc.. are potential projectiles & especially in the case of laptops obstacles that could impede the evacuation process in the event of an emergency

& yes, fwiw no-one really still believes that interference is a real safety risk - all modern avionics are shielded & tested to ensure that

imho - removing those rules is more of a risk to the flying public

[cmwade77]

Bottom line is it's not the interference, unexpected things can happen during take off and landing, which is why even the flight attendants are seated with seat-belts during take off and landing.

The issue with having ANYTHING that's not paper not under the seat in front of you or in the overhead bins is that it can easily become a life threatening object if something does happen. It doesn't matter if it's electronic or not, which is why purses, etc. have to be put under the seat in front of you when taking off.

Now, I wish the FAA would simply come out and say that this is why they are not being allowed, not because they are electronics. The electronics shouldn't necessarily have to be turned off, but they should have to be safely put away.

I do hope that they never allow cell phone use on the plane, can you imagine 200+ people all trying to talk on the cell phones? Even if only half them did?

[bradl]

Originally Posted by cmwade77

Bottom line is it's not the interference, unexpected things can happen during take off and landing, which is why even the flight attendants are seated with seat-belts during take off and landing.

The issue with having ANYTHING that's not paper not under the seat in front of you or in the overhead bins is that it can easily become a life threatening object if something does happen. It doesn't matter if it's electronic or not, which is why purses, etc. have to be put under the seat in front of you when taking off.

Now, I wish the FAA would simply come out and say that this is why they are not being allowed, not because they are electronics. The electronics shouldn't necessarily have to be turned off, but they should have to be safely put away.

I do hope that they never allow cell phone use on the plane, can you imagine 200+ people all trying to talk on the cell phones? Even if only half them did?

This is the common myth of what people believe would happen. this has less of a chance happening, especially over any cellular connection due to the science of how the signals are used. If they went over WiFi, that might be a problem, but you're looking at Facetime, Skype, Vonage, Nimbuzz, Google Voice, etc., all being used, which some airlines already have blocked. Cell phone signals would be hard to receive.

Cell phone towers are like TV station antennas. The signals are spread out in every direction, tent-shaped from the tower. So the higher the tower, the further down and out the signal can be received. That's why you notice that most TV station antennas are in the parts of town that have the highest elevation. Cell phone towers are nearly the same, but not as tall, and in more locations. The signal still goes down and out. So being above the tower, especially anywhere between FL180 and FL600 won't get you much signal.

Additionally, VORs operate in the reverse. From where they are based, the signal is received the further up and out, as opposed to down and out. Without getting into flight plans, routings, airways, and the blood/guts of how flights are routed, the only signal a phone could pick up are on frequencies lower than what it operates on.

Compass... that would be another story.

BL.

[Ronlap]

Originally Posted by Patriot24

I've never understood the argument that an electronic device is a safety risk during takeoff.

1. Even more people will ignore the safety briefing (as most passengers did on the "Miracle on the Hudson" flight)
2. They are freaking glass-loaded projectiles during an incident, and most incidents happen during takeoff and landing.

Either one of these would be enough to scare me, but I'm a PhD in disaster recovery, so I'm paid to be paranoid.

[MikeJames2068]

Aside from the huge differences in how we're treated on aircraft today, which is a whole separate list of complaints... The electronics issue is indeed absurd.

I'm an aviation fan. So, when's the best time to take photos? Takeoff and landing, the two times when you're not allowed to use a camera. I've even been told to put away my FILM camera on planes in the last few years, because it contained a battery-operated light meter, and therefore, is an "electronic device".

There's a MUCH more dangerous issue with electronics than just using them normally. Watch any modern survivalist show, and see what happens when you puncture a lithium ion battery.

Reading an article on your iPad? Not dangerous, in any way I'm aware of. (although it wouldn't surprise me if, at some point, manufacturers made it possible for airlines to automatically place your device in "airplane mode".

[Luis Ortega]

Originally Posted by myrtlebee

This seems like such a back burner issue that I am surprised she gave it time enough to address it.

Wait until planes start crashing because a couple of dozen douchebags are trying to twitter while the plane is taking off or landing.
Whenever I see some asswipe with a phone on while the plane is taking off, I call the flight attendant over and alert them.

[macnerd93]

Not sure what the laws are in the US, but the law surrounding this matter in the UK haven't really been updated much in the past 25 years or so. This is way before the digital phone network existed and everything was on the Analogue 1G system lol.

Wouldn't that legally mean the law doesn't actually apply to our modern tablets and mobile phones, since they don't operate on the 1G system?

[waldobushman]

Unless I see proof beyond reasonable doubt, one should assume all politicians don't know their ass from a hole in the ground.

Therefore, by assumption, US Sen. McCaskill doesn't know what she is talking about, and further, just because the flying public is growing "increasingly skeptical" (they are also growing increasingly clueless), does not mean we should codify stupidity into the law. South Carolina recently passed a law denying global warming (not just human caused). At no point, it seems, can knowledge and truth trump uninformed opinion.

Now, the only basis for allowing the use of electronic equipment to be used by passengers is physics. The only question that is relevant is "What electronic equipment which passengers bring aboard that will generate EMR that will interfere with the electronic equipment used by the aircraft?" This is a question solely for electronic engineers and scientists to answer. No one else must have a say in this question.

I don't really care what McCaskill or the flying public wants. Don't publicized the increasingly stupid opinions of the politicians and the public by passing laws forbidding the laws of nature.

[tigress666]

Devil's Advocate:

My roommate who has been flying or has been flown around (his dad always had a pilot's license when he was alive) says he has seen electronic devices cause weird interference before. The difference between them allowing pilots to use iPads and passengers is the pilot can see if it is causing interference and turn it off. If a passenger's is on without the pilot knowing, or all he knows is several are on, and interference happens, he's not going to know which caused it. And taking off and landing is the time most likely when an accident is going to happen.

The FAA does have regulations to show what can be used but they are very specific to each device. THe reason the airlines don't allow them on take off and landing is they'd have to have every single device tested to make sure it didn't cause interference. With how many different models of tablets and phones, that's just not feasible.

How about the senator leave the ruling up to the FAA who has more people who actually know about flying rather than a senator who doesn't know all the complications and needs of pilots and ground control. (Edit: or exactly what the person above me said. This kind of thing should be left for scientists and those in the know, not some senator or public demand who don't know as much).

(and trust me, if they come out and say, "Hey, yeah, it is safe." I'll be very happy as I want to be able to use my devices on take off and landing. I'll even admit I'm a hypocrite and I still play my ipod/music device but I don't try to wi-fi or do that kind of stuff).

----------

Originally Posted by Patriot24

If a simple cell phone can interfere with communication and cause a real problem for the safety of the flight, then the airline technology industry has a lot of work to do.

It's called the pilot has to hear the ground control when taking off and landing and you don't want them hearing static right when ground control tells them to abort cause another plane ended up on the runway before them (or something like that). And yes, cell phones, especially if they can't get a signal, cause static on your headsets.

Take off and landing is where most accidents happen, and at busy airports ground control may not have time to give another warning to the pilot if he doesn't hear the first one.

----------

Originally Posted by lostngone

REALLY?!?! We are fighting about this?

Our Constitutional rights are being violated every time we pass through a TSA checkpoint and we are arguing over turning off an electronic device for 10 minutes during takeoff and landing?

As a country we have our priorities really screwed up.

*clap* *clap* *clap*

I would love to see this much concern and outrage over the crap TSA is allowed every time we are scanned. And it's all public safety theater, it really doesn't do much (everything they do is reactive, not pro active).

And yet, as this person says, people are more outraged over not being able to use their electronic devices for 20 minutes during take off and landing. There are a lot more serious things the public should be outraged by but stays silent on .

----------

Originally Posted by Michael CM1

If my iPad can bring down a commercial airliner by just being on, I want a different flight.

You know flying is so safe because it is very highly regulated to take out a lot of variables that can cause issues... not because we have super technology that doesn't fail.

[GuitarDTO]

Originally Posted by SHirsch999

That book is probably heavier than an iPad, but that's besides the point. Which would you rather have me do during takeoff and landing - talk, maybe loudly since the engines and wing flaps are making a lot of noise at those times, or listen to music on my phone with my headphones on? I'd rather be listening to music, because it helps to settle my nerves more, but if you would rather have me talk, maybe to you, I'm all for it.

So you are saying you are not capable of sitting there for 10 minutes until reaching altitude and being quiet? You have to either talk or listen to music huh? Your iDevices are required to settle your nerves? Sad.

[highlnd]

Originally Posted by onigami

It's not whether I want them off. Because the issue is you want/need them on. Again, why are you so desperate for a fix?

It's about freedom from unnecessary regulations. Why do you care why people want their devices on? Go ahead and be high and mighty about how you don't "need" your device on, let me listen to music on my iPhone during takeoff.

[spicynujac]

Originally Posted by Ubele

But if there is indeed absolutely no risk from having these devices on during take-off and landing, then why are you against the idea of people using them? ... Having to fasten your seatbelt, on the other hand, makes sense. .

Actually, this too is an overblown myth that is an FAA rule but, as RyanAir CEO stated recently "Seatbelts on planes are useless". He is attempting to remove this rule and create a standing room only area. RyanAir is super successful and way more affordable and efficient than any US airline, BTW.

"The problem with aviation is that for 50 years it's been populated by people who think it's this wondrous sexual experience; that it's like James Bond and wonderful and we'll all be flying first class when really it's just a ... bus with wings,” O’Leary told The Telegraph.

"If you say to passengers it's £25 for the seat and £1 for the standing cabin, I guarantee we will sell the standing cabin first.”

I marvel at the insane security theater we go through every time we travel from one place to another, and remind myself, it really is just a bus with wings. We would never submit to such silliness before getting into our cars every day, and the ironic thing is that is way more dangerous than flying! I also tell myself, as I look at the TSA screener "This person will come to work day in, day out, for YEARS and NEVER find anything more dangerous than a bottle of water or deoderant." We need to put things in perspective!!

[reefoid]

Originally Posted by spicynujac

Actually, this too is an overblown myth that is an FAA rule but, as RyanAir CEO stated recently "Seatbelts on planes are useless". He is attempting to remove this rule and create a standing room only area. RyanAir is super successful and way more affordable and efficient than any US airline, BTW.

"The problem with aviation is that for 50 years it's been populated by people who think it's this wondrous sexual experience; that it's like James Bond and wonderful and we'll all be flying first class when really it's just a ... bus with wings,” O’Leary told The Telegraph.

"If you say to passengers it's £25 for the seat and £1 for the standing cabin, I guarantee we will sell the standing cabin first.”

Please, don't bring Michael O'Leary into any discussion about aircraft safety. His planes regularly have to make emergency landings due to lack of fuel, his airline treats disabled people with contempt and he even (I think jokingly, but maybe not) threatened to start charging people to use the toilet.

Not sure if you're from the UK, but he's generally seen as an idiot over here. I've flown Ryanair once and would never do it again.

[Technarchy]

Originally Posted by myrtlebee

This seems like such a back burner issue that I am surprised she gave it time enough to address it.

Some flight attendant probably harassed her, and she said "I am a senior United States Senator from Missouri", and the attendant said, "FAA rules, I don't care who you are"...

Hence, we now need legislative action.