FAA Still Looking at Digital Device Use During Takeoff and Landing

JAT said:

So, a crappy phone can interfere with the landing gear and pilots' ability to use a stick? There's a reason people say the rule is archaic. Seems like the FAA and FCC have never actually spoken to each other.

Click to expand...

and you believe every cheap knockoff maker submits their electronics to the FCC for approval? hahaha.

plus many modern planes are fly by wire, so there are computers involved in translating the stick to control surface servo operations.

archaic or not, the rule is still a good measure since humans in general are horrible with self control. at least it will attempt to foster users to keep it on the downlow rather than blatantly being jack a holes with their devices. It'll give the flight crew a clear definition to enforce when they have to keep a bunch of babies in check.

Waaah!! i need to use my pacifier (device) now or i will be unhappy! Waaah!!

flat five said:

you're in a giant metal tube containing hundreds of gallons of flammable liquid with a gazillion little gadgets and/or potential projectiles traveling at a very high rate of speed..

the least of my concerns in an emergency situation would be someone's cell phone hitting me in the head during a crash

Click to expand...

Thank you.
I am now afraid to fly again

NoNothing said:

If they did, the study was flawed. Mythbusters does not have the money or the resources to test this.

Click to expand...

The Mythbusters episode in question couldn't exhaustively test this, because they don't have access to the dozens of models of commercial airliners flying today, but nothing they did produced even the slightest effect on any of their test plane's system.

With multiple tens of thousands of flights per day, with dozens (or even hundreds) of passenger-carried phones remaining fully *ON* during all phases of flight, the sheer lack of *any* hard evidence of interference strongly points to it being a non-issue.

If FAA guidelines required that all children under the age of 5 be wrapped in plastic bags from the neck down in order to prevent peeing on seats, but thousands of such children flew unwrapped without a single confirmed incident of a moistened seat cushion, people would be just as right in assuming that the rule was pointless.

afireintonto said:

i never turn my phone off or in airplane mode. i've also never been in a plane crash. i've sent numerous text and made calls from a commercial plane while in flight(lower altitudes where service is available), nothing bad has ever happened.

Click to expand...

I've done this as well. Hell, I received an incoming call mid altitude (climbing to 35k feet) from a friend, AT&T does have good reception up there. It was a short call once I explained I was in the middle of a flight and really couldn't talk.

cxny said:

didn't Mythbusters already rule on this?

Click to expand...

They did, and they ruled any modern (post 1980s) aircraft will be unaffected by any and all consumer electronics. In other words, the myth that phones interfere with planes was, for lack of a better suitable word: BUSTED

Isn't the point your safety?

I thought the point was not really to do with the radio but the fact that take off and landing are the points the plane is most likely to crash, ergo the passengers need to be ready and not distracted in case the pilot shouts "Brace! Brace!"?

Presumably also why the FAA don't like discussing that eventuality in public?

Otherwise I've always loved the West Wing moment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZTUTuSqqG4

Diseal3 said:

Another thing to note is people are saying "They can do it why can't we?!" Pilots equipment is thoroughly tested by both FAA and respective airlines. Also they are trained professionals who shouldn't have to deal with these arguments those rules are out of their control.

Is society this much in the rat race that you can't wait 15 minutes to get the chime your at 10,000 feet?

Click to expand...

The problem is that it is often not just 15 minutes. In fact, my recollection was that the Baldwin issue was due to a flight delay and the plane was just sitting there waiting for clearance.

The rule on all the flights I've been on is that when the cabin door is closed the devices need to be turned off. Fine. But what if there is a delay, or de-icing, or a delay with de-icing, or thunderstorms at the destination airport, etc., etc.

The time can easily stretch to many hours, particular when connections are added in. *That* becomes much more problematic than your hypothetical 15 minutes from door close to 10,000 and 15 minutes from 10,000 back to gate.

----------

ljonesj said:

The electrical systems on a plane are hardened to keep errant signals from causing a malfunction

Click to expand...

Exactly. These aircraft fly past radio towers, cell towers and tv towers. They *have* to be hardened.

dmunz said:

^ this is the problem.

Its not about the electronics - its about communication. The ability to hear and understand instructions from the FA is the real issue now. Being prepared to evacuate during an emergency means be able to listen and understand instructions.

FWIW
DLM

Click to expand...

If that is the actual problem, then the rule should specifically point it out. As in ban the use of certain types of headphones. Or require that people listen to the 30 second talk.

But if that is the safety issue, you also need to ban the use of headphones in-flight. Period. Because they use the PA during the flight too.

Having said that, how is that stupid pre-flight talk any more important than any of the other PA announcements that happen during the flight? If anything, in-flight announcements are far more important. I say stupid because I've heard that thing enough times that I can pretty much quote it verbatim. I know it. I've learned it. I don't need to hear it again. I know how to drive a car and use a seatbelt. I don't need to give my undivided attention to 30 second primer every time I get in a car.

A lot of the so-called reasons just seem like rationalizations to justify a rule that has no actual factual basis for existing.

dmunz said:

^ this is the problem.

Its not about the electronics - its about communication. The ability to hear and understand instructions from the FA is the real issue now. Being prepared to evacuate during an emergency means be able to listen and understand instructions.

FWIW
DLM

Click to expand...

If that is the reason then a) they should explain it as such and b) allow use of these items while sitting on tarmac, during de-icing, waiting for clearance, etc.

JAT said:

So, a crappy phone can interfere with the landing gear and pilots' ability to use a stick? There's a reason people say the rule is archaic. Seems like the FAA and FCC have never actually spoken to each other.

Click to expand...

it's more about communications interference, which can be a problem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenerife_disaster

pmz said:

There is the slightest, most remote possibility that commenters on this subject across every blog on the web actually have no clue what they're talking about...and that this drawn out process to establish the safety of using devices during take off/landing has some significant merit.

Just a thought.

Click to expand...

Exactly so. The FAA moves at a glacial pace on safety rule changes, but not without reason. Especially as more aircraft go to complete "fly by wire" (e.g., Boeing 787), the question of what RF might do to airplane systems becomes more, not less, critical. The rules will be changed, but let's hope the changes aren't based on a whole lot of people saying "I wanna" or with pressure from the consumer electronics industry. Those would be entirely the wrong reasons.

greytmom said:

Can't tell you how many flights I've been on where passengers simply hide their devices when the FA walks by, but don't turn them off.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I would guess there are already dozens of devices on during takeoffs and landings anyway, including cel phones. I would have understood the concern years ago but at this point it's just getting silly. I hardly ever see anyone put their devices in Airplane Mode, or fully turn them off.

RevTEG said:

I do agree with you that it's not really a safety issue. However, you cannot just do whatever you decide. On a plane ,as in life, it's not just about you. It's about taking the safety of every other person on board into your hands. The Captain is the boss of every flight. Not any passenger. I fly all the time and if every passenger just did whatever he or she wanted to do it would be a safty risk. I do turn my phone to airplane mode simply because I don't want to take a chance on being wrong. Lots of innocent lives and families are not worth my text getting through.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but it's a silly rule. Silly rules should not be followed. If the FAA barred you from wearing red underpants because they supposedly interfere with aeroplane equipment, and offered no explanation as to the mechanism for said interference … would you comply?

I believe it's simply the result of a combination of uncertainty and "that's what we've always done" attitude. The link posted above even goes on to talk about how they couldn't duplicate any interference reported, but nobody wants to be responsible for giving the "all clear" on using untested transmitters.

It reminds me of my days in the US Navy. I was "the EMCON guy" onboard my ship, and our CO got a new cellphone. He wanted to talk to his family while we were taking weapons onboard at the ammo pier in Seal Beach. It was my suggestion that he not use the cellphone while there was a chance that RF-controlled weapons were being craned onboard a few yards away, simply because I didn't know *definitively* whether or not the cellphone could set one off. He agreed, haha. Much different situation, but I think it speaks to the abundance of caution taken by airline transportation authorities.

I personally believe cellphone use is safe during all phases of flight, electronically speaking, but it's not worth the trouble of arguing with passengers and crew over rules and what is or isn't rude. I'm one of the people that plays nicely and sits patiently with my seat belt clearly buckled while the FAs do their checks. If nothing else, at least I'm on the "let's get going" team instead of the "let's be a problem-child and delay the flight" team.

I heard the real reason isn't interference but rather having the passenger be alert during the important takeoff and landing should an emergency happen. These are the most critical times during a flight.

LordVic said:

I can't believe this is seriously a thing.

is it really so damn hard to put your stuff away for the 10 minutes? you're in flight, it's not like you're connected anyways. whatever you're doing can wait.

I remember when this rule even applied to reading magazines and books. They were hardly electronic and yet we still had to put them away.

Edit:

Also, as fun as Mythbuster is... Cause I do love that show and love when they blow stuff up, But you need to really REALLY stop refering to them as some definitive source of science. They are not. Most of their tests are flawed, and anyone who's done any scientific study will tell you that, while they're results CAN be right, they are far away from a definitive source.

Click to expand...

See, it's not hard. But it's the principle of the thing. I think that it's just the simple fact that I have 0 trust in the FAA because they seem to be the only people that think that a cell phone will cause a plane crash. It's like when a parent puts a net-nanny on their computer but their kid gets past it in 5 minutes.

jehrler said:

If that is the reason then a) they should explain it as such and b) allow use of these items while sitting on tarmac, during de-icing, waiting for clearance, etc.

Click to expand...

maybe for extended time at the gate, but anywhere else on the tarmac communication can be critical, so most definitely NOT when waiting for clearance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenerife_disaster

ghettochris said:

it's more about communications interference, which can be a problem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenerife_disaster

Click to expand...

Cell phones, as they didn't exist yet, obviously had no bearing on Tenerife.

If lousy communication is this issue then the FAA should tackle that directly.

As it stands now on aviation communication equipment and frequencies, only one radio can broadcast at a time on these frequencies so, if you ever listen to them, you will occasionally hear the squeal of two broadcasts trying to happen simultaneously or the cutting off of part of the instruction by another radio cutting in.

Cell radios on their different frequencies play no part in this issue.

ghettochris said:

maybe for extended time at the gate, but anywhere else on the tarmac communication can be critical, so most definitely NOT when waiting for clearance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenerife_disaster

Click to expand...

How does that accident have anything to do with these regulations? That was poor communication between the tower and the pilots, not pilots to passengers.

In any case, if that's what they want - SAY SO. Right now it falls on deaf ears as there is no regulation against putting in earplugs and going to sleep.

ghettochris said:

maybe for extended time at the gate, but anywhere else on the tarmac communication can be critical, so most definitely NOT when waiting for clearance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenerife_disaster

Click to expand...

The number of incidents when the aircraft was not moving or on taxiways has dropped to the point that it is negligible. Hell, there hasn't been a fatal accident in U.S. commercial aviation in going on 3 years (knock on wood), let alone one during taxi/deicing/queuing.

Regardless, the point is that this attention justification is, at best, an post hoc one as to date the argument has always been about electronic interference with flight.

bluez3 said:

archaic or not, the rule is still a good measure since humans in general are horrible with self control. at least it will attempt to foster users to keep it on the downlow rather than blatantly being jack a holes with their devices. It'll give the flight crew a clear definition to enforce when they have to keep a bunch of babies in check.

Waaah!! i need to use my pacifier (device) now or i will be unhappy! Waaah!!

Click to expand...

Your language here suggests your reasons are not nearly as cogent as you want to think.

jehrler said:

Cell phones, as they didn't exist yet, obviously had no bearing on Tenerife.

If lousy communication is this issue then the FAA should tackle that directly.

As it stands now on aviation communication equipment and frequencies, only one radio can broadcast at a time on these frequencies so, if you ever listen to them, you will occasionally hear the squeal of two broadcasts trying to happen simultaneously or the cutting off of part of the instruction by another radio cutting in.

Cell radios on their different frequencies play no part in this issue.

Click to expand...

properly functioning cell radios have no effect on airplane communications, but malfunctioning or cheap chinese knockoffs could interfere with communications, so why risk things when it's so easy to avoid the issue. If I was a dick I could find what frequencies they use for airplane communications, then take apart an ipod to modify it to emit those, then sell it on ebay to an unsuspecting person.

flat five said:

you're in a giant metal tube containing hundreds of gallons of flammable liquid with a gazillion little gadgets and/or potential projectiles traveling at a very high rate of speed..

the least of my concerns in an emergency situation would be someone's cell phone hitting me in the head during a crash

Click to expand...

Ok great, but clear air turbulence is not going to make that fuel explode but will stir things up. Someone's phone won't hit you in the head if its stowed for take off and landing like its currently supposed to be. Also simple physics, but your moving the same rate as everything in the cabin. If you jump in the aisle you don't end up in the back galley do you?

walnuts said:

This is a good point, but a good old book would be a similar flying object hazard and they are not forbidden during takeoff/landing.

Click to expand...

While true, times have changed. There for one aren't as many books and two people don't usually have them out on takeoff and landing. I've seen books in cruise as well as on the ramp waiting for takeoff. Hell most planes have tv, people are usually focused on those as well.

jayducharme said:

That's an interesting point that I'd never thought of. But as others have said, you're still allowed to hold other objects on takeoff (but that's probably not a preferred practice).

If that really were the reason, though, it seems as if the flight attendants would tell you to simply stow your electronic devices until you're in the air, not turn them off completely. IMO, if you're busy with your electronic device before and during takeoff, you wouldn't listen to their announcements and you'd be less inclined to watch their in-flight entertainment (and pay for their headphones).

Click to expand...

As you said it is usually not. The reason flight attendants tell you to turn off your device is because they have to per FAA and company regulations. The concern isn't with interference the problem is safety and that's what's ultimately being decided on. As you said everyone will have a device that will cause clutter in an emergency and also be more oblivious to the safety announcement (which is why they shut those fancy tvs as well).

LordVic said:

Thank you.
I am now afraid to fly again

Click to expand...

ha.. sorry.. not my intent

----------

Diseal3 said:

Ok great, but clear air turbulence is not going to make that fuel explode but will stir things up. Someone's phone won't hit you in the head if its stowed for take off and landing like its currently supposed to be. Also simple physics, but your moving the same rate as everything in the cabin. If you jump in the aisle you don't end up in the back galley do you?

Click to expand...

hmm.. honestly, i'm not quite clear on the point you're making here..

but my point was along the lines of..
i feel the 'concerns' over a phone being a projectile during an aircraft accident pales (to the point of nonexistence) when looking at the situation as a whole..

ghettochris said:

properly functioning cell radios have no effect on airplane communications, but malfunctioning or cheap chinese knockoffs could interfere with communications, so why risk things when it's so easy to avoid the issue. If I was a dick I could find what frequencies they use for airplane communications, then take apart an ipod to modify it to emit those, then sell it on ebay to an unsuspecting person.

Click to expand...

Actually, dicks have done that by using over the counter transmitters to block signals at airports. Getting them in a heap load of trouble, by the way.

Still, the professionals in the tower and on the planes were able to work around these deliberate actions.

Nothing preventing one from doing something similar today, as you note, with modified consumer electronics whether there is a ban or not. Since one was being surreptitious in designing said implement, I would imagine your design would be as surreptitious when using it. Heck, you make the display turn off when you turn on your interference radio and put it in your pocket so it looks like the user is being a good, compliant passenger. So what is gained even in your scenario from the current rule?

I've logged over 3 million air miles in the past several years, and have had more than a few occasions where this topic came up in conversations with on- and off-duty pilots, FA's and even (once) an Air Marshal flying in uniform. In every case, they've indicated that the rule wasn't really scientifically founded at all, but more to ensure that passengers are "alert and paying attention" during the two most critical times of air flight. That is, during take-off and landing. According to them, these are the times when an airplane is most likely to encounter an issue of any kind and passengers that aren't immersed in music and/or video programs represent the best chance to react to flight crew instructions in the event of an emergency.

Could just be the "party line" for all I know, but all repeated something close enough to the same thing to make me believe that its the real truth or something drilled into THEM as "the truth" regardless.

By the way, the Air Marshal shared with me that he carries, among other items in his possession, a "radio signal interceptor" that can detect an RF-transmitting device down to a 2-foot radius. He didn't say how it was used, just that he has had to use it a few times. I'm guessing, given the nature of our conversation, it is used to detect someone who is transmitting a signal while seated as a passenger on a plane.