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

[doelcm82]

If they're going to claim that phones or other devices cause interference, they should at least be specific about whether they were in airplane mode or not. I can see the point of turning off cel and wifi, but when they insist on turning off devices like old ipods that have no wireless communication, that's just stupid.

There really isn't time during prep for take-off and landing for the flight attendants to go around to each passenger using an electronic device and have them hand it over for inspection.

Since we know that many passengers do turn their electronics back on as soon as the flight attendant is out of sight, we know that those passengers at least cannot be trusted. The most practical way to enforce the rule (as long as it exists) is to have all passengers turn off all electronic devices and put them away.

There are other ways, of course:

Install detectors to triangulate the position of passengers who are transmitting wifi, bluetooth, or cell phone signals during times when those are prohibited. Then the flight attendants can speak directly to the offender and ask him or her to turn off the device (or at least the signal). Passengers who do not comply or who pretend to comply and then turn them back on again can be placed on a no-fly list.

 

[canucksfan88]

My electronic device (ie. Kindle App on ipad or a Kindle device itself) is MY book. In fact, it carries hundreds of books, weighing far less and taking up far less room than individual physical books. It also can include crosswords, puzzles and drawing applications.

So what is your point?

my point? "suck it up princess"

i think people can live without an electronic device...

 

[hayesk]

As a pilot with a degree in electrical engineering, I shall sit back and enjoy the proclamations of "There's no way an electronic device could interfere with navigation systems onboard an aircraft" made by people who have no clue what they are talking about....

Ah, the old "appeal to authority" logical fallacy. The fact that you are have a degree in electrical engineering is irrelevant, as is the fact that you are a pilot. Present evidence that electronic devices interfere with navigation systems or don't.

Comment on the fact that many airlines use iPads for flight manuals now. Or the fact that there are other electronic systems on the plane running alongside the navigational instruments? How about sheilding, etc.?

 

[John.B]

"Off course" and "falling out of the sky" are not even remotely the same things.

I think my use of an iPhone may have affected your sarcasm detector.

Anyway, my response to the post was to point out that RF interference doesn't have to result in airplanes "falling out of the sky" for it to be a problem. This was a perfect example of a reduction to the absurd argument.

More likely a case of a green pilot looking for a scapegoat after a navigational mistake. Either that, or the entire class of regional jet he was flying needs to be grounded.

 

[doelcm82]

Comment on the fact that many airlines use iPads for flight manuals now. Or the fact that there are other electronic systems on the plane running alongside the navigational instruments? How about sheilding, etc.?

When I asked a pilot about this, he said that the iPads that the pilots use for flight manuals at his airline are crippled, so that they are always in "airplane mode". They are unable to play Words with Friends. They also can only be synched to the airline's systems, so Angry Birds can't be installed on them.

If all passengers would agree to only carry devices with the wireless functions permanently disabled, we could solve this very quickly.

 

[needfx]

never expected this thread to reach 280 posts, given that it has been discussed before

 

[pirateyarrr]

Don't forget to multiple that risk by the 25,000,000,000 processor hours incurred per fleet each year.

25,000,000,000 * zero = zero

 

[caesarp]

my point? "suck it up princess"

i think people can live without an electronic device...

We can live without lots of things. Should we restrict hard cover books on planes too? After all, you can live without it, and a heavy book might injure someone in turbulence.

Dumb rules only encourage disobedience and disrespect for all authority and rules that really matter.

 

[ChiefPilot]

Ah, the old "appeal to authority" logical fallacy. The fact that you are have a degree in electrical engineering is irrelevant, as is the fact that you are a pilot. Present evidence that electronic devices interfere with navigation systems or don't.

Comment on the fact that many airlines use iPads for flight manuals now. Or the fact that there are other electronic systems on the plane running alongside the navigational instruments? How about sheilding, etc.?

Ah, the old "I don't have any real arguments so I'll revert to something else" argument. See my later posts for reasons why RF may be bad.

You asked for commentary on the fact that many airlines use iPads for "flight manuals" now. It's actually more than that; they are used as EFBs - electronic flight bags - and have charts, procedures, and more. Depending on company policy, their use may be restricted in some circumstances. One airline prohibits their use by the flight crew below 10,000' for example. Finally, they aren't just "bring an iPad with you" - their configuration is locked down (no installing apps from the app store) and their installation has been engineered, reviewed, and approved for a variety of physical and RF concerns. It's hardly a relevant discussion point - unless you aren't familiar with how they are actually used in a part 121 operator.

There was a pretty good video posted at http://9to5mac.com/2013/03/21/step-...-enhanced-cockpit-of-american-airlines-video/ that describes what AA did to install an iPad-based EFB.

 

[Tinmania]

my point? "suck it up princess"

i think people can live without an electronic device...

What you think and reality are different. The reality is that many are not "living without" when flying.



Michael

 

[wovel]

Ah, the old "I don't have any real arguments so I'll revert to something else" argument. See my later posts for reasons why RF may be bad.

You asked for commentary on the fact that many airlines use iPads for "flight manuals" now. It's actually more than that; they are used as EFBs - electronic flight bags - and have charts, procedures, and more. Depending on company policy, their use may be restricted in some circumstances. One airline prohibits their use by the flight crew below 10,000' for example. Finally, they aren't just "bring an iPad with you" - their configuration is locked down (no installing apps from the app store) and their installation has been engineered, reviewed, and approved for a variety of physical and RF concerns. It's hardly a relevant discussion point - unless you aren't familiar with how they are actually used in a part 121 operator.

There was a pretty good video posted at http://9to5mac.com/2013/03/21/step-...-enhanced-cockpit-of-american-airlines-video/ that describes what AA did to install an iPad-based EFB.

With your extensive academic and professional qualifications, you must be well versed in all of the documented incidents of interference. Please enlighten us.

 

[IJ Reilly]

I think my use of an iPhone may have affected your sarcasm detector.

Sarcasm not included. Supply your own.

More likely a case of a green pilot looking for a scapegoat after a navigational mistake. Either that, or the entire class of regional jet he was flying needs to be grounded.

Thanks for that thorough explanation. I can see you have complete grasp of all the issues.

 

[wovel]

Why is this even a discussion?

Aren't there some smart engineers somewhere that can settle this? I don't understand why pilots, passengers and congressmen are having this debate...

There is not a single piece of empirical evidence indicating there is an issue. If there was even the potential of an issue, the electronic devices would have to be removed from the cabin. The question has been settled for a long time. The FAA just moves slow.

 

[joneill55]

I'd prefer that cell phones remain banned during takeoff and landing. The clowns yammering away on their phones — in spite of the rules — are rude and annoying.

Winner, winner, chicken dinner!

Couldn't agree more! Try flying 150-200K per year .You cannot believe the crap I've heard.

 

[IJ Reilly]

We can live without lots of things. Should we restrict hard cover books on planes too? After all, you can live without it, and a heavy book might injure someone in turbulence.

Dumb rules only encourage disobedience and disrespect for all authority and rules that really matter.

Reductio ad absurdum strikes again.

 

[wovel]

Winner, winner, chicken dinner!

Couldn't agree more! Try flying 150-200K per year .You cannot believe the crap I've heard.

This discussion has nothing to do with allowing cell phone usage during flight (Any Phase).

 

[nad8e]

In a related story...

In a related story... a study also indicated that 99% of U.S. airline passengers who have brought electronic devices onboard have INTENTIONALLY left them on at least once.

 

[NoNothing]

25,000,000,000 * zero = zero

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

 

[wovel]

Reductio ad absurdum strikes again.

I think you missed with that. On airplanes, people are far more likely to be injured by five-pound hard cover books than personal electronic devices.

 

[NoNothing]

There is not a single piece of empirical evidence indicating there is an issue. If there was even the potential of an issue, the electronic devices would have to be removed from the cabin. The question has been settled for a long time. The FAA just moves slow.

You really do not understand safety, statistics and risk mitigation do you. Note: your first sentence is out right wrong and not just by a small amount.

 

[wovel]

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

It's not? He's lying? Please cite at least one documented incident. I will even accept a lab result showing interference from an electronic device without a transmitter. Hell show me an incident with a transmitter. (Even though that is not what is being discussed).

----------

You really do not understand safety, statistics and risk mitigation do you. Note: your first sentence is out right wrong and not just by a small amount.

It is? Really. One incident is all I ask. One experiment demonstrating potential risk. I think I understand this far better than you. Cite one single incident. One. I have been asking all day. No one has yet. Perhaps empirical was too strong for you. I will take a plausible anecdote.

 

[IJ Reilly]

I think you missed with that. On airplanes, people are far more likely to be injured by five-pound hard cover books than personal electronic devices.

No, yours is the swing and a miss. Citing ridiculous examples as proofs is a classic logical fallacy called "reduction to the absurd."

 

[617aircav]

I have no issues with blocking the devices during landing and take off.

 

[wovel]

No, yours is the swing and a miss. Citing ridiculous examples as proofs is a classic logical fallacy called "reduction to the absurd."

Again, I am sure you don't understand the fallacy. His example was perfectly plausible. It was not absurd. Not even a little. Have you ever been on a Plane?

 

[Tinmania]

Winner, winner, chicken dinner!

Couldn't agree more! Try flying 150-200K per year .You cannot believe the crap I've heard.

Why do you let it annoy you? Can't you just, I don't know, ignore it like you have to the 75-95 decibel "crap" coming from the engines?

That said I have heard far more from people actually talking to each other than from hearing one-end of a phone call.



Michael