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.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Airline Industry Remains Divided Over Personal Electronics Usage During Takeoff and Landing
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
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.
Electromagnetic interference is a real thing. So yes, it is possible for electronic devices, even low power ones, to interfere with other electronic devices. The chances of it happening is very small due to the low power and the safety mechanisms in place on the plane, but its not zero. Its important to recognize that the chance is not zero. And the more devices we put the mix, the higher the probability of interference. And I love hearing the anecdotes of people who say they didn't turn their device off, or them seeing people not turning their devices off. They're just lucky that not everyone are douchebags like them. They're contributing to the overall risk for everyone, and they don't even realize it. Idiots.
I'm sure I do understand the fallacy. You might as well say they should require all passengers to stick out their tongues and hee-haw like donkeys on takeoff and landing. If they're aren't doing that, then how can they require us to turn off our phones? Ridiculous scenarios prove nothing.
The complainers are basing their entire complaint on the premise that if they don't understand the safety of flight issues, then the issues must not exist. Secondarily, they are making the ludicrous assumption that the people who are actually knowledgeable about these issues are cretins who make up pointless rules just to annoy people.
Last edited:
Ah, but Crime and Punishment would be a-ok?
At least it would be, softer...
----------
I really can't remember the last time I've seen someone lugging a hard cover book around, that wasn't a religious extremist determined to 'save me'...
It is not the same thing at all. I was injured by a hardcover book falling from an overhead bin two weeks ago. There has never been a reported injury of anyone from a personal electronic device being used during take-off and landing.
I don't think the people are cretins, I think they are slow to change. That is a good quality in the FAA and a sensible position for the airlines. I am fine with them studying. My problem is with the people in these forums and in congress that are being all alarmist or think they know for sure it must be a problem.
Read the NASA report on reported incidents related to personal electronic devices. (http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/docs/rpsts/ped.pdf). ACN: 950259 is the only one that even comes close to being an incident related to the proposal here and there are two problems with that. Number one, no one is proposing allowing cellular phone transmitters to be on during flight. Number two, if ACN: 950259 is true, CRJ200s should be grounded for safety reasons. If one passenger with a cell phone left in stand-by can take a plane four miles of course, that plane should not be allowed to carry passengers.
A kindle crushed in a sleeper seat did catch fire. That is a bit funny.
If someone smacked you with a book, I'm sure that would hurt even more. Best to ban all books on board airplanes. Right?
Again, it isn't about "reporting injuries." Flight crews do report interference, and that's enough for me. Note the NASA report you reference cites RF interference incidents in a wide variety of aircraft. I'm sure you've heard the buzz-deet-deet-deet sounds that often bleed into PA systems from nearby cell phones. Do you want your pilot to be hearing RF noise, or "traffic 11:00, 3 miles, 3,000 climbing." If nobody dies, does it still matter? It does to me.
Yes, as I have pointed out in the many threads on this issue, the FAA is slow to change. For good reason. If the rules are changed (and I suspect they will be, eventually) I want it to be on a sound scientific basis, not because passengers are griping about personal inconvenience. That would be the worst possible reason.
Planes now are shielded to prevent emf from mobile devices. However, most require them to be turned off as an added measure of safety. It still possible, for instance, a repair part to get through the supply system that is either not shielded or improperly shielded that could affect the plane in a multitude of ways.
A recent news item in which a an iPad can interfere with a pacemaker, most notably the magnets for the smart cover.
It is proven that an unshielded plane can be effected by electronic devices.
Last edited:
The way you write almost makes me forget flying is free. How crazy of me to think of myself as a paying customer....
Michael
Well, that's the issue, isn't it? They have not actually demonstrated that those claims are justifiable.
If that is, indeed, possible, then that means that parts that can negatively impact a plane's airworthiness are being allowed in the supply chain. If that allegation is true, then it's a story that should be on the front page of the New York Times.
And if magnets in the passenger cabin could impact flight safety, then that would mean something. And, by the way, it wasn't a pacemaker, it was a defibrillator, and it could only do so when held tightly against the chest of the implantee. And the "interference" is actually a deliberate design feature to prevent inadvertent activation of the defibrillator when undesired activation during, say, a medical procedure is a possibility.
That being the case, what follows is that unshielded planes are not airworthy and should never be used to carry paying passengers or cargo.
Never expected this thread to reach 312 posts, given that I do not see the fuss over not using an electronic device for a few minutes on take off and landing...
You won't believe it but I've managed to fall asleep during takeoff and landing
I sometimes like to have my camera ready during takeoff and landing to take some photos if I'm near a window. I've been told by a stewardess to put it (a P&S btw) away once. I sort of complied. I think it was some sort of "safety" reason more than electronic interference.
I sometimes like to have my camera ready during takeoff and landing to take some photos if I'm near a window. I've been told by a stewardess to put it (a P&S btw) away once. I sort of complied. I think it was some sort of "safety" reason more than electronic interference.
You don't seem to understand engineering and design. Nothing is built to be perfectly safe. They are built to be safe enough. And planes are shielded, but it is impossible to have 100% shielding. And electromagnetic interference is a real thing. Its physics. The only thing that hasn't been proven conclusively is whether low power device can cause interference. I believe that there is no study that shows it does, because it would require thousands, maybe even millions of instances to cause one instance of interference because the probability is so low. But guess what? We have millions of such devices in use. So the risk is real.
But you are OK keeping the rules the way they are, without a sound scientific basis?
Yes, and I also fly them. And no, you don't get the fallacy.
----------
You are a passenger, not the pilot. The pilot is responsible for flight safety. You are responsible for following the rules. Paying a fare is not an exemption.
----------
Your statement is without factual basis. I am fine with keeping them as they are until a factual basis for changing them is established.
If you live in AZ, I will invite you over to see the data. I am currently looking at a situation of some type (SEU, EMI, timing???) that is isolated to only happening in delivered aircraft and it results in, what we think is, a processor FAILSAFE every 30,000 to 100,000 processor hours or so (over 1,000 processors of this specific design on each aircraft). But yes, he is 100% lying. Lab environments... Standard testing dude. And yes, handheld devices emit EMI and at time, at levels and harmonics that will are shared with susceptible frequencies in flight electronics.
I do this for a living. I investigate, isolate and attempt to mitigate areas of software and hardware susceptibilities to everything from simple software timing errors to cosmic rays to EMI on flight avionics. EMI really is a real problem that can interact with on-board electronics. That is not to say it is "safe" or "not safe". That is the job of some one else to figure out. In short, just because you have an interaction does not mean it constitutes a safety issue. Most of the time, it just a nuisance.
I amazed at the number of people on this thread yapping at the mouth with no knowledge of the subject material involved.
If nerves are that much of a problem, perhaps air travel is not for you.
Yes, the actual amount of the blackout varies by the circumstances of the flight at the time. But when did you become entitled to being "entertained" at the possible expense of the safety of others? There doesn't seem to be conclusive evidence to prove or disprove that every electronic device with a radio transmitter is safe. My admittedly noob assessment is that an iPhone has at least 3 of those, for cell, wifi, BT. If the captain of the craft whose job it is to get us to our destination safely says he does not want those devices on, end of story as far as I'm concerned. If having an electronic distraction is so critical to someone that they can't comply with the rules of the aircraft, ...
Automobile
Bus
Rail
Sea vessel
A combination of the above will get them there.
I remember watching a Mythbusters Ep where they tested mobile phones on avionics, i believe they concluded that there wasn't a problem, but it was more about the massive number of different phones around and testing for all was impossible so it was best to blanket ban all phones.
Is this true?
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.
I've watched that episode a few times already. It already comes down to what I said about the use of shielding in newer aircraft. They tested it in an older aircraft without shielding and it did indeed affect some of the aircraft instruments.
Yea the "rules" that are so important they are left to a self-regulated honor system that, by any account, is not working. So there is that.
Michael
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...
I've been trying to figure this out for years.
affected*