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

[thewitt]

You realize the industry works by having to show it is SAFE FIRST and not the other way around? Simple concept really.

Nonsense.

The reason these devices are banned is because of a laboratory simulation done in the UK 30 years ago with two way radios.

Do you have ANY idea how many phones are on and active in carry on bags and hand bags on EVERY commercial flight?

The policy has no basis in science or fact, and is just simply a bad policy.

 

[NoNothing]

Nonsense.

The reason these devices are banned is because of a laboratory simulation done in the UK 30 years ago with two way radios.

Do you have ANY idea how many phones are on and active in carry on bags and hand bags on EVERY commercial flight?

The policy has no basis in science or fact, and is just simply a bad policy.

I question if you know the meaning of "science" or "fact".

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

You realize that the current rules were put in place without any study by the FAA.

I'd recommend that you take the 'he' out of your handle.

The FAA is capable of a whole lot of things, but one of them isn't understudying something.

Like: Do you know that damn near everything that is on that plane in the cockpit and between the outside and inside surface is cataloged, labeled, serialized, and accounted for. The FAA can trace a bad part to the individual plane that the part was installed on, and tell you where, when, and who installed it; as well as where, when, and how it was manufactured, and probably even who ran the equipment to manufacture it.

That every bolt, nut, washer, or other part is also weighed and included in a complex formula to determine if the center of gravity has shifted by any degree.

People take flight for granted. It's a complex fight against the laws of physics, and you never win in that fight unless you are spot on.

When I was in college, I was taking electrical engineering and in one class we were introduced to a family that lived very close to a radio tower for the local community college radio station. The signal was so strong where they lived, that it was being picked up by their microwave oven! There was a guy too locally that had a 'hot' CB radio, and it would bleed harmonics into the normal radio frequencies. I often heard him through my TV on certain channels as he would drive past.

YES, EMI is real. You can't see it, but HELL YES, it is there. Anyone ever heard the pulsing sounds produced by a cell phone near a radio? THAT is EMI. THAT is also possible interference that could play havoc with avionics in a plane.

At some point, just the idea that if someone had a cell phone in the wrong place on a plane, and it started freaking out the plane's systems, leading to the pilots becoming disorientated, try FINDING the offending device amongst all of the carry-on refuse that people try to carry-on just to avoid a checked bag fee. Heck, what if it's in a checked bag?

It's possible.

 

[zhenya]

I question if you know the meaning of "science" or "fact".

At some point you must concede that experiments may also be carried out in the real world, not just in a laboratory. Nobody is denying the fact that electronic devices emit EMI, and that under some circumstances that EMI may be picked up by some sensors on an airplane. What you cannot deny is that one of the biggest case studies you could ever possibly imagine has been carried out day in and day out for decades over hundreds of millions of flights and billions of hours of flight time, and no airplane has ever crashed because of the interference from a consumer electronic device.

Therefore it doesn't matter if devices conforming to the current (extremely loose) rules can interfere with a sensor in a technical sense. The practical effect is that it is perfectly safe, and we have the data to prove it.

What research would you propose that would satisfy your requirement of absolute, 100% certainty that no accident would ever occur? What other systems or products are held to this standard (where we will not allow them unless it is certain that nobody, ever, will be harmed by their use?)

Nothing, because the world is an uncertain place where an infinite number of disparate systems can interact in ways that you can never possibly predict, and large scale, real-world experiments like the ones we have carried out between electronics and airplanes for decades are far better at digging out these interactions than laboratory models.

 

[nia820]

Why are people so up in arms that they have to turn off her their electronics for 15 mins during take off and landing? It's really not that serious. And people need to be paying attention to the safety video anyway. If they are yakking away on their phones they arent listening to instructions.

 

[Rossatron]

if these gadgets do cause problems, why ban them during takeoff/landing only?
if you allow passenger to use them in the air, you can allow them to use them anytime.

 

[bawbac]

What you cannot deny is that one of the biggest case studies you could ever possibly imagine has been carried out day in and day out for decades over hundreds of millions of flights and billions of hours of flight time, and no airplane has ever crashed because of the interference from a consumer electronic device.

This means may be 1/4 of passengers may have left their equipment on for entitlement reasons or forgot.

What happens if everyone leaves their equipment on?
There is a thing called amplification.

 

[zhenya]

This means may be 1/4 of passengers may have left their equipment on for entitlement reasons or forgot.

What happens if everyone leaves their equipment on?
There is a thing called amplification.

EMI from electronic devices does not amplify like that.

 

[bawbac]

EMI from electronic devices does not amplify like that.

I will let you do some research and insert foot in mouth.

 

[Brennenlb]

People Don't even follow the rules now

How many plane crashes are actually caused by this type of things? I don't know... but i have a feeling its not that many. The devices wont cause a disturbance if there is no cellular or bluetooth signal being transmitted or received so there should be no communication problem. There is no way to interfere if there is no incoming connections. This is a very controversial issue and i have a feeling it will continue for a while. But for now, we should all follow the rules and if you don't want to, have a good drive to the other side of the country instead of flying.

 

[zhenya]

I will let you do some research and insert foot in mouth.

Got your mouth wide open?

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/25/disruptions-tests-cast-doubt-on-fcc-rules-on-kindle-and-ipad-html/

When EMT Labs put an Amazon Kindle through a number of tests, the company consistently found that this e-reader emitted less than 30 microvolts per meter when in use. That’s only 0.00003 of a volt.

“The power coming off a Kindle is completely minuscule and can’t do anything to interfere with a plane,” said Jay Gandhi, chief executive of EMT Labs, after going over the results of the test. “It’s so low that it just isn’t sending out any real interference.”

But one Kindle isn’t sending out a lot of electrical emissions. But surely a plane’s cabin with dozens or even hundreds will? That’s what both the F.A.A. and American Airlines asserted when I asked why pilots in the cockpit could use iPads, but the people back in coach could not. Yet that’s not right either.

“Electromagnetic energy doesn’t add up like that. Five Kindles will not put off five times the energy that one Kindle would,” explained Kevin Bothmann, EMT Labs testing manager. “If it added up like that, people wouldn’t be able to go into offices, where there are dozens of computers, without wearing protective gear.”

Bill Ruck, principal engineer at CSI Telecommunications, a firm that does radio communications engineering, added: “Saying that 100 devices is 100 times worse is factually incorrect. Noise from these devices increases less and less as you add more.”

 

[notabadname]

Nonsense.

The reason these devices are banned is because of a laboratory simulation done in the UK 30 years ago with two way radios.

Do you have ANY idea how many phones are on and active in carry on bags and hand bags on EVERY commercial flight?

The policy has no basis in science or fact, and is just simply a bad policy.

You are simply incorrect as to this policy having "no basis in science or fact". That claim would actually best describe your very own statement. The most basic understanding of physics would remind you that any wire that has a current flowing through it creates an electromagnetic field. That field alone, even if not creating radio waves as the result of alternating current, may have an effect on Navigation sensors on the aircraft. It may prove to be negligible and of no significance, but it is that due diligence in U.S. aviation that makes it, by far, the safest on earth. The statements of "fact" made by so many on this site, with zero knowledge of the physics involved, reveals a lot about the arrogance of our society.

“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.”
― Stephen Hawking

 

[caesarp]

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.

Flight crews report interference? Based on what? Are they timing exactly when the device is turned off to the second with the disappearance of any interference? Doubtful. Flight crews have never reported anything that remotely proves interference.

 

[linuxcooldude]

How many plane crashes are actually caused by this type of things? I don't know... but i have a feeling its not that many. The devices wont cause a disturbance if there is no cellular or bluetooth signal being transmitted or received so there should be no communication problem. There is no way to interfere if there is no incoming connections. This is a very controversial issue and i have a feeling it will continue for a while. But for now, we should all follow the rules and if you don't want to, have a good drive to the other side of the country instead of flying.

Just finished reading about one flight where the control tower told the plane they were 30 degrees off course. After turning off a portable DVD player it worked normally. It was a condition that was replicated after the DVD player was turned back on causing the same problem.

While I'm sure WiFi cellular & bluetooth have more effect any device can still can cause disruptions.

 

[caesarp]

I'd recommend that you take the 'he' out of your handle.

The FAA is capable of a whole lot of things, but one of them isn't understudying something.

Like: Do you know that damn near everything that is on that plane in the cockpit and between the outside and inside surface is cataloged, labeled, serialized, and accounted for. The FAA can trace a bad part to the individual plane that the part was installed on, and tell you where, when, and who installed it; as well as where, when, and how it was manufactured, and probably even who ran the equipment to manufacture it.

That every bolt, nut, washer, or other part is also weighed and included in a complex formula to determine if the center of gravity has shifted by any degree.

People take flight for granted. It's a complex fight against the laws of physics, and you never win in that fight unless you are spot on.

When I was in college, I was taking electrical engineering and in one class we were introduced to a family that lived very close to a radio tower for the local community college radio station. The signal was so strong where they lived, that it was being picked up by their microwave oven! There was a guy too locally that had a 'hot' CB radio, and it would bleed harmonics into the normal radio frequencies. I often heard him through my TV on certain channels as he would drive past.

YES, EMI is real. You can't see it, but HELL YES, it is there. Anyone ever heard the pulsing sounds produced by a cell phone near a radio? THAT is EMI. THAT is also possible interference that could play havoc with avionics in a plane.

At some point, just the idea that if someone had a cell phone in the wrong place on a plane, and it started freaking out the plane's systems, leading to the pilots becoming disorientated, try FINDING the offending device amongst all of the carry-on refuse that people try to carry-on just to avoid a checked bag fee. Heck, what if it's in a checked bag?

It's possible.

If so, then stop the BS. Then ban all devices from being carried on period. Otherwise, its nonsense to turn them on or off (cause there is no way to police actual power down of each device -- particularly if in someone's pocket or the seat pocket).

That's the problem. The rule, as its now adminstered, makes no logical sense. If there is any possibility of harm, you are going to trust me (who will simply lock the screen and not power down)?

So if the possibility of harm really exists, the devices should be outright banned on-board. Otherwise, stop the stupid and illogical enforcement.

----------

Just finished reading about one flight where the control tower told the plane they were 30 degrees off course. After turning off a portable DVD player it worked normally. It was a condition that was replicated after the DVD player was turned back on causing the same problem.

While I'm sure WiFi cellular & bluetooth have more effect any device can still can cause disruptions.

Without a link your story means nothing. Even with a link, I doubt it means anything.

----------

How many plane crashes are actually caused by this type of things? I don't know... but i have a feeling its not that many. The devices wont cause a disturbance if there is no cellular or bluetooth signal being transmitted or received so there should be no communication problem. There is no way to interfere if there is no incoming connections. This is a very controversial issue and i have a feeling it will continue for a while. But for now, we should all follow the rules and if you don't want to, have a good drive to the other side of the country instead of flying.

Please, i suppose you never go over the speed limit when driving Mr. rule follower?

 

[IJ Reilly]

Flight crews report interference? Based on what? Are they timing exactly when the device is turned off to the second with the disappearance of any interference? Doubtful. Flight crews have never reported anything that remotely proves interference.

Several incidents documented here:

http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/docs/rpsts/ped.pdf

 

[linuxcooldude]

Without a link your story means nothing. Even with a link, I doubt it means anything.

Since you are already discounting any such reports, even with a link, I'm not going to waste my time.

 

[kdarling]

What you cannot deny is that one of the biggest case studies you could ever possibly imagine has been carried out day in and day out for decades over hundreds of millions of flights and billions of hours of flight time, and no airplane has ever crashed because of the interference from a consumer electronic device.

Claiming that "it hasn't happened (yet)" is a VERY BAD CONCEPT in aviation. No airliner crashed because of a fire in its in-fight entertainment system, either... before the first one did. There's always a first time.

As any pilot knows, accidents are rarely accidents. They're the end result of a chain of sometimes tiny events, relatively harmless by themselves.

For example, the confidential safety database has entries from pilots who could not hear ATC because of GSM buzz interference. Other entries note navigation gear acting up, autolanders disengaging, and false collision alerts.

Fortunately, the pilots involved worked their way around the issues. However, it's not hard to imagine that the result could've ended up in a worse way, especially with less experience pilots.

We already know that there can be interference. Boeing was testing a new WiFi system last year when they accidentally discovered that a passenger device that ramped up its power too much, in a certain position of the plane, would cause the pilots' cockpit flight displays to blank out. They had to add more shielding to get around that.

In aviation, it is always better to be safe than sorry. Pilots have a saying, "It is always better to be on the ground wishing you were up in the air, than in the air wishing you were on the ground!"

--

The problem here is, that it's usually impossible to prove the event after landing. The passengers and their devices are gone, and nobody is going to pay to take the aircraft offline to do more testing of that particular airplane.

Moreover, the FAA is mostly concerned with keeping flights going. That's why they spent decades ignoring the NTSB (they're the safety guys) recommendation for cargo hold extinguisher systems.

It's all about the cost vs displayed risk.

 

[caesarp]

I don't understand why so many seem to struggle with this. The following all seem undeniable to me:

1. All (non-trivial) electronic systems radiate.
2. Failures and defects (software or hardware) can cause the level of radiation to exceed design/approval levels.
3. Such failures do happen.
4. All imperfectly shielded electronics is susceptible to EMI.
5. Perfect shielding is impossible.
6. Failures and defects can reduce the effectiveness of shielding.
7. Such failures do happen.

The clear implication of the above is there is at least a plausible theoretical mechanism for personal electronic devices to have some effect on aircraft systems.

Given the huge number of permutations of number of devices of which types in which positions with which defect, quantifying the level of this risk is challenging at best, and has not yet been achieved.

Given the presence of the theoretical risk, it seems perfectly reasonable to play it safe and ban the use of these devices until the level of risk has been quantified.

It is often argued that the fact that some percentage of people ignore the rules, and nobody has died yet, is empirical evidence that it's safe. This argument is bogus - all it says that our experience so far shows that flying with the rules as they are is safe, even with the fraction of people who ignore them. It says nothing about the safety of flying without the rules, which would surely result in greater device usage.

-- HJKL

Just about anything is plausible -- so what? You can't completely eliminate all risk. People like you is why we have TSA security theater (the better safe than sorry crowd).

And there are dozens of devices in use at take-off and landings. I've seen it myself (and participated in it). This has been tested plenty.

----------

Since you are already discounting any such reports, even with a link, I'm not going to waste my time.

Or you have no link, since I'm not your only audience here.

 

[notabadname]

Flight crews report interference? Based on what? Are they timing exactly when the device is turned off to the second with the disappearance of any interference? Doubtful. Flight crews have never reported anything that remotely proves interference.

Your ignorance astounds me. You speak with such confidence about something you are so simply wrong about. I am a pilot with Delta Air Lines. I have reported interference myself. The cause is hard to identify of course. But when we ask ATC if they are having any other reports of interference on the radio channel, and they check with multiple other aircraft in our airspace, all with negative reports, then we know it is something with our own aircraft. That does not prove personal electronics. But it isolates the problem to either the aircraft's own systems, or some influence on board. And, as this article suggests, had you read it, there have been direct correlations made by crew to passenger PEDs when they were switched off. This is why the FAA, with the cooperation of air carriers, is trying to due more detailed testing, where results can be replicated and proven or disproven.

 

[caesarp]

Your ignorance astounds me. You speak with such confidence about something you are so simply wrong about. I am a pilot with Delta Air Lines. I have reported interference myself. The cause is hard to identify of course. But when we ask ATC if they are having any other reports of interference on the radio channel, and they check with multiple other aircraft in our airspace, all with negative reports, then we know it is something with our own aircraft. That does not prove personal electronics. But it isolates the problem to either the aircraft's own systems, or some influence on board. And, as this article suggests, had you read it, there have been direct correlations made by crew to passenger PEDs when they were switched off. This is why the FAA, with the cooperation of air carriers, is trying to due more detailed testing, where results can be replicated and proven or disproven.

Oh please. Other pilots dispute what you say. You even state this does not prove personal electronics caused the issue. Morover, the "direct correlations" you cite are merely personal opinion -- not fact.

If there is a problem then they should be BANNED entirely. Obviously dozens of people keep them on at all stages of a flight (since flight attendants don't check stuff they can't visibly see).

So the rules make no sense. Either allow devices on all the time, or ban them entirely. End of story.

----------

Several incidents documented here:

http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/docs/rpsts/ped.pdf

Nothing except opinion about a device causing an issue -- no real facts. And a lot of batteries going up in smoke.

Your .pdf proves nothing.

 

[hjkl]

EMI from electronic devices does not amplify like that.

The way in which waves superpose depends on whether they are coherent or incoherent. For coherent signals, amplitudes (in this case field strengths) will sum, with resulting interference patterns. For incoherent signals the squares of the amplitudes will sum, which in this case results in the powers summing.

The incoherent case results in a lower worst-case field strength than the coherent case, but it does still increase with the number of radiation sources.

-- HJKL

 

[linuxcooldude]

Or you have no link, since I'm not your only audience here.

So be it.

http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/aviation/unsafe-at-any-airspeed

Interestingly enough from the same article:

In March 2004, acting on a number of reports from general aviation pilots that Samsung SPH-N300 cellphones had caused their GPS receivers to lose satellite lock, NASA issued a technical memorandum that described emissions from this popular phone. It reported that there were emissions in the GPS band capable of causing interference. Disturbingly, though, they were low enough to comply with FCC emissions standards.

Because of more and more people bringing mobile and portable devices, and with new models coming out makes it hard to test all all aircraft with all the variations of these types of devices.

 

[hjkl]

Just about anything is plausible -- so what? You can't completely eliminate all risk. People like you is why we have TSA security theater (the better safe than sorry crowd).

It's clearly always a trade-off between the level of risk and the inconvenience of avoiding it. In this case the inconvenience is minimal, and the risk is not yet quantified.

And there are dozens of devices in use at take-off and landings. I've seen it myself (and participated in it). This has been tested plenty.

It makes no logical sense to use the fact that we have lots of empirical evidence that flying with the current regulations in place is safe as justification for changing those regulations.

-- HJKL

 

[notabadname]

Oh please. Other pilots dispute what you say. You even state this does not prove personal electronics caused the issue. Morover, the "direct correlations" you cite are merely personal opinion -- not fact.

If there is a problem then they should be BANNED entirely. Obviously dozens of people keep them on at all stages of a flight (since flight attendants don't check stuff they can't visibly see).

So the rules make no sense. Either allow devices on all the time, or ban them entirely. End of story.

The occurrence of interference is FACT. The cause is what is under investigation. They are not banned entirely because of the difference in "phase of flight" that we are operating the aircraft in. Navigation of the aircraft requires incredibly less "precision" when we are in "cruise" at altitude as compared to "approach" below 10,000 ft. Shooting a precision approach to a runway in weather, or at night has little room for errors that theoretically could be induced by electromagnetic interference. An airplane lining up 50 feet left of the runway centerline on landing can (and has been) catastrophic. Airways navigation at 35,000 feet has no such vulnerability. So the potential problem and its impact on aviation safety is viewed differently above and below 10,000 ft. So you are again wrong and clearly ignorant of the subject matter when you lump the entire flight profile together by stating: "If there is a problem then they should be BANNED entirely."

Your statements are clearly nothing more than uninformed opinion and trolling. That is the most apparent "Fact" in this whole discussion.