Irrelevant. No one is suggesting that phones should be other than in airplane mode when in the air. This is about Part 15 devices, not cell phones.
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
Irrelevant. No one is suggesting that phones should be other than in airplane mode when in the air. This is about Part 15 devices, not cell phones.
27 incidents in delta flights from 2010 - 2012, that is compared to how many movements without incidents? Delta gives 4804 flights daily (http://news.delta.com/index.php?s=18&cat=47). Lets say this times 3 (2010, 11 and 12) gives us 1095 days, therefore 5,260,380 flights. This are 0.0005%...
I see -- that's pretty interesting, concerning even having the screen on. Good to know. Thanks!
This is BS. If you're telling me my iPad could bring down an airliner than we need to ground all planes and re-think this whole flying thing. Apparently it's way more dangerous than we thought.
Cue cartoon:
"Sorry Da Vinci, it looks like your invention for the helicopter just won't work... unless... we turn off our cellphones first!"
Cue cartoon:
"Sorry Da Vinci, it looks like your invention for the helicopter just won't work... unless... we turn off our cellphones first!"
Let's see if we can figure out what's wrong with this statement:
Why do we allow people to make such idiotic statements without challenge? Who cares what they reported if they can't prove it?
Hey, why not blame it on the elderly? You can't verify it was them either so old-people-dust must be a perfectly reasonable excuse. If a pilot or mechanic just "feels" like it might have something to do with the elderly then we need to ban all old people.
And the final coup de grâce to this shear stupidity is this:
If electronic devices interfered with aircraft electronics in a dangerous way then terrorists would just use cellphones.
Oh, and I was an Aviation Electronics Technician in the Navy and my specialty was radios.
Why do we allow people to make such idiotic statements without challenge? Who cares what they reported if they can't prove it?
Hey, why not blame it on the elderly? You can't verify it was them either so old-people-dust must be a perfectly reasonable excuse. If a pilot or mechanic just "feels" like it might have something to do with the elderly then we need to ban all old people.
And the final coup de grâce to this shear stupidity is this:
If electronic devices interfered with aircraft electronics in a dangerous way then terrorists would just use cellphones.
Oh, and I was an Aviation Electronics Technician in the Navy and my specialty was radios.
Presumably an aircraft on take-off or landing is flying through a blizzard of man-made electromagnetic radiation from cell towers, TV and radio masts and radar installations, apparently without ill effect. So why does an iPhone or iPad pose a potential risk?
The comments on this thread are pretty disgusting. They are full of speculation from people who apparently have no clue about aircraft, avionics, or electronics, but think because they were on a plane once that didn't crash because someone left their cell phone on that they are suddenly aviation safety experts.
This alone is sufficient reason to ban electronic devices during critical phases of flight. No matter how much well controlled scientific testing is done, there will always be some idiot who comes along with a device he's built, modified, or just carelessly handled that does interfere with the avionics.
Really people, if you can't live without your electronics for 10 minutes, and you're willing to gamble other peoples' lives on your addiction, you've got a serious problem. Get help!
This alone is sufficient reason to ban electronic devices during critical phases of flight. No matter how much well controlled scientific testing is done, there will always be some idiot who comes along with a device he's built, modified, or just carelessly handled that does interfere with the avionics.
Really people, if you can't live without your electronics for 10 minutes, and you're willing to gamble other peoples' lives on your addiction, you've got a serious problem. Get help!
i think we can all live without our electronic devices for the at most 15 minutes of take off and 15 minutes of touchdown....
To play Devil's advocate here... An airplane is a giant aluminum tube. That shields it, to some extent, from the RF outside. And in any event, that RF dissipates at an inverse square rate from its source, which is relatively far away from the plane, at least in comparison to RF sources *in the cabin*.
Oh god. I don't want to smell your second hand smoke, especially in an enclosed space, and definitely not on a flight that goes on for possibly more than 8 hours. Also, annoying children and cell phones are in no way a comparison to the real dangers of second hand smoke.
"Look! There's footprints in the snow ahead!"
Instead of me repeating *again* that it's *not* 15 minutes between pushback and 10,000 feet in even *most* cases, why don't you go back through *this very thread* and find that same counter-argument and read it for yourself.
This pretty much sums up how I feel about the subject. I just don't think anything will come of the world if we're "off" for 10-15 minutes. Hell, that's the only time I actually sleep while on a plane, I miss the takeoff every single time and the landing, that's when I finally look at SkyMall and debate buying that Batman ring and Harry Potter letter opener.
There are no rules about being a yammering clown on an airplane but I for one like the idea of not having to hear a bunch of people on a phone in close quarters. Flying is getting worse and worse as is, unless you're fortunate enough to be in first class, I just don't care to hear a bunch of people on the telephone.
As funny as this is and perhaps harsh, it is true. No one, none of us, can possibly be so important that we can't be shut off for a few moments in life.
They *have* tested under controlled conditions. Repeatedly. So far, none of these observed incidents of consumer electronics interfering with flight instruments has been able to be replicated under controlled conditions.
Given that neither cell phone, nor bluetooth, nor wi-fi (of any variety) operates on the same wavelength as any of the flight instruments or flight telemetry, the prospect of those *actually* interfering with flight instruments or telemetry in any meaningful way is suspect to begin with.
The sheer magnitude of flight time involving dozens to hundreds of *fully active* phones, laptops, etc. on board during all phases of flight is strong evidence that the imagined problem doesn't actually exist.
There are *standards* in place for unlicensed RF emissions. Go google for "FCC Part 15." In fact, just about every electronic device you own *somewhere* will have an FCC identification number on it that you could use to look up the RF emissions testing that exemplars of that device had to undergo in order to be legally sold in the United States.
No one is arguing that you should be able to bring and use *anything* on a plane.
What I am saying is that any airplane that cannot safely operate with FCC Part 15 compliant devices in operation within its cabin is not airworthy.
Unless you, or someone else, can counter that argument then the conclusion that must derive is either
1. A blanket rule is in place to make up for otherwise un-airworthy craft.
or
2. The rule is pointless.
Which is it?
What about the increasing numbers of composite aircraft? And remember, EMI is additive and you might have 100's of additional sources in a full cabin compared to flight testing conditions.
Wrong. It is usually 30 mintues to over an hour. They tell you to turn it off when they start taxiing.
While it is 10 minutes to reach 10,000 feet ONCE you actually takeoff, the takeoff does not occur for a looooooooooooong time. You can taxi and wait in line to take off for easily an hour in most busy airports.
They have you turn it off when you push back from the gate, not when you begin the takeoff roll. If it was that -- I would have no problem.
But I'm not sitting there just staring at the fat people around me for an hour or more.
I never physically power down my iPod Touch and/or iPhone during takeoff/landing when I fly. I do, however, turn airplane mode on.
I believe that passengers will survive for the 10-15 minutes they can't access their iDevices during takeoff/landing.
I believe that passengers will survive for the 10-15 minutes they can't access their iDevices during takeoff/landing.
I guess you don't fly much. It can take up to and more than an hour for the take-off itself. They have you turn it off at push-back from the gate, not at the take-off roll.
My life is not dependent on the gadgets, but if all my reading material is electronic, and there is no good reason not to use it, I should be allowed to use it. In fact, I routinely do. And guess what, no planes have crashed as a result.
I fly quite a bit considering, I never really noticed the timeframe but 15 minutes (my own assessment) didn't seem like a stretch. Other factors such as place in line for takeoff and all that would certainly extend that time.
For the MILLIONITH time, it is not just 10 to 15 minutes. In most busy airports it could be an hour or more.
It is not the take-off roll where they tell you to shut off the devices -- it is at push-back from the gate. You can taxi and sit waiting for take-off for a loooooooooooooooooooooooooog time.
I always leave my ipad on, to read my books via a kindle app. No problems with the plane.
I really like that line. I wonder if any of the people who work at companies that design office furniture have that as an official title. That would be pretty awesome.
It's not even when pushing back from the gate: it is when the cabin door is closed. Usually push-back occurs soon thereafter but not always. I think some of those advocating for the "10-15 minutes" of so-called quiet time are just being passive aggressive about it.
Michael