FAA Advisory Committee Recommends Relaxation of Electronic Device Restrictions on Commercial Aircraft

[kdarling]

i guess i read the link different than you.. it says the FAA took the position of being much more involved in the tests by overseeing/organizing a collaborative effort between all involved parties as opposed to requiring each individual airline to perform the tests on each of the types of planes in their fleet.

The purpose of the FAA Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) is outlined in this document.

"The ARC will submit a report detailing recommendations by 7/3112013, on the technical, policy and procedural guidance that the aircraft operators need to safely expand the use of various types of PEDs throughout the entire flight."

It's not about the FAA getting involved in testing. They don't do that now, and it's the last thing they would ever want to do. Instead, as you noted, such testing is left up to each airline.

The trouble is, complete testing is simply impossible. This is an important point. Impossible.

So what was hoped for, was a blanket approval that did not require any testing.

you may also be missing the part about these test are actually being conducted. i don't have the actual numbers but i assume we're talking about hundreds of devices tested separately on hundreds of planes.

There are no such tests. That's a fantasy of the reporter.

if i were to believe everything you say, at some point i'd have to conclude the FAA will knowingly be putting millions of lives in danger if they change their rules..

The FAA has knowingly put millions of lives in danger for years. A lot of people mistake their purpose with that of the NTSB, who really are about safety.

i mean, what are you going to say if next year, you board a flight ...

Let me be clear. My main thrust here is that a debate must be based on facts, not back-of-plane passenger experience, and wildly incorrect flight or electronic misconceptions. Which is why I really do appreciate your attempts to bring in logic and references.

My objection to encouraging PEDs during critical phases of flight is that it's an unnecessary extra risk at this time. Yes, with newer planes, the worry is far less. The trouble is, the average age of the US fleet is what, like 14 years? That's long before devices became popular, and many aircraft still have older avionics.

--

However, when I get on a commercial flight, my personal worry is not the electronic devices. Nor is it mechanical problems. Nor even battery fires, although we really should be worried about those. (I think it's just a matter of time before an airliner has a battery fire in someone's stored luggage, and then we're going to see more strict rules implemented. This is the trouble with the FAA. They're reactive, not proactive.)

If I worry about anything, it's how much sleep the pilots got, and how well they've actually been flight tested. Especially the latter.

The biggest recent accidents have been because of almost unbelievably rookie pilot mistakes. (Colgan Buffalo crash, and the Air France crash.)

The very FIRST thing you're taught as a pilot, is to NOT pull back the yoke when you're stalling. The Colgan pilot (who had had little sleep and had failed some testing) held the yoke back all the way to the ground, instead of simply pushing forward and regaining flying speed. Likewise, the Air France copilot held his sidestick back all the way down to the ocean, which the pilot (who'd only had an hour's sleep before the flight) did not notice until it was too late (because the sticks aren't mechanically interconnected).

Conversely, the greatest aviation saves (the Hudson River landing, the Sioux City crash-landing, the Gimli Glider, the Heathrow landing) have been with well rested, extremely experienced captains who often had glider training.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Yes, I know. When I was learning to fly, I spent a lot of time reading NTSB reports related to small planes, hoping to glean some insight into what situations to avoid.

One interesting side item I noticed in the narratives, was that pilots who had made forced landings which came to an abrupt halt in something like a dirt field or ditch, often reported how painful it was when their headsets flew forward off their ears. This made me mentally add "remove headset" as the last item in my real emergency landing checklist

I did the same thing, and I don't recall my CFI suggesting it. Did you ever find yourself flying in severe turbulence? It will add "keep everything in the cockpit secured at all times" to your mental checklist.

----------

Yeah, my favorite is the people that claim that since they have left their phone on (and not in airplane) mode when they fly, and nothing bad happened, it must be safe.

These are the same people that text while driving, and believe it is safe because they've never had an accident.

Or keep on smoking because it hasn't killed them yet.

 

[TallManNY]

I didn't really give any data relating to crash positions, other than to say that the FAA reports that it's three times safer. I'd say that shows a high likelihood of making a difference. At any rate, if you want to know the G-forces involved and what injuries are likely check out season 3, episode 13 of Mythbusters ("Killer Brace Position").


Actually, as I already stated, in most plane crashes 20% of people die on impact and 80% survive. Most, if not all, of the survivors then die as a result of fire and smoke.

I find it hard to believe that in "most plane crashes" (i.e, in over 50% of plane crashes) 20% die on impact and then 80% survive the initial crash only to die as a result of fire and smoke. That seems like a pretty unique type of crash. I've heard about a ton of plane crashes in my life and the vast majority of them very few people die because the plane makes a basically successful crash landing. Or, the plane goes down hard and everyone dies. But I guess you are suggesting that even in those crashes, the plane doesn't go down hard enough to kill everyone and they in fact die of the resulting fire. Which is interesting. That seems like a lot of folks unable to get out of the plane after the crash.

 

[Berserker-UK]

you can use wifi (and bluetooth) while in airplane mode (on an iphone at least)..

I'm well aware of this, and do it all the time, and I'd expect any reader of this forum to know, but that's at best 0.05% of Apple's customer base, right? (I know some here wish it were more)

But how many of the other 99.95% also know this?

 

[Jynto]

People who put an aircraft full of non-consenting passengers at risk because they imagine they're smarter than everyone else and then make a point of bragging about it are sociopathic. Even if the rules change in the future, it doesn't change the fact that such people were told they'd be endangering the aircraft, had no technical basis to decide otherwise, chose to risk the lives of others and now have no sense of remorse.

Maybe if it wasn't for those cellphone-using, plane-destroying psychopaths, my mother might still be alive.

 

[tbrinkma]

This thread is a very interesting example of human behavior on a forum ...

There are professional pilots and some competent chaps saying almost the same thing (use of electronic devices during critical phases like takeoff and landings DO involve some risks) but people with clearly no idea of what are they talking about still speak, and speak and speak .... over and over.

Last things I red about magnetic compass and how nearly impossible a problem during takeoff is (in my career I had at least three high speed rejected take offs) are just a prove that continue in this conversation is pointless.
Like someone of the "experts" said above "they don't have to believe me", no matter if this is our job and we are speaking about procedures we are applying every single day.

Here's the thing. These 'professional pilots' (whose credentials we have no way to verify) are making claims about a subject which *isn't* their area of expertise. Specifically, electronics and electromagnetic interference (EMI). It is logically unsound to assume that because someone is a 'professional pilot', that they are *also* experts on EMI.

Yes, pilots can speak to their own experiences, but (and this is important), their experiences have *NOT* been backed up by controlled tests. In fact, the controlled tests that *have* been done mesh perfectly with the millions of *uncontrolled* tests that have been done over the past few decades.

In the face of unfathomable magnitudes of data, all supporting the notion that consumer electronics are, in fact, *NOT* a danger to airliners, constant (and unsupported) cries of "but maybe what if could happen?!?!?!?" simply don't fly.

Provide solid, *DOCUMENTED* evidence from controlled experiments that shows the effects you're concerned about, and you'll have a debate. Until then, you've got decades of accumulated evidence vs. bald supposition.

 

[DougiePhresh]

I think of it this way... if having your phone on while flying was truly a danger to anyone, they would confiscate them upon boarding. Why would they put 100+ people's lives in their own hands. I have had corkscrews, sunscreen, toothpaste, etc. all thrown in the trash before boarding a plane because they were "dangerous" all this tells me is that my phone is less "dangerous" than toothpaste in terms of keeping the plane up in the air.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Here's the thing. These 'professional pilots' (whose credentials we have no way to verify) are making claims about a subject which *isn't* their area of expertise. Specifically, electronics and electromagnetic interference (EMI). It is logically unsound to assume that because someone is a 'professional pilot', that they are *also* experts on EMI.

Yes, pilots can speak to their own experiences, but (and this is important), their experiences have *NOT* been backed up by controlled tests. In fact, the controlled tests that *have* been done mesh perfectly with the millions of *uncontrolled* tests that have been done over the past few decades.

In the face of unfathomable magnitudes of data, all supporting the notion that consumer electronics are, in fact, *NOT* a danger to airliners, constant (and unsupported) cries of "but maybe what if could happen?!?!?!?" simply don't fly.

Provide solid, *DOCUMENTED* evidence from controlled experiments that shows the effects you're concerned about, and you'll have a debate. Until then, you've got decades of accumulated evidence vs. bald supposition.

Here's the thing. This thread and every other one ever run on this issue is filled with supposedly informed comments from people whose total expertise in this issue is limited to sitting in seat 21B, or to what they just googled. Nobody needs to be a professional anything or to present any data to refute that kind of argument.

 

[discuit]

It should also be decided by the people who are responsible for aircraft safety, not by companies selling consumer products.

Well, we can thank Apple for making the design decision to not make an "off switch" easily accessible or part of normal operation for devices, starting with the iPod

This has sort of forced the regulators' hands on this issue as many (perhaps most?) iPod/iPhone/iPad users don't even know how to turn their device off.

 

[macs4nw]

Definitely about time! So many rules are active from 10-20 years ago that no longer make sense.

It's a welcome change, but at the same time, when it comes to my safety in the air, I'm glad they're taking their time to ensure that unrestricted use of personal electronics while aloft, cannot in any way shape or form endanger the safety of airtravel. And yes, I'm also considering terrorism.

 

[Analog Kid]

well, at least you downshifted to calling it ignorance instead of sociopathic behavior.. that's a decent start.

but even then.. is it really ignorance?

Yes.


Ignoramus: Millions of people eat beans. Ricin comes from beans. Fear of ricin is hogwash.

Sociopath: Therefore it's ok to dump these castor shells behind the school parking lot.

 

[BadBoyPro]

Here's the thing. These 'professional pilots' (whose credentials we have no way to verify) are making claims about a subject which *isn't* their area of expertise. Specifically, electronics and electromagnetic interference (EMI). It is logically unsound to assume that because someone is a 'professional pilot', that they are *also* experts on EMI.

Yes, pilots can speak to their own experiences, but (and this is important), their experiences have *NOT* been backed up by controlled tests. In fact, the controlled tests that *have* been done mesh perfectly with the millions of *uncontrolled* tests that have been done over the past few decades.

In the face of unfathomable magnitudes of data, all supporting the notion that consumer electronics are, in fact, *NOT* a danger to airliners, constant (and unsupported) cries of "but maybe what if could happen?!?!?!?" simply don't fly.

Provide solid, *DOCUMENTED* evidence from controlled experiments that shows the effects you're concerned about, and you'll have a debate. Until then, you've got decades of accumulated evidence vs. bald supposition.

Being a humble pilot I might not be an expert in EMI. However it doesn't take a genius to realise that an aircraft full of loose handheld electronic equipment in an emergency scenario will turn into heavy life threatening projectiles. So at the end of the day it matters not one jot what the FAA 'recommend' as I and many many other professional pilots will not be following their advice.

 

[wonderspark]

I think the only real way to enforce bans on electronic devices is through the use of jammers. Right now, it's the same old game where people turn the ringer off, and tuck the phone out of sight while the crew walk by. You can't stop people from using their phones, but you can make using them futile.

Otherwise, they need to just relax the rules and end the silly attempt to ensure compliance.

Haha, and I just saw this from my favourite comic!

 

[BarryL]

Just don't allow people to make phone calls while airborne.

 

[kdarling]

Here's the thing. These 'professional pilots' (whose credentials we have no way to verify)

Quite the contrary. The reports of interference come from professional pilots filing with NASA's ASRS safety reporting program.

are making claims about a subject which *isn't* their area of expertise. Specifically, electronics and electromagnetic interference (EMI). It is logically unsound to assume that because someone is a 'professional pilot', that they are *also* experts on EMI.

True, although one doesn't have to be an expert to notice a correlation.

Yes, pilots can speak to their own experiences, but (and this is important), their experiences have *NOT* been backed up by controlled tests.

Which controlled tests? There have been relatively few done by engineers in real airplanes. (Besides the display-killer that Boeing found, and the iPad interference in the cockpit I mentioned.)

In the face of unfathomable magnitudes of data, all supporting the notion that consumer electronics are, in fact, *NOT* a danger to airliners, constant (and unsupported) cries of "but maybe what if could happen?!?!?!?" simply don't fly.

Neither pilots nor engineers support the idea of allowing PED use during critical phases of flight... when ANY kind of distraction to the pilots can have unfavorable consequences.

What you should be asking yourself, is who DOES support allowing this?

Yep, that's right, this idea is mainly backed by political hacks who are looking for easy ways to please their masters or constituents... and by airline CEOs who want to divert attention from the way they pack people in, charge them for everything, and overwork their pilots.

This FAA committee recommendation didn't result from testing, nor have the best interests of passenger safety in mind. It was quick and easy (only $50,000 allotted to it) and politician endorsed. It's amazing how many people suddenly trust the US government if it means they can play their games a few minutes more.

.

 

[rdlink]

It shows they weren't able to show correlation once they actually did real testing, not using pilot anecdotes.

Just because they couldn't reproduce the situation with a limited test does not mean there wasn't correlation. You, and others are being a little too cavalier with my safety for the convenience of using your damn toys for an extra 15-20 minutes per flight.

 

[Lerxt]

For all those people who think they know better than us aviation professionals here is some reading for you.

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

This is a report of PED incidents to this year.

I'd suggest some of you need to get over your ignorance and contemplate whether you will be the one that causes the loss of an aircraft and it's pax and crew one day. We've spent decades making aviation safer, we don't need dolts trying to undermine our efforts.

Lerxt
Captain: B747, B747-8, B777, A330, A340

 

[zhenya]

For all those people who think they know better than us aviation professionals here is some reading for you.

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

This is a report of PED incidents to this year.

I'd suggest some of you need to get over your ignorance and contemplate whether you will be the one that causes the loss of an aircraft and it's pax and crew one day. We've spent decades making aviation safer, we don't need dolts trying to undermine our efforts.

Lerxt
Captain: B747, B747-8, B777, A330, A340

Yes, we are aware of that list and have even discussed some of the incidents reported on it. Ultimately it is just a list of reported incidents and the steps taken to try to deal with the issue at the time. It ultimately proves nothing as there was no control to the process, no repeatability, no verification.

Where is the ignorance? You state yourself that we've spent decades making aviation safer. Over that same time period, on-board electronic use has increased exponentially, with only minimal oversight of their use during flight. Despite that, there has never been an accident attributed to a consumer electronic device. At what point has the bar been set high enough? If it is something along the lines of 'when devices can be proven to never cause a problem,' well, then given that impossible task, I guess you would be arguing that electronics shouldn't be allowed on planes at all. Are you ready to go down that path? Are you ready to hold all other aspects of flying to that same standard?

----------

Sigh. "Ignorance" is making comments about things that are clearly way outside your knowledge or experience.

Even a simple charter jet uses an HSI (Horizontal Situation Indicator - "compass" to you) slaved remotely to a gyro and a flux compass over wires.

An airliner will be using that or a FMS (Flight Management System) that takes info from the VOR/DME radios, Inertial Reference System (if it has one) and/or GPS receiver (if it has one). The FMS controls the autopilot. TCAS receivers in the tail give collision alerts.

All of this is wired together and susceptible to interference. For example, here's an example of a false TCAS alert (RA - Resolution Advisory) while taking off.

Yes, very similar in operation to the systems that we manufacture, which are also often working in tandem with a gyro and accelerometers. All wired together and unshielded. Calibrated to +/- 0.1 degrees. If there were interference from other electronics in the area, we would know about it.

Can you reference one documented case where a consumer electronics device, say a smartphone, in the 'flight' mode, stored in the passenger cabin, was proven to affect the heading of the airplane? Not assumed. Proven. Just one.

----------

Neither pilots nor engineers support the idea of allowing PED use during critical phases of flight... when ANY kind of distraction to the pilots can have unfavorable consequences.

What you should be asking yourself, is who DOES support allowing this?

Yep, that's right, this idea is mainly backed by political hacks who are looking for easy ways to please their masters or constituents... and by airline CEOs who want to divert attention from the way they pack people in, charge them for everything, and overwork their pilots.

This FAA committee recommendation didn't result from testing, nor have the best interests of passenger safety in mind. It was quick and easy (only $50,000 allotted to it) and politician endorsed. It's amazing how many people suddenly trust the US government if it means they can play their games a few minutes more.

.

Yet nobody has been concerned enough about it to ask for regulations more than a polite request to turn off devices. Go into the business and first class sections of most any international flight. Half the passengers will be using their devices even during take off and landing.

 

[wonderspark]

The future lies in picocells on aircraft, because let's face it - - people are going to use their devices whether there's a rule against it or not. Passenger compliance is a fantasy, and merely shaming them with "...you might cause a crash..." is a waste of time, because people don't believe it until the plane is nose-diving, and even then they won't believe it was their fault.

Either jam the phones so people get used to them not working at all, or enable them to use them safely and more effectively with something like picocells.

In the meantime, I'm enjoying people posting up their 'expertise' on the matter, or what types of planes they claim to fly.

I fly in First/Business internationally quite often, and I can only recall once that a flight attendant personally asked someone to turn off a device. It would seem they save that effort for the 'PAX' in the back of the plane. In front, we get to have glasses and metal eating utensils, but those are acceptable projectiles in an emergency... har har. I wonder if the partitions between first and coach will stop a flying service cart from flying into my elite space filled with flying rich PAX, blankets, pillows, glasses and knives.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Yes, we are aware of that list and have even discussed some of the incidents reported on it. Ultimately it is just a list of reported incidents and the steps taken to try to deal with the issue at the time. It ultimately proves nothing as there was no control to the process, no repeatability, no verification.

No, only some of us are aware and have discussed it seriously. Otherwise we've heard nothing better than endless bloviating from people like you who seem to assume that these pilots are just making it up, or have no idea what they are talking about.

Corrected link:

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

 

[zhenya]

No, only some of us are aware and have discussed it seriously. Otherwise we've heard nothing better than endless bloviating from people like you who seem to assume that these pilots are just making it up, or have no idea what they are talking about.

Corrected link:

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

I don't assume they are making it up, I just don't believe that their assumptions about the cause are correct or particularly valuable. As I've mentioned, our company makes devices that track magnetic position as well. I have spent years of my life in the field testing, operating, and supporting these devices. When we see magnetic anomalies in the field, it can be difficult if not impossible to accurately determine the cause. At the time though there are all sorts of theories floating around, people changing equipment, etc. Just because we changed something and the interference went away doesn't mean that the two have a causative relationship though, and in fact we are often unable to replicate the event again in the future, even under seemingly identical circumstances.

 

[JAT]

Just because they couldn't reproduce the situation with a limited test does not mean there wasn't correlation. You, and others are being a little too cavalier with my safety for the convenience of using your damn toys for an extra 15-20 minutes per flight.

Believe what you want. Next you'll tell me I'm an ax murderer outside your window.

I'll bring some tinfoil for you.

 

[Analog Kid]

Just because we changed something and the interference went away doesn't mean that the two have a causative relationship though, and in fact we are often unable to replicate the event again in the future, even under seemingly identical circumstances.

And given inconclusive results, you suggest pursuing the riskier course.

What the "my gut is smarter than your brain" crowd seems to keep missing is that we're all in agreement that the risk level is uncertain. The fact that there are incidents being recorded suggest that we aren't very far from dangerous interference. Those of us who know something about the technologies involved, and how such devices are built and regulated, understand that there is plenty of opportunity for greater interference than we've seen to date and not much reason to believe we've seen the worst.

As I've said over and over again every time this conversation erupts: It is impossible to know what next year's device, using new processing, communications and peripheral standards, with buggy firmware controlling the internal radios, designed for use in a foreign country, never tested by FCC, manufactured in the cheapest possible manner, dropped twice, and turned on during a dicey takeoff will do.

It's not out of the question that they can harden the aircraft, provide enough redundancy and test it regularly enough to protect it from most things. That would be expensive, and still incur greater risk, but if we choose to go that route I won't complain. Based on the mindset I see here, however, it's going to have to be a fleet wide change because the "what me worry" brigade is automatically going to assume that they've been right all along and do whatever they care to even on aircraft that haven't been hardened and tested.

What is unacceptable, however, is people just disregarding rules they simply don't understand and thinking they're a folk hero.

 

[caesarp]

And given inconclusive results, you suggest pursuing the riskier course.

What the "my gut is smarter than your brain" crowd seems to keep missing is that we're all in agreement that the risk level is uncertain. The fact that there are incidents being recorded suggest that we aren't very far from dangerous interference. Those of us who know something about the technologies involved, and how such devices are built and regulated, understand that there is plenty of opportunity for greater interference than we've seen to date and not much reason to believe we've seen the worst.

As I've said over and over again every time this conversation erupts: It is impossible to know what next year's device, using new processing, communications and peripheral standards, with buggy firmware controlling the internal radios, designed for use in a foreign country, never tested by FCC, manufactured in the cheapest possible manner, dropped twice, and turned on during a dicey takeoff will do.

It's not out of the question that they can harden the aircraft, provide enough redundancy and test it regularly enough to protect it from most things. That would be expensive, and still incur greater risk, but if we choose to go that route I won't complain. Based on the mindset I see here, however, it's going to have to be a fleet wide change because the "what me worry" brigade is automatically going to assume that they've been right all along and do whatever they care to even on aircraft that haven't been hardened and tested.

What is unacceptable, however, is people just disregarding rules they simply don't understand and thinking they're a folk hero.

Planes are bombarded with all kinds of signals from outside and within and even radiation from space constantly, daily and unceasingly. If portable computing devices were at all dangerous, they should all be confiscated before boarding.

Worrying about an iphone causing an airplane accident is like worrying about being struck by lightning. Could it happen -- maybe. But we dont' all wear lightning rods all day every day.

And by the way, whether or not you think people think they are folk heros isn't the issue. People will never ever 100% comply with the rule as is. That's a fact.

Nor do I suppose you going 5 or 10 miles an hour over the speed limit when you drive is you being a folk hero. Its because the speed limit rules are set for the lowest common denominator (and many people are better drivers than the low end).

With device rules on airplanes, we ignore them because we know the rules are set because no one has a real clue and because it was the easiest thing for the FAA to do. And there has never been shown to be a fatal accident or injuries from a kindle or iphone device in use. So no one is causing anyone to be at risk by reading their kindle app on their ipad. Relax.

 

[zhenya]

And given inconclusive results, you suggest pursuing the riskier course.

The results are anything but inconclusive. Hundreds of millions of flights over billions of flight hours with billions of passengers all carrying devices proves that. What you ask for is impossible. Next year's devices will get carried on-board and left on by the millions just like they did this year. Are you suggesting a complete ban of electronics when flying?

You want a guarantee that nothing bad will ever happen. Where else in our life do we apply that level of risk aversion? Certainly not in designing the very airplanes these devices are carried on.

It is not 'my gut' vs. 'your brain.' It is twenty plus years of one of the largest case studies you could ever ask for vs. the inability to even define the problem in a meaningful and test-able manner. This is engineering pragmatism vs. those stuck in the 'research everything, produce nothing' paradigm.