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

[rdlink]

Perhaps an airplane designer would be a better source.
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_10/interfere_textonly.html

Oh, um...read past the first paragraph where they "recommend" not to allow phones for the actual research that says they have no proof for that decision.

Sorry, but this is one of those things that they need to disprove better than they have. The document does show several incidents in which the pilots were able to show correlation between a device being on, and the experienced anomalies. I would really like for people to be able to use their stuff on a plane. Mainly so they'll just shut up and quit their bitching. But I also want some very conclusive evidence that the interference can't happen before they relax the rules.

 

[flat five]

I don't know about what you see or not, but I can assure you that in the aircraft I fly almost every day, if people in the first rows have cellphones working (or just searching for the network) sometimes I have interferences in my headsets .... And there are moments (I.e. While copying clearances or departing instructions) in which it could be very dangerous.

if i read you correctly, you're saying you've done your own (somewhat legit) testing on this? as in- you've conducted flights where you absolutely know everyone in the first few rows have their phones off.. then, you also do flights where you make sure those people have phones working/searching?
and you now have conclusive evidence that working phones are in fact very dangerous during certain segments of the flight? as well as ruled out the possibility that the interference is coming from somewhere on the ground? (fwiw, i don't test this stuff and i may wrongfully assume that there are much stronger and more plentiful radio etc waves buzzing around at sub10000' than those which would be produced by a phone that's 15' away from the cockpit)

i mean, that's the type of testing which should be happening (an i assume is and/or has happened) but the way you've presented the evidence(?) here is highly unbelievable and it sounds as if you're just making stuff up.. If you do have actual proof of your words, i'd suggest getting it out there in a more presentable/believable manner.

 

[Numpty]

Rumor is that the assume the crash position is to make sure that your dental records are more likely to be near your body in the wreckage

Who flies with their dental records?

Pure gold !!

 

[Max(IT)]

You say "It could be a nightmare on the pilot's radio." While I've seen some feedback from phones that are placed within one or two feet of phones or radios, I've never seen evidence of that interference extending beyond three feet. Do you have any evidence that this "could be a nightmare" could actually happen?

----------



Thanks. I was sort of being tongue in cheek with this rumor. The idea being it keeps your teeth closer to the body making you easier to identify.

But even though it actually works, I suspect it takes a very unlikely form of crash to make a difference.

My own personal experience is more than enough for me to say that several phones (surely not just one or two) at a few meters from the radio could clutter communications ...

No way they can interfere with fly by wire controls, but the headsets and speakers are another matter ....

 

[flat five]

As a pilot I can tell you that each and every single one of you is overlooking one of the main reasons we do not want solid electronic equipment in use during takeoff and landing. During a crash these devices turn into heavy flying missiles.

I don't care what the FAA say on this matter, as it is only a recommendation, however there will be no devices used on my flights during takeoff and landing.

following that same logic, i assume you also make sure during takeoff/landing that nobody has their shoes off, all books are stowed, nobody has a pencil out doing xwords (or whatever), and people can't wear their glasses ?

----------

I remember that thread. And I don't think any of the posters that actually knew anything about the subject defended the band as absolutely necessary.

However, we did explain the physics behind the problem, and how interference was certainly possible, albeit unlikely.

I think the recommendation is reasonable. The only problem is how to enforce it, so that people actually turn on airplane mode. If that can be accomplished, I believe it will actually be an improvement. I've seen many passengers turn off their phone at the beginning of a flight, then turn it on in the middle of a flight to play a game, etc. But, they forget to put it in airplane mode.

'forget' to put it in airplane mode? why would they do it anyway? it's currently not a rule that a phone has to be in airplane mode while on the ground or above 10k'...

so changing the rule to "you can use a phone before 10000' but it needs to be in airplane mode" just makes no sense..

it's relaxing a current rule only to add a new rule (the airplane mode part) which is equally, if not more, difficult to enforce.

 

[ChrisCW11]

Modern aircraft

As in all planes since the Wright bros.

Its bad when society starts to promote an urban myth into a state where people firmly believe in it, its very bad when government organizations also accept myth as fact.

For instance, there are still a slew of signs at gas stations asking you to actually turn off your cellphone when filling. I mean, who does that these days? I have seen people texting while filling up their tank, and there are probably 4 other devices in the car powered up and transmitting or received radio waves. Devices simply do not "spark", and even if they did, I think the Mythbusters debunked this urban myth a long time ago.

While I appreciate safety regulations in planes, it was annoying in the past to have to turn off my "Discman" back in the day because of fear it might crash the plane. I mean what kind of crappy engineering has to go into a plane where a CD player could bring it down?

Also radio frequencies have been regulated almost since the time they first started being transmitted so there was no reason to ever assume that a cell or wifi transmitter on a commercial phone, tablet or computer would interfere with the industrial communication frequencies used to by the plane. Also the receivers of plane communications are on the outside of the plane, outside a big metal shell which actually makes it very difficult for signals to get in or out, hence why the receivers are on the outside.

Also "interference" is a good scapegoat for why a plane crashed when they can't find anything wrong with the the operation of the plane or its pilots. I mean think there are a lot more cases where you can't look at a tangled pile of scrap metal and have definitive proof of some mechanical failure, so I do firmly believe "interference" is used in those case where they can't prove any other problem. Its convenient and the public are willing to accept that excuse because of the long standing urban myth.

Finally since the time they pretty much discovered electricity and radio waves, they have known that a simple metal mesh can disrupt electromagnetic transmission, so there was no reason why cockpits were never protected and isolated from external transmissions ever in the history of modern commercial air travel. How is it possible that planes don't use shielded wires and isolate important electrical systems? Planes can get hit by lightning and they do not fall out of the sky, yet some kid's Nintendo 3DS has to be turned off during flight?

So its good that a government organization is actually reacting to scientific fact rather than overreacting to urban myths.

 

[Max(IT)]

if i read you correctly, you're saying you've done your own (somewhat legit) testing on this? as in- you've conducted flights where you absolutely know everyone in the first few rows have their phones off.. then, you also do flights where you make sure those people have phones working/searching?
and you now have conclusive evidence that working phones are in fact very dangerous during certain segments of the flight? as well as ruled out the possibility that the interference is coming from somewhere on the ground? (fwiw, i don't test this stuff and i may wrongfully assume that there are much stronger and more plentiful radio etc waves buzzing around at sub10000' than those which would be produced by a phone that's 15' away from the cockpit)

i mean, that's the type of testing which should be happening (an i assume is and/or has happened) but the way you've presented the evidence(?) here is highly unbelievable and it sounds as if you're just making stuff up.. If you do have actual proof of your words, i'd suggest getting it out there in a more presentable/believable manner.

It was not a test. It was real life.
I cannot say more about my job, but it's not a commercial airliner so the "mobile phones should be switched off" unfortunately is not always true ...

And yes, I'm quite sure about the source of interference, since by the time I ordered all phones off it disappeared (I'm speaking about several episodes, not just one, and every time wasn't just a single mobile phone involved but at least 4 or 5, if not more) ....
Regarding external interferences existing on the air, they are a real problem, but aircraft are designed to operate in that environment (I think it related to the faraday shield or something like that). Multiple sources of interference whitin the aircraft are a different matter ....

 

[jhwalker]

It's about time. I can now be productive again during the first and last 15 minutes of a flight.

. . . because this is *so* important

 

[Max(IT)]

As in all planes since the Wright bros.

Its bad when society starts to promote an urban myth into a state where people firmly believe in it, its very bad when government organizations also accept myth as fact.

For instance, there are still a slew of signs at gas stations asking you to actually turn off your cellphone when filling. I mean, who does that these days? I have seen people texting while filling up their tank, and there are probably 4 other devices in the car powered up and transmitting or received radio waves. Devices simply do not "spark", and even if they did, I think the Mythbusters debunked this urban myth a long time ago.

While I appreciate safety regulations in planes, it was annoying in the past to have to turn off my "Discman" back in the day because of fear it might crash the plane. I mean what kind of crappy engineering has to go into a plane where a CD player could bring it down?

Also radio frequencies have been regulated almost since the time they first started being transmitted so there was no reason to ever assume that a cell or wifi transmitter on a commercial phone, tablet or computer would interfere with the industrial communication frequencies used to by the plane. Also the receivers of plane communications are on the outside of the plane, outside a big metal shell which actually makes it very difficult for signals to get in or out, hence why the receivers are on the outside.

Also "interference" is a good scapegoat for why a plane crashed when they can't find anything wrong with the the operation of the plane or its pilots. I mean think there are a lot more cases where you can't look at a tangled pile of scrap metal and have definitive proof of some mechanical failure, so I do firmly believe "interference" is used in those case where they can't prove any other problem. Its convenient and the public are willing to accept that excuse because of the long standing urban myth.

Finally since the time they pretty much discovered electricity and radio waves, they have known that a simple metal mesh can disrupt electromagnetic transmission, so there was no reason why cockpits were never protected and isolated from external transmissions ever in the history of modern commercial air travel. How is it possible that planes don't use shielded wires and isolate important electrical systems? Planes can get hit by lightning and they do not fall out of the sky, yet some kid's Nintendo 3DS has to be turned off during flight?

So its good that a government organization is actually reacting to scientific fact rather than overreacting to urban myths.

If you are speaking about something that's could interfere with instruments and aircraft controls, you are quite right. They are shielded and there's no way a "Nintendo 3ds" could cause any interference ...

I'm only speaking about internal interferences that could interfere with the weakest part of the chain: headsets and speakers.

Btw all you said about air accidents investigations is pure fantasy: an huge percentage of accidents are caused by "human or procedural factor" (another word to say that someone made an error) and it widely known. Mechanical failures are not so common, especially in countries where the airworthiness authorities are effective (like USA or Europe). No one is hiding you the truth about air accidents. I can't remember a single air accident caused by something defined as "interference" ....

 

[Corban987]

How many people actually turn off the iPad, Macbook. Hitting the power button just turns the screen off. I am also sure 90% of people don't even turn off the phones or put them in airplane mode, they hit the power button, slip them in their pockets and wait until the seatbelt light goes off (if you are lucky) then pull them out and hit play to continue the music or movie. In reality these devices were always on anyway so this recommendation is long overdue.
ie Slide to Shutdown is when it is really off!

 

[jhwalker]

huh? people can currently talk on their phones while taxiing in and boarding/unboarding.. is it really that big of a problem? (or a problem at all?)

----------



they'll probably have better luck enforcing that than currently trying to get everyone to power down their phones. (i'm willing to guess maybe 1/2 the people do it)

Yes, it's a *huge* problem. I can't even imagine being sat next to some self-important executive on a 12-hour flight who spends the whole flight talking loudly to his "subordinates" and bragging about his business acumen and sales challenges to his buddies. Heaven forfend.

 

[flat five]

It was not a test. It was real life.
I cannot say more about my job, but it's not a commercial airliner so the "mobile phones should be switched off" unfortunately is not always true ...

And yes, I'm quite sure about the source of interference, since by the time I ordered all phones off it disappeared (I'm speaking about several episodes, not just one, and every time wasn't just a single mobile phone involved but at least 4 or 5, if not more) ....
Regarding external interferences existing on the air, they are a real problem, but aircraft are designed to operate in that environment (I think it related to the faraday shield or something like that). Multiple sources of interference whitin the aircraft are a different matter ....

well, i'm not saying you're wrong and i'm not saying i have my own evidence which proves otherwise..

what i'm saying is this- we (the general public) are being fed all sorts of bs from many directions.. even in this thread and the last one on this topic, we have pilots saying "the electronics arent' the problem, it's that the devices become missiles during a crash" ... or- "the electronics aren't the issue.. the rule is in place because the crew needs passenger's undivided attention during certain phases of flight"... or- "the electronics do cause interference"

i mean, which one is it? it all comes across as personal opinions/vendettas which are being placed on other people for no real reason..

i'd hope you can at least understand when people read what your writing (especially when followed by 'i can't provide you with any other info/proof'), they're typically not going to believe what you're saying as it just comes across as increased signal-to-noise ratio and/or ego based stuff as opposed to anything we should actually be personally concerned with.

 

[Max(IT)]

As a pilot I can tell you that each and every single one of you is overlooking one of the main reasons we do not want solid electronic equipment in use during takeoff and landing. During a crash these devices turn into heavy flying missiles.

I don't care what the FAA say on this matter, as it is only a recommendation, however there will be no devices used on my flights during takeoff and landing.

This is also true ....

 

[dmax35]

As a pilot I can tell you that each and every single one of you is overlooking one of the main reasons we do not want solid electronic equipment in use during takeoff and landing. During a crash these devices turn into heavy flying missiles.

I don't care what the FAA say on this matter, as it is only a recommendation, however there will be no devices used on my flights during takeoff and landing.

As a 15,000 hour plus ATP rated pilot I agree 100%. My airplane my rules no matter who owns it.

 

[Max(IT)]

well, i'm not saying you're wrong and i'm not saying i have my own evidence which proves otherwise..

what i'm saying is this- we (the general public) are being fed all sorts of bs from many directions.. even in this thread and the last one on this topic, we have pilots saying "the electronics arent' the problem, it's that the devices become missiles during a crash" ... or- "the electronics aren't the issue.. the rule is in place because the crew needs passenger's undivided attention during certain phases of flight"... or- "the electronics do cause interference"

i mean, which one is it? it all comes across as personal opinions/vendettas which are being placed on other people for no real reason..

i'd hope you can at least understand when people read what your writing (especially when followed by 'i can't provide you with any other info/proof'), they're typically not going to believe what you're saying as it just comes across as increased signal-to-noise ratio and/or ego based stuff as opposed to anything we should actually be personally concerned with.

I don't know how many professional pilots are posting here, but I know this is my job (in the last 23 years) and the three point you quote are somewhat all valids to some extend ...

 

[caesarp]

I always thought these restrictions were nonsense, ESPECIALLY the one where I can't have a radio that's receiving FM signals (not even sending!), but what's so wrong with having the rules? People can't stop using their stuff for like 5 minutes?

It can be WAY longer than 5 minutes, depending on how busy the airport is. You can sit on the tarmac for 45 minutes or longer waiting to take off. So from the push back from the gate to 10,000 feet could easily be over an hour.

Reading on my ipad via my kindle app or on my kindle itself should be allowed during that time.

 

[Wondercow]

But even though it actually works, I suspect it takes a very unlikely form of crash to make a difference.

Twenty percent of people die on impact in a typical plane crash. Of the 80% who survive the initial crash, most die from smoke inhalation and fire, and, according to the FAA, the "crash position" is three times safer than sitting upright.

 

[Max(IT)]

As a 15,000 hour plus ATP rated pilot I agree 100%. My airplane my rules no matter who owns it.

My airplane my rules is a little bit of an exaggeration but other than that there are company rules that could be more tight than FAA/EASA recommendations.

 

[caesarp]

Bash me all you want, but I've never turned off my iPhone/iPad/Mac and have never used airplane mode.

Exactly. Enforcement is impossible. I simply close the cover on my ipad if the flight attendant is around (which doesn't power it off).

 

[RWinOR]

This is a question of manners, rather than rules like the ones this article is about. In some countries, its considered bad manners to talk on phones in communal spaces like trains and so on, so people keep their phone on silent and dont take voice calls. I would hope that the airline passengers would also have manners like this!

Well said, but in today's society (USA) manners do not exist. They unfortunately are a thing of the past. The only way manners are enforced is through rules, not society pressure. Very SAD. How many times do they need to put up slides in the movies asking everyone to please turn off their devices and not to text, yet almost every movie there is someone who believes they are exempt from this. Restaurants always have people who are talking loud on there phone disrupting everyone else's meal. The list goes on, many people believe they are exempt from such things.

 

[bmwhd]

Sorry, but this is one of those things that they need to disprove better than they have. The document does show several incidents in which the pilots were able to show correlation between a device being on, and the experienced anomalies. I would really like for people to be able to use their stuff on a plane. Mainly so they'll just shut up and quit their bitching. But I also want some very conclusive evidence that the interference can't happen before they relax the rules.

Here's your evidence - if there was the slightest actual chance an active phone could bring down a commercial airliner, they would not be allowed in the cabin. Period.

I fly all the time and never turn my phone off. I occasionally use airplane mode on long international trips to save battery but that's the only reason.

 

[caesarp]

However the number of people being actively distracted is far lower, AND on the plus side I have a legitimate reason to politely ask the dude-bro spilling his extra 50 lbs. of American cheese & bacon blubber into my seat to turn off said device if I see it out.

While I'm fully aware of technical advancements in shielding flight control systems this rule still seems like a reasonable thing to ask. Particularly during take-off and approaches for landing. Bring a paper back book or maybe a pop-up book if one is that ADHD.

Gotta love the "deputy" flight attendants. If I have 20 books loaded on an ipad, I certainly don't want to bring an additional physical book.

And I have NEVER fully powered down my ipad on any flight -- EVER. I do keep it in airplane mode to save on battery power.

 

[Squeak825]

As a pilot I can tell you that each and every single one of you is overlooking one of the main reasons we do not want solid electronic equipment in use during takeoff and landing. During a crash these devices turn into heavy flying missiles.

BS.

The hardcover book I am reading, or the lap infant I am holding, weigh more than my iPhone.

 

[BadBoyPro]

following that same logic, i assume you also make sure during takeoff/landing that nobody has their shoes off, all books are stowed, nobody has a pencil out doing xwords (or whatever), and people can't wear their glasses ?

----------



Funny you should mention it but yes I brief my stewards before each flight to check shoes are being correctly worn. However I take it that you are being fastidious, as books, journals, and spectacles are generally light so are permitted.

As stated, anything solid and loose can turn into a heavy projectile during an emergency situation and I will not permit their use over the safety of my clients.

My aircraft, my rules.

 

[caesarp]

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.

This is why we have things like the patriot act and the NSA bugging us and security theater in the airport. People who think that those in authority should be blindly listened to.

Its common sense, not being smarter than everyone else. If many people do not fully power off their devices, but simply close them or lock the screen and put them in the seat pocket (which I do and have observed many people do -- whether they realize it or not), then we know there is no real issue.

If you think there is, don't fly.