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

[IJ Reilly]

Good catch!

Thanks, but it isn't too difficult to catch such obvious spin. This debate breaks out on a regular schedule (more regular than most airlines), but it's never really about the facts or the science, it's all about what people want. MRs isn't doing the debate any service, that's for sure. Spinning the story this way just encourages more ranting and raving.

 

[TallManNY]

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.

That data hardly shows the crash position is likely to make a difference. I suspect that most plane crashes have one of two results: (i) everyone dies or (ii) everyone lives. Of the crashes that have a mixed result where smoke and fire are an issue, I wonder how much the crash position will help.

In any case, I will certainly take that position. It has always seemed like an awkward position to me where I might have my head jammed into the seat in front of me. But I guess that is better than whiplash.

----------

I don't think you are understanding the intricacies and dynamic cognitive processing that adds to situational awareness in an emergency. We are talking milliseconds to seconds of early warning and awareness that could mean the difference between making it out and being too disoriented to process what is going on efficiently. For instance, if the accident is preceeded by a thumping or humming or loud pop from an area that quickly catches on fire or suffers structural failure, those without headphones on will have already processed the general direction (ahead, behind) and maybe distance (row behind me or back of the plane) from the danger and instinctively know where to look to assess the situation or which direction to flee. Meanwhile, your headset will have filtered that information and you will have to start your assessment late and with less information.

For the same reason, I have never understood people who keep their window shades closed during takeoff and landing. If a piece of debris gets sucked into an engine, I want to see things happen outside to help me know how to respond. In Europe, there is actually a requirement for those in exit rows to keep their window shades up during takeoff and landing, but I have seen only a few flight attendants in the U.S. require this.

Come on. Are you really suggesting that is dangerous to be listening to your headphones during takeoff? Again, what are the odds of anything going wrong? Nearly none. And if things go wrong, will the average person (who isn't in an exit row) have any option other than to sit in their seat until things clear up?

I will however remember to keep my headphones off and window up in the exit row. I guess I have a responsibility to other passengers to be as aware as I can if I'm in that position.

 

[Ingot]

Holy recycled photograph, Batman!

"This is not youporn. Do you have youporn? No you don't. What is going on?"

 

[Piggie]

Or perhaps they will change from iPad's to Surfaces?

http://www.engadget.com/2013/09/27/surface-2-for-delta-pilots/

 

[flat five]

It can be quite educational to go back to the source article to see what MR reworded or left out. For one, this:



Was altered from:



And this:



Was left out entirely.

keep reading and you'll come across this regarding the pilot reports:

"But Delta Airlines said in a letter to the FAA last year that out of 2.3 million flights over two years, the airline received 27 reports from pilots and maintenance crews of possible device interference. None of the reports could be confirmed, the letter said."

(but I highly doubt this post will get a 'good catch!' response )

 

[IJ Reilly]

keep reading and you'll come across this regarding the pilot reports:

"But Delta Airlines said in a letter to the FAA last year that out of 2.3 million flights over two years, the airline received 27 reports from pilots and maintenance crews of possible device interference. None of the reports could be confirmed, the letter said."

I read that too.

The point being, MR altered the meaning of one important concept in the article and entirely omitted another.

The other point being, this is an issue that should be decided based on the science, not on what people want. It should also be decided by the people who are responsible for aircraft safety, not by companies selling consumer products.

 

[zhenya]

I read that too.

The point being, MR altered the meaning of one important concept in the article and entirely omitted another.

The other point being, this is an issue that should be decided based on the science, not on what people want. It should also be decided by the people who are responsible for aircraft safety, not by companies selling consumer products.

And ultimately it will be. However it is perfectly fine for news outlets to push an agenda that the public generally wants, especially when there is substantial evidence that demonstrates its safety.

The quotes you posted were paraphrasing of the same basic concept. They were not significantly altered.

 

[IJ Reilly]

And ultimately it will be. However it is perfectly fine for news outlets to push an agenda that the public generally wants, especially when there is substantial evidence that demonstrates its safety.

The quotes you posted were paraphrasing of the same basic concept. They were not significantly altered.

No, it doesn't. The alteration left the impression that the problem had been completely solved with aircraft design (it hasn't), and that nobody has any good reason to remain concerned (they do). News outlets should not be pushing any agenda but public information, not that MR really qualifies as a news outlet.

I am also not convinced that it will ultimately be decided by the right people and on a sound scientific basis. Clearly the political pressure is building to force the FAA to take an action that might not be made for the right reasons.

 

[Dr McKay]

Why people are ALWAYS so eager to make their own NOISEs about a topic before actually reading and understanding the topic first?!!!!!! "Airplane Mode"! No signal transmission whatsoever!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well the Air force here rejected using iPhones because at the time they broke roughly 40-50 security violations. One of them was they still transmitted RF in airplane mode. Calm down there, you might burst a blood vessel.

 

[caesarp]

No, it doesn't. The alteration left the impression that the problem had been completely solved with aircraft design (it hasn't), and that nobody has any good reason to remain concerned (they do). News outlets should not be pushing any agenda but public information, not that MR really qualifies as a news outlet.

I am also not convinced that it will ultimately be decided by the right people and on a sound scientific basis. Clearly the political pressure is building to force the FAA to take an action that might not be made for the right reasons.

Nobody thinks anything has been confirmed as 100% safe or not safe one way or the other. People are saying that thousands of devices are routinely left powered on on thousands of flights every day (year in and year out), regardless of the current rule, and there doesn't seem to be any significant impact on flight safety, injuries or deaths. While not a scientific process, its enough to satisfy the general public that the risk, if any, is acceptable.

And its good enough for me. If its not good enough for you or others, than I suggest you don't fly.

 

[Viper2005]

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.

Have you actually tried to assume crash position in economy class in most planes today? We're stuffed like sardines and the seat in front of us is so close that you'd be lucky to be able lean forward 45 degrees.. less if you're tall.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Nobody thinks anything has been confirmed as 100% safe or not safe one way or the other. People are saying that thousands of devices are routinely left powered on on thousands of flights every day (year in and year out), regardless of the current rule, and there doesn't seem to be any significant impact on flight safety, injuries or deaths. While not a scientific process, its enough to satisfy the general public that the risk, if any, is acceptable.

And its good enough for me. If its not good enough for you or others, than I suggest you don't fly.

Oh dear, really? Not even my own airplane?

A simple reading of the posts in this and the many other threads on this subject tells me your first statement is plainly incorrect. Lots of people have completely decided, including you it seems.

Strange as it may sound, I don't have a dog in this hunt. I can easily live without my iPad during the ten minutes of takeoff and landing. I don't care how they decide, only that the decision be made by the FAA on the basis of sound scientific reasons. What I don't want is the decision to be made under pressure from members of congress and consumer electronics makers. I kind of assume anyone with any sense would want that too. But I could be wrong.

 

[ptb42]

Oh dear, really? Not even my own airplane?

I think you are being sarcastic, but I think it's worth noting that in your own airplane, as pilot in command, you get to make that decision. You can use almost any electronic device that you want. But, it's your responsibility to verify that it's safe to use the device in your airplane. If you are flying a J-3 Cub without an electrical system, you probably don't have to worry about interference.

As aircraft operators, the airlines have the same responsibility. The FAA may make recommendations, but as others have noted: it's simply a recommendation. The aircraft operator isn't required to follow it -- although they generally are at least as strict as the recommendation, for liability reasons.

One of the exceptions is a cell phone. It must not transmit in the cell phone bands when you are airborne. But, that's an FCC rule, not an FAA rule. The airline isn't responsible for enforcing that ban, but it happens to match the FAA recommendation. And even if they change the recommendation to use "airplane mode", it will still be to avoid interference with aircraft avionics, not to prevent interference with cell phone base stations.

 

[zhenya]

No, it doesn't. The alteration left the impression that the problem had been completely solved with aircraft design (it hasn't), and that nobody has any good reason to remain concerned (they do). News outlets should not be pushing any agenda but public information, not that MR really qualifies as a news outlet.

I am also not convinced that it will ultimately be decided by the right people and on a sound scientific basis. Clearly the political pressure is building to force the FAA to take an action that might not be made for the right reasons.

Talk about spin. That's your own interpretation of the statement. This issue has been tested an proven well beyond what is reasonable. Those that continue to want more can't even define what 'more' means. This is not a mathematical proof. You can never test every possible scenario. The vast amount real-world results we have to draw from is the best we are ever going to get.

 

[IJ Reilly]

I think you are being sarcastic, but I think it's worth noting that in your own airplane, as pilot in command, you get to make that decision. You can use almost any electronic device that you want. But, it's your responsibility to verify that it's safe to use the device in your airplane. If you are flying a J-3 Cub without an electrical system, you probably don't have to worry about interference.

As aircraft operators, the airlines have the same responsibility. The FAA may make recommendations, but as others have noted: it's simply a recommendation. The aircraft operator isn't required to follow it -- although they generally are at least as strict as the recommendation, for liability reasons.

One of the exceptions is a cell phone. It must not transmit in the cell phone bands when you are airborne. But, that's an FCC rule, not an FAA rule. The airline isn't responsible for enforcing that ban, but it happens to match the FAA recommendation. And even if they change the recommendation to use "airplane mode", it will still be to avoid interference with aircraft avionics, not to prevent interference with cell phone base stations.

I suppose I was being just a wee bit sarcastic. Seemed like an appropriate response to someone telling me I can accept his views on aviation safety, or not fly. As a private pilot I won't argue that my views are necessarily more valid than anyone else's, but I suspect I have a somewhat keener appreciation of the complexities of flight than someone who's entire experience with aviation is being a passenger. I can also appreciate perhaps more than most that the FAA's job is not making passengers happy, it is keeping them safe. We've had ATPs weigh in on these threads in the past. I respect their views implicitly.

When rules are incorporated into the FARs then the airlines aren't going to have much choice. Not sure if that's where this rule is going when the FAA completes their review.

The airlines seem to be quite circumspect about all of this, as well they might be. If the FAA promulgates new rules that allow devices to be used in airplane mode in all phases of operation, then the cabin crews would be tasked with not just making certain that the devices are turned off, but whether they are set in the proper mode. Good luck with that.

This stuff is inherently complicated. It's the people who try to make it all sound so simple that catch it from me.

----------

Talk about spin. That's your own interpretation of the statement. This issue has been tested an proven well beyond what is reasonable. Those that continue to want more can't even define what 'more' means. This is not a mathematical proof. You can never test every possible scenario. The vast amount real-world results we have to draw from is the best we are ever going to get.

No spin at all. My statement stands in its entirety as you have refuted none of it.

 

[zhenya]

No spin at all. My statement stands in its entirety as you have refuted none of it.

I refuted it in the entirety, and even gave you the opening to offer a complete definition of what would satisfy you which you declined to take.

You are defining the problem in a way that would be impossible to solve. You want an absolute solution for a problem in which the problem is infinitely complex and constantly in flux. The pragmatic answer is that we know what happens when consumers use their electronic devices on flights. Nothing.

You are trying to continue to put the burden of proof on those who see this (who have trillions of flight hours of data to support their position) while you have nothing but a tiny number of reports of static from which no accident has ever been reported and generally lack even the ability to prove causation rather than just pointing to the fact that yes, there were electronics on the plane that day. There probably were some women on the plane that day too. Maybe we should ban them from flights until we can prove it wasn't them interfering.

The burden of proof is on you.

 

[caesarp]

Oh dear, really? Not even my own airplane?

A simple reading of the posts in this and the many other threads on this subject tells me your first statement is plainly incorrect. Lots of people have completely decided, including you it seems.

Strange as it may sound, I don't have a dog in this hunt. I can easily live without my iPad during the ten minutes of takeoff and landing. I don't care how they decide, only that the decision be made by the FAA on the basis of sound scientific reasons. What I don't want is the decision to be made under pressure from members of congress and consumer electronics makers. I kind of assume anyone with any sense would want that too. But I could be wrong.

I've completely decided, but not based on thinking anyone SOLVED anything, which is what you said. I'm completely decided because of the thousands of devices left on during takeoffs and landings every day, year in and year out on thousands of flights world-wide, without any demonstrable increase in injuries or deaths as a result.

And another thing, as has been stated many times, it can easily be over an hour at busy airports, from taxi to waiting in line to take-off, to 10000 feet. 10 minutes sometimes, much much more on other occasions. But again, the time is not relevant to the issue. The issue is whether there is an acceptable risk -- as demonstrated daily by thousands -- it is.

I'm glad your the FAA watchdog though.

 

[kdarling]

Why people are ALWAYS so eager to make their own NOISEs about a topic before actually reading and understanding the topic first?!!!!!! "Airplane Mode"! No signal transmission whatsoever!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As anyone with electronics experience knows -- EVERY device with a CPU that is turned on is a transmitter. You don't have to have active radios. The device itself is one.

This claim *again* despite the FAA releasing several statements over the years that there haven't been any confirmed incidents of consumer electronics interfering with airplane systems.

That's just weasel wording. Naturally you cannot "confirm" an incident unless you impounded the aircraft and all the electronics aboard to take somewhere to test it. No one has the money or time for that.

And the fact that 'GSM buzz' is a phenomena that's limited *even on unshielded speaker lines* to a range of a few inches.

Utterly false. Heck, anyone who's been in a meeting room with a conference speaker system has heard GSM buzz from someone inside OR outside the room.

As for your 'metal tube' comment:
If you're in a metal tube, and the antenna for a system designed to communicate with the world *outside* that tube is running along the *inside* that tube, it's going to be worthless for exactly the same reasons you think you're citing.

Think. The antennas are outside, but the wires running to the antennas are inside.

As an example of such interference, here is just one of the NASA pilot reports:

SYNOPSIS

Captain of an A320 reports VHF interference on ZOB ARTCC freq (Traffic Control Center) from a cell phone aboard his plane.

NARRATIVE

We were descending via the WEEDA 1 arrival into DTW. we had ZOB freq blocked and unusable by a pax cell phone searching for service (the pax thought he had it off).

The pax was in seat 22-D which would have been near the antenna location.

ATC confirmed that no one else was receiving the signal but us. The signal quit about the time the cell phone was turned off. during the event, all comms on the freq to and from us were totally blocked whenever the phone would search for service. This occurred about every 20 seconds and would last for about 10 seconds duration.

- NASA Safety Report

When even controlled experiments designed explicitly to exploit the designs of the planes, using devices that are *grossly* outside of legal operating parameters, can't cause a measurable effect on plane systems, the burden of proof has long since switched over to the folks claiming that consumer electronics *do* pose a risk.

As pointed out before, Boeing did discover such interference.

Again, what non-pilots are missing here, is that it's the distraction and instrumentation foul ups that are the problem... and that the only reason they have not yet caused a crash, is because of pilot skill in working AROUND the problem. Continuing to depend on that luck (and probably making a much larger need for it) is not a great decision.

The claim that "oh, well, it hasn't happened yet" is akin saying that there must be no problem with the lack of pilot sleep causing planes to fly past their destinations, because they haven't caused a crash (yet).

If a DVD player was causing a 30 degree heading change, that plane has SERIOUS issues and should not be flown.

No, the DVD player has serious issues. Unfortunately, the pilots have to deal with the result.

The main problem is that it would cost to much to make all civilian aircraft completely interference proof.

Here's another report. The thing is, something that's just a nuisance 99% of the time, could easily be deadly in mountains or at night.

Synopsis
CRJ200 First Officer reports compass system malfunctions during initial climb. When passengers are asked to verify that all electronic devices are turned off the compass system returns to normal.

Narrative

After departing, climbing through ~ 9,000 feet we received an EFIS COMP MON caution msg. Flight Manual directs pilots to slew compass to reliable side. It was apparent neither side was correct with the Captain's, Mag Compass, and First Officer's headings all different.

... snip ...

In the past I have had similar events with speculation that cellphones left on may contribute to the heading problems. I made a PA asking our passengers to check their cellphones and make sure that they are off. Short of flying with both headings in DG we attempted to slew the compasses together again, and the EFIS COMP MON was cleared with no further messages.

Our Flight Attendant called and asked if that had helped, I said yes, what did you do? He stated he walked through the cabin and spoke to each of the 12 passengers. A passenger in Row 9 had an iPhone in the standby mode, not airplane mode or off. He showed the passenger how to turn the phone off fully.

The flight continued to destination with no further problems. In my opinion and past experience the cellphone being on and trying to reconnect to towers on the ground, along with the location of row 9 to the instrumentation in the wing caused our heading to wander. The timing of the cellphone being turned off coincided with the moment where our heading problem was solved. Eight other flights in the same aircraft in two days span completed without a similar event.

 

[IJ Reilly]

I refuted it in the entirety, and even gave you the opening to offer a complete definition of what would satisfy you which you declined to take.

You are defining the problem in a way that would be impossible to solve. You want an absolute solution for a problem in which the problem is infinitely complex and constantly in flux. The pragmatic answer is that we know what happens when consumers use their electronic devices on flights. Nothing.

You are trying to continue to put the burden of proof on those who see this (who have trillions of flight hours of data to support their position) while you have nothing but a tiny number of reports of static from which no accident has ever been reported and generally lack even the ability to prove causation rather than just pointing to the fact that yes, there were electronics on the plane that day. There probably were some women on the plane that day too. Maybe we should ban them from flights until we can prove it wasn't them interfering.

The burden of proof is on you.

Nope, not even close. I am not putting any burden of proof on anyone. A simple reading of everything I have written makes that completely clear. But you are welcome to argue with yourself, if that makes you happy. Apparently it does.

----------

I've completely decided, but not based on thinking anyone SOLVED anything, which is what you said. I'm completely decided because of the thousands of devices left on during takeoffs and landings every day, year in and year out on thousands of flights world-wide, without any demonstrable increase in injuries or deaths as a result.

And another thing, as has been stated many times, it can easily be over an hour at busy airports, from taxi to waiting in line to take-off, to 10000 feet. 10 minutes sometimes, much much more on other occasions. But again, the time is not relevant to the issue. The issue is whether there is an acceptable risk -- as demonstrated daily by thousands -- it is.

I'm glad your the FAA watchdog though.

You, Amazon, and Senator McCaskill. I'm sure we all feel better knowing this issue is in good hands.

 

[giantfan1224]

Nobody thinks anything has been confirmed as 100% safe or not safe one way or the other. People are saying that thousands of devices are routinely left powered on on thousands of flights every day (year in and year out), regardless of the current rule, and there doesn't seem to be any significant impact on flight safety, injuries or deaths. While not a scientific process, its enough to satisfy the general public that the risk, if any, is acceptable.

This is what gets me. The FAA and airlines have to know that many devices are left on even after making the announcement that they be turned off. When I put mine in the seat back in front of me, no one comes around to physically check that it's been powered off. My point that a lot of people here don't seem to want to admit is that if the FAA and Airlines were so concerned about electronic devices being left on, they would have more rigid procedures to ensure they are off. And the fact that millions upon millions of flight hours go on without incident proves to me that there really is no issue and the rule needs to be revised.

 

[zhenya]

No, the DVD player has serious issues. Unfortunately, the pilots have to deal with the result.

The main problem is that it would cost to much to make all civilian aircraft completely interference proof.

Here's another report. The thing is, something that's just a nuisance 99% of the time, could easily be deadly in mountains or at night.

Let me ask you a simple question. What does a compass measure?

You actually think that a DVD player or cell phone can affect the earth's field enough to sway a compass by 30 degrees? Unless it is housed in a highly magnetic casing and placed inches from the compass used by the plane, not a chance. The VAST majority of interference caused by electronics is AC of extremely low intensity. Our company deals with the calibration of the most sensitive magnetometers available. The entire building is smaller than a large jetliner, yet we have literally hundreds of computers, cell phones and all manner of electronic devices. Yet we don't have a single 'clean' area where we insist all those devices be kept from.

Your quote from the pilot is just someone ignorant about basic magnetics inferring something he knows nothing about from a 'feeling'.

 

[Wondercow]

That data hardly shows the crash position is likely to make a difference.

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").

I suspect that most plane crashes have one of two results: (i) everyone dies or (ii) everyone lives.

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.

 

[mrsir2009]

And when I'm reading my magazine, I'm not paying attention to the flight attendant either. The fact is, I don't pay attention, since I assume if the plane crashes I'm dead.

If the plane crashes you've actually got a pretty damn good chance of surviving:

http://io9.com/5960093/surviving-a-plane-crash-is-more-common-than-you-probably-realize

http://airtravel.about.com/od/safetysecurity/qt/ChancesofSurv.htm

There's a better chance you'll survive a commercial plane crash than a 100kmh car crash on the highway.

 

[linuxcooldude]

Let me ask you a simple question. What does a compass measure?

You actually think that a DVD player or cell phone can affect the earth's field enough to sway a compass by 30 degrees? Unless it is housed in a highly magnetic casing and placed inches from the compass used by the plane, not a chance. The VAST majority of interference caused by electronics is AC of extremely low intensity. Our company deals with the calibration of the most sensitive magnetometers available. The entire building is smaller than a large jetliner, yet we have literally hundreds of computers, cell phones and all manner of electronic devices. Yet we don't have a single 'clean' area where we insist all those devices be kept from.

Your quote from the pilot is just someone ignorant about basic magnetics inferring something he knows nothing about from a 'feeling'.

No mention in that news report what was used to keep the plane on course. Magnetic compass or otherwise. It could be other systems could be affected, such as GPS ect. The device effected does not necessarily has to be located close to it. It could be the wiring going to that device that runs close to the cell phone itself.

But Delta Airlines said in a letter to the FAA last year that out of 2.3 million flights over two years, the airline received 27 reports from pilots and maintenance crews of possible device interference. None of the reports could be confirmed, the letter said

Often it can't be confirmed. As soon as the plane lands the passengers leave taking their cell phones with them. That particular make and model cell phone that effecting the avionics can't be tested in that particular model of plane. By then its too late. but it does not mean it did not happen.

The pragmatic answer is that we know what happens when consumers use their electronic devices on flights. Nothing.

Which also contradicts what's been reported by pilots & flight attendants in the ASRS database.

 

[JAT]

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.

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

----------

Or a screaming baby, the incessant whine of the jet engines, the crackling of announcements... but let's get all crazy about someone on a cellphone.



Michael

God, I was on a tiny plane for a short jump a few years ago and the air system emitted a high-pitched whine. Couldn't find anyone nearby that could also hear it, guess my 30-something ears still worked better.