FAA Still Looking at Digital Device Use During Takeoff and Landing

[Nunyabinez]

Again, how does ASKING people to turn off their phones help if there is no way to ensure that they comply? If it is POSSIBLE to interfere with the operation of a plane with a handheld device, then someone who wanted to do so, would simply ignore the request and screw up the flight. It hasn't happened, and therefore, given how many people would want to do it if they could, I believe it can't happen.

That is what the senator is proposing: PROVE to us that phones CAN interfere, or stop making us turn them off. My opinion about why it is taking so long, is that for whatever reason, the FAA doesn't want them on (not sure what is really behind it) and they are desperately trying to prove that they should be off, and are hoping with more time they'll finally find an excuse they can get us to buy.

Don't think it's gonna happen.

 

[bluez3]

no.. i'm promoting that i (as in my own personal opinion) don't think you're painting a very real picture as to what the real life outcome would be if this ban were lifted..

I can accept that opinion and hope to be as optimistic as you. I'll glady be surprised if your vision of what will happen remains the norm. At least I won't be restricted from wearing noise isolating headphones if it doesn't.

That has not been my experience at all. People playing games on a phone/tablet are quiet and unobtrusive IME. Sure, phone calls can be loud and annoying, but like I said, that's all the time every day.

"Corporate accounts payable, Nina speaking, just a moment."

Agree

 

[IJ Reilly]

Total and utter BS. Sure, let's wait another 10 years since nobody can prove anything. Gee, why do you even fly?

No, totally true. Those of use who interact with the FAA know that they are a very conservative agency, by design and tradition. If you think really hard you might be able to figure out why that isn't entirely a bad thing. It's one of the reasons why commercial aviation is so safe, possibly the single biggest reason. They are keeping people as safe as they can, even people like you.

Your question makes no sense, but FWIW I do fly, including my own airplane.

 

[DivideTheOcean]

This is a classic case of reductive logic. You are not entitled to an "explanation" for every rule you must follow.

True.

But when an explanation for a bizarre rule flies in the face of the most basic level of common sense (or is missing altogether) and isn't realistically enforceable, don't expect people to follow it.

 

[MadDawg2020]

The only solution to this is to either allow all devices including phones, PDA's tables or whatever or allow nothing. As it is now there are people on every single flight that ignore the current rules and just use whatever device they want, its not like the flight attendants are paid enough to care either way.

Anything else would be impossible to enforce unless you are going to train flight attendants to recognize each and every possible device out of the thousands out there and which ones can work or not.

 

[mantan]

I always thought the issue was more able to communicate with passengers during the most dangerous part of the flight.

If half the plane has headphones on, then it makes it that much more difficult to communicate during an emergency.

So the general rule was just 'turn everything off' to ensure people could hear crew member instructions.

 

[bernuli]

No need for a study. When cell phones transmit, pilots hear it in their headsets. So there is interference in the radios and the pilots thought process.

Passengers can't be bothered to listen to the Flight Attendants, weather they believe it is a problem or not. So it is time to ban the electronic devices altogether.


B

 

[el-John-o]

The honest truth is, the devices don't pose any real, reasonable threat to the aircraft or it's systems.

However, electronic devices DO distract passengers who need to be attentive during takeoff and landing, especially during safety briefings, should they need to be given instructions.

However, the FAA knows that no matter how many times you say "Please remain quiet and attentive during takeoff and landing", folks will be distracted. Even if they are hiding their devices, they are at least being attentive to the flight attendant (hiding the device from them)

Just wish the FAA would be HONEST. I have a few hours myself, at one time considered becoming an airline pilot. I can assure you that I do use my electronic devices in the cockpit and it doesn't cause any interference or issues in the aircraft. If I can send a text message while in the cockpit of a 1976 Beech Baron, surely someone could play Angry Birds in the cabin of a multi-million dollar Boeing, Embraer, Airbus, et al Jet!

 

[VelaFela]

Cell Phones -WiFi in Aircraft

It seems to me there are two issues:
1) FAA -Interference with aircraft receivers (cellphone and wi-fi)-one or two pilots RF emissions are very much less than a cabin full of devices-This is an FAA concern. Is it an actual concern?

Pilots are not using the iPad in flight for WiFi (they are probably not allowed to) and not for cell phones

2)FCC - interference on ground cell base stations; base stations are not intended to communicate with devices above the ground (due to non-optimum base-station antenna patterns; the result may well be the cell phones try to compensate with max output power - has/is this being addressed. Is there any evidence of cell base stations near airports been overloaded due to aircraft devices?

If this is an actual aircraft receiver issue and many passengers are actually using these devices: cellphone, wifi, airplane mode, music-then some sort of report would seem to be produced. I have not seen any.

 

[IJ Reilly]

True.

But when an explanation for a bizarre rule flies in the face of the most basic level of common sense (or is missing altogether) and isn't realistically enforceable, don't expect people to follow it.

The post was a perfect example of reductive reasoning. The argument was predicated on an absurd example. A classic logical fallacy.

When people feel inconvenienced by rules, and don't think they will get caught, they will violate them. That doesn't mean the rule isn't based on common sense, or even uncommon sense. It just means they don't know or care to know.

You'll get all kinds of goofy rationalizations from people for disobeying traffic regulations. But the real reason is, they are being inconvenienced and don't think they will get caught. The same is true here, in aces and spades.

 

[bradl]

It seems to me there are two issues:
1) FAA -Interference with aircraft receivers (cellphone and wi-fi)-one or two pilots RF emissions are very much less than a cabin full of devices-This is an FAA concern. Is it an actual concern?

Pilots are not using the iPad in flight for WiFi (they are probably not allowed to) and not for cell phones

They are. The charts they use to program their FMC are on their iPads, and can get updates at any time. Especially during the 28-day cycle when AIRAC data is updated. That cycle is from the FAA; Jeppesen may have a more frequent refresh rate, so that may vary. Either way, they are indeed using them.

Also, keep in mind that this is for Part 121 operations (commercial operators). GA, and Part 91 and 135 (Charter, Fractional) operators may be exempt from this. GA definitely is.

2)FCC - interference on ground cell base stations; base stations are not intended to communicate with devices above the ground (due to non-optimum base-station antenna patterns; the result may well be the cell phones try to compensate with max output power - has/is this being addressed. Is there any evidence of cell base stations near airports been overloaded due to aircraft devices?

If this is an actual aircraft receiver issue and many passengers are actually using these devices: cellphone, wifi, airplane mode, music-then some sort of report would seem to be produced. I have not seen any.

Depends.

Cell phone towers operate like TV Towers. The higher they go, the more coverage they have going down in radius from where the antenna is located. Since aircraft en route are obviously above the antenna, their signal is very limited, to nothing at all. Picture a tent. That is how coverage with TV, cell phones, and WiFi works.

As far as the instruments in the flight deck go, either they are getting theirs from GPS, or are using VOR/DME stations which operate in the reverse of TV and cell towers. Their 'tent' is upside down, and goes out a given range in radius from the station. Those operate in a different frequency range than anything else, so they wouldn't truly interfere. Same with the radios for ATC comms. Different frequencies as well.

That's what makes the FAA's policies a crock. They say that it will interfere with the flight deck. They don't even operate near the same frequencies, and even if they were on the same frequency as the VORs, VORs only report location, not transmit/receive.

Everything that we've been told from the FAA is a complete crock, because we haven't bothered to ask "WHY", and have been told to believe what they say. Now they are under scrutiny because what they are saying doesn't make sense, and hasn't for a good 15+ years.

BL.

 

[JohnDoe98]

This is a classic case of reductive reasoning. You are not entitled to an "explanation" for every rule you must follow.

Sure you are. Absent a reason/explanation, to follow a rule is idiotic and more often than not simply a blind obedience to authority, which should be avoided (I recommend reading about the Milgram experiment). Don't get me wrong, being ignorant of the reasons or explanations behind the rules is no excuse for those violating or skirting the said rules, but I felt I should say something because the line of reasoning you advocate for here is, frankly, scary.

 

[IJ Reilly]

The actual current FAA rules, and their explanation for them. Assuming anyone is interested. Probably not.

http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsid=6275

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC 91.21-1B.pdf

----------

Sure you are. Absent a reason/explanation, to follow a rule is idiotic and more often than not simply a blind obedience to authority, which should be avoided (I recommend reading about the Milgram experiment). Don't get me wrong, being ignorant of the reasons or explanations behind the rules is no excuse for those violating or skirting the said rules, but I felt I should say something because the line of reasoning you advocate for here is, frankly, scary.

Oh dear. Whenever I see that bumper sticker "Question Authority," I wonder who is going to make me.

 

[DisMyMac]

Nothing will replace airplanes "soon". Ever try to bullet-tube across the ocean?

Check out the glassy tubes of Mars. Don't go across the ocean - tunnel under it!

 

[JohnDoe98]

The actual current FAA rules, and their explanation for them. Assuming anyone is interested. Probably not.

http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsid=6275

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC 91.21-1B.pdf

People have examined those purported reasons and found them lacking. Now the onus is to respond to those objections.

----------



Oh dear. Whenever I see that bumper sticker "Question Authority," I wonder who is going to make me.

No one. We will explain to you why it is in your best interest, as well as in the interest to your fellow citizens, but if you choose to ignore those explanations, if you chose not to engage the arguments, that's up to you. The purpose of that bumper sticker, which seems to have eluded you, is to suggest there is a better means of accomplishing tasks than by means of force. It is called persuasion.

 

[IJ Reilly]

People have examined those purported reasons and found them lacking. Now the onus is to respond to those objections.

People? Wow, that sure sounds more important than if they were fish.

No one. We will explain to you why it is in your best interest, as well as in the interest to your fellow citizens, but if you choose to ignore those explanations, if you chose not to engage the arguments, that's up to you. The purpose of that bumper sticker, which seems to have eluded you, is to suggest there is a better means of accomplishing tasks than by means of force. It is called persuasion.

Oh dear, redux.

Let me know when you've looked up reductive reasoning. I can wait.

 

[notabadname]

They are. The charts they use to program their FMC are on their iPads, and can get updates at any time. Especially during the 28-day cycle when AIRAC data is updated. That cycle is from the FAA; Jeppesen may have a more frequent refresh rate, so that may vary. Either way, they are indeed using them.

You are simply incorrect. Another example of people stating opinions as fact. WiFi (on those aircraft that are so equipped) is not required in any way for flight. Accordingly, iPad use on commercial aircraft for charts and approach plates is also in no way reliant on the use of WiFi (or electricity onboard for that matter). Their Data bases are up-to-date pre-flight. And the data-base, which typically changes over at 0900 UTC (on the 2 week or 4 week revision cycle, depending on publication/chart), may be used for the duration of the flight if it was the current data-base at time the flight commenced. The iPads are independent of any system on the aircraft, be it WiFi or power. Yes, they continue to maintain a charge while on a powered plane. But are always capable of operation on battery supply for substantially longer than the aircraft can remain airborne.

So we are indeed NOT using them on WiFi or Cellular. I am a Captain at Delta Air Lines. I speak the facts, not rumor or conjecture. The list of wrong "opinions" in this thread is substantial, as well as laughable.

 

[DisMyMac]

Whenever I see that bumper sticker "Question Authority," I wonder who is going to make me.

A funnier sticker is 'Question Reality'. That's backwards, in my view, we should be questioning fantasies.

No one. We will explain to you why it is in your best interest, as well as in the interest to your fellow citizens, but if you choose to ignore those explanations, if you chose not to engage the arguments, that's up to you. The purpose of that bumper sticker, which seems to have eluded you, is to suggest there is a better means of accomplishing tasks than by means of force. It is called persuasion.

This sounds like re-education from the way you describe it... FEMA camp, anyone?

 

[JohnDoe98]

This sounds like re-education from the way you describe it...

Exactly. Brutes use force, cultivated people use arguments.

 

[IJ Reilly]

A funnier sticker is 'Question Reality'. That's backwards, in my view, we should be questioning fantasies.

The funniest part is, he didn't get it.

 

[bradl]

You are simply incorrect. Another example of people stating opinions as fact. WiFi (on those aircraft that are so equipped) is not required in any way for flight. Accordingly, iPad use on commercial aircraft for charts and approach plates is also in no way reliant on the use of WiFi (or electricity onboard for that matter). Their Data bases are up-to-date pre-flight. And the data-base, which typically changes over at 0900 UTC (on the 2 week or 4 week revision cycle, depending on publication/chart), may be used for the duration of the flight if it was the current data-base at time the flight commenced. The iPads are independent of any system on the aircraft, be it WiFi or power. Yes, they continue to maintain a charge while on a powered plane. But are always capable of operation on battery supply for substantially longer than the aircraft can remain airborne.

So we are indeed NOT using them on WiFi or Cellular. I am a Captain at Delta Air Lines. I speak the facts, not rumor or conjecture. The list of wrong "opinions" in this thread is substantial, as well as laughable.

And I could only tell you as much as I know, as I'm just a lowly pilot of a C182. But you are also missing my point. This applies to Part 121 ops, which you are apart of. I am not.

So before you think that someone else's opinion is fact, you may also want to find out their creds as well. I don't get as high to get into the traffic stream as the rest of the tin going into most Class B and C airports, so I can always pick up signal from cell towers when I need to. Also, seeing that the pilots on your very own NWA188 were doing the opposite of what you say that you don't do, I have to wonder. iPads, no. Laptops on WiFi, yes.

And I never said that they were required for flight. I said that they were available for the download of SIDs, STARs, TACs, WACs, and en-route charts (whether low or high). Whether your airline updates them in a given period of time is your business.

So before you start putting words into my mouth about what is fact and what isn't, you may want to look at what you are saying that is also incorrect.

BL.

 

[JohnDoe98]

People? Wow, that sure sounds more important than if they were fish.



Oh dear, redux.

Let me know when you've looked up reductive reasoning. I can wait.

Nice rebuttal, how distinguished of you. Let me know when you are ready to defend your ridiculous assertions.

----------

The funniest part is, he didn't get it.

Oh I did, I just chose you ignore it. You like to use clever phrases and subtle points, but more often than not it is simply a cheap trick to avoid actually engaging the issues. I do suppose you are prone to impress a few readers, so perhaps it's worth it for you.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Nice rebuttal, how distinguished of you. Let me know when you are ready to defend your ridiculous assertions.

Which ones? I make so many of them. (Waits for one to be pointed out.)

Oh I did, I just chose you ignore it. You like to use clever phrases and subtle points, but more often than not it is simply a cheap trick to avoid actually engaging the issues. I do suppose you are prone to impress a few readers, so perhaps it's worth it for you.

No, no, you missed it. Quite apparent from your response.

Speaking of "cheap tricks," it seems nobody thought it was even of value to refer to the actual FAA rules and regulations they were debating so quasi-knowledgably, until I posted them. Now that I have, nobody wants to even refer to them. Including you. Color me shocked. Color me having predicted it.

 

[JohnDoe98]

Speaking of "cheap tricks," it seems nobody thought it was even of value to refer to the actual FAA rules and regulations they were debating so quasi-knowledgably, until I posted them. Now that I have, nobody wants to even refer to them. Including you. Color me shocked. Color me having predicted it.

Those rules and regulations were the subject of many long threads already since this isn't the first time this issue has come up on this forum. I don't see the need to rehash the exchanges all over again every time some new tidbit of information is posted on the subject. I do read the threads in case someone posts something new and informative, which you haven't. If you went back and looked through those threads you'd have seen plenty of competent people engage the points raised in your links.

But consider this much: given the article suggests a source inside the FAA is claiming those rules and regulations are going to be changed soon (in fact relaxed), doesn't that suggest that even the FAA itself considers their previous postings on the subject insufficient/wanting?

 

[fedup flyer]

Another example of people stating opinions as fact.

Just come out and say it.
Then general public is STUPID.
They same folks crying about not be able to use electronic devices are the same folks that think the airlines/employes are intentionally delaying their flights etc, etc. They haven't a clue as to what happens in day to day ops or the first thing about aircraft systems and signal propagation.
They only care about me...me....me. whaaaahhhh