FAA Still Looking at Digital Device Use During Takeoff and Landing

[Tinmania]

One HUGE loophole: flight attendants frequently (but not always) tell passengers to completely turn OFF their phones, because airplane mode is NOT permitted during takeoff. So they completely shut down their phones and then boot them up when it is "safe" to do so...right back into full communication mode because they were told not to put them into airplane mode! I don't know how many times I've sat next to someone playing around with their phone or tablet while NOT in airplane mode.

Don't worry so much. It is not the FAA who is concerned with airplane mode. It's the FCC, who did that back in the analog days of cellphones. It was very confusing to the terrestrial cell network to deal with units at 35,000' going 550mph.



Michael

----------

Thanks for planting this seed in the minds of thousands.

Well if you think that planted a seed I can only imagine what Olympus Has Fallen is going to do!



Michael

 

[ForcedReality]

I would like it If the explained it/got rid of it! For me take off and landing is the point where I grab the inflight mag and concentrate on it so much to avoid the straining of the engines and so on and so forth that only us gifted with the fear of flighting hear!

EDIT: I'd much rather be looking at something on my iPad!

What you're hearing isn't the engines "straining." It's an effect of the turbofan fins going locally supersonic since they're traveling faster than the speed of sound. That produces the "whirring" sound and makes people think there is something wrong with the engine.

 

[JohnDoe98]

You want them to prove a negative. Instead of proving that certain devices can be used safely under some circumstances, which is the operative methodology, your argument would have them allowing everything, all the time, pending some "proof" that they are dangerous. That simply will never happen, so give it up. (See my answer above and elsewhere in this thread.)

Your twisting things here. How would one go about proving that certain devices can be safely used under some circumstances? Well one way would be to collect a large sample of those devices, setting them to emit the most possible interference that they can, and then carefully monitor the instruments to see if there are any observable adverse effects, quantifying the results. Repeat a number of times and if there is no evidence that these devices do interfere, clear them for general use. If the devices pose a potential problem there should be demonstrable quantifiable evidence of that fact.

The concept that the actual rules and regulations are a mere "tidbit" in the discussion of the rules and regulation would be amusing, if it wasn't so completely repulsive.

Well it's a good thing I never said that, as I explained to you in the post you responded to. Nice straw man though.

The rules and regulations are being debated by people who don't even know what they actually are, and worse yet, even care what they actually say. This is a formula for enlightened debate?

Except for the small fact that the FAA established a work industry group to investigate the matter...and that if the current article's source are correct, that working group and the FAA are likely to loosen the rules and regulations. I wonder why that might be...

Have you been following the Boeing 787 saga by any chance? This is a case where the industry (specifically, Boeing) pushed the FAA into accepting the flight safety of a new system (specifically, LiON batteries) that had never before been used this way in passenger aircraft. The result was very nearly a disaster or two. So this is why I support the general process of rule-making, slow though it may be. It is also why I am suspicious of industry pressure on the FAA to change their rules to be more favorable to them. It should go without saying that the consumer electronics industry is not responsible for air traffic safety. Nor do they give a fig about it. Like it or not, that's the FAA's job.

And this is why I advocate for controlled experiments before clearing anything. Whether your rules prohibit or allow certain devices and technologies shouldn't be based on theories and arguments but based on concrete scientific data, i.e. controlled experiments. In this case, Boeing and the FAA should have tested these new systems more thoroughly apparently. Now, as you'll note, I'm not claiming they should just allow iPads and iPhones, Kindle Readers and CD players without testing them first. Quite the contrary, I'm just claiming that such tests ought to be conducted and shared with the public, which doesn't seem to be the case currently. Rather we've only seen arguments to maintain the status quo and not to conduct tests. You may now claim they need time to conduct these tests, but this has obviously been an issue since well before the 2006 RTCA report. 7 years is plenty of time to conduct those experiments and to share the data. So where is it, and why is the issue always being stalled?

This is another example of reductio ad absurdum. Nobody is claiming that cell phones could "take down" a passenger jet. Your example is meaningless in proving your point, because it is a reduction to the absurd. At least you aren't a scofflaw, like so many other commenters in this thread, who think that any rule that don't like or understand should be ignored. I will give you that much at least.

I hope you are aware that there are plenty of cases where reductio ad absurdum reasoning is perfectly legit. One case in point, you wouldn't have mathematics without it. So to simply point out that someone is using a reductio argument isn't to do anything at all. What you want to show is that this is a case of a fallacious use of that argumentative strategy, but you haven't done a good job of explaining why. All you've done is identify the type of reasoning used.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Your twisting things here. How would one go about proving that certain devices can be safely used under some circumstances? Well one way would be to collect a large sample of those devices, setting them to emit the most possible interference that they can, and then carefully monitor the instruments to see if there are any observable adverse effects, quantifying the results. Repeat a number of times and if there is no evidence that these devices do interfere, clear them for general use. If the devices pose a potential problem there should be demonstrable quantifiable evidence of that fact.

They test. This is what they do. But again, not by the backwards method you suggest. Thankfully.

Well it's a good thing I never said that, as I explained to you in the post you responded to. Nice straw man though.

Know it or not, you have. I posted the actual regulations and the FAA's actual explanation for the regulations, with a prediction that nobody would care. Sadly, I was right.

Except for the small fact that the FAA established a work industry group to investigate the matter...and that if the current article's source are correct, that working group and the FAA are likely to loosen the rules and regulations. I wonder why that might be...

See again my first post on this subject. All the others, too.

And this is why I advocate for controlled experiments before clearing anything. Whether your rules prohibit or allow certain devices and technologies shouldn't be based on theories and arguments but based on concrete scientific data, i.e. controlled experiments. In this case, Boeing and the FAA should have tested these new systems more thoroughly apparently. Now, as you'll note, I'm not claiming they should just allow iPads and iPhones, Kindle Readers and CD players without testing them first. Quite the contrary, I'm just claiming that such tests ought to be conducted and shared with the public, which doesn't seem to be the case currently. Rather we've only seen arguments to maintain the status quo and not to conduct tests. You may now claim they need time to conduct these tests, but this has obviously been an issue since well before the 2006 RTCA report. 7 years is plenty of time to conduct those experiments and to share the data. So where is it, and why is the issue always being stalled?

Speaking of straw man, you should introduce yours, since we've already met. Nobody is suggesting the status quo. I'm certainly not suggesting that at all, which I'd think you should get by now.

I hope you are aware that there are plenty of cases where reductio ad absurdum reasoning is perfectly legit. One case in point, you wouldn't have mathematics without it. So to simply point out that someone is using a reductio argument isn't to do anything at all. What you want to show is that this is a case of a fallacious use of that argumentative strategy, but you haven't done a good job of explaining why. All you've done is identify the type of reasoning used.

As a rhetorical device, it is a logical fallacy. This has been known for over 2,500 years, but seemingly has been disproven right here today in a MR thread. I am honored to be present at such a historic event.

 

[notabadname]

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.

The discussion, and my comments were in regards to part 121 Commercial passenger air-carriers. Low-altitude civil ops in range of cellular towers and reception is irrelevant.

You may recall that the NWA pilots were terminated by Delta and had their licenses suspended by the FAA. I would say that shows that it (use of personal computers and/or WiFi) is not permissible. And prohibition of updating Jepps inflight is not a "Delta Policy", that prohibition (connecting to WiFi) is an FAA regulation. So it is not done by any airline on iPads.

I put no words in your mouth. I quoted your inaccurate comments and statements of "fact" and simply made it clear they were incorrect.

 

[ptb42]

Stop being so selfish.

i never turn my phone off or in airplane mode. i've also never been in a plane crash. i've sent numerous text and made calls from a commercial plane while in flight(lower altitudes where service is available), nothing bad has ever happened.

Put your phone in airplane mode. If nothing else, you will preserve your battery. When your phone hears a new cell phone tower, it will try to register with the system, increasing its transmission power until it gets a response, gives up, or hears a new cell phone tower. Then, the cycle will repeat.

You may have never observed anything bad to happen, but you may have interfered with a navigation radio or communication radio, distracting the pilots and forcing them to repeat or to switch to a less desirable alternative. They usually don't announce that, unless it persists. Below 10,000 feet, they are required to focus on flying, per the Federal Aviation Regulations.

You were also probably interfering with the cell phone systems as you flew over, especially while you were talking. While you were using one cell, all the nearby cells towers that expected to reuse that frequency (because a phone on the ground would be out of their range) had to stop using it, or drop the call that was using it.

----------

didn't Mythbusters already rule on this?

I saw the Mythbuster's episode, and they didn't even begin to address all the possible ways that a phone can interfere with an aircraft radio.

I like the show as much as anyone, but their methods are anything but exhaustive.

 

[IJ Reilly]

I saw the Mythbuster's episode, and they didn't even begin to address all the possible ways that a phone can interfere with an aircraft radio.

Citing a TV program as proof of anything (let alone something complex, scientific and highly important) makes the hair stand up on the back on my neck. Entertainment is the new reality?

 

[MuddyPaws1]

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.

Source for frequencies to prove they don't overlap or operate near the same.

 

[ptb42]

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.

The FAA's concern is an electronic device MIGHT interfere with aircraft navigation or communication radios. If an electronic device is properly designed and manufactured, and not damaged, it isn't likely. But, if the aircraft operator doesn't have control of a device, they can't make that evaluation.

When you account for local oscillators in receivers, variable clocks in digital devices, second and third-order harmonics from transmitters, and inter-modulation (a third frequency generated by two transmitters in close proximity), there's a very real possibility that a signal will be generated in the aircraft communication or navigation bands.

A VOR receiver works by comparing the phase of a directional signal with the phase of a reference signal. The signals are transmitted from a ground station, and if the aircraft is between stations, it can be relatively weak. So, it doesn't take much to interfere. Fortunately, the VOR receiver provides an indication if the signal integrity is compromised.

 

[ptb42]

Oh my God yes my world has ended because when I flew I had to shut down my iPad for 10 minutes, what is this world coming to?

It's actually about 30 minutes each time: from door closing at the gate to 10,000 feet on takeoff, and from around 10,000 feet to parking at the gate on landing. If you are at a busy airport and have to wait in line for takeoff, or wait for a gate to be cleared, it can be much longer.

I spend about 8 hours a week on a plane. Sometimes, it's the only time I have to myself, and I typically spend it catching up on documentation related to my work. That's two hours per week during takeoff and landing that I can't do anything but stare at the seat in front of me (I always sit in the aisle seat).

My iPad is loaded with PDFs. I try to remember to print something for that interval that I can't use it, but I don't always have access to a printer when I'm on the road.

BTW, that guy in the seat next to you in a business suit may not feel like chatting because he is burned out from being "on stage" all week for 8-12 hours/day at a customer's office, and wants nothing more than to relax.

 

[ptb42]

I just switch mine to airplane mode and continue reading. I can't see how a device that does not emit any radio waves can interrupt flight.

Your device is digital and has a processor in it, clocking at speeds up to 1 GHz (and higher). It emits RF: there's nothing you can do about it, aside from changing the laws of physics.

The device case will shield most of it. But, absent a sealed metal box with no buttons, plugs, etc., you can't completely eliminate it. However, a device with FCC class B certification brings those transmissions close to the background noise level, if it isn't damaged.

And it's not about "interrupting flight". It's about inadvertent interference with aircraft navigation and communication receivers that may be listening to relatively weak signals. But, even if interference occurs, pilots are trained to recognize it and compensate. It's just another distraction that might lead to an undesirable outcome, when combined with other problems.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Source for frequencies to prove they don't overlap or operate near the same.

FWIW, VORs and Glideslopes operate on frequencies just below the air band, and they do transmit. Not that this system will remain in use forever, but it hasn't been entirely replaced yet.

 

[thefourthpope]

I feel like this is just going to go the way of pulling out your toiletries in a plastic bag at security. People don't do it, nothing bad happens, TSA focuses on something else.

 

[mrsir2009]

While phones & tables may be safe to use in flight, I certainly hope the decision to allow them will be based on something a tad more scientific than "I use my phone on planes, and I've never died in a plane crash".

I wonder what the decision to ban the use of cellphones on planes in the first place was based on? Because whatever it was, it doesn't seem to have much relevance in real life.

 

[PracticalMac]

There is the slightest, most remote possibility that commenters on this subject across every blog on the web actually have no clue what they're talking about...and that this drawn out process to establish the safety of using devices during take off/landing has some significant merit.

Just a thought.

FAA and FCC, among gov agencies, are well known for taking years to do a months worth of work.

Portable electronics, including cell phone on and in use, were used for decades in aircraft.
FCC actually issued the first order to turn off cell phones during flight years after it people common did so!


I sometimes fly myself around and use iPad, iPhone, iPod (as backup), GPS, and a portable comm radio, the last one is not only legal but highly encouraged electronic device in aircraft.

 

[tbrinkma]

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/safe-cellphone-plane/story?id=13791569#.UVGXZFvwLbw

From that article:

"There is a lot of anecdotal evidence out there, but it's not evidence at all," said Nance, a former Air Force and commercial pilot. "It's pilots, like myself, who thought they saw something but they couldn't pin it to anything in particular. And those stories are not rampant enough, considering 32,000 flights a day over the U.S., to be convincing."

Again, there have been a number of *claimed* incidents, but there have been exactly ZERO confirmed incidents. That zero confirmed incidents is an FAA figure, by the way. You know, the folks responsible for investigating those incidents?

As I pointed out previously, the human brain is *really* good at finding 'patterns' in random noise. It's susceptible to confirmation bias for exactly that reason. When two things occur at about the same time in about the same place we tend to associate them, even if they're not *actually* related. This leads to the claims that a device in the cabin seems to have caused the incident in the cockpit. Further investigation of those incidents have, to date, always resulted in a failure to validate the claims, and often to finding a completely different cause.

 

[NoNothing]

From that article:


Again, there have been a number of *claimed* incidents, but there have been exactly ZERO confirmed incidents. That zero confirmed incidents is an FAA figure, by the way. You know, the folks responsible for investigating those incidents?

As I pointed out previously, the human brain is *really* good at finding 'patterns' in random noise. It's susceptible to confirmation bias for exactly that reason. When two things occur at about the same time in about the same place we tend to associate them, even if they're not *actually* related. This leads to the claims that a device in the cabin seems to have caused the incident in the cockpit. Further investigation of those incidents have, to date, always resulted in a failure to validate the claims, and often to finding a completely different cause.

Not really true in your absolutes. As an engineer that has been investigating vendor hardware that goes bump in the night for over 15 years, I will 100% assure you your statement of:

"Further investigation of those incidents have, to date, always resulted in a failure to validate the claims, and often to finding a completely different cause."

Is without a doubt, 100% false. There are many systems flying on aircraft, both commercial and military, being operated with various waivers. The most common waiver is for either EMI susceptibility or EMI emissions. So while there have been no "incidences" related to safety (as in catastrophic) there are hundreds of sqwaks reported related to EMI and other issues.

 

[fedup flyer]

What you're hearing isn't the engines "straining." It's an effect of the turbofan fins going locally supersonic since they're traveling faster than the speed of sound. That produces the "whirring" sound and makes people think there is something wrong with the engine.

No.
If the tip speed hit or exceeded Mach 1.0 you create a small shock wave (supersonic) inside if gas turbine section. The shock wave would disrupt the smooth airflow into the rest of the rotors and bad things happen such as compressor stalls and a possible flame out. Worst case, the engine shakes itself apart.

If you are talking about the tip speed of the first section of the N1 on a high bypass engine, the ducted fan would loose ALOT of thrust.

 

[tbrinkma]

Not really true in your absolutes. As an engineer that has been investigating vendor hardware that goes bump in the night for over 15 years, I will 100% assure you your statement of:

"Further investigation of those incidents have, to date, always resulted in a failure to validate the claims, and often to finding a completely different cause."

Is without a doubt, 100% false. There are many systems flying on aircraft, both commercial and military, being operated with various waivers. The most common waiver is for either EMI susceptibility or EMI emissions. So while there have been no "incidences" related to safety (as in catastrophic) there are hundreds of sqwaks reported related to EMI and other issues.

Feel free to disagree with it, but the FAA is the one saying there have been no confirmed incidents, and they're the ones who have been doing the investigations.

 

[bradl]

Source for frequencies to prove they don't overlap or operate near the same.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VHF_omnidirectional_range#Operation

VORs are assigned radio channels between 108.0 MHz and 117.95 MHz (with 50 kHz spacing); this is in the Very High Frequency (VHF) range. The first 4 MHz is shared with the Instrument landing system (ILS) band. To leave channels for ILS, in the range 108.0 to 111.95 MHz, the 100 kHz digit is always even, so 108.00, 108.05, 108.20, 108.25, and so on are VOR frequencies but 108.10, 108.15, 108.30, 108.35 and so on, are reserved for ILS.

iPads?

http://www.apple.com/ipad/specs/

Model A1459*
GSM/EDGE (850, 900, 1800, 1900 MHz)
UMTS/HSPA+/DC-HSDPA (850, 900, 1900, 2100 MHz)
LTE (Bands 4 and 17)

Model A1460*
CDMA EV-DO Rev. A and Rev. B (800, 1900, 2100 MHz)
GSM/EDGE (850, 900, 1800, 1900 MHz)
UMTS/HSPA+/DC-HSDPA (850, 900, 1900, 2100 MHz)

802.11a/b/g/n Wi‑Fi (802.11n 2.4GHz and 5GHz)

Again, no-where near each other on the spectrum.

BL.

 

[Adam-]

What you're hearing isn't the engines "straining." It's an effect of the turbofan fins going locally supersonic since they're traveling faster than the speed of sound. That produces the "whirring" sound and makes people think there is something wrong with the engine.

You sir may of cured half my flight fears! Now I just need some reassuring words about landing...

 

[unplugme71]

Your device is digital and has a processor in it, clocking at speeds up to 1 GHz (and higher). It emits RF: there's nothing you can do about it, aside from changing the laws of physics.

The device case will shield most of it. But, absent a sealed metal box with no buttons, plugs, etc., you can't completely eliminate it. However, a device with FCC class B certification brings those transmissions close to the background noise level, if it isn't damaged.

And it's not about "interrupting flight". It's about inadvertent interference with aircraft navigation and communication receivers that may be listening to relatively weak signals. But, even if interference occurs, pilots are trained to recognize it and compensate. It's just another distraction that might lead to an undesirable outcome, when combined with other problems.

Isn't most of the electronics in the nose of the aircraft. Wouldn't the pilot using an ipad cause this issue, not someone sitting a football field away?

 

[smithrh]

I'm guessing today's developments will make a lot of people happy, and really tick off a few vociferous posters here.

FAA did the right thing today.

 

[nateo200]

one reason is the pilots stuff is rigorously tested, and they aren't worried about your factory functioning iphone, but a malfunctioning chinese knockoff with a cheap unregulated 1GW transmitter wired wrong so that when you select airplane mode it actually puts out it's most powerful jamming signal or something stupid like that.

iphones=fine, chinese knockoffs=potentially sketchy.

during the super critical takeoff and landing, i'd rather just play it safe.

Bwahahahaha 1Gigawatt? Thats some scary ****, I'll add on, when you turn the WiFi, the cellular antenna becomes directional wherever you point it! But seriously thats one terrifying thing I've always thought of....I wish airplane mode could carry some certification...I own a MBP and an iPhone and my iPad was sold off when I got the MBP and the nail in the coffin when I got my rMBP...sometimes I just prefer reading on my iPhone and I dont want to have to buy a kindle or an iPad or whatever. I think in an update the airplane mode should carry something like "FAA Certified for airplane mode use" and if an attendant wants you to turn it off you can simply hold up your device and show them the little airplane icon and it should carry some weight! That said I don't expect THAT much from the US Government but every once and a while I do have to admit they do throw a bone to us mere mortals And all this fear is based off of the assumption that a cellphone operating in the 700-2100MHz band is going to somehow spit on the <200MHz bands...that would be one crappy chipset..

Also leaving cellular on at above 10,000 feet can drain your battery, your phone try's to maintain a cellular signal desperately and giving it false hope at 10,000+ feet isn't so nice to your battery...

Turn your devices off!

Just last week, "Olga" the flight attendant (who incidentally won a silver medal in the 1984 shot put event) berated my ass for reading an iPhone during takeoff. One does not piss off Olga from United Air.

Woah haha. Thats funny "One does not simply piss off Olga from United Air and live".

 

[kdarling]

Isn't most of the electronics in the nose of the aircraft. Wouldn't the pilot using an ipad cause this issue, not someone sitting a football field away?

1) The iPads in the pilots' area have been tested. The nearly infinite combinations of possible devices and locations behind them, has not.

2) The aircraft skin is a giant metal echo chamber where RF can reflect all over the inside.

3) There are sensitive electronics in other places than the nose, and plenty of wiring. For example, there have been reports of cell phones causing false TCAS (collision) alerts, possibly because of a passenger seated over related wiring running from the tail.