FAA Taking a 'Fresh Look' at Digital Device Use During Takeoff and Landing

[nostresshere]

I have a feeling that a lot of the issue revolves around the fear that an electronic device will be used to detonate an explosive device somewhere else on board.

Or using your phone to setup tracking for an outside source to down a plane..

Sounds like TSA idiocy. Totally lacking logic.

If somebody wants to do either of the above things, they can do it today. Think though this for a nano-second. How does the flight crew know if you turned off that gadget in your pocket?

Bottom line, I would bet a million ipads that there is at least one phone turned on in every single flight. People just forget to turn them off. Simple stuff.

 

[Astro7x]

I have a feeling that a lot of the issue revolves around the fear that an electronic device will be used to detonate an explosive device somewhere else on board.

Or using your phone to setup tracking for an outside source to down a plane.

It has nothing to do with any device interrupting the pilots ability to control the plane - although wouldn't it be cool to use an app like flight control and start maneuvering the real plane using your finger on the app?

There is nothing to prevent somebody from doing this already though. If somebody really wanted to use a device in this way, they could just turn it on and ignore the nagging stewardess.

Honestly this whole thing should be a non issue, take off and landing are the most dangerous parts of plane travel. Devices should be put away in case of, oh I don't know... an emergency. Hold on, the plane is going down! Let me put away my Kindle before I put on my oxygen mask. Or just what I need is to not survive a plan crash because I got whacked in the skull by somebodies iPad.

 

[charlituna]

starting to get board of this photo...

To be honest I don't think what apple devices are being used for should be "news" here. Only apple endorsed programs like ibooks should feature here.

This isn't Apple.com although even they hype those other uses stories.

If you don't like the stories, don't read them.

 

[thejd]

To people who are worried about the iPad suddenly not working, creating some sort of accident: Why buy one iPad when you can buy two at twice the price?

EDIT: I wonder how many people will get the reference...

The movie "Contact", spoken by the crazy old guy to the main actress. Can't remember her name but hopefully I'm first on this one.

 

[Konrad9]

I'll say it again:

Cell phones - be they smart phones or otherwise - are in a class of their own. Their radios can cause interference with cellular systems on the ground when they're up in the air because they "see" too many cells.

But that's why there's airplane mode. A phone in airplane mode magically becomes a FCC Part 15 device. And if an airplane has any trouble operating properly at any point in its flightplan with a cabin full of operating Part 15 devices, then that plane should not be considered airworthy.

This rule is patently nonsensical, and needs to die.

The rule is for safety, so that people are 1: paying attention during takeoff/landing and 2: so they don't have their laptop getting in the way if they need to make for the emergency exit.

But if you tell someone that, they'll say 'oh it won't get in the way' and 'oh I'll be able to pay attention.'

Ask the passengers of the plane that landed in the Hudson river if it would have been EASIER to get off the plane if they had been allowed to have their phones and laptops out.

 

[charlituna]

I always thought it was all about not having the passenger (distracted) during takeoff and landing, which are key periods where things might go wrong..

That is another benefit, but it is not the reason they give. If they would just drop the whole "electronic interference" schtick and say that the whole thing is due to safety concerns like someone not hearing instructions due to having headphones on, things flying around the cabin etc then people would be more likely to lay off the griping.

----------

If I were Tim Cook, I would be on the phone with the FAA as soon as humanly possible, offering to outright pay for all the testing.

Wouldn't happen. It reeks of payoffs etc. in order for the FAA to be able to stay free from such things and avoid their own law suits etc they can't take money from any private concern of any kind.

 

[nostresshere]

are we as a people that starved for "something to do" that we can't wait half an hour for a flight to take off before whipping out our ipads?

Often it is much longer than a half hour. And, the point here is why is there a rule that does not make sense. If they had a rule that you could only look forward, but not left or right, would that make sense?

 

[charlituna]

I have a feeling that a lot of the issue revolves around the fear that an electronic device will be used to detonate an explosive device somewhere else on board.

Or using your phone to setup tracking for an outside source to down a plane.

Such thoughts in this post 9/11 world are likely. But there are probably ways to block such signals from being effective via the metals used in the actual plane, installing equipment to block certain radio signals etc.

 

[BigDukeSix]

The real reason they don't want you screwing around with your mobile device is that the airlines would like you to be paying attention to 1-the emergency briefing, and 2-what is going on around you during the most critical times of flight, takeoff and landing. It is bad enough now with folks sleeping and reading Skymall when the hard working FA's are trying to give you information to save yourself in an emergency.
I also hope to hell the FAA never lifts the cell phone ban, as I do not want to listen to everyones conversations when I travel.

 

[charlituna]

I don't have an iPad and use my iPhone like one. I wouldn't be talking on it in-flight unless there was an emergency. You can't group everyone with your statement. You didn't strike a chord with me, just showing you the other side for those like me.

pity that you are the exception, not the norm. There will always be people that would talk on a plane if allowed, just like they talk on their phones in restaurants, during movies etc.

And the real pity is that for every you out there, there are 100 not you folks.

 

[Konrad9]

Why can't you listen to music? Just get yourself a nice set of noise-cancelling headphones if you're worried about ambient noise.



Many of those devices have wifi, and some even have 3G cellular radios, like my Kindle. It's another example of just saying "put it away" rather than training the flight crew (and explaining to the passengers) that if you have model "x" then put it away, but model "y" is OK, etc.)

Because it isn't about radiation, it is about paying attention and not having an extra piece of debris in case of an emergency during takeoff/landing.

 

[charlituna]

Vindication for Alec Baldwin ? LOL

Not really. The issue wasn't the rule so much as it was the rule and he was refusing to abide by it because he is Alec Baldwin and he should be able to do what he wants. He could have been objecting to putting on his seat belt and been kicked off for that as well

 

[MacNut]

I never understood how a cell phone could take a plane down yet it is liquids we can't take with us.

 

[dakwar]

Nice to see some rational thought behind this. I wouldn't mind the pilots getting what they need - passengers will always be rude whether or not they're allowed to play angry birds during takeoff.

Not all passengers view themselves as god's gift to humanity. Thumbs up to the friendlies.

 

[flynndean]

I use my discretion. I've been on 100+ successful flights while listening to my iPod/reading my e-reader (essentially a calculator) during both take-off & landing. I just lower my over-ear headphones to my neck & close the cover on the e-reader the moment the Sky-C**t walks past my row.

The beauty is that the airline's over-zealous, power-crazy staff have to sit down for take-off & landing just like us (albeit for a little less time).

Viva la Common Sense.

 

[BigDukeSix]

I used to work for the airlines. Most of the folks who fly fall in my general catagory of dumbasses. Can't make it to the airport on time, think they can cram a full size suitcase in an overhead, feel like they are entitled to do what ever they want on the plane. People need to get in, sit down, shut up and hold on.
That is why people in the business call the passangers 'the Clampetts'....

 

[Rodimus Prime]

Ok for iPad owners. But what about Galaxy Tab owners?

Some how I think iPad being used as an over all description of tablets so most Android Tablets would be approved

I never understood the crews saying the devices must be turned OFF, even if they have an airplane mode. To me its called 'airplane mode' for a reason...

Airplane mode is while you are in flight (turning off Wifi and cell antenna). It does not address take off and landing which is a different issue entirely.

The EMF from electronic is the excuse they give for why they are banned for take off and landings but not the real reason. The real reason is more for safety in case something goes wrong. Be it a plane crash or a hard landing it makes sure stuff is stored and out of the way and people will be able to hear directions given by the flight crew. That mean no head phones, no movies or electronics. Hell if stuff goes flying from a down draft most electronics hurt a lot if they hit you. Books, and magazines for the most part do not as they are not a dense and relatively flexible and soft.

Problem is giving the real reason would get people up in arms as well. For the longest time they accept the EMF excuse but that has been falling apart. I would say during take off and landings a blank rule that all carries on must be stored either in seat pocket or under the seat would be better. But people seem to be annoyed by having to be safe for everyone benefit.

 

[scottw324]

Ok for iPad owners. But what about Galaxy Tab owners?

I am sure 80+% of the individuals on the jet that have tablets with them will have ipads. There are just that many more of them out there than the android tablets.

Good news is.......I should be able to use my ipad on the next flight I take. Good thing I didn't buy an android tablet.

 

[jmgregory1]

Such thoughts in this post 9/11 world are likely. But there are probably ways to block such signals from being effective via the metals used in the actual plane, installing equipment to block certain radio signals etc.

It goes back further than 9/11 and it isn't really a rational rule, as evidenced by the fact that pilots themselves can and are using these new electronic devices without the planes crashing.

The rule is simply tying to eliminate one potential safety issue, even if the issue has not been an issue to-date. It's kind of like making the speed limit 55. They say it's safer and saves gas, wear and tear, etc. Why not make it 50, 45, 40? Or take Ralph Nader and his attack of the rear engined Corsair. Rules were made (or laws) that made sense when you looked at them from the outside, but when questioned further, they just don't hold water.

The FAA has made a rule that had no real basis in what they claimed and now, in order to keep from looking bad, will not back down without complicating the work-around to the point where it's impossible to do so.

That being said, I do think we as a population in general have to get better at not being connected all the time. Whether it's a 2-14 hour flight, or a fishing trip in the wilds of Canada, there is nothing wrong with being off the grid for a period of time.

 

[millertime021]

I understand the need to test each separately and I totally hope they do the testing, however, I wonder how much it'll cost to test all these.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

I never understood how a cell phone could take a plane down yet it is liquids we can't take with us.

interference with communication between the plane and ground. Big time for the GSM phones. We have all heard the GSM buzz by our phones being near speakers. It can do the same to the planes system in theory if things hit at the right point or the shielding as any damage or wear to it. That buzz could be pick up and make communication between ground and air a mess so pilots could miss critical communication.

 

[bradl]

I am 100% all for this, as nothing would be more annoying than a plane full of people on their phone. I wonder if they'll allow iPhones during taxi/takeoff/landing as long as they're in Airplane mode.

Too difficult to enforce

Not really. Keep in mind that after the plane has landed, you are able to use your phone, as you would not be interfering with any equipment in the aircraft.

Instead of approving individual devices, couldn't they create a UL listing for "plane-safe" electronics, e.g. those that would pass the FAA test? Or does FAA not acknowledge UL?

They already have it, but it is up to the individual airline to supply that list of what the airline wants. So that could change from airline to airline.

I'll say it again:

Cell phones - be they smart phones or otherwise - are in a class of their own. Their radios can cause interference with cellular systems on the ground when they're up in the air because they "see" too many cells.

This is outright wrong. Here is why.

Cell towers work the same way as TV signals and WiFi signals work. The higher the tower is located, the more distance it can cover underneath its altitude. It's like a tent. It meets at a point, then expands down and out. The radios in the phones wouldn't interfere with the cells, because they would be well above the highest point of that cell.

That's the difference between normal towers and navigational ones (such as VOR). With TV and Cell towers, the are tent based, going down and out. VORs are the opposite. They spread up and out, and that is what aircraft navigational systems use. Different spectrum, different frequencies completely.

But that's why there's airplane mode. A phone in airplane mode magically becomes a FCC Part 15 device. And if an airplane has any trouble operating properly at any point in its flightplan with a cabin full of operating Part 15 devices, then that plane should not be considered airworthy.

This rule is patently nonsensical, and needs to die.

The other thing that people are missing is that this is assumed to be only about FAA Part 121 operations (commercial airlines). None of this applies to general aviation or Part 91 (private) or Part 135 (fractional/charter) operations.

BL.

 

[Konrad9]

I use my discretion. I've been on 100+ successful flights while listening to my iPod/reading my e-reader (essentially a calculator) during both take-off & landing. I just lower my over-ear headphones to my neck & close the cover on the e-reader the moment the Sky-C**t walks past my row.

The beauty is that the airline's over-zealous, power-crazy staff have to sit down for take-off & landing just like us (albeit for a little less time).

Viva la Common Sense.

Entitled much?

 

[hushypushy]

That's not the reason for the rule:

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/...t-doubt-on-fcc-rules-on-kindle-and-ipad-html/

The F.A.A. admits that its reasons have nothing to do with the undivided attention of passengers or the fear of Kindles flying out of passengers’ hands in case there is turbulence. That leaves us with the danger of electrical emissions.

NO!

Did you even read the article?!? It DIRECTLY contradicts the quote you posted! There is definitely NO electrical emission danger, it says in the article:

When EMT Labs put an Amazon Kindle through a number of tests, the company consistently found that this e-reader emitted less than 30 microvolts per meter when in use. That’s only 0.00003 of a volt.

“The power coming off a Kindle is completely minuscule and can’t do anything to interfere with a plane,” said Jay Gandhi, chief executive of EMT Labs, after going over the results of the test. “It’s so low that it just isn’t sending out any real interference.”

But one Kindle isn’t sending out a lot of electrical emissions. But surely a plane’s cabin with dozens or even hundreds will? That’s what both the F.A.A. and American Airlines asserted when I asked why pilots in the cockpit could use iPads, but the people back in coach could not. Yet that’s not right either.

“Electromagnetic energy doesn’t add up like that. Five Kindles will not put off five times the energy that one Kindle would,” explained Kevin Bothmann, EMT Labs testing manager. “If it added up like that, people wouldn’t be able to go into offices, where there are dozens of computers, without wearing protective gear.”

I've flown several dozen times in the last year, and I can confidently state a fact: most of the FAA rules are put in place to control people.

Let me restate that: Many FAA regulations are not based in scientific fact; instead, they are simply there to control people like sheep.

There is no technical reason that you need to temporarily shut down electronic devices or keep baggage out of your footwell during takeoff, just like it's exceedingly rare that one would ever need a seatbelt during flight. Yet, you are forced to shut down your devices, stow your baggage under the seat in front of you, and if you're sitting down, your seatbelt is supposed to be on. The only reason these rules exist is to keep you in line.

I could rant on and on about it, but the fact of the matter is that--for your safety--the FAA has employed several brain-washing/mind control tactics to keep people in line. Flying on an airplane in the USA is like visiting North Korea...fancy that...

 

[Konrad9]

I understand the need to test each separately and I totally hope they do the testing, however, I wonder how much it'll cost to test all these.

A lot. But if the mountain of whiners in these comments have shown us that our tax dollars must be spent so they can have an extra 5 minutes with their safety blanket/iPod.

And then they'll whine more when they found out how much it cost.