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

[robbyx]

Silly

I've always thought this regulation was silly. And, in reality, a lot of people don't turn off their devices. I've sat next to people who are texting during take-off and landing many times. The only way to stop people from using their devices is to confiscate them when they board the plane. That's just reality. And won't ever happen.

 

[TallManNY]

The story seems to imply that this is "bureaucracy." But in the interests of safety, of course each device will have to be tested in each airplane. The radiation emissions will be different, and the wiring of each model of plane is different.

There is no reason to think that these devices will create a radiation emission that interferes with the operation of the plane anymore than a digital wristwatch. Planes are designed to not be easily interfered with in the first place and these devices (setting aside the cell portion) are not designed to output a powerful signal.

Private corporate jets and personal planes fly millions of miles every year and they do not enforce these "safety" provisions. There is no recorded evidence of these devices causing a problem as far as I'm aware of. So it is simply bureaucracy to think that another controlled test is needed. Heck, in an average crowded plane filled with business travelers, how many devices on every flight are not actually powered off? These devices have all been tested thousands of times before breakfast every day. I bet a new iPad flew on an airplane while turned on before the end of the day on Friday. So it has been tested. They have all been tested or something like them now for decades.

 

[jmgregory1]

Actually, there are plenty of recorded cases where pilots tracked down idiots who tried to use their cell phone especially during landing, and screwed up either navigation or automated landings.

What we see too much in these threads are posts from people who are neither engineers nor pilots.

They say ignorant things like "Well, my fill-in-the-blank doesn't have a radio so it can't interfer." Folks, anything with a CPU inside is a possible transmitter simply due to its internal oscillator. Even receive-only radios are often inadvertent transmitters for similar reasons.

They also have never read through all the anonymous NASA safety forms where pilots and crew have entered times that personal devices have apparently almost caused accidents.

The upshot is, every device would have to be tested in every possible location and combination on every type of plane. It's just not possible.

Until such time as airlines consider it worthwhile to armor the heck out of all planes' systems, it's not worth jeopardizing your family's lives just so you can play your games during take-off and landing.

Really? I would be very interested to see these reports of screwed up navigation or automated landings.

I agree that there are a lot of back yard tech people on this site, but that doesn't mean that we can't put two and two together to understand that the rules were created for something other than what we're being told.

And as far as anonymous NASA forums where pilots and crew are reporting electronic devices almost causing accidents, I'll say this. Pilots and crew are human. If they, say make a mistake and don't want to lose their license, chances are pretty great they'll tell not exactly the whole truth. Point in case were the pilots that overshot an airport, couldn't be reached via radio and said they had communications problems - yes, they chose not to communicate because they were doing other things (I think they were using laptops, if I'm not mistaken).

So, if these gadgets have all sorts of abilities to cause harm to communication and flight operations, why are they letting iPads into the cockpit? That close to all the circuits? And as others have noted, I can guarantee to you that there isn't a flight each and every day that doesn't have at least one phone left on and functioning for the entire flight.

I won't say that something couldn't happen, if every person on a full flight had a device up and running, but that would go back to what the FAA should then be testing for. Is one phone or tablet safe to use? How about 10, 50, 100, 300?

And even if we buy into your argument, why then are the devices allowed above 10,000 ft? If they're so dangerous, they'd prohibit their use, regardless of whether it's take-off, landing or cruising altitude.

 

[buslertq]

That plane is going nowhere:

Jim: "You do know that a four-letter word for flightless bird can't be 'emoo,' right..."

Frank: "..."

I'm pretty sure those guys are doing crossword puzzles.

 

[Konrad9]

Perhaps. But then, maybe it's just that I'm intelligent enough to at least question why the rules/laws that control me are in place.

You should be intelligent enough to UNDERSTAND them, then. They are not all about interference, they are mostly about safety. If you have a laptop/tablet/phone/gameboy out, you aren't paying attention. Furthermore, you have something getting in your way if there's an emergency and you need to get off the plane. You ALSO have something that could become a projectile if the plane rolls or lurches or some other horrible thing happens.

Maybe you should try to use that intelligence to think of other reasons why having something out during takeoff and landing is a bad thing, instead of whining about wanting to use your precious security blan... er, iPod.

 

[firewood]

Any device that does not meet FCC Part 15 emission limits cannot legally be imported into or offered for sale in the US.

One more dirty little secret told to me by someone who's actually done some EMI testing. When manufacturing millions of FCC approved devices that are then (ab)used by their users, not all of them will or will still pass a test of Part 15 emission limits.

I have an old AM radio, that even when turned off, will loudly buzz when some GSM iPhones are put on the same table with it (but only some iPhones, not all).

When managing risk, small percentage differences matter.

 

[nsayer]

Not bogus at all. There were far fewer complaints about people driving while reading the newspaper or a map, compared with idiots driving while texting. More states have laws against the latter, not the former.

You're seriously suggesting that it's legal in more states to drive while reading a newspaper than to drive while texting?

It's actually been a tie for the entire lifespan of every current American driver: it's against the law of every state to drive while distracted by anything. It's the first and most fundamental law of the road: It is always illegal to operate a motor vehicle in any way that is unsafe.

----------

One more dirty little secret told to me by someone who's actually done some EMI testing. When manufacturing millions of FCC approved devices that are then (ab)used by their users, not all of them will or will still pass a test of Part 15 emission limits.

Not every car in California will pass its biannual smog test either, but it's still illegal to sell or license a car that won't, and the smog has been vastly reduced by the requirement.

I have an old AM radio, that even when turned off, will loudly buzz when some GSM iPhones are put on the same table with it (but only some iPhones, not all).

That has nothing whatsoever to do with Part 15. It's buzzing because it's susceptible to interference - something which Part 15 addresses only insofar as it requires notice that Part 15 devices are not protected from undesired operation caused by interference from licensed services. The fact that the audio amp in your AM radio buzzes near a 850 MHz spread spectrum transmitter doesn't predict or suggest in any way that it's LO may or may not be leaky.

When managing risk, small percentage differences matter.

At some point more harm is done by the risk management than the risk.

As an example of this, it is very likely that the TSA is responsible for killing more Americans than died in the attacks on 9/11/01. How? Because by raising the cost and hassle of air travel, they've diverted people to cars for short to intermediate length trips, where the death toll is 3,000 times higher (including 9/11 fatalities, commercial aviation is responsible for about 10 fatalities per year over the last 30 years as opposed to about 30,000 per year for automobiles).

 

[firewood]

It's actually been a tie for the entire lifespan of every current American driver: it's against the law of every state to drive while distracted by anything.

If that were actually enforced, few people would be allowed to drive with their wife or GF in the passenger seat.

 

[millarj]

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:

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.
...

I'm not saying it's good science, but it is science. Here's the original FAA report from 2006, referenced in the article. http://www.tc.faa.gov/its/worldpac/techrpt/ar06-41.pdf

-j

 

[SiriusExcelsior]

When will they allow cameras? Some people (like me ) still pay extra to get a window seat so they can take photos.. Would be great to be able to use it without hiding it under a jacket, hoping people don't hear the shutter/mirror..

 

[baryon]

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

Well it's not worth the investment for me, since I'd only need them for flying and they're quite expensive. I have good headphones already, but I still have to turn the volume up so high on the plane that it makes my ears hurt after some time, and I'm sure that's not a good thing.

 

[Cougarcat]

Not bogus at all. There were far fewer complaints about people driving while reading the newspaper or a map, compared with idiots driving while texting. More states have laws against the latter, not the former. Newspapers, maybe due to the lack of interactivity or something, turn out to be less distracting of attention and/or causes of rudeness.

You are allowed to use an electric shaver at all times during a flight. Surely that is more distracting than any of the above.

 

[notjustjay]

These are old rules - put in place at a time when the fear was that an "electronic device" or transmitter could do harm to the plane. Guess what, phones are transmitters. I'm not saying it is a smart rule, because it's not. The company I used to work for had a company plane. This was back when the brick cell phone was released and I remember making calls from the plane - the old brick phone had a hugely powerful (for the day) transmitter and never did we experience any sort of issues with flying, take-off or landing. That's just not what this is about. It's about a historical fear of people wanting to blow up planes using electronic devices.

That's certainly how it started. Old analog cell phones were powerful transmitters because there were fewer "cells" in the network and they had to be farther away. Also, the planes at the time had analog instrumentation. Mythbusters did a test about cell phones versus planes and as I recall their conclusion was that old cell phones DID interfere with old analog plane electronics.

The modern phones and modern planes do not pose a problem, but since the FAA regulations cover all sorts of aircraft, including the old ones, so they made a very broad ruling.

 

[firewood]

At some point more harm is done by the risk management than the risk.

Agreed.

But exactly where is the increased risk of having passengers turn off their personal electronic devices for 10 minutes? (Many of which didn't even exist when the airframe type they are flying on was first certified for service.)

 

[Tiger8]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9B179 Safari/7534.48.3)



But if pilots are already using iPads during takeoff and landing that implies that they have been tested and proved to be safe. And let's face it, whereabouts on an aeroplane is an iPad etc. likely to be the greatest risk? Yep, on the flight deck which is stuffed to the gunwales with electronic equipment. So I would say it's bureaucracy.

Not all iPads are allowed, only specific iPad 2 models have been tested and validated. It is a good sign, but does not mean that all variations of iPad are safe.

 

[jmgregory1]

And as far as keeping people alert and not engaged with an electronic device during take-off and landing - what about those people trying to scarf down a big mac, fries and large coke at take-off? Holding the bag in their lap, the coke between their feet and a messy big mac in their hands, while taking off - they're clearly not in a position to react to an impending disaster any better than someone looking at their iPhone or iPad. And if they drop the sandwich during an emergency escape, it has the potential to trip another passenger up as they slide on the special sauce.

Worse yet, those people carrying a mc d's coffee, with its scorching 180 degree joe, just waiting burn the eyes or scald the hands of the unsuspecting passenger who is reacting to the impending crash and likely last moments of their life.

Perhaps the FAA should simply make the rule that we can't do anything or have anything in our hands (sorry baby carrying parents) during take-off and landing.

 

[jlc1978]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9B176 Safari/7534.48.3)

There are some secondary considerations:

Physical Safety. T/O and landing are the two times where an evacuation are a (remote) possibility and and the chance an iPad or similar device could hinder the evacuation is enough to warrant banning them on those phases of flight.

How do you track which devices are approved? Unless every one is tested you'll wind up with a mess and it'll be easier for the airlines to ban all of them.

Personally, I fly a lot and the 15 or so minutes it takes to get to 10K is no big deal.

 

[GenesisST]

Oh, I don't know. Many many millions more people have died in hospitals than on airplanes.

Granted, but I meant in one occurrence... Unless the hospital blowing up in Dark Knight counts... But they kind of evacuated it. (Totally unrelated: can't wait for TDKR!)

 

[firewood]

And as far as keeping people alert and not engaged with an electronic device during take-off and landing - what about those people trying to scarf down a big mac, fries and large coke at take-off?

People texting while driving caused a huge public outcry and new laws to be enacted. But people still eat while driving, drive-thru fast food is quite common, and far fewer other drivers seem to be complaining about this as loudly. There seems to be a difference.

 

[AidenShaw]

Even receive-only radios are often inadvertent transmitters for similar reasons.

I'd use "almost always" instead of "often" - it just depends on the threshold of radiation that you pick to distinguish "transmitters" from "non-transmitters".

I lived in Switzerland - a country that levies a tax on television receivers. (No matter if you're watching Swiss television or not, it's just having a TV capable of receiving Swiss TV that triggers the tax.)

Most RF receivers use a super-heterodyne front end (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superheterodyne_receiver) to convert all potential input RF frequencies to a single intermediate frequency (IF). The rest of the receiver processes the IF, and is unaware of the original broadcast frequency.

For obvious component sourcing reasons, the set of IF was usually one.

The Swiss PTT had vehicles (for single family home areas) and handheld receivers tuned to the IF. If they drove by your house (or walked by your apartment) and detected the appropriate IF signals and you weren't of the list of homes paying the TV tax, you could count on a sudden drop in the CHF in your bank account.

An anecdote more more computer-related - in the latter 1970's I worked in a research hospital as a graduate assistant, helping the research doctors collect and analyze physiological data using a PDP-11 with realtime A-D converters.

I had an office near the computer room. If some processing seemed to be taking a long time, I'd tune my Advent Radio between stations.

If I heard a random but rhythmic buzz, I knew that the program was fine and was still hitting the disk. (The washing-machine-sized 20 MB disk radiated a lot of energy in the FM band.)

If, however, the radio produced white noise between stations - the program was hung and I needed to take look at it.
________________

Point is - any circuits running in the MHz-GHz range are going to leak some RF unless the device is specially shielded to emit zero radiation.

So, in context of the thread, the question is whether the airplane systems can tolerate the RF leakage from devices.

And, I can see this from both sides. I usually fly American, which has been equipping its fleet with air-to-ground WiFi hotspots. If I'm on a plane that's been upgraded - I can use WiFi as soon as the seat belt light goes off. If the plane doesn't have WiFi, I must keep my radios silent the whole flight. For some reason I suspect that the avionics aren't replaced when the air-to-ground WiFi links are installed.

 

[nsayer]

Agreed.

But exactly where is the increased risk of having passengers turn off their personal electronic devices for 10 minutes? (Many of which didn't even exist when the airframe type they are flying on was first certified for service.)

As with my TSA example, the more unpleasant, onerous and difficult you make air travel, the more people will choose less safe alternatives. It's exactly as you said - a matter of degrees.

 

[UWSpindoctor]

They are not all about interference, they are mostly about safety. If you have a laptop/tablet/phone/gameboy out, you aren't paying attention. Furthermore, you have something getting in your way if there's an emergency and you need to get off the plane. You ALSO have something that could become a projectile if the plane rolls or lurches or some other horrible thing happens.

Why isn't hardback book covered in that slash list? It meets all the criteria you say is the reason that handheld electronics shouldn't be used during takeoff and landing.

 

[akugyaku]

Can't they just make the cabins giant Faraday cages?

 

[nsayer]

Folks, the "attention" canard is silly. The quintessential example of the accident you're trying to say benefits from attention was the "miracle on the Hudson." In that accident, there was ample opportunity for everyone in the cabin to put down whatever they had in their hands and brace for impact. Any incident that happens quicker than that will be survivable or not regardless of whatever the passengers are doing at the time.

 

[firewood]

Why isn't hardback book covered in that slash list? It meets all the criteria you say is the reason that handheld electronics shouldn't be used during takeoff and landing.

Grandfather clause. Hardback books existed back in the days when passengers still paid attention to all the stewardesses in their matching short skirts. Nothing new about the books.