Please turn off all personal electronic devices

[aquajet]

call me crazy for thinking 2 AAAs is gonna bring down a plane...

Not crazy, just ignorant. I have personally witnessed the ill effects of RFI while flying a single engine Cessna and it ain't fun. Given the right circumstances, it's not difficult to imagine this scenario. Now if we could only convince more people to reason like you, perhaps we can make it happen!

 

[IJ Reilly]

The service ceiling for the -300 and up 737's built after 1993 is 41,000 feet.

My last flight to Jacksonville topped out at 39,000, but I've been on at 40,000 for turbulence.

I don't think they broke 40,000 feet on the 737 until the -700 model, but I think you have the year right. Some of the equipment can get there, but it's not routine, I believe.

 

[matticus008]

I don't think they broke 40,000 feet on the 737 until the -700 model

That's correct. Southwest Airlines, incidentally, was the launch customer for the 700 series. It is not SOP to operate regularly at anywhere close to the ceiling because of TCAS constraints and general comfort (less consistent lift properties, increased risk of icing in cold spots, and more strain on cabin pressurization systems). In order to avoid severe thunderstorm cells too large to fly around or abnormally intense CAT, planes are sometimes given approval for elevated flight, but no current commercial aircraft has a cruising altitude above 38,000 AGL (if there are any at all even that high).

 

[aquajet]

I was under the impression the service ceilings are as follows:

100/200: 35,000ft
300/400/500: 37,000ft
600/700/800/900: 41,000ft

I wasn't aware any 300 model was certified above that. Is this the case?

 

[Sdashiki]

Not crazy, just ignorant. I have personally witnessed the ill effects of RFI while flying a single engine Cessna and it ain't fun. Given the right circumstances, it's not difficult to imagine this scenario. Now if we could only convince more people to reason like you, perhaps we can make it happen!

Cessna / 700 series

totally comparable.

ps: if I changed my prev. post to 30,000 ft can we stop arguing about that? I was just using it as a measure of height far above 2-3 miles.

 

[macaholic23]

Even if the devices did interfere with instruments, they will NOT crash a plane. Some of you guys are really overexaggerating the facts.

Besides, pilots are trained to fly in worst-case scenarios. And forgive me if I sound like a tool by saying this, but instrument failure is an area that is definitely covered.

 

[sushi]

Right. And the penalties are harsh for good reason: you don't **** around while traveling 500+ mph, seven miles above the earth in a thin metal tube.

Thank you!

The flight crew has responsibilities for the aircraft and passengers. They operate in a manner to ensure the most safe flight possible. So things are done as a group vice individually. They do not have time to look at/inspect each device to see if it will be a problem.

In the FWIW category, *all* electronic devices put out some sort of electronic/magnetic radiation. This is a fact. If you don't believe it ask your friendly Electrical Engineer. Now whether or not that radiation is enough to affect the aircraft flight system or avionics is another issue.

Turning off your electronics for a few minutes during TO and Landing is a minor inconvenience. Why the big issue in the first place? Makes no sense to me.

 

[Timepass]

Even if the devices did interfere with instruments, they will NOT crash a plane. Some of you guys are really overexaggerating the facts.

Besides, pilots are trained to fly in worst-case scenarios. And forgive me if I sound like a tool by saying this, but instrument failure is an area that is definitely covered.

But rememeber it only take one minor slip up to bring that plane down. One little thing. Let say something distract the pilots for a second (engine light something) and then when they see the interments something looks off so they agjust for it. that adjustment causes them to miss the run way. There are times that pilots have to fly interstment only and during that time could be when you device cause problems. There are a lot of things that happen that the passager never know about. Seveal pilots have had to dead stick landlings before because the enginees where not working right. Did the passager ever learn about it HELL NO. They dont tell you when something goes wrong with the plan.

Also the FAA plays it very safe when it comes to airlines. Yeah chances are everything will be fine and not cause the problems. But on the off chance that it does they ban them a much easier thing to do than to figure out what cause the problem and test for it. Just ban them all. it advoid agruments. Cheaper for training and everything. It safer for everyone.

As for people agure that the iPod does not cause any interferce that a bunch of bull. It does cause some because it does cause RF. I have seen my ipod have effects on the radio when the signal is bad. Move the ipod closer while it is running the the RF pushed it even worse.

Also as you said pilots are trained for worse case. Guess what those rules are also in place for worse case. Lets say the transmitter in the plane goes hey wire and bad and not working. Any extra RF is going to make it worse. They not going to tell you that it bad because that will cause panic.

Really to many people are full of them selves and think they are better than everyone else. if you can not live with out your iPod or eletrinic device for 20min you are a sad and pathic person and need to seek profesional help.

 

[iGary]

I don't think they broke 40,000 feet on the 737 until the -700 model, but I think you have the year right. Some of the equipment can get there, but it's not routine, I believe.

Yeah - bad dope on the site I was looking at - I finally got unlazy and looked through the Boeing PDF - Aquajet is correct with his table above.

 

[sushi]

Even if the devices did interfere with instruments, they will NOT crash a plane. Some of you guys are really overexaggerating the facts.

Besides, pilots are trained to fly in worst-case scenarios. And forgive me if I sound like a tool by saying this, but instrument failure is an area that is definitely covered.

Are you serious?

You've got to be kidding right?

What a n00b!

 

[aquajet]

Cessna / 700 series

totally comparable.

Yeah, quite right. A malfunction on any aircraft can be a dangerous situation, whether it's a 40 year old 152 or state-of-the-art "700 series".

My point is this: these rules exist for a reason. All PEDs emit RFI. Admittedly, one iPod on a modern airliner probably isn't a cause for concern, several hundred scattered around at the wrong time might be. Please just follow the rules. And if you don't, remember this: disobeying a flight attendant's instructions is a federal crime.

 

[floriflee]

Besides, pilots are trained to fly in worst-case scenarios. And forgive me if I sound like a tool by saying this, but instrument failure is an area that is definitely covered.

And putting ourselves in a situation where instrament failure is more possible is a good thing how?? When it comes to flying I'd rather err on the side of caution and I'd expect my fellow passengers to show the same courtesy. It is not that big of a deal to turn the devices off.

Learn to live with the voices in your head once in a while....

 

[sushi]

And putting ourselves in a situation where instrament failure is more possible is a good thing how??

Exactly.

Why put ourselves in a bad situation to begin with? The key to being a good pilot is setting yourself up for success and not failure.

 

[IJ Reilly]

ps: if I changed my prev. post to 30,000 ft can we stop arguing about that? I was just using it as a measure of height far above 2-3 miles.

Heck no, we're enjoying this argument.

 

[macaholic23]

But rememeber it only take one minor slip up to bring that plane down. One little thing. Let say something distract the pilots for a second (engine light something) and then when they see the interments something looks off so they agjust for it. that adjustment causes them to miss the run way.

LOL! Ok... So you're saying that an electronic device will cause the pilot to make an erroneous adjustment which will throw the plane off of its flight path, thus causing him/her to miss the runway?

Wrong. Pilots have enough knowledge about their flight paths to be able to recognize sporadic warning signs. A pilot will not panic and adjust without researching the warning first. Furthermore, he/she has to have permission from the control tower to make adjustments to his/her flight path. You can't just automatically climb or descend in altitude, or bank at your own discretion.

 

[EricNau]

I've lost track of this thread; but I'm going to bring the Myth Busters back up.

When they were conducting their experiments, they compared the RF output of an iPod to that of a cellphones. When compared, the iPod output was near to nothing when compared to the enormous amounts emitted from the cell phone.

I'm all for the banning of cell phone use on planes (even though chances of interference are extremely low), but the banning of iPods during the entire flight is pointless.

...But I will still follow all instructions given to me by the flight attendant; I'm not an idiot.

 

[matticus008]

I'm all for the banning of cell phone use on planes (even though chances of interference are extremely low), but the banning of iPods during the entire flight is pointless.

I don't think anyone is interested in banning iPods during the entire flight. I think all anyone's saying is that the current prohibition on all electronic devices during takeoff and landing is a reasonable safety precaution no matter how minor the chance of problems and that it's not a violation of rights or an outrageous policy to have, nor is it a major burden.

 

[FragTek]

The last international flight I was on (Virgin Atlantic) they had wireless broadband access on the jet which passengers could use while crossing the pond. I thought that was an awesome benefit, being able to surf the net from the plane...

 

[sushi]

Wrong. Pilots have enough knowledge about their flight paths to be able to recognize sporadic warning signs. A pilot will not panic and adjust without researching the warning first. Furthermore, he/she has to have permission from the control tower to make adjustments to his/her flight path. You can't just automatically climb or descend in altitude, or bank at your own discretion.

You sure seem to think you know a lot about flying -- especially about IMC procedures, who controls the aircraft, and who has the final authority for the operation of the aircraft.

Unfortunately, you might not know as much as you think you do.

But heck, what do I know.

 

[skoker]

I'm a pilot, and even if wasn't, I have every right to be in on this thread. Most commercial traffic doesn't go above FL350. Some of the aircraft aren't even capable of it, fully loaded.

No offense, but when did you find this out? In the 1980's?

Take this example, yesterday's flight WN900, on a 737-700(winglets):

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/SWA900/history/20060605/1119Z/KBUF/KMCO

Notice how the cruising altitude is 40,000 ft (FL400) on a severe clear day with very little wx to worry about.

Now, today however the flight went out with one of the older 737-300's:

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/SWA900/history/20060606/1115Z/KBUF/KMCO

and even with clear skies it went up to FL360.

Here's a -300 at FL370:
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/CAY103

Even a -200 can hit FL330 on this really short flight:
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/DAL1815


No matter what you've heard, it's always cheaper to fly higher. There's less air molecules, which means less friction and therefore you fly faster, higher, use less fuel, and let carriers keep there aircraft IN THE AIR making money, and not on the ground losing it.

 

[IJ Reilly]

LOL! Ok... So you're saying that an electronic device will cause the pilot to make an erroneous adjustment which will throw the plane off of its flight path, thus causing him/her to miss the runway?

Wrong. Pilots have enough knowledge about their flight paths to be able to recognize sporadic warning signs. A pilot will not panic and adjust without researching the warning first. Furthermore, he/she has to have permission from the control tower to make adjustments to his/her flight path. You can't just automatically climb or descend in altitude, or bank at your own discretion.

Not quite. Every pilot has the discretion to do whatever they believe is necessary to insure the safety of the fight. If it involves a deviation from ATC instructions, they might have to explain why later, but they do have the discretion.

You should also understand that when a pilot is shooting an ILS, they may be doing it in minimum conditions, typically 100 foot ceilings and half-mile visibilities. During this time they are 100% dependent on their instruments, which are RF operated. This is only one reason why you are asked to turn off RF-generating devices during this phase of flight.

 

[iGary]

No offense, but when did you find this out? In the 1980's?

Take this example, yesterday's flight WN900, on a 737-700(winglets):

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/SWA900/history/20060605/1119Z/KBUF/KMCO

Notice how the cruising altitude is 40,000 ft (FL400) on a severe clear day with very little wx to worry about.

Now, today however the flight went out with one of the older 737-300's:

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/SWA900/history/20060606/1115Z/KBUF/KMCO

and even with clear skies it went up to FL360.

Here's a -300 at FL370:
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/CAY103

Even a -200 can hit FL330 on this really short flight:
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/DAL1815


No matter what you've heard, it's always cheaper to fly higher. There's less air molecules, which means less friction and therefore you fly faster, higher, use less fuel, and let carriers keep there aircraft IN THE AIR making money, and not on the ground losing it.

Southwest sucks.

 

[IJ Reilly]

No matter what you've heard, it's always cheaper to fly higher. There's less air molecules, which means less friction and therefore you fly faster, higher, use less fuel, and let carriers keep there aircraft IN THE AIR making money, and not on the ground losing it.

No offense, but it helps if you've read the other posts I've made on this subject before responding. I've already said that it's generally more efficient to fly at higher altitudes, but also that it's expensive to get there. Both are true for essentially the same reason. Climbing is costly, and progressively more so the higher you attempt to climb. The reward is better efficiency once you're there, but it's a tradeoff that doesn't always pay.

Incidentally, a major factor overriding the higher-is-better rule of fuel efficiency is wind. The winds at the flight levels can easily top 100 knots, so the altitude selected for any given flight will have as much to do with wind speed and direction as any other factor.

 

[aquajet]

No matter what you've heard, it's always cheaper to fly higher.

This is not true. Every aircraft has an optimal cruise altitude at a given weight. Generally speaking, anything above that will result in higher fuel burn per mile. The optimal cruise altitude will increase during the flight as the aircraft burns more fuel and reduces weight.

Of course, things like tailwinds can affect this generalization.

 

[Sdashiki]

So have we come to the final conclusion that portable music players:

walkmen
discmen
mp3 players
even laptops

put out negligble amounts of RFI? i.e. the only way for a device to "interact" with another.

I am always going to argue that a giant aluminum tube with a pack of cards playing music at a reasonable volume, causes nothing but calmness in the passenger.

Walk into the cockpit (wait, lets go back in time to say 1999 or so) when at cruising altitude and have your iPod in your pocket, headphones on your head. And ask the captain if anything happens.

honestly, I am NO engineer but I can not come to believe a device of negligble wattage can interfere WITH ANYTHING!