Those must have been some really crappily made LCD panels that they couldn't handle simple rf waves which the atmosphere is filled with.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
U.S. Senator Promising Legislative Action Allowing In-Air Use of Electronic Devices if FAA Doesn't Act
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Those must have been some really crappily made LCD panels that they couldn't handle simple rf waves which the atmosphere is filled with.
The digital device may emit electromagnetic noise. If fact it likely does. But then it may not be enough to cause a problem. But on the other hand 100 ssuch devices all on at once might. Also sometimes these devices are defective and do emit a "ton" of noise. Could it be a problem? Maybe?
I think what they need is some kind of noise detector in the cockpit
No, I don't forget what risks are involved. Instead I maintain that why are we worrying about the last .00001% on an airplane while ignoring the full 1% in automobiles? The last poster was really really reaching about some supposed possible scenario that might happen. That's not the type of thing you build a law around. Airplanes are basically safe enough. Tens of thousands of people fly every day who don't turn off their electric devices. When all the testing is done, the likelihood is that this stuff just doesn't make a difference because if it did, they'd have to be policing this far more than just asking people and hoping. Again, if saving lives is the goal, focus your efforts elsewhere and give the frequent flyers a break.
So then we should all sign out of our computers and go feed some hungry kids in Zambia or whatever if we're using your rules for what to focus on first. I hear AIDS in Africa is big too.
My point is this: Yes automobile safety is big whatever percent it is. Also, aviation safety is a smaller percent. But why even give up .000001 percent of the safety factor we started if we don't have to?
We can't always just give breaks to frequent flyers just because we shrug our shoulders and figure that "the chances are slim anyway." In the same token, I'm a frequent driver...so that means I can txt and drive right? I drive all the time so give me a break!!
I don't want to be personal, but the above just goes to show how LITTLE the average person knows. I'd bet you a beer that your pocket AM/FM radio leaks some of the local oscillator out the antenna. Do you even know why a radio receiver has a local oscillator?
A very public demonstration of this was years ago when ythey used to do surveys to see what over the air TV stations people where watching. They would drive down the street and aim a directional antenna at the rooftop TV antenna on your house and record the frequency that was "leaking" out. Those OLD TVs were kind of cheap and every one of them acted as an ultra-low power transmitter. Almost every conventional radio does this to some extent.
You forget the part where the FCC and FAA prohibits the use of wireless communication devices on flights conducted IFR.
Sure it may seem like not a big deal but there are a few factors that need to be thought about. Take your phone and put it near the magnetic compass of your 172, you know that compass in the kerosene fluid that you set your DG or HSI to every 15-30 minutes. The mag compass will be all over the place with radio interference.
Sure airliners are much more sophisticated pieces of equipment utilizing systems such as IRS and programmable with FMS computers. But this tried and true technology is battling the technology evolving around it and it is damn near impossible to test all the variables. Now the likely hood of anything getting thrown off course is slim to none but what about flying a SID or a STAR when the systems have to operate to a degree of precision? How about in the extremely unlikely event of a emergency that the aircraft overshoots the runway in nil braking conditions when everyone pulls out there phones as soon as wheels down. Those items are now projectiles. Don't get me wrong but in the interest of safety (FAA Money Word) it is best not to question the if and's or buts of this regulation and understand it is still in place for a reason.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 91.21 — Portable electronic devices.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may operate, nor may any operator or pilot in command of an aircraft allow the operation of, any portable electronic device on any of the following U.S.-registered civil aircraft:
(1) Aircraft operated by a holder of an air carrier operating certificate or an operating certificate; or
(2) Any other aircraft while it is operated under IFR.
(b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to—
(1) Portable voice recorders;
(2) Hearing aids;
(3) Heart pacemakers;
(4) Electric shavers; or
(5) Any other portable electronic device that the operator of the aircraft has determined will not cause interference with the navigation or communication system of the aircraft on which it is to be used.
(c) In the case of an aircraft operated by a holder of an air carrier operating certificate or an operating certificate, the determination required by paragraph (b)(5) of this section shall be made by that operator of the aircraft on which the particular device is to be used. In the case of other aircraft, the determination may be made by the pilot in command or other operator of the aircraft.
Last edited:
Actually, I knew that, but they don't actively transmit anything by design. They emit a little by mistake of course, but it's negligible as you and others have said. Plus, the plane itself has radios in it, yet they're not worried about their radios interfering with their other radios. Any electrical current going through a wire emits EMR, by the way.
Last edited:
It is rather pathetic that people can't shut thier phones off for that 30 minutes.
What until we have the first plane crash that is linked directly to electronic device use. This stupid bitch will quickly back pedal and claim it isn't her fault.
What until we have the first plane crash that is linked directly to electronic device use. This stupid bitch will quickly back pedal and claim it isn't her fault.
Yeah, what if my Mac's LCD went blank from my Airport card, Airport Express base station, iPhone 4, iPhone 1, my brother's iPhone 4S, my MacBook's Airport card, and any other wifi device in the area?
I was referring to my preferences. Since I do not hold an instrument rating I only fly VFR so for me I always allow electronic devices on my airplane.
Every electronic device is a radio. Most are designed and regulated to minimize radio emissions, but none are perfect. Radio power fades with the square of the distance between transmitter and receiver-- this means that a radio source 100 ft away is about 3000 times stronger than a radio source a mile away, and that just keeps going up quadratically and gets absurdly high when you're talking about receiving from satellites.
The FCC tries to make sure that all electronics are designed to limit unintentional radiation. They do this by asking the manufacturer to provide a "gold" unit that they can measure. The manufacturer tries to limit radiation by putting little filters and metal shields around and over key components. So, our confidence in the lack of interference is based on testing one unit that is essentially mechanically squelched.
Then we make millions of them. We all notice when we get a unit with a memory failure, or that crashes on boot, or has a yellow cast to the display. Do we notice when we get a unit that exceeds the emissions limits? Do we have it tested after we drop it and crack the solder joint on a shield, or a ferrite bead? Do we know how it would interact with hundreds of other little radios packed into a tiny metal tube?
My guess is that certain devices pose more of a threat than others-- but that requires the airline to maintain a list of what they trust and what they don't, and to keep that list up to date with every new product release in every country in which passengers are arriving from. Seems a little unwieldy.
With all that, they've decided to let you use those devices for the entire flight except during the most safety critical take off and landing phases, where there's the least time to react to a problem. Most accidents happen during take off and landing-- that seems like the right time to show an abundance of caution. In an increasingly electronic aircraft, shutting down any random, possibly damaged interference sources seems prudent.
I expect the chances of a problem are very low, but I know the cost is very high. Given that there are something like 10 million flights a year in the US alone, even a one in a billion chance of catastrophe is significant.
And just because the airlines allow iPads in the cockpit doesn't mean anything, just as the fact that the plane is full of electronics doesn't mean anything-- for one thing they control the hardware, they can test it, the can replace it if it's damaged, and maybe the current iPad's emissions aren't a problem. For another, the pilot has access to the unit in the event of an emergency-- as opposed to having to beg someone in the cabin to turn off a unit. And even if they say iPads are ok, the Nexus people are going to go berserk.
This is an all or nothing proposition. And the idea that a Senator with no technical background is going to make the decision legislatively is as arrogant as the people who make the decision individually.
Way to stick it to the man! 10 extra minutes with two devices on that you can't possibly use at the same time and probably can't use openly at all-- that'll show 'em!
I do have to wonder, though, if you asked the hundreds of passengers around you if they were willing to gamble their lives with you on your little act of rebellion? Has it occurred to you that this might be Russian Roulette with one bullet in 100 million chambers and you may have gotten lucky 70 times? My experience is that the people who know the most about these things are least likely to argue with these kinds of regulations, and the least informed are comfortable assuming they know more than the experts. Because the FAA is a bunch of idiots, but they read on the internet that the whole thing was a way for the airline to sell more something-er-other...
A pilots license has as much credibility in radio regulation as an IEEE membership does in landing a plane.
VFR is no big deal I agree with you, but during critical phases of flight you should have your passengers secure ALL their belongs especially if you ever get or got yourself into a good wind shear scare.
No problem there but when you go through your instrument training you'll see that especially single pilot IMC you want to mitigate any and all risks pertaining to the flight because it is a LOT of work.
What you're actually arguing is that they're too safe, and that as long as something is less safe, we should make nothing safer than that.
You're my hero Analog Kid. I haven't had the patience tonight and just pounded out responses. Kudos to you for taking the time to make a clear, concise, and excellent point. Thank you!
I agree. The magic number is 10,000 feet you'll hear the chime and then hear the flight attendants let you know it's safe to use approved electronic devices if they are readily accessible.
The magic number is 10,000 feet because it is not considered a high priority and critical phase of flight. The workload has decreased up front and everything that is of lesser priority can proceed as planned.
Someone has to refrain from using their device for maybe 15-30 minutes depending on including ground time. So let's change not change something thats tried and true and in the interest of SAFETY just so people can play angry birds. Give me a break.
Sadly misinformed.
The problem is there is simply no testing method that could possibly cover the impact of all the varied devices out there operating at the same time. The Airlines may be able to test the specific behavior of an iPad for example but you could never be sure of the impact of all electronic devices operating at the same time. Beyond that many owners of these devices are just plain stupid and wouldn't know if their device had a transmitter in it if you asked them. The default action of asking everybody to turn off their devices makes sure that those without a clue power their devices down.
Really all you should be doing here is asking yourself, do you want to be the one responsible for a plane load of dead people. Because that is what we will get if every Tom, Dick and Harry is allowed to board a plan and use any random electronic device they care to take on board.
Why we you so ignorant and selfish that you would willingly risk the plane and all of its passengers simply because you can't handle having your phone turned off in the 30 minutes it takes to land or get airborne.
It isn't a case of might happen there have been numerous documented cases of planes being impacted by un authorized radios.
The safety comes from the rules in place that govern air traffic. I'm not sure how you can be so dense here, the rules and policies I place directly impact the safety of flights in the US. Don't believe me, spend some time in a few foreign countries where the rules are either not there or not enforced.
The problem is there is simply no testing method that could possibly cover the impact of all the varied devices out there operating at the same time. The Airlines may be able to test the specific behavior of an iPad for example but you could never be sure of the impact of all electronic devices operating at the same time. Beyond that many owners of these devices are just plain stupid and wouldn't know if their device had a transmitter in it if you asked them. The default action of asking everybody to turn off their devices makes sure that those without a clue power their devices down.
Really all you should be doing here is asking yourself, do you want to be the one responsible for a plane load of dead people. Because that is what we will get if every Tom, Dick and Harry is allowed to board a plan and use any random electronic device they care to take on board.
If anything about this article is dates it's the Senator who has no idea what she's talking about, but wants to throw a tantrum so she can use her iPad during takeoff and landing.
First of all, she doesn't reference any aviation expertise, so I sum this up as a child throwing a tantrum.
Second, if the weather is crap and at mins, hundreds of electronic devices powered on may interfere with the ILS or other navigation equipment on board the aircraft. I say "may interfere" because it's so difficult to test the thousands of different devices out there in actual experiments. Every device when powered on produces a magnetic field, so it could interfere with instruments. Now, if having your precious tablet on for 10 minutes before takeoff and landing is too much to handle, and you think it's worth risking the safety of the aircraft, then go ahead and complain.
Off my soap box. And my expertise is as a military pilot with about 2500 hours. 1500 in BeachJets and 1000 in heavy transports.
First of all, she doesn't reference any aviation expertise, so I sum this up as a child throwing a tantrum.
Second, if the weather is crap and at mins, hundreds of electronic devices powered on may interfere with the ILS or other navigation equipment on board the aircraft. I say "may interfere" because it's so difficult to test the thousands of different devices out there in actual experiments. Every device when powered on produces a magnetic field, so it could interfere with instruments. Now, if having your precious tablet on for 10 minutes before takeoff and landing is too much to handle, and you think it's worth risking the safety of the aircraft, then go ahead and complain.
Off my soap box. And my expertise is as a military pilot with about 2500 hours. 1500 in BeachJets and 1000 in heavy transports.
Yeah right
"FAA will work, with the FCC and other federal agencies where appropriate, as expeditiously"
Does the FAA know how to do anything "expeditiously"?
"FAA will work, with the FCC and other federal agencies where appropriate, as expeditiously"
Does the FAA know how to do anything "expeditiously"?
This is the real problem. You need to be able to hear instructions from the flight crew during an emergency, which are most likely to take place during takeoff and landing.
Using an e-reader, however, shouldn't be any more of a problem than reading a newspaper.
Once again, electronic versus non electronic. One is potentially lethal in the event of an emergency the other just a paper cut.