Quote:
Originally Posted by mobilis
In some situations *cough9/11cough* it's useful for the passengers to be able to phone out...
There may also be some technical reasons why they can't Faraday the cabin, but the thing that sticks out in my (non-plane-designing) mind is that in hostage/terrorist scenarios, outside contact can save lives.
(Note: I absolutely don't intend to derail into a discussion of 9/11; I'm just trotting out a possible reason why they're maintained phone capability in cabins...)
|
As a scientist who is the wife of an air transport pilot, I think it would be very challenging to Faraday cage the cabin. All sorts of electric circuitry runs between the cockpit and the rest of the plane, including switches that control all the plane's hydraulics (which operate control surfaces like slats, flaps, and elevators, plus landing gear), circuits that control deicing and the APU, connections to antennae on various parts of the fuselage, and all kinds of sensors (gear position, door locks, pitot tubes, icing, etc.). Then there's the plane's internal communications system, linking the cockpit -- which would have to be outside the cage to allow pilots to talk to anyone not on the plane -- with the rest of the aircraft. In short, this is not a viable fix to the potential issue of stray EMF interfering with essential aircraft operating systems.
That said, I doubt my Kindle (wifi off) emits more energy than a wristwatch, hearing aid or pacemaker. A cell phone blasting away on 4G, wifi and Bluetooth frequencies in an automated effort to connect with the mothership may be another matter. Because aircraft systems vary widely, with lots of retrofitting, no one really knows which kinds of devices, in which cabin locations, might cause problems. Hence the application of the precautionary principle.