Using ebook readers on aeroplanes?

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by jocampo

Because there are so many electronics devices out there and so many new gadgets, they don't want to take the risk and basically want everything off, no matter what.

That's exactly what the FAA is saying. Not sure what your problem with it is? It's essentially a "better safe than sorry" policy. I'm not sure why people think that's a bad thing when it comes to air travel.

[jocampo]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

That's exactly what the FAA is saying. Not sure what your problem with it is? It's essentially a "better safe than sorry" policy. I'm not sure why people think that's a bad thing when it comes to air travel.

Hi,

What FAA says and what's scientifically true, are two different things. And no one is saying is a bad policy, but not totally accurate.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by jocampo

Hi,

What FAA says and what's scientifically true, are two different things. And no one is saying is a bad policy, but not totally accurate.

What they really say is "better safe than sorry, unless the device has been tested". When devices are tested (the scientific proof you're talking about), the FAA allows them. The last part never really happens with consumer devices, because nobody wants to pay for it.

Would most of them pass... probably. But it hasn't been done, which is why they still fall under the default policy. If you really want to blame somebody for having to turn off your Kindle, blame Amazon. There's nothing stopping them from getting the Kindle approved, other than they don't want to pay for it. To be fair though, it doesn't really make any sense for them to do it. From a business perspective, there isn't any justification for the extra cost.

How much more would you be willing to pay for a device that was allowed to be turned on during take-off and landing, and how many people would buy a device specifically for that feature. If the answers are "not much" and "not many", then there's really no point in the device manufacturer going through all the extra hassle. Which means we're all right back where this thread started, 350 posts ago.

[Man Eating Duck]

Firstly, as it doesn't bother me at all -- and for the reasons mentioned in my previous post -- I do as I'm told, and switch off my devices
<Demetri Martin>If it was really necessary to ensure the well-being of the aircraft, I should be utterly mad to even think of entering such a contraption. Think about it. Yeah. </Demetri Martin>

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Is that service available during take-off and landing?

I don't know whether they bother to switch off the base station, I'd guess not (see below), but no, you're not allowed to use your phone. In any case I find it really hard to believe that a device which is OK to use while in normal flight will somehow cause system malfunctions under takeoff or landing, even if some systems (ILS?) are not needed while cruising. The wiring and electronics need to be able to handle lightning strikes (fierce magnetic fields) and electrostatic charge from air friction. An airplane is not even a good Faraday cage, note how you get good service from external cell towers while on the tarmac.

Googling indicates that cell phones only *might* be a problem in cases of missing or damaged shielding, and then only on really antiquated systems. Well, if your aircraft is defect then all bets are off... You might as well worry about the ailerons falling off. In a situation where the radiation from a cell phone might do your avionics in, a lightning bolt certainly will.

Also, note that when a cell/wireless device is talking to a local receiver, it operates under a much lower power mode than when it is attempting to broadcast to a remote tower. I assume that would make a big difference in the possibility of interference.

Irrelevant. It would only make a difference if no one tried to connect to a ground cell tower. Phones automatically communicate with every available network when they're roaming, and ground towers are within range when cruising.

This interesting writeup also seems to agree with me.

Some possible reasons why you generally can't use your phone on an airplane:

• People will shout really load in order to be heard through all the shouting from other cellphone users
• It will confuse networks on the ground by skipping quickly between towers, or communicating with many towers at once
• They'd rather have you use their payphone
• It is annoying to other passengers, complaints would skyrocket. Violence?
• You can communicate your position (someone interested in downing the plane would probably send that text anyway)
• It gives you something to do other than buy stuff from them
• It gives passengers a sense of safety (look, they care about us)
• They want people to be alert during take-off and landing
• People waving their arms while talking might injure other passengers. Ok, I'm running out of reasons here, but it *could* happen

It just won't affect aircraft systems directly.

Sorry about the rant, but it just irks me when people keep flogging this horse, it's long gone to meet its maker, you're just plain *wrong*

In any case, I was talking about my radio-less reader. I only gave an example of legit use of a device which is *designed* to emit radiation many, many orders of magnitude stronger. If an active cell phone is allowable in the plane at all, I bet you a nice single malt, heck, I'll bet you a case, that the minuscule em fields generated by my reader can do no harm, taking off or not. You'll win it easily by successfully disrupting the avionics or fly-by-wire systems on an aircraft using the em emissions from a Sony 650 blazing through pages at full speed.

[jbjb]

Originally Posted by jocampo

There is no technical evidence that 3G signal, a cellphone or an ereader with wifi on, can affect in any way, an airplane's controllers.

Are you sure? Read (and understand) this article and this one see if you're still so confident.

If you're after descriptions of specific incidents, a bit of googling will find you many. Here for example is an interesting report from the Indian government's aviation authority.

/JB

[Mortis]

As a private pilot, I never shut my phone off in my plane, but on an airline I do it because its easier than arguing with the flight attendants not to mention the rules, I don't have to agree or like them but I could still get black listed from that airline. One thing about using a cell phone in a plane at altitude (Private Aircraft not Commercial) is that you get better range, but it can be very sporadic, I assume this is caused by the handoff from cell to cell?

A quick google search turned up this:

(shamelessly copied from http://www.wisegeek.com/why-cant-you...n-airplane.htm )

In 1991, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) banned passengers from using their cell phones while on board an airplane that is in flight. The ban was instituted because the FCC suspected that the radio frequency emitted by cell phones could malfunction an airplane's equipment systems. In complying with this rule, different airlines have instituted different policies about when phones can be turned on and off. In 2005, the FCC announced that it might consider lifting the ban on the use of cell phones on airplanes, with certain restrictions.

So it's not the FAA that set the rules but the FCC, who by the way also regulate any wireless device.

The argument that you must turn your cell phones off in hospitals? Have you ever met a doctor that doesn't have a cell phone or a pager (kids pagers were these text only things we had before we had cell phones and texting). I am aware the pagers were receivers only but the radio signals don't only go to the pager or receiver, so they should cause the same issue.


Just my 2 cents worth. I know many commercial pilots both transport and passenger and I can tell you that none of them turn their cell phones off, although they rarely use them.

[Man Eating Duck]

Originally Posted by jbjb

Are you sure? Read (and understand) this article and this one see if you're still so confident.

Cell phones are already legitimately in use on many flights. Surprisingly, they don't fall down or find themselves heading for Timbuktu instead of Paris.

I don't have the expertise to evaluate your second link, but this is from the first article linked:

The researchers found that on average one to four cell phone calls are typically made from every commercial flight in the northeast United States. Some of these calls are made during critical flight stages such as climb-out, or on final approach. This could cause accidents, the investigators report.

Why *doesn't* it cause accidents? There will be made several phone calls from each and every flight, and planes are not falling down east and west? Hmmm, now why could that be...

If you're after descriptions of specific incidents, a bit of googling will find you many. Here for example is an interesting report from the Indian government's aviation authority.

/JB

That is not a specific incident, it's not even a report. It's a memo containing a requirement and an anecdote. The anecdote, which is not substantiated in any way, describes an incident where two events happened simultaneously, one of which happens *all the time*. As you know, correlation does not equal causation:

- People use cell phones on airplanes all the time, unwittingly or intentionally.
- Avionic systems occasionally malfunction
- The probability that at least one phone among hundreds will be switched on or even used in a particular situation is probably very close to one

You conveniently forget the vast majority of flights where nothing happens, even though cell phones are surely active. It hate to rain on your parade (no, not really), but no logic, statistics or evidence support your claims.

And now to the only point I want you to respond to:

Let's look at it this way: If this was a real safety risk, why exactly are you allowed to bring cell phones into the cabin at all? I can't even bring a bottle of shampoo because of safety, surely I should be denied bringing a device which can cause the plane to crash if I don't behave. Why can I keep it in my pocket then, with no one even confiscating my battery?

I regard the above paragraph as conclusive evidence that cell phones are not regarded a safety risk by anyone that matters, among them people far more knowledgeable than you and I. I'm surprised that this simple logic is so hard to grasp.

[jbjb]

Originally Posted by Man Eating Duck

Cell phones are already legitimately in use on many flights. Surprisingly, they don't fall down or find themselves heading for Timbuktu instead of Paris.

So you believe that the fact that there are many occasions when it doesn't cause a problem is sufficient to prove that it can never cause a problem?

I don't have the expertise to evaluate your second link,

This isn't aimed specifically at you, but it never ceases to amaze me that people who admit they have no expertise in this field still feel justified in pronouncing their uneducated opinion as fact.

That is not a specific incident, it's not even a report. It's a memo containing a requirement and an anecdote. The anecdote, which is not substantiated in any way, describes an incident where two events happened simultaneously, one of which happens *all the time*. As you know, correlation does not equal causation:

Correlation also clearly does not imply *lack* of causation. If you've been paying attention, you'll notice that I am *not* claiming proof of a causal link, I'm simply questioning the certainty of those who claim to know for sure there isn't one.

With regard to the incident in the linked article - I see no reason to doubt the veracity of that agency's reported incident. However, if you want more, have a look at this.

You conveniently forget the vast majority of flights where nothing happens, even though cell phones are surely active. It hate to rain on your parade (no, not really), but no logic, statistics or evidence support your claims.

What claims? Again, I'm not claiming that anything is proven, simply pointing out the fallacy of reasoning on the part of those who claim that, because they know of no evidence, there can't be any.

And now to the only point I want you to respond to:

Let's look at it this way: If this was a real safety risk, why exactly are you allowed to bring cell phones into the cabin at all? I can't even bring a bottle of shampoo because of safety, surely I should be denied bringing a device which can cause the plane to crash if I don't behave. Why can I keep it in my pocket then, with no one even confiscating my battery?

I regard the above paragraph as conclusive evidence that cell phones are not regarded a safety risk by anyone that matters,

In that case you set the bar for "conclusive evidence" very low.

This is all about uncertainty and acceptable levels of risk. Note that it's those who are claiming it *is* safe who are the ones making the bold assertions of certainty. The default "it's not fully understood" position is to err on the side of safety and turn off the devices.

/JB

[Man Eating Duck]

As said in another post, I do switch off my devices, I don't have any desire to make calls during a flight, and I'd prefer if other passengers didn't as well. I just do not think it has any effect on safety. My initial post was about using devices without transmitters like the Sony 650 during take-off and landing, I just mentioned legit use of cell phones on aircraft to make a point. Woe is me.

Originally Posted by jbjb

This isn't aimed specifically at you, but it never ceases to amaze me that people who admit they have no expertise in this field still feel justified in pronouncing their uneducated opinion as fact.

It's not our opinion, it's the obvious opinion of knowledgeable and educated people like the ones who decided that it's ok to let you bring a phone on the plane at all, instead of stopping you at the security checkpoint.

It's also the opinion of the pilot who wrote this article:

The hard truth is, that despite years of studies by both the British CAA and the United States NASA, no negative effect on airliner safety has ever been found as a result of the use of cell phones on an airliner, by passengers in the cabin.

Originally Posted by jbjb

So you believe that the fact that there are many occasions when it doesn't cause a problem is sufficient to prove that it can never cause a problem?

No? I believe that the vast, vast majority of situations when it doesn't cause a problem proves that it does not have any significant impact on avionics or controls. Also: if you do A 100 000 times and B does not happen, there is no reason to conclude that A causes B even if B coincides with A one time. Scientifically proving a negative is generally not possible, but you can easily disprove it by proving a causal connection. For instance, are there any empirical studies of actual incidents indicating that the risk of fatal malfunctions have increased after cell phones became ubiquitous? No? Why not? (Number of malfunctions / flights) should have increased if phones had any significant effect. I think that a conclusive study would lead to an all-out ban, and it's not there.

Originally Posted by jbjb

In that case you set the bar for "conclusive evidence" very low.
/JB

Why is the bar low? I stated an observation about what the safety people actually enforce, and, based on that, what I think they believe about the risk. Why is not their actions conclusive evidence of *what they think*?

The people in charge are pretty strict about factors they perceive as a risk. Do you believe they would let every yahoo bring a phone if they thought it would be dangerous? I think the fact that they allow you to do this even though they don't know if you'll use it or switch it off is conclusive evidence that they don't believe using it is dangerous. In fact they know, as per your own link, that phones are used on *every* flight in the US. I have been on flights in Europe (Ryanar) where you are encouraged to make calls via your cell phone.

I don't think we're being very productive here, we'll never agree anyway. It's fine with me if we just agree to let it lie

[ManosHandsOfFate]

Originally Posted by Man Eating Duck

Let's look at it this way: If this was a real safety risk, why exactly are you allowed to bring cell phones into the cabin at all? I can't even bring a bottle of shampoo because of safety, surely I should be denied bringing a device which can cause the plane to crash if I don't behave. Why can I keep it in my pocket then, with no one even confiscating my battery?

Bingo!

[jbjb]

Originally Posted by Man Eating Duck

It's not our opinion, it's the obvious opinion of knowledgeable and educated people like the ones who decided that it's ok to let you bring a phone on the plane at all, instead of stopping you at the security checkpoint.

Is that the same people who you claim are misguided when they insist that you turn off the devices?

It's also the opinion of the pilot who wrote this article:

Last time I checked, electronic engineering qualifications weren't a requirement for pilots, so I'm not sure why a pilot's opinion on this should be particularly relevant.

For instance, are there any empirical studies of actual incidents indicating that the risk of fatal malfunctions have increased after cell phones became ubiquitous? No? Why not? (Number of malfunctions / flights) should have increased if phones had any significant effect.

There are plenty of instances of malfunctions which have been classified as possibly due to PEDs. There are technically plausible mechanisms for such effects to take place. Seems to me that's enough reason to be cautious.

Why is the bar low? I stated an observation about what the safety people actually enforce, and, based on that, what I think they believe about the risk. Why is not their actions conclusive evidence of *what they think*?

As I said, these are the same people who ask you to turn off the devices. You can't cherry-pick!

I don't think we're being very productive here, we'll never agree anyway. It's fine with me if we just agree to let it lie

Letting it lie is fine with me.

/JB

[boxcorner]

I don't know whether this has been mentioned already; this thread is so long that I may have missed it.

Aircraft use communications and navigation equipment, that make use of different parts of the electromagnetic spectrum (eg radio and radar).

As I understand it, the rationale for requiring passengers to turn off electronic equipment during take off and landing is based on a concern that noise from electronic gadgets could interfere with aircraft equipment.

Many electronic gadgets, such as e-readers, contain one or more microprocessors. Electronic components such as microprocessors and associated circuitry can generate noise in the electromagnetic spectrum.

The problem with electromagnetic noise is that it extends over a wide range of frequencies, so it is difficult to predict what effect it might have on communications equipment. Different devices produce differing kinds and strengths of electromagnetic noise. Sparks and lightning similarly produce electromagnetic noise. Mobile phones, like other communications equipment, utilise specific radio frequencies, so it is easier to predict what effect they might have.

Whilst, the strength of any electromagnetic radiation from electronic devices decreases as the square of the distance between the two objects (ie between the electronic device that is generating the noise and the equipment), we shouldn't assume that all equipment that might be affected is located in the cockpit.

If the authorities who are responsible for controlling aviation safety believe that it is necessary for passengers in the cabin to turn off electronic devices, to reduce the risk of interference with aircraft equipment, then I would happily comply with whatever regulations are necessary, in order to ensure my safe arrival at the destination. I assume that my fellow passengers would want the same for themselves. Air travel is fraught with enough problems as it is, without unnecessarily increasing the risk of any accident. One accident would be one too many.

So I would be quite happy to turn off my e-reader, if required to do so, during take off and landing. I think it would be an insignificant inconvenience.

[WarningU2]

I have flown with my Sony ereader. Flight attendents have seen it and never said anything until ... yesterday. Turn off electronic devices. I said its an electronic book - it doesn't have wireless and it admits no frequency to interfere with the planes electronics. Just because I questioned this it was like I committed an act of terrorism. I tell ya the world has gone mad. Too many people with a little authority and not thinking. If an ereader can bring down a planes communication system I'm really worried.

[ProfCrash]

They can't and I rarely turn mine off. If the flight attendant asks me to, I turn it off.

[Belfaborac]

Originally Posted by boxcorner

Many electronic gadgets, such as e-readers, contain one or more microprocessors. Electronic components such as microprocessors and associated circuitry can generate noise in the electromagnetic spectrum.

Also, all e-readers are not created equal. Sony's models, with their aluminium skins, should be pretty much 100% safe considering the relatively miniscule EM noise they emit will be screened by the metal. Readers with a plastic carapace will constitute a larger, though still miniscule, risk.

Still, I'd never argue if a flight attendant asked me to turn my 505 off. Quite frankly, anyone who actually feels unduly inconvenienced when asked to turn his or her reader off during takeoff and landing is likely pathologically self-absorbed.