Using ebook readers on aeroplanes?

[jbjb]

Originally Posted by MovieBird

It's hypothetical the degree to which these transmissions affect the super secret systems inside our aluminum cans. We can't judge one way or the other unless a study is published publicly. This arguement seems to stem from a difference in trust.

Some people trust their neighbors to be good and just people, who will always do the right thing. Others do not.

Some people trust their local government/police to be good and just, and will always do right thing. Others have been jaded by life.

Some people trust corporations to be comprised of inherently good people, who are just trying to pay their mortgage without screwing anyone too hard. Others look around at root kit fiascos and chemicals in the water, and think vigilance is the best policy.

Some people trust their government to be "of the people, by the people, for the people." Others remember McCarthyism, separate but equal, and other atrocities.

My time in school has convinced me that everyone should have to show their work.

A touch melodramatic, don't you think?

All they're asking you to do is turn off your toys for a few minutes!

/JB

[Lo Zeno]

Originally Posted by jbjb

The trouble is, it's staggeringly hard to quantify the risk.

Actually, thanks to nowadays instruments and computers, it's very easy.
Ok, to be honest: it's easy to quantify and even foresee the effects that electronic devices will have on other electronic devices, which I admit is not the same as quantifying the complete risks, but still it's the starting point.

I have here (I have been looking for it at my workplace in the last days) the issue n°4 of 2003 of the monthly Le Scienze, which is the italian equivalent of Scientific American, wish I had a scanner to scan the article...
Anyway, in many European countries rules now allow to use PDE (personal electronic devices) on approved and certified airplanes even during liftoff and landing.

According to the article, to get the "certification" an aircraft doesn't need to change its equipment or add special shieldings: an air company just need to waste the time and money needed to fill the paper for the certification. None of the 104 "certified" italian airplanes has changed, added, or removed anything to its electronics.
The author of the article, engineer Giovanni Torrella, writes that he and three colleagues made several experiments, one of them consisted in using simple radio receivers, bluetooth receivers and EM detectors to identify how many electronical devices were not turned off by passengers during the liftoff and landing of the airplanes. They found out that on average on an airplane there are 14-15 PDEs that aren't turned off when the pilot asks to, probably because they are forgotten in a pocket or in hand luggages, and that roughly 85% of them are mobile phones/smartphones.

The article is actually 6 pages long and has a few interesting tables, anyway I'll just report the most interesting part (to me):
even with as much as 32 radio-emitting devices turned on (mostly are probably cell phones, plus 3g-enabled gadgets, wifi-enabled gadgets and so on), and as much as 51 generic PDEs turned on, airplane's instruments suffered no ill effect, and worked as they were supposed to. The only case of interference (this is interesting) reported was because a passenger had brought with him a hand-made AM-FM radiotransmitter, which he tweaked to transmit in several different ranges of frequencies, and which was able to cause a shift of 19° in the GPS positioning of the airplane. Luckily, reports the article, airplanes do NOT rely only on the GPS antenna to determine position, so the system was able to correct the error in real-time and transparently.

Why is it interesting to me? Because in my older posts I always forgot how easy it is to jam a GPS signal It's actually so easy that there are Android applications out there that make your phone jam any GPS device within 2 meters from it. They work, very simply, by adding NOISE in the GPS frequency range, so that any GPS receiver will "hear" the GPS signal covered by the buzzing noise of your phone.The exact same way the British "buzzed" the Germans communications during 2nd world war way before band-pass filters became cheap.

Anyway, as usual, it's worth repeating that I'm not trying to make people disobey the safety rules on airplanes: I write what I write so that should you see someone playing with his/her iPhone during landing, you don't panic, because whatever you believe about electronic devices on airplanes, the hypothetic dangers they could cause is ten times less of the very real dangers that panicked passengers DO cause!

[jbjb]

Originally Posted by Lo Zeno

Actually, thanks to nowadays instruments and computers, it's very easy.

No it's not.

Ok, to be honest: it's easy to quantify and even foresee the effects that electronic devices will have on other electronic devices, which I admit is not the same as quantifying the complete risks, but still it's the starting point.

Don't confuse quantifying the effect of one electronic device on another with quantifying the effect of an unknown set of unknown devices with an unknown distribution through the aircraft on a hugely complex electronic system.

Bear in mind that Certification of devices is far from perfect - for example EM emissions from devices will be dependent on the software those devices are running. it is certainly not usual to re-certify a device for each new software version.

/JB

[drofgnal]

Originally Posted by MovieBird

I We can't judge one way or the other unless a study is published publicly.

99.99999% of the public would think a study dealing with EM emmisions and interference to be in a foreign language if it were published.

Risk is not that easy to quantify accurately. Probabalistic risk assessment (PRA) is as much black art as anything. Ultimately it relies on emperical data to make its estimates and as such has a wide uncertainty associated with it. The math is rather elegant, the conclusions based on data can be somewhat subjective.

[SeaBookGuy]

I had the rather frustrating experience where I was reading along in my takeoff-and-landing print book,
and couldn't wait to get to 10,000 feet to look up two (unknown) words in the e-reader dictionary!

("farouche" and "foulard")

[oggelbe2007]

Maybe they just want you to be able to HEAR and ACT upon any important information they must quickly convey! Like: BRACE FOR IMPACT!

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by jbjb

What evidence do you have for the assertion in your first sentence? (Note that your second sentence is not logically sufficient, for many reasons.)

/JB

I was on a flight to Florida no long ago and the plan did offer wifi. Have you never heard of planes offering wifi?

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by cklls

Then there's this comment from a pilot in an article published first in Reader's Digest and excerpted on HuffingtonPost:

“We don’t make you stow your laptop because we’re worried about electronic interference. It’s about having a projectile on your lap. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to get hit in the head by a MacBook going 200 miles per hour.” -Patrick Smith

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/1...7.html#s161027

So Harry Potter #7 in hardcover is OK to hit someone in the head at 200 miles per hour?

[MovieBird]

Originally Posted by jbjb

A touch melodramatic, don't you think?

That was kinda the point

Originally Posted by drofgnal

99.99999% of the public would think a study dealing with EM emmisions and interference to be in a foreign language if it were published.

Risk is not that easy to quantify accurately. Probabalistic risk assessment (PRA) is as much black art as anything. Ultimately it relies on emperical data to make its estimates and as such has a wide uncertainty associated with it. The math is rather elegant, the conclusions based on data can be somewhat subjective.

Ah, but what about that 0.00001% that can actually do some analysis and share it with the rest of us morons? Most people don't read programming languages, yet it's a helpful check for people/hackers to read source code. And they have something to point to so they can approve/refute things point by point, not some nebulous hypothetical.

[doreenjoy]

Originally Posted by SeaBookGuy

I had the rather frustrating experience where I was reading along in my takeoff-and-landing print book,
and couldn't wait to get to 10,000 feet to look up two (unknown) words in the e-reader dictionary!

("farouche" and "foulard")

I just have to interject to say I feel all smart now, 'cause I know both of those.

[jbjb]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I was on a flight to Florida no long ago and the plan did offer wifi. Have you never heard of planes offering wifi?

Re-read my question - that doesn't answer it! :-)

You said:

wifi is not an issue on planes. In fact, some planes do off wifi on board now.

I simply pointed out that your second sentence does not necessarily imply your first, and asked what justification you had for the first sentence. Reiterating your second sentence isn't sufficient.

/JB

[jbjb]

Originally Posted by MovieBird

Ah, but what about that 0.00001% that can actually do some analysis and share it with the rest of us morons? Most people don't read programming languages, yet it's a helpful check for people/hackers to read source code. And they have something to point to so they can approve/refute things point by point, not some nebulous hypothetical.

I think you're missing the point. If you're after studies on the effects that EM emissions from electronic equipment, both deliberately radiating and not, can have on other electronic equipment then there is no shortage of those. Check in any of the usual electronics journals.

Surely we should err on the side of caution. Given that:

• There is a plausible technical mechanism for interference.
• There are documented cases of EMI causing problems to aircraft. (See http://www.airnig.co.uk/emi.htm and http://www.glenair.com/html/emi.htm and many others.)
• Certification of consumer electronic devices is patchy, at best.

the burden of proof should be on those who believe it is safe. In the absence of proof that the risk is negligible, I'd rather assume it's not safe and act accordingly.

/JB

[EowynCarter]

Originally Posted by doreenjoy

I just have to interject to say I feel all smart now, 'cause I know both of those.

Me too. But then, i'm French

[FF2]

The thread is a bit too long for a thorough reading so I will skip that task and reluctantly ask:

Do READERS have to be removed from carry-on luggage like laptop computers or are they treated more like cell phones and camera and mp3 players and can they remain inside the luggage during scanning?

[Bilbo1967]

Originally Posted by FF2

The thread is a bit too long for a thorough reading so I will skip that task and reluctantly ask:

Do READERS have to be removed from carry-on luggage like laptop computers or are they treated more like cell phones and camera and mp3 players and can they remain inside the luggage during scanning?

I've never been asked to remove mine, so I think it's the latter.