FAA to allow electronics to remain on during take-off and landing??

[teh603]

Originally Posted by din155

Wow..So, how did they decide to ban using cellphones while take off or landing in the first place? Finger in air I guess..

din

It was probably an extension of the old laptop ban, which as I said seems to have been based on junk science. Five or six flights crashed, and the pilots found out after the fact that people had laptops turned on. What they didn't say was how many successful flights there were with active laptops before the ban- probably hundreds if not thousands.

Trouble is, junk science is always more believable than the real thing. Look at most states' arson investigations and the whole anti-vaccination movement. Both have been debunked but people continue to believe them.

[montalex]

If devices like cellphones and ereaders really posed a danger, they would not be allowed on flights at all, even in baggage. Just think how many people forget to turn off their cellphones in movie theaters. And no movie has ever crashed as a result.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Your life is put on the line every time you fly... because there's always passenger devices that haven't been turned off on every flight. And because you're flying.

Not only that, I have never turned off either my phone or my reader. I always put them in airplane mode and turn off the screen. And tests have shown, that even if every single person had wireless turned on there still would be no interference.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by Daithi

Damn! That was one long freaking article that implied over and over again that cellphone emissions could interfere with an airplane's navigation equipment. However, after reading the entire article I seemed to miss the part where the authors backed up this implication. The only thing they actually showed was that people bring cellphones aboard planes and don't turn them off, and that the cellphones have RF emissions. Absolutely worthless article.

BTW, I never actually turn off my Kindle when we take off and land. I put it in the pouch on the seat back in front of me, but it is still on. Some people might put their Kindle into sleep mode, but I doubt anyone actually turns the thing off.

What about this?

In March 2004, acting on a number of reports from general aviation pilots that Samsung SPH-N300 cellphones had caused their GPS receivers to lose satellite lock, NASA issued a technical memorandum that described emissions from this popular phone. It reported that there were emissions in the GPS band capable of causing interference.

[carpetmojo]

I may have said this before, but I'd much rather have to buy a paperback, go to sleep or - at a pinch - talk to my fellow passenger, if there is a perceived risk seen by those whose job it is to avoid catastrophic events.
I don't really see it as an attack on my personal liberty, any more than a seat belt in a car.

And yes, I do know that flying is safer than crossing the street..........

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by HappyMartin

If there was any real danger they would not allow the things on the aircraft. For goodness sakes they confiscate nail clippers...

This ..this..and this again

[teh603]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

What about this?

Airplanes actually use GPS nowadays? I thought most of them still predated the old LORAN system.

[din155]

Originally Posted by teh603

It was probably an extension of the old laptop ban, which as I said seems to have been based on junk science. Five or six flights crashed, and the pilots found out after the fact that people had laptops turned on. What they didn't say was how many successful flights there were with active laptops before the ban- probably hundreds if not thousands.

Trouble is, junk science is always more believable than the real thing. Look at most states' arson investigations and the whole anti-vaccination movement. Both have been debunked but people continue to believe them.

That will take time and effort. I think it’s easier to scare people than spending time and money in verifying a hypothesis which may turn out to be incorrect.
My gripe is not with the ban itself. I am fine with the statement that it's my aircraft and my rules. What I don't like is when they say it’s scientifically proven (based on just one or two data points).

[Rob Lister]

There are a lot of really technical details that play into this ban. Since I don't know all of them, I have no real way to judge. Leave the ban in place until such time as those that do understand them no longer see the necessity.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Daithi

Damn! That was one long freaking article that implied over and over again that cellphone emissions could interfere with an airplane's navigation equipment. However, after reading the entire article I seemed to miss the part where the authors backed up this implication. The only thing they actually showed was that people bring cellphones aboard planes and don't turn them off, and that the cellphones have RF emissions. Absolutely worthless article.

I think that the problem is here:

We were able to clearly identify some cellphone signals that originated from on board the aircraft [again, see chart, "Cellular Stands Out"]. Ours was a conservative estimate, since a call made at the other end of the cabin from the instrumentation would be below the threshold we could observe. Our measurements also found emissions from other onboard sources--devices used by passengers--in the frequency used by GPS.

The only flying I've done was between countries in Europe, so I can't say how it is for other airplanes, but the seats closer to the instrumentation are for the business class. That would mean that the people who pay more for flying should have the most restrictions applied to their devices. What are the chances of that happening?

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

What about this?

The original source is here.

There was only one report, and it was for a phone that is was longer in manufactured at the time of the report.

The Samsung SPH-N300 is a CDMA dual-band mobile phone. Samsung has advertised that the model was the first mobile handset with built-in E-911 capability. This technology helps to identify the location of the handset using a built-in GPS receiver, but with additional assistance from the network to overcome deficiencies in low signal strength areas such as inside buildings. The handset has menu options to allow the E-911 feature to be turned off to protect users privacy. The SPH-N300 model was no longer in production at the time of testing, thus a previously owned unit was acquired from an internet auction site for this study. This particular unit defaulted to the Personal Communications System (PCS) band upon registration with a local wireless network, and had logged approximately 150 hours of previous airtime use.

There is no evidence that modern phones cause this problem.

[Soldim]

I always wonder about electronic watches, pace-makers and hearing-aids. Them being on probably causes interference comparable with the scale an eReader (w/o wifi 3G) does. Nobody in his or her right mind even considers switching those off.

I'd be fun if everybody would be forced to remove the batteries from their watches during take off and landing. Would finally make it worth buying those expensive mechanical watches -- good for our local economy here I'd say

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

I would be much more in favor of the rule if it were actually limited to actual takeoffs, not just to time spent sitting on the runway.

There are other rules/politics at play here that have nothing to do with the electronics rule. Because of those unrelated issues, "takeoff" is considered to be happening from the time the plane pulls away from the gate to after it's in the air. That's why if you taxi away from the gate and then sit on the tarmac for an hour, the flight still counts as leaving "on time".

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Pinecone

So you are willing to bet your life and your family's lives on the fact that

If someone wants to make that bet for themselves, then go ahead. The problem here is that they're not making that decision for just themselves, they're presuming to make that decision on behalf of the lives of 100+ other people on the plane with them.

Whether or not someone believes there is a risk doesn't really matter. The policy is that unless the device is tested/proven to be safe, the FAA assumes that there may be a risk. Given the impact if they're wrong, they tend to be very cautious. That's not a bad thing.

There are already certifications/procedures in place to get these devices approved, but nobody wants to pay to have it done.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by teh603

Did anyone ever get believable science that electronic devices can affect cockpit instrumentation, though? From what I remember- and its been a very long time since I read anything about it- the whole ban on electronics was based on flat-out junk science on par with a most arson investigations.

There's another huge thread on mobileread somewhere on this very topic. I've seen articles posted to that other thread that have found actual cases of interference while testing avionics. I don't remember a lot of the details off the top of my head, but yes, the potential for interference is real.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HappyMartin

I can just imagine bands of terrorists boarding with IPads and kindles turned on and in the overhead luggage compartments in an attempt to bring down an aircraft! Get real. If there was any real danger they would not allow the things on the aircraft. For goodness sakes they confiscate nail clippers and just how many times has a terrorist hacked down the door to the flight deck and then killed the flight crew with a set of nail clippers?

You're confusing security policy with safety policy. They're two completely different things.