Turn off electronic devices below 10k on commercial air travel. Is this really necessary?

[SethInMI 145]

I was flying home yesterday, and while stuck at the gate for 45 min waiting to be deiced after the "turn off electronic devices" announcement had been made I had some time to ponder the wisdom/efficacy of this ban.

I wondered about several things:
1. If interference is a serious concern, why allow electronic devices on an airplane at all?
2. If the concern is interference, why can calls be made with phones after landing, but I can't read a Kindle while rolling to the gate?
3. Why can't we build airplanes that will be immune to interference from electronic devices?

I poked around the internet a bit, and found some anecdotal reports that static could sometimes be heard during communications and a few things like a report of instruments showing the plane was upside down after the pilot let the passengers know the US had invaded Iraq (the assumption was mobile calls were being made in large numbers).

Personally I don't worry about it. I turn off my device radios (airplane mode) and read my Kindle and play my Angry Birds whatever altitude I am at. Just wondered what everyone thought, esp people with training/exp in flying airplanes or mods that work for Qualcomm.

Sdc

It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

[AggieDave 6]

If only we had a poster on DZ.com that worked in the industry and did a bunch of testing on it...oh wait, we do.

Paging Bill Von. Bill Von to the cockpit please...

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[Andy9o8 0]

There's a new piece of technology that might help you with this problem. I carry it with me every time I fly. Problem solved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books

[Arvoitus 1]

It is just more useless paranoia the human cargo hauling industry is filled with.

Your rights end where my feelings begin.

[nigel99 144]

It is simply down to risk management. The aircraft is stuffed full of antennas, some of which are distributed along the fuselage. The cumulative effect of lots of devices, or one piece of faulty equipment MIGHT have an effect.

Like the Air France crash it may require a unique combination of events. GPS navigation is pretty robust, but I believe that the US government retains the right to turn GPS off whenever they like. As such I don't beleive aircraft are allowed to depend enitirely on GPS.

I disagree with the decision to have inflight mobile cells for the above reasoning. Oneday when things go to shit and everyone is happily calling their loved ones to say goodbye, they can die happy knowing their call interference overloaded/interfered with the emergency measures.

[sinjin 0]

some of this is they want people "paying" attention to the safety briefing. also they want to limit computers and large devices that can become missles during takeoff or decent crashes, where they most occur. and it is also ok if the plane loses navigation after 10k but not before. bunch of 1950's faa hogwash.

dont let life pass you by

[theonlyski 3]

Quote

some of this is they want people "paying" attention to the safety briefing

+1

This is the 'critical' phase of the flights, they want you paying attention to what's going on, not yapping away about what you got for Christmas when they're trying to tell you where the emergency exits are and such. A general standard is when they close the cabin door.

I've USED my cell phone in flight in a 172, I didn't die.

"I may be a dirty pirate hooker...but I'm not about to go stand on the corner." iluvtofly
DPH -7, TDS 578, Muff 5153, SCR 14890
I'm an asshole, and I approve this message

[amstalder 0]

Quote

I've USED my cell phone in flight in a 172, I didn't die.

Yes, you did. Didn't anyone tell you?

[theonlyski 3]

Quote

Quote

I've USED my cell phone in flight in a 172, I didn't die.

Yes, you did. Didn't anyone tell you?

Well, it may have been screwing with my instruments, but it was dark and the panel didn't have lights.

"I may be a dirty pirate hooker...but I'm not about to go stand on the corner." iluvtofly
DPH -7, TDS 578, Muff 5153, SCR 14890
I'm an asshole, and I approve this message

[MikeJD 0]

Quote

some of this is they want people "paying" attention to the safety briefing. also they want to limit computers and large devices that can become missles during takeoff or decent crashes, where they most occur.

Agreed.

And whatever the reasons and whatever the risk, I wish people would just relinquish a little control every once in a while and accept that there are rules that come with certain activities in life - including air travel. It's no great hardship to turn off your phone, or to stay in your seat until the plane reaches the terminal, or to listen to the safety briefing (if nothing else, I do that simply because it's polite).

When I see people refusing to do those things it irks me - not because I think they're putting me or themselves in danger, but because they're treating with contempt the people whose job it is to take care of them.

[shropshire 0]

Quote

Agreed.

And whatever the reasons and whatever the risk, I wish people would just relinquish a little control every once in a while and accept that there are rules that come with certain activities in life - including air travel. It's no great hardship to turn off your phone, or to stay in your seat until the plane reaches the terminal, or to listen to the safety briefing (if nothing else, I do that simply because it's polite).

When I see people refusing to do those things it irks me - not because I think they're putting me or themselves in danger, but because they're treating with contempt the people whose job it is to take care of them.

Yeap +1 - Too many Pig ignorant people around these days (seems to me)

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[airtwardo 6]

Hey if 'I' have to do what my wife says...so do YOU!

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[theplummeter 14]

The interference is a possibility, although very remote. Several years ago a group of folks at work and I took turns holding cell phones up to a navigation instrument in an older King Air, and if you held a phone up close enough it would displace a position needle on the primary navigation instrument.

Most modern aircraft house anything sensitive in an avionics bay near the front of the aircraft or under the floor, and simply carry the signals to display units in the cockpit. I fly air ambulance, and we are allowed to operate any electronics on board at any time so long as our repair station has completed a Radio Frequency/Electromagnetic Interference test. Cell phones are included in the RFI/EMI testing and we regularly use them at low altitudes when we can get a signal.

[SethInMI 145]

Quote

There's a new piece of technology that might help you with this problem. I carry it with me every time I fly. Problem solved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books

It is the e-Books issue that I think many frequent flyers find most annoying. I just (finally) got a Kindle and it feels made for travelers. It is small, light, very low power and can store tons of books. In the bad old days (about 6 months ago), I would carry 2-4 books on a trip. Usually library books, which are bulky, heavy hardcovers that would take some abuse during the trip.

Now with a Kindle I have a reading source that is much like a book but on a short flight can only be used about 1/2 the time. Why not the whole time? Kindles use very little power, so not an interference issue. Kindles are about the weight and size of a book, and function like a book, so for any other reason they should be treated as a book, and allowed where books are allowed.

But they are not. Is that the end of the world for me, no, but I find the lack of logic in the rules annoying.

It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

[Niki1 1]

After making a lot of jumps out of airplanes that had no seatbelts, when they became manditory I started using them. If I was still in the plane when it hit the ground hard, I didn't want to be flung around inside like a rattle toy.

I pay attention to the safty briefings because I want to know how to get the hell out of the plane if I'm still alive after the plane hits the ground hard.

But as to the technical question of, "Do electronic devises really interfere with the aircraft electronic?" has anyone trid using their cell phone in a jump plane and had the pilot say shut it off? How many cell phones might it take to created enough interference? And how about non radio things like game boys, the E-Book things, laptops without modems, etc. What effect do they have?

I don't have any of these things and I haven't flown anywhere since before the TSA so all this is just curiosoty on my part.

Most of the things worth doing in the world had been declared impossilbe before they were done.
Louis D Brandeis

Where are we going and why are we in this basket?

[aphid 0]

Quote

Quote

When I see people refusing to do those things it irks me - not because I think they're putting me or themselves in danger, but because they're treating with contempt the people whose job it is to take care of them.

Perhaps if they treated their passengers with intelligence and respect, outlining that it's just to ensure everybody is paying attention during those important phases of flight, rather than regurgitating obvious untruths about electronic interference and using fear as the attention-getter, the result just might be increased cooperation and customer contentment.

Win/win? What a concept...

[wildcard451 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

When I see people refusing to do those things it irks me - not because I think they're putting me or themselves in danger, but because they're treating with contempt the people whose job it is to take care of them.

Perhaps if they treated their passengers with intelligence and respect, outlining that it's just to ensure everybody is paying attention during those important phases of flight, rather than regurgitating obvious untruths about electronic interference and using fear as the attention-getter, the result just might be increased cooperation and customer contentment.

Win/win? What a concept...

You really think any of these self-entitled little fucks in the world are going to stop playing angry birds or reading their precious kindles or updating facespace to listen to the safety briefing unless you make them?

I have been in an exam room talking to a patient and she got annoyed with me when I asked her to stop looking at facebook and answer my questions....

So no, I don;t think you'll get a win win.

[billvon 2,400]

>If interference is a serious concern, why allow electronic devices on an airplane at all?

Because it would be inconvenient to exclude them - and when they're off there's generally no problem.

>If the concern is interference, why can calls be made with phones after landing, but I
>can't read a Kindle while rolling to the gate?

That's a safety thing. If you run into another airplane while taxiing, all that stuff becomes projectiles - and cellphones are light, laptops are heavy. Readers generally get lumped into laptops.

Check this out and imagine what a Kindle in that CRJ might turn into:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Nwxnsr1aak

>Why can't we build airplanes that will be immune to interference from electronic
>devices?

We can, for several reasons:

1) We know a lot more about designing for EMC nowadays, and can do a better job shielding systems from EMI.

2) Some of the worst jammers (portable TV's with CRT's, FM radios with 10.7MHz LO's) are no longer used.

3) Other jammers (i.e. cellphones) are much better behaved now. Old AMPS service was just plain nasty. GSM is a little better and CDMA is a lot better.

However, since not all aircraft have been tested with all devices, they tend to err on the side of caution. Older aircraft can have problems with ILS glideslope receivers and ADF's. Even some newer aircraft can have some unexpected problems with devices like lavatory smoke detectors.

Also note that some of the laws preventing cellphone usage on aircraft are not for aircraft safety but for cellphone network integrity. One cellphone at 5000 feet can hit a dozen cellsites, resulting in dropped calls and network control problems.

[billvon 2,400]

>has anyone trid using their cell phone in a jump plane and had the pilot say shut it off?

Anecdotally, GSM phones cause interference with general aviation aircraft comms systems. You can sometimes hear the GSM "dit dah dit dit dah dit ditditditdit" on intercom systems. (This is also a problem with wireless microphones on stage which is why they often make speakers take their cellphones out of their pocket.)

>And how about non radio things like game boys, the E-Book things, laptops without
>modems, etc. What effect do they have?

The two big offenders were FM radios (strong 10.7MHZ LO radiation) and portable TV's with CRT's (very strong 15KHz radiation from the flyback.) Modern electronics designed to meet FCC part 15 and part 18 requirements are much better.

[Ron 7]

Here is why they tell you to turn the stuff off, it has very little to do with electronic interference.

1. In the case of an accident those objects become projectiles that could easily kill someone else. Same reason we tell camera folks to strap the camera helmet in.

2. In the case something goes wrong, they do not want you distracted by reading, or surfing, or making a phone call. They want you ready and able to take directions.

3. When everyone has all these devices out, it will make egress from the airplane much more difficult. imagine trying to leave a burning plane while some moron tries to stow his laptop.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[airtwardo 6]

Quote

Here is why they tell you to turn the stuff off, it has very little to do with electronic interference.

1. In the case of an accident those objects become projectiles that could easily kill someone else. Same reason we tell camera folks to strap the camera helmet in.

2. In the case something goes wrong, they do not want you distracted by reading, or surfing, or making a phone call. They want you ready and able to take directions.

3. When everyone has all these devices out, it will make egress from the airplane much more difficult. imagine trying to leave a burning plane while some moron tries to stow his laptop.

All that 'and'...though all of 'us' have mostly modern non-interfering electronic devices, who to say 'everybody' is in that category.

Instead of worrying about who is using what, when and how...it's easier and more efficient to say shut it ALL off during TO & Landing...but yeah it's mostly about attention & safety during an emergency egress.

If you have your iPod cranked into your noise canceling headphones...ya can't hear the announcements saying 'we are landing in the Hudson so hang on & kiss yer as goodbye'

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[nigel99 144]

Quote

All that 'and'...though all of 'us' have mostly modern non-interfering electronic devices, who to say 'everybody' is in that category.

Instead of worrying about who is using what, when and how...it's easier and more efficient to say shut it ALL off during TO & Landing...but yeah it's mostly about attention & safety during an emergency egress.

If you have your iPod cranked into your noise canceling headphones...ya can't hear the announcements saying 'we are landing in the Hudson so hang on & kiss yer as goodbye'

People seem to miss that point. I spent 5 years serving on a committee that was responsible for European low power radio standards. There are many incidents of either illegal or poor quality equipment causing significant interference. People don't notice it until they are personally locked out of their car and the key fob doesn't work, or their telemetry system is knocked out for 3 weeks.

[SethInMI 145]

Quote

Here is why they tell you to turn the stuff off, it has very little to do with electronic interference.

That may be true, but at least on United and USAirways, the FAs were adamant that devices had to be OFF and stowed, not just in "airplane" mode or "sleep" mode.

It's flare not flair, brakes not breaks, bridle not bridal, "could NOT care less" not "could care less".

[airtwardo 6]

Quote

Quote

Here is why they tell you to turn the stuff off, it has very little to do with electronic interference.

That may be true, but at least on United and USAirways, the FAs were adamant that devices had to be OFF and stowed, not just in "airplane" mode or "sleep" mode.

Again... they may become projectiles in the case of an emergency.

And in a cabin with 3 or 400 people, do you really think they have the time to see who's devise is 'on' and who is just 'holding' it for shits & giggles?

Strapping yourself in an aluminum tube going .8 mach is not a right it's a privilege...if ya don't like their rules...don't fly.

Just drive it...but stay sober, operate within the speed limits and don't use your cell phone!

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Here is why they tell you to turn the stuff off, it has very little to do with electronic interference.

That may be true, but at least on United and USAirways, the FAs were adamant that devices had to be OFF and stowed, not just in "airplane" mode or "sleep" mode.

Again... they may become projectiles in the case of an emergency.

If that's their actual intent, then why don't they make people stow their hard-cover books during takeoff? I usually carry a hard-cover book with me when I fly, but I've never been asked to stow it at any stage of the flight.