Airport Takeoff/Landing Rule for Gadgets May Be Nuked by 4Q13

[exfileme]

The group is investigating gadget use during flight and will reveal its results in July.

Airport Takeoff/Landing Rule for Gadgets May Be Nuked by 4Q13 : Read more

 

[icepick314]

I never turned off my devices during takeoff and landings...just on standby with screens off...

EVERYONE should pay attention to the pre-flight announcements for emergencies, though...

keep eyes on the nearest exit, how to prepare for emergency landing, what to expect during emergencies, how to put on the oxygen masks, and where the floatation devices are...those you should get to know before take-off...

 

[cookoy]

I do as i'm told. Better safe than sorry. Calls and messages can wait until i'm safely on the ground.

 

[toadhammer]

For phones, if the issue is too many on and trying to hit the local cell tower, there are solutions. It's relatively cheap to put a pico cell on a plane, if they can find the space. Think of it as the cellular equivalent of those phones embedded in the seat backs.

And, the cellular version of this has existed (tested, everything) for several years. I can think of trials as far back as 2007.

Edit: I work as a software engineer for a manufacturer of cellular network equipment.

 

[vmem]

[citation][nom]cookoy[/nom]I do as i'm told. Better safe than sorry. Calls and messages can wait until i'm safely on the ground.[/citation]

But do you go around and make sure everyone sitting around you does the same? probably not? then chances are at least half of them just put their devices on standby. if having the devices on actually caused any realistic interference, just turning your own devices off isn't going to save anyone, just inconvenience yourself. as the article states, the only ways it'll work is if they confiscated all electronic devices, or to just let people use them

 

[whiteodian]

The odds that all 78 of the passengers who travel on an average-size U.S. domestic flight have properly turned off their phones are infinitesimal: less than one in 100 quadrillion, by our rough calculation. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444273704577637703253402734.html
I do think the Mythbusters determined that it is plausible that the devices would interfere. Better safe than sorry, but according to the statistics, it doesn't matter because it never happens.

 

[SirGCal]

That's why I don't fly... Not that I can with my condition anyhow (Aggressive MS). But it's so annoying to fly the last few times I did, I'd rather take an extra day and drive. Going overseas maybe but... Sick of the air travel crap. Show up 2 hours before your flight, it's still 2 hours late taking off. Most of the time I really could have driven there faster anyhow (and cheaper)...

 

[Anomalyx]

Nobody obeys the "turn your gadgets off" order anymore anyway. Every single flight I've been on in the last few years, I see someone with their phone out, texting during takeoff and landing. Just because a rule exists doesn't mean people follow it (just look at crime rates these days). If they were to cause a problem, a plane would have crashed by now.

 

[SchizoFrog]

It's not just in the US either. I regularly fly between the UK and Germany and I just make sure I don't sit in the first few rows of seats or those rows further back where the flight attendants stand for the safety briefings so I keep my phone on (silent) and my MP3 player playing...

As for the safety briefings, I treat them as a General treats plans during war. The best laid plans go out the window once battle is joined. It's all about adapting to the exact situation you face. If I am involved in a crash and there happens to be a hole in the side of the aircraft that I can escape through, you better believe I am not going to follow the illuminated arrows to the nearest exit. I'm going out through the hole and taking anyone injured that I can, with me...

 

[house70]

I always put the phone on airplane mode; that being said, I find it utterly stupid to have to put my e-reader away. WTF, it has NO radio on it, it's just a screen with a battery.
Rules need to adapt to technology, not fight it.

 

[g-unit1111]

[citation][nom]icepick314[/nom]I never turned off my devices during takeoff and landings...just on standby with screens off...EVERYONE should pay attention to the pre-flight announcements for emergencies, though...[/citation]

$10 says no one ever will when this ban is lifted. :lol:

 

[basketcase87]

[citation][nom]whiteodian[/nom]I do think the Mythbusters determined that it is plausible that the devices would interfere. Better safe than sorry, but according to the statistics, it doesn't matter because it never happens.[/citation]
My memory is a bit fuzzy on it, but I think Mythbusters showed some active cell phones interfering with certain equipment. Also, that was a number of years ago, and Mythbusters doesn't exactly perform scientific studies, they're just stunt guys making a TV show.

 

[toadhammer]

[citation][nom]toadhammer[/nom]For phones, if the issue is too many on and trying to hit the local cell tower, there are solutions. It's relatively cheap to put a pico cell on a plane, if they can find the space. Think of it as the cellular equivalent of those phones embedded in the seat backs.And, the cellular version of this has existed (tested, everything) for several years. I can think of trials as far back as 2007.Edit: I work as a software engineer for a manufacturer of cellular network equipment.[/citation] And I meant, tested on planes, multiple trials, multiple airlines, multiple countries over the last 6 years. It's safe. If signal interference was a problem, the trials would have stopped as soon as they started. The restriction on using your device as a phone at 10000 ft is more of an FCC issue than an FAA issue. Putting a cell on the place solves that. It's just a matter of agencies being very slow to grant approval.

Oh - I forgot to add that there are several airlines around the world who explicitly allow service, and that one of the remaining items are the serious social issues involved, and those are probably what is holding things back. No one wants to be on a long flight with a seatmate yakking on their phone the whole time. I'm personally betting that the rules will quietly go through allowing wifi access and similar simple devices, while somehow still banning voice.

 

[ddpruitt]

Question isn't if it's a stupid ban, question is "If it's a one in a million shot that a device takes out an airplane are you willing to take the chance it's your plane?"

 

[gm0n3y]

[citation][nom]toadhammer[/nom]one of the remaining items are the serious social issues involved, and those are probably what is holding things back. No one wants to be on a long flight with a seatmate yakking on their phone the whole time. I'm personally betting that the rules will quietly go through allowing wifi access and similar simple devices, while somehow still banning voice.[/citation]
I'm betting on this. It's one thing to allow people to use their devices when they are at cruise altitude as they won't have cell access anyway. If they allowed people to use their phones while waiting for the plane to takeoff, it could be mayhem. A couple of hundred people in a small enclosed space all shouting over top of one another. I agree that everything but voice calls should be allowed.

 

[TeraMedia]

Here's one mythbusters result:
http://mythbustersresults.com/episode49

But then here's another:
http://dsc.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/mythbusters-database/cell-phones-interfere-plane-instruments.htm

It looks like the problem is that too many towers can see and hear the phone.

Personally, if the problem is one of too many towers being able to "see" and "hear" a phone, then I think they should put technology into the phone so that it pops up a warning and then unless intervention goes into airplane (which would be defined as turning off the cellular transmitter) mode automatically. The FCC could mandate this for future phones. And then any phone with this feature would be allowed to be turned on and left on when on a plane, because it would self-manage to prevent channel hogging. This isn't the FAA's problem; why involve them at all? The FCC licenses every radio transmission and reception device that is allowed in the US. Why not just enforce a better design?

 

[ubercake]

Hey... I'm just glad they're letting us bring knives on planes again.

On the other hand, who has use for a knife on a plane?

 

[toadhammer]

[citation][nom]TeraMedia[/nom]It looks like the problem is that too many towers can see and hear the phone.[/citation]This is why it's an FCC issue.

[citation][nom]TeraMedia[/nom]...unless intervention goes into airplane...mode.... The FCC could mandate this for future phones.[/citation]They could, but if they just put the equivalent of a cell tower on the plane, it will "capture" those mobiles, tell them to lower their RF power levels so they only reach the plane's nearby picocell. And can be set to bar calls during safety presentation, takeoff, whatever. It's a solution of commerce, rather than regulation, can be rolled out much faster than obsoleting every phone in existence, and airlines get to buy the picocell best matching their business needs/marketing/etc. *And*, they get to charge a premium for service, rather than passing up that money if the phones are self-denying access.

 

[InvalidError]

Most of the critical wiring in a plane is under the aluminum floor which provides de-facto shielding against most of what can possibly come from the passenger cabin... and most of it is near/under the cockipt too.

In "older planes", most critical controls use cables and/or hydraulics so even setting off EMPs would have no effect. For the newer fly-by-wire planes, logic dictates that every piece of digital instrumentation and control equipment should use packet-based communications with CRCs and/or FEC and re-send mechanism to detect and correct transmission errors whatever their cause might be.

So unless a plane has fatal flaws in its electrical instrumentation/control systems, a little (or even a lot of) interference should not make any difference as long as it does not get to the point of preventing timely communications between subsystems.

 

[punahou1]

The myth of interference was busted many years ago. Its about time this foolish rule is eliminated. I can't tell you how many times I was sitting next to someone who was panicking over another passenger's failure to comply.

 

[g00fysmiley]

it annoys me when people keep talking about smart watches and say the apple iwatch... which DOES NOT EXIST YET ... sure they are probably testing models and sch but there are already severl smart watches on the market being used regularly. the pebble, sony smartwatch the moto activ... there's also plenty of cell phone smart watches that even have touchscreen s and full phoen functionality ... btu nope apple will invent it years after others have been on the market ... and i will getting notifications of responce to this message on tom's via... you guessed it my sony smartwatch

 

[f-14]

FCC rules are in place because Tower and alot of plane crew and ground crew can pick up everything every one is saying on any and every frequency, since many travelers are discussing sensitive things as mergers and stock buy outs and such as well as attorney client privilege, you know things that violate a helluva lot more laws than lives.

i don't really care, what i do care about as one pilot told me was " do you really want a mac book air flying at you at 200-400mph, most crashes happen on take off and landing "

once you understand that your devices are now projectile weapons much larger than bullets but moving much slower you get the idea that you're the coyote and the safe or piano is going to drop on YOU! still want to play with your electronics?
air planes are not cars, they use a 3 dimensional mode of transportation ALL THE TIME, not a single dimension like cars.

 

[f-14]

[citation][nom]toadhammer[/nom]For phones, if the issue is too many on and trying to hit the local cell tower, there are solutions. It's relatively cheap to put a pico cell on a plane, if they can find the space. Think of it as the cellular equivalent of those phones embedded in the seat backs.And, the cellular version of this has existed (tested, everything) for several years. I can think of trials as far back as 2007.Edit: I work as a software engineer for a manufacturer of cellular network equipment.[/citation]

requires too much electricity, you don't want the planes generator burning out mid flight from over use

 

[f-14]

[citation][nom]f-14[/nom]FCC rules are in place because Tower and alot of plane crew and ground crew can pick up everything every one is saying on any and every frequency, since many travelers are discussing sensitive things as mergers and stock buy outs and such as well as attorney client privilege, you know things that violate a helluva lot more laws than lives.i don't really care, what i do care about as one pilot told me was " do you really want a mac book air flying at you at 200-400mph, most crashes happen on take off and landing "once you understand that your devices are now projectile weapons much larger than bullets but moving much slower you get the idea that you're the coyote and the safe or piano is going to drop on YOU! still want to play with your electronics? air planes are not cars, they use a 3 dimensional mode of transportation ALL THE TIME, not a single dimension like cars.[/citation]


forgot to mention if your call interferes with a ground crew who is backing up the plane while another plane is crossing behind it you don't really want that ground crew tractor driver missing his command to stop and wait so you don't get stuck on a burning jet with 5,000+ pounds of #1 grade A kerosene, you'd have your coach or first class seat in the middle of the weenie roast and you're the weenie. now imagine 2 jets like that on fire.

or also your pilot trying to move across the tarmac to get on or off the run way or in position to taxi with jets going 200-400mph on both sides of them, do you really want to risk them missing their command to taxi out of the way or hold short?

 

[InvalidError]

[citation][nom]f-14[/nom]forgot to mention if your call interferes with a ground crew who is backing up the plane while another plane is crossing behind it you don't really want that ground crew tractor driver missing his command to stop and wait[/citation]
When you go downtown, you are surrounded by thousands of other people doing the very same thing, you have dozens of WiFi hotspots, wireless phones, microwave ovens, etc. spanning dozens of different frequency ranges and you do not see public authorities running in panic due to scrambled radio frequencies, everything still works perfectly fine despite thousands of potential interference sources.

Short of using a signal scrambler, you aren't going to prevent ground crews from getting their commands.

As for a tow truck bringing a plane into an incoming airplane's lane, that would indicate a gross violation of procedures at the tower or a driver with far more serious issues than a bad radio.