7 ms·

As the author of the piece, I have to disagree with you. First, the F.A.A. never used this as a reason when I spoke with them for my story. Second, if that were

As the author of the piece, I have to disagree with you. First, the F.A.A. never used this as a reason when I spoke with them for my story. Second, if that were the case, then why are people allowed to read books, magazines, and play crossword puzzles on paper? Reading a book on a Kindle will not cause more distraction during an emergency than reading one on paper. Thanks, Nick Bilton.

darkane 15y ago
Don't you ever get tired of being reasonable and/or logical, Nick?
cal5k 15y ago
Must be hard times at the NYT when journalists have to resort to submitting their own pieces to Hacker News ;-)
- alanh 15y ago
  Oh, but going by usernames, he didn’t!
- _delirium 15y ago
  It was actually submitted by a different HN user, whose profile, oddly enough, identifies him/her as working for Forbes.
  - cal5k 15y ago
    Ouch... I was being tongue-in-cheek, not intentionally a jerk! :-( From the author's submission history he has only ever submitted his own stories to Hacker News.
Bud 15y ago
Hi Nick: Regardless of what the FAA says, my reason is still valid. It is also not really in conflict with what you're saying...you're right that it's not really consistent since folks are still allowed to read books, but that doesn't invalidate my point either. I would point out that people are not really as likely to take a crossword with them in an emergency as they would be a computer. Also, you're frankly wrong in asserting that electronic devices are not more distracting than a paper book; think of anything involving headphones, for instance.
- bascule 15y ago
  If headphones are the problem, ban wearing headphones during takeoff and landing. Why the slippery slope towards all electronic devices?
- ddagradi 15y ago
  If people are desperate to hold onto their laptop in an emergency, it's not going to matter if it's on their lap or in the bins above their head: they're going to try to get it. There are a reasonable set of restrictions for safety (i.e. headphones). There are others that are not. For a point of reference, JetBlue provides satellite radio and TV both in-flight and during landing (as well as sometimes during take-off). They've clearly chosen to prioritize passenger comfort in lieu of relaxed FAA regulations, and aren't concerned about the impact of distractions.
marshray 15y ago
When I looked into the topic years ago, ISTR finding a few FAA incident reports that did involve consumer electronics causing harmful interference with cockpit navigation systems. They didn't result in accidents but seemed well documented. Did you come across anything like that?
- cheald 15y ago
  I'd be very interested in that data, mostly because a handheld device capable of producing enough EM radiation to interfere with a cockpit from dozens of feet away (at a minimum) through metal bulkheads seems implausible, at the least. Remember that EM fields are subject to inverse-square law. If it was possible, I can't imagine that the TSA would let us carry as much as a 9-volt battery on board. Even if it were possible, couldn't you just put shielding between the passenger cabin and the cockpit? EM radiation is line-of-sight, after all. It seems like a giant non-issue that exists mostly due to rulemakers' ignorance.
  - daeken 15y ago
    If it were trivially possible for you to interfere with cockpit computers, why wouldn't terrorists be going after that? Seems like a massive, massive oversight if that were the case.
    - RockyMcNuts 15y ago
      It's not an effective way to bring down a plane. The pilot would just switch to another instrument or frequency. You could land the plane without any radios or navigation. But it would raise some pulses.
      - zig 15y ago
        In visual conditions it would be a total non-issue - GPS/VOR/IRS guidance to the airport (or radar vectors or pilotage), with a visual landing. For an ILS approach to minimums in hard instrument conditions, it could be problematic - especially if you are off course and don't realize it. There are minimum safe altitudes on approach plates that could be violated if you are way off course (putting you into a TV tower, for example). I'm not an airline pilot but I am pilot. I'm not aware of anything better than ILS for those types of conditions (very low ceilings and visibility). VOR/NDB approaches are non-precision approaches. The GPS I have access to does not permit a precision approach - maybe the airliners have something better.
kamechan 15y ago
there was a mythbusters on this. if i recall correctly, though they couldn't find any way to make the plane's instrumentation fail by bombarding it with a myriad of frequencies, even the mythbusters guys (possibly for legal reasons, or because they succumbed to pressure from their network) concluded that because the FAA can't rigorously test every device that comes out, that this is somewhat of a blanket policy to ensure that some new device that nobody has tested will be on during takeoff and cause the plane to crash. this said, i never power off my devices...just put them in airplane mode if they have them, or to sleep. i fly a lot, both domestically and internationally.
- RockyMcNuts 15y ago
  I think maybe they didn't try hard enough LOL. If you broadcast on the radio frequency the pilot is speaking on, you can jam their transmission. If you broadcast on, say, the instrument landing frequency (ILS) frequency, the ILS needle the pilot is looking at will stay centered, no matter how much he deviates from the approach path. The pilot would undoubtedly realize something was amiss, switch comm frequencies, use GPS etc. But it could cause some distraction and wreak some havoc. Back in the 90s, there were cheap CD players and whatnot that would generate all kinds of crazy RF. The FAA said, this is all unapproved electronics, we can't test it, it has to go off during takeoff and landing, unless the pilot OKs it. Of course, the corporate pilot will OK it for his CEO/passenger.
  - eps 15y ago
    Why not put the passenger cabin in a Faraday cage? Shouldn't be that hard or costly to do, compared.
    - PanMan 15y ago
      Mostly because a faraday cage the size of the plane would be quite heavy, I guess
    - JoeAltmaier 15y ago
      The fuselage IS a Faraday cage. Only the division between passenger/pilot probably needs attention. A good idea. But some of the electronics are not in the cockpit.

darkane 15y ago

Don't you ever get tired of being reasonable and/or logical, Nick?

cal5k 15y ago

Must be hard times at the NYT when journalists have to resort to submitting their own pieces to Hacker News ;-)

alanh 15y ago
Oh, but going by usernames, he didn’t!
_delirium 15y ago
It was actually submitted by a different HN user, whose profile, oddly enough, identifies him/her as working for Forbes.
- cal5k 15y ago
  Ouch... I was being tongue-in-cheek, not intentionally a jerk! :-( From the author's submission history he has only ever submitted his own stories to Hacker News.

Bud 15y ago

Hi Nick: Regardless of what the FAA says, my reason is still valid. It is also not really in conflict with what you're saying...you're right that it's not really consistent since folks are still allowed to read books, but that doesn't invalidate my point either. I would point out that people are not really as likely to take a crossword with them in an emergency as they would be a computer. Also, you're frankly wrong in asserting that electronic devices are not more distracting than a paper book; think of anything involving headphones, for instance.

bascule 15y ago
If headphones are the problem, ban wearing headphones during takeoff and landing. Why the slippery slope towards all electronic devices?
ddagradi 15y ago
If people are desperate to hold onto their laptop in an emergency, it's not going to matter if it's on their lap or in the bins above their head: they're going to try to get it. There are a reasonable set of restrictions for safety (i.e. headphones). There are others that are not. For a point of reference, JetBlue provides satellite radio and TV both in-flight and during landing (as well as sometimes during take-off). They've clearly chosen to prioritize passenger comfort in lieu of relaxed FAA regulations, and aren't concerned about the impact of distractions.

marshray 15y ago

When I looked into the topic years ago, ISTR finding a few FAA incident reports that did involve consumer electronics causing harmful interference with cockpit navigation systems. They didn't result in accidents but seemed well documented. Did you come across anything like that?

cheald 15y ago
I'd be very interested in that data, mostly because a handheld device capable of producing enough EM radiation to interfere with a cockpit from dozens of feet away (at a minimum) through metal bulkheads seems implausible, at the least. Remember that EM fields are subject to inverse-square law. If it was possible, I can't imagine that the TSA would let us carry as much as a 9-volt battery on board. Even if it were possible, couldn't you just put shielding between the passenger cabin and the cockpit? EM radiation is line-of-sight, after all. It seems like a giant non-issue that exists mostly due to rulemakers' ignorance.
- daeken 15y ago
  If it were trivially possible for you to interfere with cockpit computers, why wouldn't terrorists be going after that? Seems like a massive, massive oversight if that were the case.
  - RockyMcNuts 15y ago
    It's not an effective way to bring down a plane. The pilot would just switch to another instrument or frequency. You could land the plane without any radios or navigation. But it would raise some pulses.
    - zig 15y ago
      In visual conditions it would be a total non-issue - GPS/VOR/IRS guidance to the airport (or radar vectors or pilotage), with a visual landing. For an ILS approach to minimums in hard instrument conditions, it could be problematic - especially if you are off course and don't realize it. There are minimum safe altitudes on approach plates that could be violated if you are way off course (putting you into a TV tower, for example). I'm not an airline pilot but I am pilot. I'm not aware of anything better than ILS for those types of conditions (very low ceilings and visibility). VOR/NDB approaches are non-precision approaches. The GPS I have access to does not permit a precision approach - maybe the airliners have something better.

kamechan 15y ago

there was a mythbusters on this. if i recall correctly, though they couldn't find any way to make the plane's instrumentation fail by bombarding it with a myriad of frequencies, even the mythbusters guys (possibly for legal reasons, or because they succumbed to pressure from their network) concluded that because the FAA can't rigorously test every device that comes out, that this is somewhat of a blanket policy to ensure that some new device that nobody has tested will be on during takeoff and cause the plane to crash. this said, i never power off my devices...just put them in airplane mode if they have them, or to sleep. i fly a lot, both domestically and internationally.

RockyMcNuts 15y ago
I think maybe they didn't try hard enough LOL. If you broadcast on the radio frequency the pilot is speaking on, you can jam their transmission. If you broadcast on, say, the instrument landing frequency (ILS) frequency, the ILS needle the pilot is looking at will stay centered, no matter how much he deviates from the approach path. The pilot would undoubtedly realize something was amiss, switch comm frequencies, use GPS etc. But it could cause some distraction and wreak some havoc. Back in the 90s, there were cheap CD players and whatnot that would generate all kinds of crazy RF. The FAA said, this is all unapproved electronics, we can't test it, it has to go off during takeoff and landing, unless the pilot OKs it. Of course, the corporate pilot will OK it for his CEO/passenger.
- eps 15y ago
  Why not put the passenger cabin in a Faraday cage? Shouldn't be that hard or costly to do, compared.
  - PanMan 15y ago
    Mostly because a faraday cage the size of the plane would be quite heavy, I guess
  - JoeAltmaier 15y ago
    The fuselage IS a Faraday cage. Only the division between passenger/pilot probably needs attention. A good idea. But some of the electronics are not in the cockpit.