7 ms·

FAA to reevaluate inflight portable electronic device use

34 points by vectorbunny 14y ago

KHPatel 14y ago
Lots of potential for startups in the inflight entertainment space if they uplift the restrictions on PEDs
- KHPatel 14y ago
  Seems like the delivery of content through wireless means can save the airline a lot of weight in cabling from head-end servers to each seat on long and medium haul flights
- thematt 14y ago
  How so? You can already use portable electronic devices in flight, just not during takeoff or landing. I fail to see how lifting those two minor restrictions alone will open up anything to startups.
dotBen 14y ago
You have to turn off your phone when the plane door is shut while at the gate, but you can turn on your phone when the plane touches down during landing. I was told this is more to do with the FAA wanting to do everything possible to "encourage" you to pay attention to the safety briefing. I can't find the link where I read that right now, still looking. But it means that I doubt much will change given that its not just electronic interference that is the reason for the ban of electronics during taxi'ing at least.
- ximeng 14y ago
  They should allow you to do regular certified training to show that you know the safety procedures rather than trying to force people to watch videos again and again.
Eduardo3rd 14y ago
I'm cautiously optimistic about potential changes. It would be great to keep using my Kindle/iPad/etc during takeoff and landing, but I'd be surprised if the changes go that far. At least it's the FAA and not the TSA looking into this, otherwise I'm sure we'd never be able to turn anything on during a flight.
paulsutter 14y ago
Some airlines in the middle east, Europe, and Asia allow phones with (of course) no issues [1]. Let's hope sanity prevails here, but I'm not holding my breath. I'm sure this rule started out as a prudent idea when electronic devices were rare. Once in place, a rule like this is almost impossible to remove. Any bureaucrat is afraid to revoke the rule because he runs a risk of being blamed for some crash some day. It's not even irrational, given how randomly causes get assigned. It's maddening and ludicrous and not surprising at all. If the rule had never existed, the people defending the rule would never even think to have it implemented. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_on_aircraft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_on_aircraft
joelrunyon 14y ago
Is anyone else worried about people this is going to lead to scores of people trying to board while talking away on their phones while forgetting about the 200 people behind them? Or, for that matter get seated next to a guy who's arguing with his spouse/stockbroker/best friend the entire 4 hour flight? I'm all for in-flight communication, but I'm a little worried of the chaos it might bring as well.
- jswanson 14y ago
  The article does state: The group however will not "consider the airborne use of cell phones for voice communications during flight."
  - epoxyhockey 14y ago
    I seem to recall that a cell phone isn't likely to operate at 30,000 feet to begin with. There is an issue with a cell phone, at altitude, associating with many cell towers at once which consumes too many resources and is automatically shut out from the network. I tried to find the reference (probably from ~10 years ago on Slashdot), but couldn't locate it thus far. EDIT: Here's one source http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=213012&cid=17329448 http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=213012&cid=1732... saying that thousands of people switching cell towers frequently would strain resources. It also mentions that planes may be installing cell equipment into the plane to eliminate this issue.
kevinburke 14y ago
There are documented cases of electronic devices causing interference with onboard electronics. From Boeing: A passenger's palmtop computer was reported to cause the airplane to initiate a shallow bank turn. One minute after turning the PED off, the airplane returned to "on course." When the unit was brought to the flight deck, the flight crew noticed a strong correlation by turning the unit back on and watching the anomaly return, then turning the unit off and watching the anomaly stop. Link: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_10/interfere_textonly.html http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_10/interf... I don't understand why Apple or Google don't pay Boeing the cost to test their phones on planes. It would be a great selling point.
- pash 14y ago
  The document you linked describes several suspected cases of a portable electronic device interfering with an airplane's navigation system, but in every case Boeing was unable to duplicate the phenomenon in follow-up testing.
sudonim 14y ago
Does it seem like insanity to anyone else that portable electronic devices would have any impact on a plane in flight? Even a cell phone. How poorly designed would a plane have to be to be affected by that stuff? Honestly, the requirement made me less confident that anyone in aviation knew what they were doing.
bdunn 14y ago
From what I've heard, it's more to try to keep distractions to a minimum during high risk parts of flight - namely, take off and landing. But still being able to read a magazine but not a Kindle negates this whole arguments. Trust me: if there was a technical risk from iPhones, they wouldn't be allowed onboard.
- frisco 14y ago
  If by "high risk" you mean, "orders of magnitude safer than any other common mode of transportation". (Flying having ~3 deaths per 10 billion passenger miles, with driving at ~1.6 deaths per hundred million passenger miles.) Early on, EM radiation could have interfered with old-school VOR navigation. However, today everyone uses GPS navigation, and planes are huge flying EM-emitting computers anyway, so this is no longer a real issue. Communications are interference tolerant for the kinds of emissions we're talking about. The explanation I'd heard for why the no-phones-in-flight rule is still around is that passengers really dislike people having cell phone conversations next to them. Thus, the airlines can provide a better customer experience by keeping phones off. This obviously doesn't extend to no electronics at take-off or landing, of course, which should just be allowed.
  - bdunn 14y ago
    Agreed. As a (private) pilot, and I understand why getting the passengers and crew focused for take off and landing is important. Compared to normal flight, those are the riskiest times - though as you said, still extremely safe compared to driving. I understand the no-phones rule. I actually love that cell phones being used to TALK ON aren't allowed in flight. What I take issue with is that having electronics on is a safety hazard to the aircraft. If that was true, my Kindle would be confiscated along with my > 3.1oz bottle of shampoo at the checkpoint.
- munin 14y ago
  these are the same air carriers that flew planes into the ground until the FAA mandated they have GPWS[1], so I don't think the "if they honestly posed a risk we would do something about it". people have taken bigger risks with life-safety technology that has demonstrated to cause crashes or take hundreds of lives before... [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrain_awareness_warning_system#History http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrain_awareness_warning_syste...
crikli 14y ago
Certificated private pilots like myself use iPads on an increasing basis in the cockpit. There is no issue with interference, nor is there any empirical evidence to indicate so. The ban is and always has been ludicrous.
- bdunn 14y ago
  It's a joke. When I fly, I'm on my cellphone and using ForeFlight w/ GPS to navigate. My lil' Piper doesn't care :-)

34 points by vectorbunny 14y ago

KHPatel 14y ago

Lots of potential for startups in the inflight entertainment space if they uplift the restrictions on PEDs

KHPatel 14y ago
Seems like the delivery of content through wireless means can save the airline a lot of weight in cabling from head-end servers to each seat on long and medium haul flights
thematt 14y ago
How so? You can already use portable electronic devices in flight, just not during takeoff or landing. I fail to see how lifting those two minor restrictions alone will open up anything to startups.

dotBen 14y ago

You have to turn off your phone when the plane door is shut while at the gate, but you can turn on your phone when the plane touches down during landing. I was told this is more to do with the FAA wanting to do everything possible to "encourage" you to pay attention to the safety briefing. I can't find the link where I read that right now, still looking. But it means that I doubt much will change given that its not just electronic interference that is the reason for the ban of electronics during taxi'ing at least.

ximeng 14y ago
They should allow you to do regular certified training to show that you know the safety procedures rather than trying to force people to watch videos again and again.

Eduardo3rd 14y ago

I'm cautiously optimistic about potential changes. It would be great to keep using my Kindle/iPad/etc during takeoff and landing, but I'd be surprised if the changes go that far. At least it's the FAA and not the TSA looking into this, otherwise I'm sure we'd never be able to turn anything on during a flight.

paulsutter 14y ago

Some airlines in the middle east, Europe, and Asia allow phones with (of course) no issues [1]. Let's hope sanity prevails here, but I'm not holding my breath. I'm sure this rule started out as a prudent idea when electronic devices were rare. Once in place, a rule like this is almost impossible to remove. Any bureaucrat is afraid to revoke the rule because he runs a risk of being blamed for some crash some day. It's not even irrational, given how randomly causes get assigned. It's maddening and ludicrous and not surprising at all. If the rule had never existed, the people defending the rule would never even think to have it implemented. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_on_aircraft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_on_aircraft

joelrunyon 14y ago

Is anyone else worried about people this is going to lead to scores of people trying to board while talking away on their phones while forgetting about the 200 people behind them? Or, for that matter get seated next to a guy who's arguing with his spouse/stockbroker/best friend the entire 4 hour flight? I'm all for in-flight communication, but I'm a little worried of the chaos it might bring as well.

jswanson 14y ago
The article does state: The group however will not "consider the airborne use of cell phones for voice communications during flight."
- epoxyhockey 14y ago
  I seem to recall that a cell phone isn't likely to operate at 30,000 feet to begin with. There is an issue with a cell phone, at altitude, associating with many cell towers at once which consumes too many resources and is automatically shut out from the network. I tried to find the reference (probably from ~10 years ago on Slashdot), but couldn't locate it thus far. EDIT: Here's one source http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=213012&cid=17329448 http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=213012&cid=1732... saying that thousands of people switching cell towers frequently would strain resources. It also mentions that planes may be installing cell equipment into the plane to eliminate this issue.

kevinburke 14y ago

There are documented cases of electronic devices causing interference with onboard electronics. From Boeing: A passenger's palmtop computer was reported to cause the airplane to initiate a shallow bank turn. One minute after turning the PED off, the airplane returned to "on course." When the unit was brought to the flight deck, the flight crew noticed a strong correlation by turning the unit back on and watching the anomaly return, then turning the unit off and watching the anomaly stop. Link: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_10/interfere_textonly.html http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_10/interf... I don't understand why Apple or Google don't pay Boeing the cost to test their phones on planes. It would be a great selling point.

pash 14y ago
The document you linked describes several suspected cases of a portable electronic device interfering with an airplane's navigation system, but in every case Boeing was unable to duplicate the phenomenon in follow-up testing.

sudonim 14y ago

Does it seem like insanity to anyone else that portable electronic devices would have any impact on a plane in flight? Even a cell phone. How poorly designed would a plane have to be to be affected by that stuff? Honestly, the requirement made me less confident that anyone in aviation knew what they were doing.

bdunn 14y ago

From what I've heard, it's more to try to keep distractions to a minimum during high risk parts of flight - namely, take off and landing. But still being able to read a magazine but not a Kindle negates this whole arguments. Trust me: if there was a technical risk from iPhones, they wouldn't be allowed onboard.

frisco 14y ago
If by "high risk" you mean, "orders of magnitude safer than any other common mode of transportation". (Flying having ~3 deaths per 10 billion passenger miles, with driving at ~1.6 deaths per hundred million passenger miles.) Early on, EM radiation could have interfered with old-school VOR navigation. However, today everyone uses GPS navigation, and planes are huge flying EM-emitting computers anyway, so this is no longer a real issue. Communications are interference tolerant for the kinds of emissions we're talking about. The explanation I'd heard for why the no-phones-in-flight rule is still around is that passengers really dislike people having cell phone conversations next to them. Thus, the airlines can provide a better customer experience by keeping phones off. This obviously doesn't extend to no electronics at take-off or landing, of course, which should just be allowed.
- bdunn 14y ago
  Agreed. As a (private) pilot, and I understand why getting the passengers and crew focused for take off and landing is important. Compared to normal flight, those are the riskiest times - though as you said, still extremely safe compared to driving. I understand the no-phones rule. I actually love that cell phones being used to TALK ON aren't allowed in flight. What I take issue with is that having electronics on is a safety hazard to the aircraft. If that was true, my Kindle would be confiscated along with my > 3.1oz bottle of shampoo at the checkpoint.
munin 14y ago
these are the same air carriers that flew planes into the ground until the FAA mandated they have GPWS[1], so I don't think the "if they honestly posed a risk we would do something about it". people have taken bigger risks with life-safety technology that has demonstrated to cause crashes or take hundreds of lives before... [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrain_awareness_warning_system#History http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrain_awareness_warning_syste...

crikli 14y ago

Certificated private pilots like myself use iPads on an increasing basis in the cockpit. There is no issue with interference, nor is there any empirical evidence to indicate so. The ban is and always has been ludicrous.

bdunn 14y ago
It's a joke. When I fly, I'm on my cellphone and using ForeFlight w/ GPS to navigate. My lil' Piper doesn't care :-)