10 ms·

Airline industry divided over passenger electronics

55 points by jrnkntl 13y ago

tekromancr 13y ago
Wow, Title is a bit misleading; One piece of anecdotal evidence is no evidence at all. I would also like to take this time to bitch about the fact that airplane mode on many devices also prevents WiFi, which is allowed on board many flights.
- shawnc 13y ago
  On the iPhone you can just turn WiFi back on after you switch on airplane mode. Simple.
  - tekromancr 13y ago
    My old nook couldn't do that. I had to have the mobile data on to use the Wifi on the flight. I briefly thought that that might (in a very unlikely scenario) result in my fiery demise, and not putting a particularly high value on my own life, continued to read wikipedia, It wasn't until I considered everyone else on board that I elected to switch back to airplane mode.
  - CrazedGeek 13y ago
    Same on Android.
drcoopster 13y ago
So much misinformation.
michaelfeathers 13y ago
That has to be one of the most incomprehensible titles I've ever seen.
- crabasa 13y ago
  It's truly remarkable. It seems as if each word ("critical", "iPhone", etc) was chosen to maximize dissonance with what the article was actually about. Probably the work of an over zealous editor.
  - skyebook 13y ago
    Or one that was half-asleep. I can't remember the last time I saw anyone spell iPhone with an upper-case I
- jrnkntl 13y ago
  You are right, I changed it now to reflect a bit more what is in the article. [edit] seems like I can't change it anymore. I tried changing it to "Airline industry still divided over usage of personal electronics and their supposed interference"
  - ScottWhigham 13y ago
    Whew. I was asking myself, "It was changed to 'Turning Off IPhone Critical to Pilots Citing Interference'? That can't be an improvement!"
DoubleMalt 13y ago
So there are less than 100 reports of interference of radio devices with planes. And then there is the study where 30% of the people said they do not turn off their devices. The probability that something happens is minuscule, but above zero. Other examples where the trade off between security and convenience has to be made is the driving of cars and liquids on a plane. I'm really curious in which direction this debate will swing. (FTR: I'm all for convenience ;) )
- enraged_camel 13y ago
  >>So there are less than 100 reports of interference of radio devices with planes. The reports are for suspected interference. It has never been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
  - gnaffle 13y ago
    I'm pretty sure I read at least on of the NASA reports where the pilot in cooperation with the passenger positively identified that the interference stopped when the laptop was turned off, and started again when it was turned on.
    - enraged_camel 13y ago
      That's what we call anecdotal evidence. They hold virtually zero weight in scientific discourse, for obvious reasons.
      - gnaffle 13y ago
        Well, this isn't scientific discourse, it's about erring on the side of safety. And it's not like it's easy to get any other kind of evidence from actual flights.
        enraged_camel 13y ago
        >>Well, this isn't scientific discourse, it's about erring on the side of safety. No. This is about security theater and nothing more. Beyond a few anecdotes, we have zero evidence that the practice of making people turn off their devices actually makes flights safer.
batbomb 13y ago
In these anecdotal reports, I'd like to see whether or not the actual navigation devices have been tested. In my opinion and past experience, it's possible that there actually is interference, but it's very like it's a result of a faulty/fragile board or bad shielding. In that case, it would seem like the prudent thing to do is to verify that it's not the actual device that is faulty/fragile, and routine testing of essential navigation devices should be as important as checking the engine.
bsg75 13y ago
Curious - why are people so damn resistant to turning off their devices for takeoff and landing, given the chance it _might_ be safer? Even in the absence of hard data, I would prefer to ensure all cockpit instruments work with minimal interference, than read another email or send another tweet. Then when data is available to make a conclusion as to the effect or lack thereof, informed decisions can be used to create procedures. People are so attached to their devices that they take any inconvenience towards using them as some sort of rights violation.
- omni 13y ago
  Because those devices help distract us from how awful the entire experience of flying is.
  - bsg75 13y ago
    Not well enough in my experience. Nothing will make those half-human sized seats bearable. And I would reiterate, this is during the brief period of takeoff and landing.
    - omni 13y ago
      I've had a few "brief" takeoffs lasting more than 2 hours. I'm sure other people here have as well.
  - adamio 13y ago
    Maybe the book publishing lobby is behind it
- lawnchair_larry 13y ago
  Because it isn't safer and the rule doesn't make sense. I don't like to follow arbitrary rules created by uninformed people, especially when they don't make sense and are inconvenient.
  - bsg75 13y ago
    Are you an electrical engineer, or similarly educated in RF communications, and thus able to determine what is arbitrary? I have been in tech for 29 years, and I am a licensed commercial pilot in both fixed wing and rotorcraft (but I don't work as a professional pilot.) I don't know what effect my iPhone would have on aircraft instruments, so I turn it off. Pre-flight and in-flight procedures are based on what is known, and what helps to prevent problems from the unknown. The safety of flight is in part about not taking unnecessary risks. For example, if I have to visibility into a cloud (radar, instruments) I do not fly through a cloud. I apply this logic to during the critical periods of takeoff and landing, if I am unsure a device that emits RF will affect my instruments, I shut it off. Inconvenience does not outweigh safety, even / especially if the effect on safety is unknown. The worst case scenario, although likely minor, is simple not worth the risk.
stevvooe 13y ago
If they can come to my seat and tell me to turn off my device because they detected a source of interference, then I will turn off the device. If they can't or aren't willing to detect the source of interference, the real risk is likely dubious. Furthermore, avionics equipment should be and is designed to work despite minor external interference. If a consumer electronics device, such as an iPhone or laptop, could drastically effect the operation of avionics equipment, it should not be considered flight worthy. Granted, certification tests probably don't consider such radiation sources, but the risk is so small its likely its not even worth testing.
- ScottWhigham 13y ago
  I'm sorry but your first sentence is just bad logic. Just to play devil's advocate, while you are on the ground/taxi-ing in the plane, let's say that you play a disconnected game (one that is a single player game and requires no connection of any kind). No interference is detected. An hour into the flight, you launch an app that proceeds to send your contact list to their home servers. You surely don't expect the pilots to stop what they are doing and come show you, "Look - here's what the problem you are causing is. Turn off your phone!" The second paragraph - sure, fine. I think that's what we all want to know.
  - Karunamon 13y ago
    >You surely don't expect the pilots to stop what they are doing and come show you, "Look - here's what the problem you are causing is. Turn off your phone!" No, but I would expect one of the pilots to notice something that looks, smells, or feels like electronic interference, and ask the FA's to make an announcement asking everyone to make sure their devices are off because actual interference has been found and is causing a problem.
    - ScottWhigham 13y ago
      I agree with you that the FAA has done a poor job of explaining what electrical interference there is, and what it's effects are. I also agree that avionics gear is not so sensitive that an iPhone's connection should harm it. But your argument that the pilot should deal with problems like this in-flight is just a tad bit on the silly side IMO. The typical pilot's mindset is, "Fly the plane but, when a problem occurs, stop focusing on flying the plane and solve/identify the problem. Once the problem is solved/identified, get back to flying the plane." You're effectively wanting to change this to something more like, "Fly the plane but, when a problem occurs, stop focusing on flying the plane and solve/identify the problem except if the problem is 'electrical interference'. If that's the case, ask yet again that people turn their phones off. Hopefully they'll listen this time. Wait for all of the people to comply and, once the problem is solved, get back to flying the plane." It just sounds silly, doesn't it? I think we'd all agree that, if there's a problem with electrical interference during flight, we want the pilot to be flying the plane rather than having him/her wait for the passengers to do anything. Again - I'm not arguing whether this is right/wrong; I'm simply pointing out that the logic of having a pilot wait on passenger behaviors before being able to continue doing his/her job is a bit silly.
tocomment 13y ago
My last flight said you couldn't use iPhones during the whole flight even in airplane mode. What's the deal with that? The person next to me just lied and said he had and ipod touch ...
ISL 13y ago
Avionics design must be resistant to interference. Unfortunately, perfect resistance is impossible (see GPS and LightSquared). The notion that you should turn off "anything with an off switch" as an open-loop solution to the problem is folly. Short of removing the batteries from a device, it's hardly guaranteed that it is truly de-powered. Furthermore, plenty of things don't have an off switch. Pebble watches run via Bluetooth. I doubt users think to turn them off. It's not an easy problem. Sealing the passenger cabin into a Faraday cage may be the only way to ensure RF isolation of instrumentation.
- josh2600 13y ago
  /Begin Tangent On the subject of LightSquared, I know quite a few people who belonged to that project and I think there's a lot more going on there than meets the eye. In the days following the DoD test for GPS there were a lot of outcries of fraudulent testing parameters that got thrown around and were never really resolved to anyones satisfaction. I still contend that low-orbit satellites can provide a potent and real alternative to the wireless systems we have today (or at least as a distribution path for backhaul). I'm still quite hopeful that the LightSquared kids will get a spectrum swap now that Obama has been settled in the office for a while. Here's hoping; it would be a net-boon for the whole wireless industry. /End Tangent
- duaneb 13y ago
  Why isn't the passenger cabin sealed into a faraday cage? I would think that would have been the first thing they would build into a plane once devices that broadcast RF became common. I also am quite bad at classical physics, so I don't know the limitations of such a cage.
  - genericresponse 13y ago
    Nope, there are windows. That's why your microwave has that grid-looking stuff over the windows. It keeps the cage intact and avoids cooking your eyeballs when you look in.
    - 13y ago
16s 13y ago
RF is somewhat like magic. Crappy 802.11 devices can cause interference with radios and antennas. I have one computer system that I can't use in the same room with a HAM radio. It causes too much interference. When I shut it off, everything works fine.
- mahyarm 13y ago
  That might be power circuit interference or just unshielded power cables. What happens when they are on different circuits?
WorkingDead 13y ago
Remember that sound your computer speakers made when you put your old cell phone near them? Try landing a plane and listening to direction from the tower with that going on in your headset. Interference is a real thing and mitigating it is just a small inconvenience to the passenger who entrust their lives to their pilots.
ricardobeat 13y ago
So where are the tests? Actual reports, not anecdotes? The whole FAA report is based on word-of-mouth from flight crew. Surely the industry can spare some change for research in such an important area.
nemesis1637 13y ago
I have a friend who's a pilot for one of the major commercial airlines. He uses his iPhone during flights all the time (seems to be common among pilots). I guess only the passengers are subject to the regulations. Though, I do realize that the pilots can easily turn theirs off if there's an issue; it's a little harder to track down the phone causing problems if it's one of the passengers'. Regardless, the data doesn't seem to concretely prove that phones are causing any of the problems
kbutler 13y ago
Would TSA allow the passengers to carry cell phones on the plane if there were any perceived risk? Passenger electronics are so obviously safe that screening for them would break suspension of disbelief even in the airport security theater.
_mulder_ 13y ago
Like using mobile phones at gas stations, this is an issue I've heard numerous justifications for over the years. One interesting one was the health effects of having 200-300 mobile phones ranging at full power inside a sealed metal tube in the sky. Not so much an issue for passengers, but flight crew on long haul flights subject to these signal levels for 8 or 9 hours several days a week! Obviously Airplane mode would solve this but telling everyone to switch off sounds a better way of enforcing this. Of course this assumes there are any adverse health effects from mobile phones at all, but that's a whole different can of worms. Another 'theory', I've since dismissed, relating to the requirement to switch off particularly at take off and landing, is because a plane load of 300 mobiles roaming between base stations at 400mph can cause the mobile operators a few headaches!
- lawnchair_larry 13y ago
  Do you have any idea how much ionizing radiation simply being in the upper atmosphere exposes you to? Whoever made that claim apparently doesn't. They probably don't know the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation either. Which means you should not pay any attention to them.

55 points by jrnkntl 13y ago

Wow, Title is a bit misleading; One piece of anecdotal evidence is no evidence at all. I would also like to take this time to bitch about the fact that airplane mode on many devices also prevents WiFi, which is allowed on board many flights.

shawnc 13y ago
On the iPhone you can just turn WiFi back on after you switch on airplane mode. Simple.
- tekromancr 13y ago
  My old nook couldn't do that. I had to have the mobile data on to use the Wifi on the flight. I briefly thought that that might (in a very unlikely scenario) result in my fiery demise, and not putting a particularly high value on my own life, continued to read wikipedia, It wasn't until I considered everyone else on board that I elected to switch back to airplane mode.
- CrazedGeek 13y ago
  Same on Android.

drcoopster 13y ago

So much misinformation.

michaelfeathers 13y ago

That has to be one of the most incomprehensible titles I've ever seen.

crabasa 13y ago
It's truly remarkable. It seems as if each word ("critical", "iPhone", etc) was chosen to maximize dissonance with what the article was actually about. Probably the work of an over zealous editor.
- skyebook 13y ago
  Or one that was half-asleep. I can't remember the last time I saw anyone spell iPhone with an upper-case I
jrnkntl 13y ago
You are right, I changed it now to reflect a bit more what is in the article. [edit] seems like I can't change it anymore. I tried changing it to "Airline industry still divided over usage of personal electronics and their supposed interference"
- ScottWhigham 13y ago
  Whew. I was asking myself, "It was changed to 'Turning Off IPhone Critical to Pilots Citing Interference'? That can't be an improvement!"

DoubleMalt 13y ago

So there are less than 100 reports of interference of radio devices with planes. And then there is the study where 30% of the people said they do not turn off their devices. The probability that something happens is minuscule, but above zero. Other examples where the trade off between security and convenience has to be made is the driving of cars and liquids on a plane. I'm really curious in which direction this debate will swing. (FTR: I'm all for convenience ;) )

enraged_camel 13y ago
>>So there are less than 100 reports of interference of radio devices with planes. The reports are for suspected interference. It has never been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
- gnaffle 13y ago
  I'm pretty sure I read at least on of the NASA reports where the pilot in cooperation with the passenger positively identified that the interference stopped when the laptop was turned off, and started again when it was turned on.
  - enraged_camel 13y ago
    That's what we call anecdotal evidence. They hold virtually zero weight in scientific discourse, for obvious reasons.
    - gnaffle 13y ago
      Well, this isn't scientific discourse, it's about erring on the side of safety. And it's not like it's easy to get any other kind of evidence from actual flights.
      - enraged_camel 13y ago
        >>Well, this isn't scientific discourse, it's about erring on the side of safety. No. This is about security theater and nothing more. Beyond a few anecdotes, we have zero evidence that the practice of making people turn off their devices actually makes flights safer.

batbomb 13y ago

In these anecdotal reports, I'd like to see whether or not the actual navigation devices have been tested. In my opinion and past experience, it's possible that there actually is interference, but it's very like it's a result of a faulty/fragile board or bad shielding. In that case, it would seem like the prudent thing to do is to verify that it's not the actual device that is faulty/fragile, and routine testing of essential navigation devices should be as important as checking the engine.

bsg75 13y ago

Curious - why are people so damn resistant to turning off their devices for takeoff and landing, given the chance it _might_ be safer? Even in the absence of hard data, I would prefer to ensure all cockpit instruments work with minimal interference, than read another email or send another tweet. Then when data is available to make a conclusion as to the effect or lack thereof, informed decisions can be used to create procedures. People are so attached to their devices that they take any inconvenience towards using them as some sort of rights violation.

omni 13y ago
Because those devices help distract us from how awful the entire experience of flying is.
- bsg75 13y ago
  Not well enough in my experience. Nothing will make those half-human sized seats bearable. And I would reiterate, this is during the brief period of takeoff and landing.
  - omni 13y ago
    I've had a few "brief" takeoffs lasting more than 2 hours. I'm sure other people here have as well.
- adamio 13y ago
  Maybe the book publishing lobby is behind it
lawnchair_larry 13y ago
Because it isn't safer and the rule doesn't make sense. I don't like to follow arbitrary rules created by uninformed people, especially when they don't make sense and are inconvenient.
- bsg75 13y ago
  Are you an electrical engineer, or similarly educated in RF communications, and thus able to determine what is arbitrary? I have been in tech for 29 years, and I am a licensed commercial pilot in both fixed wing and rotorcraft (but I don't work as a professional pilot.) I don't know what effect my iPhone would have on aircraft instruments, so I turn it off. Pre-flight and in-flight procedures are based on what is known, and what helps to prevent problems from the unknown. The safety of flight is in part about not taking unnecessary risks. For example, if I have to visibility into a cloud (radar, instruments) I do not fly through a cloud. I apply this logic to during the critical periods of takeoff and landing, if I am unsure a device that emits RF will affect my instruments, I shut it off. Inconvenience does not outweigh safety, even / especially if the effect on safety is unknown. The worst case scenario, although likely minor, is simple not worth the risk.

stevvooe 13y ago

If they can come to my seat and tell me to turn off my device because they detected a source of interference, then I will turn off the device. If they can't or aren't willing to detect the source of interference, the real risk is likely dubious. Furthermore, avionics equipment should be and is designed to work despite minor external interference. If a consumer electronics device, such as an iPhone or laptop, could drastically effect the operation of avionics equipment, it should not be considered flight worthy. Granted, certification tests probably don't consider such radiation sources, but the risk is so small its likely its not even worth testing.

ScottWhigham 13y ago
I'm sorry but your first sentence is just bad logic. Just to play devil's advocate, while you are on the ground/taxi-ing in the plane, let's say that you play a disconnected game (one that is a single player game and requires no connection of any kind). No interference is detected. An hour into the flight, you launch an app that proceeds to send your contact list to their home servers. You surely don't expect the pilots to stop what they are doing and come show you, "Look - here's what the problem you are causing is. Turn off your phone!" The second paragraph - sure, fine. I think that's what we all want to know.
- Karunamon 13y ago
  >You surely don't expect the pilots to stop what they are doing and come show you, "Look - here's what the problem you are causing is. Turn off your phone!" No, but I would expect one of the pilots to notice something that looks, smells, or feels like electronic interference, and ask the FA's to make an announcement asking everyone to make sure their devices are off because actual interference has been found and is causing a problem.
  - ScottWhigham 13y ago
    I agree with you that the FAA has done a poor job of explaining what electrical interference there is, and what it's effects are. I also agree that avionics gear is not so sensitive that an iPhone's connection should harm it. But your argument that the pilot should deal with problems like this in-flight is just a tad bit on the silly side IMO. The typical pilot's mindset is, "Fly the plane but, when a problem occurs, stop focusing on flying the plane and solve/identify the problem. Once the problem is solved/identified, get back to flying the plane." You're effectively wanting to change this to something more like, "Fly the plane but, when a problem occurs, stop focusing on flying the plane and solve/identify the problem except if the problem is 'electrical interference'. If that's the case, ask yet again that people turn their phones off. Hopefully they'll listen this time. Wait for all of the people to comply and, once the problem is solved, get back to flying the plane." It just sounds silly, doesn't it? I think we'd all agree that, if there's a problem with electrical interference during flight, we want the pilot to be flying the plane rather than having him/her wait for the passengers to do anything. Again - I'm not arguing whether this is right/wrong; I'm simply pointing out that the logic of having a pilot wait on passenger behaviors before being able to continue doing his/her job is a bit silly.

tocomment 13y ago

My last flight said you couldn't use iPhones during the whole flight even in airplane mode. What's the deal with that? The person next to me just lied and said he had and ipod touch ...

ISL 13y ago

Avionics design must be resistant to interference. Unfortunately, perfect resistance is impossible (see GPS and LightSquared). The notion that you should turn off "anything with an off switch" as an open-loop solution to the problem is folly. Short of removing the batteries from a device, it's hardly guaranteed that it is truly de-powered. Furthermore, plenty of things don't have an off switch. Pebble watches run via Bluetooth. I doubt users think to turn them off. It's not an easy problem. Sealing the passenger cabin into a Faraday cage may be the only way to ensure RF isolation of instrumentation.

josh2600 13y ago
/Begin Tangent On the subject of LightSquared, I know quite a few people who belonged to that project and I think there's a lot more going on there than meets the eye. In the days following the DoD test for GPS there were a lot of outcries of fraudulent testing parameters that got thrown around and were never really resolved to anyones satisfaction. I still contend that low-orbit satellites can provide a potent and real alternative to the wireless systems we have today (or at least as a distribution path for backhaul). I'm still quite hopeful that the LightSquared kids will get a spectrum swap now that Obama has been settled in the office for a while. Here's hoping; it would be a net-boon for the whole wireless industry. /End Tangent
duaneb 13y ago
Why isn't the passenger cabin sealed into a faraday cage? I would think that would have been the first thing they would build into a plane once devices that broadcast RF became common. I also am quite bad at classical physics, so I don't know the limitations of such a cage.
- genericresponse 13y ago
  Nope, there are windows. That's why your microwave has that grid-looking stuff over the windows. It keeps the cage intact and avoids cooking your eyeballs when you look in.
  - 13y ago

16s 13y ago

RF is somewhat like magic. Crappy 802.11 devices can cause interference with radios and antennas. I have one computer system that I can't use in the same room with a HAM radio. It causes too much interference. When I shut it off, everything works fine.

mahyarm 13y ago
That might be power circuit interference or just unshielded power cables. What happens when they are on different circuits?

WorkingDead 13y ago

Remember that sound your computer speakers made when you put your old cell phone near them? Try landing a plane and listening to direction from the tower with that going on in your headset. Interference is a real thing and mitigating it is just a small inconvenience to the passenger who entrust their lives to their pilots.

ricardobeat 13y ago

So where are the tests? Actual reports, not anecdotes? The whole FAA report is based on word-of-mouth from flight crew. Surely the industry can spare some change for research in such an important area.

nemesis1637 13y ago

I have a friend who's a pilot for one of the major commercial airlines. He uses his iPhone during flights all the time (seems to be common among pilots). I guess only the passengers are subject to the regulations. Though, I do realize that the pilots can easily turn theirs off if there's an issue; it's a little harder to track down the phone causing problems if it's one of the passengers'. Regardless, the data doesn't seem to concretely prove that phones are causing any of the problems

kbutler 13y ago

Would TSA allow the passengers to carry cell phones on the plane if there were any perceived risk? Passenger electronics are so obviously safe that screening for them would break suspension of disbelief even in the airport security theater.

_mulder_ 13y ago

Like using mobile phones at gas stations, this is an issue I've heard numerous justifications for over the years. One interesting one was the health effects of having 200-300 mobile phones ranging at full power inside a sealed metal tube in the sky. Not so much an issue for passengers, but flight crew on long haul flights subject to these signal levels for 8 or 9 hours several days a week! Obviously Airplane mode would solve this but telling everyone to switch off sounds a better way of enforcing this. Of course this assumes there are any adverse health effects from mobile phones at all, but that's a whole different can of worms. Another 'theory', I've since dismissed, relating to the requirement to switch off particularly at take off and landing, is because a plane load of 300 mobiles roaming between base stations at 400mph can cause the mobile operators a few headaches!

lawnchair_larry 13y ago
Do you have any idea how much ionizing radiation simply being in the upper atmosphere exposes you to? Whoever made that claim apparently doesn't. They probably don't know the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation either. Which means you should not pay any attention to them.