Does Electronic Device Use During Takeoff and Landing Really Matter?
- Posted on December 26, 2011 at 11:41pm by
Liz Klimas
- Print »
- Email »
If you’re flying this holiday season, it‘s very likely you’ll hear “Excuse me, madame (or sir), please turn off that device.” But a new investigation suggests that you shouldn’t grumble while powering down or ignore the rule as it really could interfere with cockpit equipment.
With American Airlines recently getting the green light to use iPads during takeoff and landing, passengers have more and more been questioning if it’s necessary to power down. An investigative study conducted by USA Today says yes. Yes, it is still necessary.
USA Today evaluated “25 papers by electronics experts; presentations, papers and advisories by government aviation officials in the USA, Canada, the United Kingdom and Europe; congressional testimony; and Boeing research and information for airlines.” The investigation also found a significant number of people disobeying the rule.
USA Today has more:
“Any device with a battery — including cellphones, e-readers, laptops, PDAs (personal digital assistants) and Game Boys — has some level of emission that has the potential to interfere with cockpit instruments or navigational equipment,” says Boeing engineer Dave Carson.
[...]
Carson says most devices used “in aggregate or independently” by passengers would not meet the RTCA’s DO-160 standard, which sets emission standards for airborne equipment.
At the same time, USA Today reports some electronics experts as saying they are not concerned over the level of electromagnetic interference emitted.
Here are some of USA Today’s findings from document review:
- In a March 2001 service letter to airlines, Boeing said it received “various reports of anomalies in airplane communication and navigation systems that operators suspected were caused by interference from passenger carry-on electronic devices.”
- USA TODAY’s analysis of NASA’s Aviation Safety Reporting System, which lets airline employees report incidents confidentially, reveals that pilots and an air traffic controller reported 32 incidents of electronic device interference with aircraft systems from January 2001 through Dec. 2, 2011.
- A pilot of a Canadair CRJ-200 regional jet reported compass system malfunctions after takeoff at an altitude of about 9,000 feet on a flight last May. The pilot says a passenger had an iPhone in standby mode; when the phone was turned off, the compass system operated properly.
Here’s a Fox 40 news report on the study:
Fox 40 reports Ernesto Martinez, a pilot himself who has used an iPad in the his cockpit personally, as saying that if a large number of people were using their electronics on the plane the interference could effect the cockpit. “Just turn it off, because you are really putting your life at risk,” Martinez said according to Fox 40.
[H/T Fox News]
Popular Stories
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 686 Comments
‘Jumah at the DNC’ Speaker: ‘Muslims Visited America Prior to Columbus’ & ‘It Was a Muslim’ Who Guided Him to the ‘New World’ 536 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 446 Comments
Obama: RNC Like Watching ‘Black-and-White TV’ Because Romney ‘Did Not Offer a Single New Idea’ 374 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 332 Comments
Faith
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 290 Comments- Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More
- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 299 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 193 Comments- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 148 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 301 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 290 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (79)
Demosthenes Locke
Posted on December 27, 2011 at 1:58pm*Ahem*
Could *affect* the cockpit. Not *effect*. The copy editors must be on Christmas break.
Report Post »little big man
Posted on December 27, 2011 at 2:45pmProbably doesn’r make a diff. but the fed gov‘t and the cell phone companies don’t want to spend the money and years of testing to find out if they do.
I would rather have them off in the name of security. when the plane is down to around 10k feet it is vulnerable to shoulder fired rockets, and I don’t need Jihad Jane turning her cell phone on and calling Mohamed on the ground to let him know we are coming in range in 5 minutes.
Report Post »newmexicopatriots
Posted on December 27, 2011 at 7:12pmRigghtttt!… Jihad Jane! What a joke. Like we really have terrorists here in the USA. The likelihood of a terrorist being on board a U.S commercial flight is next to zero. The only reason the attacks on 9/11/01 happened is because those in power let it happen. They knew what was going down and did nothing. And so we have been “at war” with terrorism for 10 years now, and what have we accomplished? Nothing at all, but trillions of $$$ wasted. That’s not to say Islamic Radicals (all Muslims in my opinion) aren’t a threat, they are. However, the U.S Government has misled and confused the American people for over a decade.
Report Post »bwrobida
Posted on December 27, 2011 at 12:58pmI wish the airlines would just come out and say the real reason for turning off your electronic devices during takeoff and landing. The fact is, flight crews need your undivided attention during the most critical phases of the flight. In case there is an emergency situation, there may not be time for everyone to put away their laptops or other devices. It is difficult enough trying to escape these crowded airplanes without having to trip over someone who wasn’t paying attention, playing Words with friends on their ipads. When emergency announcements are made, it is critical that everyone on board is paying attention so that everyone has a reasonable chance to survive a mishap.
Report Post »Squ33
Posted on December 27, 2011 at 1:41pmyes, you must turn off your electronic devices during taxi and take-off, but as soon as you land everyone is on there phones making a phone call. Its all just a bunch of crap, especially since some airplanes still have airphones, that they want you to use instead.
RaptorEP
Posted on December 28, 2011 at 12:43amCellphone communication (GMA,3G,4G-LTE, etc) and wifi transmits on a wide-band spectrum so they can get through to towers and routers with heavy traffic and can interfere with the narrow band signals for landing assist, GPS, even voice communication equipment, etc. For security reasons these systems operate on a narrow beam, or specific frequencies. And Air-phones use the shielded equipment built into the aircraft which is certified not to operate on any critical frequencies, same with in-flight wifi. And it’s not BS, electronic manufactures don‘t care for aviation EM Interference because the cert is more expensive then it’s worth, an iPad could be $100-$300 more with the spec shielding and transceivers.
Report Post »Big Book Harry
Posted on December 28, 2011 at 2:26amElectro Magnetic Fields(EMF) is not really an issue. Radio Frequency Interference(RFI) is, any device that has an active transmitter such as a cell phone not in airplane mode or turned off. Standby mode won’t work, after lift off you get out of range of cell tower quickly. 5K Ft ? Then phone continually transmitts attempting to reestablish connection with service provider(drains battery too.) Digital data comm. cables have an RFI threshold, if that is exceeded comm. errors could result on any number of critical systems. Would the plane traveling up to 30K Ft. at 450Mph crash?
Report Post »Only leaves one question — Do You Feel Lucky?
w7
Posted on December 27, 2011 at 12:08pmFM radio stations run power levels in the 100,000 watt range. TV transmitters radiate more than that. Radars are often in the 1,000,000 watt range. Add to that all the taxicab, ham, and mobile radio transmitters, and the aircraft is bathed in quite a lot of radio frequency energy, particularly during takeoff and landing. And all that radio frequency energy doesn’t seem to cause a problem. Otherwise, our TV and radio broadcasts would routinely be interrupted to allow planes to take off and land. Cell phones intentionally radiate only about half a watt. Computers unintentionally radiate a few thousandths of a watt. It would take an awful lot of handheld electronics to even come close to what aircraft routinely fly through without incident.
Report Post »tiredofBS1234
Posted on December 27, 2011 at 12:21pmAmen.
Report Post »DrFrost
Posted on December 27, 2011 at 1:26pmAll of the sources you’re listing are on the OUTSIDE of the big metal shell that makes up the bulk of the airplane. Metal is a conductor… a good shield for EM sources. Google faraday cage if you don’t believe me. This same metal surface that shields external EM sources can serve to focus internal ones. And guess where they would be concentrated? Near the conical shapes at the front and rear of the planes…. And since all of the important electronics are near one of those conical shapes…. maybe you should listen to the experts and shut off your electronic device.
Report Post »freedom2live
Posted on December 27, 2011 at 2:56pm@ DR FROST
Your argument for the sheet metal of the plane acting as a faraday cage is mute. I can receive five bars on my cell from transmissions coming in from the OUTSIDE. I used to work on these very electronic systems. The policy is bogus. All radio and computer electronic equipment have filters to remove all unnecessary frequency bands. That leaves displays. Have you ever heard of bus or car instruments, computer monitors or any analog device being effected by frequency? Doesn’t exist. Electromagnetic is another story but the proximity to the device and the massive amount of power required would not be possible in a handheld.
Report Post »w7
Posted on December 27, 2011 at 7:08pm“This same metal surface that shields external EM sources can serve to focus internal ones. And guess where they would be concentrated? Near the conical shapes at the front and rear of the planes…”
And you base this fabulous statement on what?
Look, I know from experience that you can take a handheld VHF/UHF transceiver and sit it directly on top of a desktop computer that meets FCC Class B emission requirements and you’ll experience very little to no interference with your communications. That’s with the whole transceiver and antenna just inches away from the electronics. And handheld transceivers are especially susceptible to interference.
Cell phones can be a problem for some of the reasons mentioned, but not because they will cause aircraft communication and navigation problems.
I’ve designed and built transmitters and receivers, and would have absolutely no fear if everyone on the plane turned on all their non-transmitting electronics at once during takeoff and landing.
If they want those devices off so people will pay attention, fine. Tell them to close their books, too.
Report Post »newmexicopatriots
Posted on December 27, 2011 at 7:20pmI second that! Me using my cellphone to text my wife “I’m about to land” is no threat at all. But we all “know” that my wife pulling up in her Hummer and staying in the No Stopping Except For Loading and Unloading Zone for more than a minute is a huge threat, and she could be a “Terrorist” B.S!!! Obama is more of a terrorist than you or I.
Report Post »ramburner
Posted on December 27, 2011 at 8:15pmThe part that confuses me is; people routinely say the electronics on the plane are affected. I say B.S., after working in screen rooms and performing EMI (Electromagnetic Interference) measurements on AIRCRAFT systems according to DO-160 as well as the international specifications for Class A and Class B for all other equipment used in the computer and medical industry. However; after saying that, since I am NOT a pilot, I am wondering what difference it makes to the aircraft compass? Some have said it interferes with the compass settings? Does it interfere at all with the compass on the ground; who cares – at 10,000 feet; I might have a problem. Would someone have any technical information (I don’t care about “it’s a good idea”, I want a technical response and answer to this question) pertaining to that question – interfering with the compass and the planes guidance system? Please respond.
Report Post »Tsam
Posted on December 27, 2011 at 11:14amHELLO??? Bombs can be detonated remotely using cell phones!!!
for all you o-so-clever ppl that keep their cell phones on “secretly”… THEY SHOULDN’T EVEN BE ALLOWED ON BOARD!!
Report Post »mdpaul
Posted on December 27, 2011 at 1:47pmTSAM said “HELLO??? Bombs can be detonated remotely using cell phones!!!”
That is because a CELL phone is used as the detonator of the bomb. The terrorist calls the CELL phone used as a detonator and that phone rings, causing the bomb to explode.
Simply having a cell phone on will not bring down a aircraft. Even making a call would not.
Report Post »blazingaway
Posted on December 27, 2011 at 10:58amFAA – Far And Away … they’re are some of the most idiotic people out there. Too much flying has affected their sense of reason. If it can affect them during take-off and landing shouldn’t it also be able to affect them during flight? Don’t they now have wifi on the plane for a fee? Don’t they have phone service on the plane for a fee? Doesn‘t the government regulate the airwaves so we don’t have interference … oh, that’s right the government regulating, well maybe there is a point to all this after all. You’re always safe with the government and you have the privilege of paying for it … just not the choice
Report Post »ramburner
Posted on December 27, 2011 at 8:22pmI think you have hit the REAL reason!
Report Post »John_Q_Republic
Posted on December 27, 2011 at 10:24amAs someone that knows something about this, it is a hassle but I gladly turn my own gear off during takeoff and landing. I know that the chance of something interfering (when it is not transmitting) is slim but the chance of problems is very real and peoples’ lives are at stake including my own.
Ultimately , the two issues resolve down to not being able to transmit (i.e. shuts down cell phones, etc.) since the transmitted output is intentionally high and there are effects that can cause additional frequencies to appear “out of band” and into the critical aeronautical frequencies and the totally uncontrolled situation with carry-on devices that do not intentionally radiate with their uncertain condition (i.e. dropped, not built quite right, or not working quite right, etc.) and its initial design and the extra radio frequency emissions that result from that.
It makes the problem so crazy to try to solve that it’s just easier to have everyone shut down their gear during takeoff and landing. It comes down to just doing the only easy, sensible thing left to do given the situation.
Report Post »tiredofBS1234
Posted on December 27, 2011 at 10:35amYou shut down your gear because you know nothing about avionics. It is beyond stupid to think you are going to crash a plane by playing on your laptop.
Report Post »jmo
Posted on December 27, 2011 at 10:57amCell phone signals, specifically those in the 800-900 MHz range, do intefere with unshielded cockpit instrumentation. Because older aircraft with unshielded wiring can be affected, and because of the possible problems that may arise by having many airborne cell phones “seeing” multiple cell phone towers, the FCC (via enforcement through the FAA) still deems it best to err on the safe side and prohibit the use of cell phones while airborne.
Report Post »tiredofBS1234
Posted on December 27, 2011 at 11:44am@JMO You have no idea what you are talking about. 1st please name a single “unshielded cockpit instrument” which could be affected by a cell phone, even a 1900 MHz PCS phone?? Cell phones use cell signal encoding as identifiers which have no relation to GPS or Nav radio. VOR/ILS use different frequencies as well, do explain how a cell phone could affect this?? Also, “older aircraft with unshielded wiring can be affected” this is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard. Then you negate the entire thing by admitting this all nonsense, “still deems it best to err on the safe side.” Oh, err on the safe side because even though it is not possible, it is scary to think what would happen if it were possible! Try to apply that logic to your daily life… I am not going to drive to work today because it is possible space aliens could suck my car into their spaceship and abduct me…
Report Post »Liberalismsamentaldisorder
Posted on December 27, 2011 at 10:21amThis is sadly typical of how American’s react to anything these days. Stomp your feet and whine when it doesn’t go your way. Particularly if the offense is so horrible that you have to shut your phone off for 5 minutes. You don’t care that your phone just might bring the plane down, fine. But, you don’t get to decide for me or my family that might be on that plane, or on the ground under it. This policy isn’t new. Don’t like the policy; DON’T FLY. very simple.
Report Post »tiredofBS1234
Posted on December 27, 2011 at 10:32amNo one is endangering your family, give me a break–this story is more nonsense from the theblaze and despite the fact that cellphones don’t work more than 3 or 4,000ft AGL anyway–HAND HELD ELECTRONICS DO NOT AFFECT NAVIGATION EQUIPMENT ANYWAY. Let me say it this way–> IF CELLPHONES OR ELECTRONICS COULD BRING DOWN AN AIRPLANE TERRORISTS WOULD LOAD UP THE PLANE WITH CELLPHONES AND IPADS AND CRASH IT. Ask yourself, why are the terrorists not boarding airplanes with hundreds of cellphones in their carry ons? HMMMMMMM….
Report Post »Liberalismsamentaldisorder
Posted on December 27, 2011 at 11:47am@tired
Well thank you very much for you assurances! While your at it, who killed Kennedy? I don’t know your background and you do not know mine. The chance of a plane being brought down by an electronic device is remote indeed, but it is most definitely not zero. My point is the solution is very simple and painless. Turn off your stuff for the short time they ask. There’s a slim chance for a section of fuselage to fall off too, but since the solution is to wear a space suit, we sit there and take the risk. Why risk any small chance of interference at takeoff/landing when all you need do is get off the phone?
Report Post »tiredofBS1234
Posted on December 27, 2011 at 12:20pm@IBERALISMSAMENTALDISORDER Which Kennedy? Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK. Sirhan Sirhan killed RFK. Need clarity on anymore smart aleck history questions? The question is not whether one needs to “get off their cell phone” during take off and landing (the ban is actually the entire flight for cellphones and below 10,000 ft for other electronics BTW), the question is why we have to listen to a bunch of moronic fear mongering about hand held electronics crashing airplanes. The FAA rule is stupid and not based in fact. I also do not like it because it gives credence to a bunch of ridiculous myths and self righteous people who want to boss others around. The entire of premise of this rule and argument is obnoxious, “it is for your own safety.” Just like the TSA rubs little children’s crotches and removes cancer patients urostomy bags “for their own safety.” I don‘t care if airlines don’t want you to use a cell phone on THEIR airplanes, but lying to people and telling them it could crash the plane needs to end. I want the GOVERNMENT to stop trying to micro manage every aspect of citizens lives.
Report Post »ramburner
Posted on December 27, 2011 at 8:32pm@Tiredofbs124; I agree! Get the government the heck out of our business! These policies are baseless – oh; but don’t install the very systems that COULD save lives, like the plane transponders showing distance warnings to avoid collisions. There are still too many planes without those critical systems. Instead scare the people into shutting down their cell phones, when there is a pay phone (operating at the SAME frequency, but even MORE power output) on the back of the seat in front of you!
Report Post »we are screwed
Posted on December 27, 2011 at 10:14am@ Bubbacoop
Where have the clouds ever been 200′ off the ground? No where that’s where. Fog yes, clouds no. Even if the airways are 8 miles wide, a jet traveling at 600 mph has less than 45 seconds to avoid anything if the object is stationary. If it is moving towards the plane at 600 MPH, well then there’s less time to avoid a collision.
Regardless, as others have said, if you can’t shut the phone off for 2 hours you have a problem. Read a book or go to sleep.
Report Post »TheLeftMadeMeRight
Posted on December 27, 2011 at 9:46amSo you’re flying commercial, at 30,000 feet, in zero visibility. Your pilot is navigating the aircraft traveling at 500 mph, tracking a radio signal from a VOR transmitter, miles away, and is relying on that radio signal to guide the aircraft in zero visibility to the threshold of the runway safely. And you don’t want to turn off your cell phone or iPad, and you don’t really care if the pilot has a problem, it’s no big deal.
Report Post »pavnvet
Posted on December 27, 2011 at 9:57amToday’s aircraft mostly use GPS instead of VOR, but the point is still the same.
I have told people sitting next to me that it was time to shut off the laptop. If they say something like, it is a bunch of crap, I ask them if they are a pilot? They all say no. I say, well I am and you need to turn that off. I never get an argument after that.
Point is that anyone that has a pilots license understands FAA regs. Whether you agree or not, you follow them.
Report Post »tiredofBS1234
Posted on December 27, 2011 at 10:23amThis is total NONSENSE for about 2 dozen reasons, I’ll put the short list on here : Commercial airlines don’t use VOR in normal flight they use GPS. VOR frequency is completely different from cell phones, Ipads network radio stations (which under your same theory would throw airplane flight off)–ADF is not even thrown off by powerful radio broadcast towers at low altitude. Cell phones don’t even work more than a few thousand feet AGL (the old analog ones could still receive at little higher altitudes, but even that was usually maxed out by 8,000ft AGL). GPS tracking signals are NOT effected by cellphones, Ipads, or any other standard hand held electronic. —–> THE FAA RULE WAS CREATED WHEN RADIOS WERE TUBE TYPE RADIOS AND COULD HAVE BEEN AFFECTED BY OTHER BROADCAST ITEMS, THIS RULES WAS ABOUT RADIO INTERFERENCE AND NEVER ABOUT NAVIGATION EQUIPMENT. Modern radios cannot be affected by non-radio broadcast hand held equipment. The FAA rule is completely outdated and was only created out of misguided notions anyway.
Report Post »@PAVNVET I am a pilot and I am telling you this rule is total nonsense, stop telling people on airplanes idiotic things like their laptops or mp3 players can disrupt the avionics in the cockpit.
holy ghostbuster
Posted on December 27, 2011 at 4:34pmThose old bags (stewardesses) just want more control over passengers. I don‘t think I’ve seen one younger than 80 in the past 10 years.
Report Post »pavnvet
Posted on December 27, 2011 at 5:05pm@ tired of BS…My point is that it is an FAA reg and by not obeying the flight crew, and I think you know this, you can be arrested. I don‘t see anywhere in my post I said that I agree with the rule or the effect of today’s electronic devices have on the avionics. What really worries me is what rules you also think may be BS, and therefore you will advise others not to adhere to.
BTW, I guess we might as well throw out all those old VOR receivers….oh wait, they too are still required on aircraft.
Report Post »ramburner
Posted on December 27, 2011 at 8:51pm@PAVLO; obeying ridiculous policies just because they are published by the FAA is NOT the answer. One day it will be a policy that you and your family should march into an oven. Will you do that as well? Read my posts above and please respond if you have any TECHNICAL advice for me. Otherwise, pilot or not, please don’t bother to respond. I have performed the tests – both radiated and conducted emissions according to mil-spec as well as commercial spec guides and have found no issues. If the claim is for take-off and landing ONLY, then it is baseless! In either case, you know where you are; however, if when flying at some altitude your compass or GPS or whatever does not work, I can understand the purpose for the requirement. I have many pilot friends, and we have often used electronics of all types in and around the pilots seat while flying without hazard.
Report Post »lukerw
Posted on December 27, 2011 at 9:34amAlbert Einstein: Unified Field Theory (UFT)!
Report Post »Ruler4You
Posted on December 27, 2011 at 9:43amIMHBLO, this only demonstrates how poorly aircraft are constructed. If “scientists” are to be believed (and I am having difficulty with that these days) Sun Spot activity is ‘about to get crazy’.
Dire warnings about massive immediate failure of ALL electronic systems and types “IS” being predicted. I’ve been around a few years. Never heard of grounding the air fleet due to solar storms. And the results are the same.
Influence on electronic systems via EMF.
Report Post »BubbaCoop
Posted on December 27, 2011 at 8:26amAlso Google lightsquared. Michelle Obama’s pet project has been rushed through with no FCC testing and they are now finding out these wireless high speed internet frequencies DO in fact have a detrimental effect to the weak GPS signals received from satellites. So what is so hard to believe about a cell phone signal interfering with a VHF ILS signal?
Report Post »captainbars
Posted on December 27, 2011 at 7:44aminstead of being a pest to passengers (who in turn whine about being deprived of their binky), why not do the logical thing and invest in some aluminum foil in the cockpit? Those aluminum wallets prevent tech thieves from stealing credit card info, can’t they encase the inside cockpit walls with it? Or at least the wall and door directly behind the pilots. This definitely qualifies as national security–they should be solving the problem instead of becoming a problem.
Report Post »BubbaCoop
Posted on December 27, 2011 at 8:20amYou radio waves will travel through the aluminum body of the plane, but you think a little more aluminum foil (in the cockpit no less) will solve the problem?
The gauges are in the cockpit, but almost none of the sensor are, anyway. Radio antennas, GPS receivers, even north sensing instruments are located along the body and even in the wings. Your idea has no merit.
Report Post »Liberalismsamentaldisorder
Posted on December 27, 2011 at 10:23amWow, just wow.
Report Post »ThePostman
Posted on December 27, 2011 at 6:34amThink about it. If such a small amount of radiated power were capable of downing an aircraft, terrorists would already be using higher powered devices to great effect. Not to mention that the TSA is not screening for electronics. Just feeling up 85 year old ladies boobies and mushing around in infant diapers.
Hope you feel safer now…
Report Post »BubbaCoop
Posted on December 27, 2011 at 8:22am“If such a small amount of radiated power were capable of downing an aircraft”
That is NOT the issue. Google ILS and you might learn how aircraft are guided down to 200 feet above the ground in instrument meteorological conditions by radio waves. THAT’S the issue.
Report Post »1776freedomofspeech
Posted on December 27, 2011 at 4:37amThis should be easy to prove one way or another if anybody cares to do so.
However if you can’t put the phone down for 10 minutes, then you have a problem.
Report Post »alina.bolero
Posted on December 27, 2011 at 3:54amI get soooooo tired of hearing this. Small electronics like cell phones have NO EFFECT on avionics or navigation equipment … especially that far away from the cockpit. The pilot and copilots cell phones on their person MAY cause the “bep-ba-dep-ba-dep-ba-dep” effect in their headphones that we have all heard on unshielded speakers, like computer speakers.
The truth of the matter is that this FAA ruling is by request of the FCA. It is meant to prevent an inadvertent denial of service (DoS) attack on cell phone towers. I know this because I used to work on cellular systems. Think about it folks … when you take off or land in an airplane, your cell phone has an opportunity to connect to multiple cell towers at the same time. The capacity of cell phone towers to handle call traffic is scaled based on population density and local automotive traffic patterns. It is cost prohibitive to deploy cell systems that will handle 300 new active connections, within just a few seconds, that last only a short time. Chewing up resources with hundreds of short lived connections can cause legitimate local traffic to get busy signals from towers at capacity.
Report Post »RushEcho2
Posted on December 27, 2011 at 7:13amWhat if you silence your iPhone ??????
Is there still the same problem, or not ?
I suppose there is still the same problem with the towers, but not the aircraft, right?
Report Post »BubbaCoop
Posted on December 27, 2011 at 8:22am“Small electronics like cell phones have NO EFFECT on avionics or navigation equipment … especially that far away from the cockpit.”
The antennas are NOT located in the cockpit! Use some logic people!
Report Post »TheLeftMadeMeRight
Posted on December 27, 2011 at 9:52amWell I’ve never worked for a cell phone company like you, I have flown airplanes in zero visibility. The distance from the cockpit is not the issue, where do you think the antennas on the aircraft are located? Along the fuselage where several hundred passengers are sitting with their transmitters.
I don’t think the “bep-ba-dep-ba-dep-ba-dep” is coming from your headphones.
Report Post »NeoMouser
Posted on December 27, 2011 at 3:34amOK how old are most of these planes?
Report Post »10-30 years old maybe older
modern electronics em-fields regulated to not interfere with most pieces of technology today
but not 10+ years ago so it is plausible that the planes are picking up interference.
donottreadonme
Posted on December 27, 2011 at 3:27amSome items may cause interference, but not cell phones. The problem with cell phones, is that the cellular service providers have problems with the phones switching from cell tower to cell tower, while you are flying along at over 600 mph. Especially if one leaves their service area. The towers sometimes do not have time to establish communications with the cell phone before that tower’s broadcast zone is being left. No service zones are problematic too.
Report Post »KewlBigDan
Posted on December 27, 2011 at 2:55am…so over a 10 year period they had 32 device related incidents suspected.
Report Post »There are about 11 million commercial flights a year in USA Airspace, so that is:
.00000032% rate?
But its ok to Text and Drive your car….
asybot12
Posted on December 27, 2011 at 5:49amEven at that rate I rather be safe like some one said if you cannot do without for ten minutes you have a problem!
Report Post »BubbaCoop
Posted on December 27, 2011 at 8:32am“There are about 11 million commercial flights a year in USA Airspace, so that is:
.00000032% rate?”
Thankfully…and because MOST OF US follow instructions and turn off our devices!
Report Post »Liberalismsamentaldisorder
Posted on December 27, 2011 at 10:38amYour point? Yes, it’s a small chance, nobody is arguing that fact. But, the solution is so simple. Turn off your stuff for a few darn minutes! Then, the chance of interference is ZERO.
Report Post »THE TRUTH SHALL MAKE YOU FREE
Posted on December 27, 2011 at 2:49amPOWERMONGERS: You WILL turn off your devices do ya hear?
Report Post »THE PROGRAMMED SHEEP: Yessa
POWERMONGERS: YESSA WHAT!
THE PROGRAMMED SHEEP: YESSA MASTA.
john koenig
Posted on December 27, 2011 at 1:45am@Welcome Black Carter….It makes perfect sense. At 30,000 feet, the Instrument Landing System really doesn’t come into play, does it? Nor is a 50 foot altitude discrepancy quite as critical as it is at 300 feet, is it?
Report Post »Let’s use some common sense.
Eric_The_Red_State
Posted on December 27, 2011 at 1:23amDidn’t MYTHBUSTERS debunk this?
I am sure that microwaves are worse than a cell phone signal.
(I never shut off ANYTHING when I get on a plane – I just silence it)
Report Post »libertytreecaretaker
Posted on December 27, 2011 at 2:14amyour right on Mythbusters totally busted this one. All the airplane electronics are sheilded just for this very purpose. I think it is just for control of the pasengers and to get to pay attention to the flight attendents.
Report Post »BULLDOG98
Posted on December 27, 2011 at 1:54pmI am sure the Mythbusters debunked it, but I also think they said that it could also depend on all the new stuff coming out, and testing it with all the existing equipment it is safer to turn the electronics off.
Report Post »The-Real-Enrico
Posted on December 27, 2011 at 1:22amIt doesn‘t matter if you don’t care about lowering the chances for you surviving your flight.
Report Post »COFemale
Posted on December 27, 2011 at 1:16amA few years back I was flying and had my older PDA on listening to music until they shut the doors. I was able to pick up conversations between the cockpit and ground personnel. I do believe a group of electronic devices, especially those with GPS capabilities, could give problems to the plane’s navigation and or communication systems. I am sure they don’t want their communications advertised.
If you put your phone near a TV or radio you get that noise “clicking” transferred to the TV or radio. I’ve had it go so loud it stops me from hearing the music on the radio.
Report Post »Eliasim
Posted on December 27, 2011 at 1:15amGee I don’t really know. Maybe if people weren‘t compelled to use them they wouldn’t worry about it. I’d be far more worried about TSA now wanting to inspect trains and buses where they will harass more old ladies.
Report Post »Detroit paperboy
Posted on December 27, 2011 at 12:47amUmm, if your the pilot it does….. ; ))
Report Post »john koenig
Posted on December 27, 2011 at 1:22amOne or two IPads under the control of the flight crew is a far cry from 50-100 devices operating simultaneously among the passengers. People need to get over their entitlement attitudes and abide by the rules.
Report Post »Welcome Black Carter
Posted on December 27, 2011 at 1:30amFunny how once you are in the air the posibility of interference is less critical?
Report Post »SecularConservative
Posted on December 27, 2011 at 6:53am@JOHN K
I totally agree. plus, I think it would suck if everyone was on their phones the whole flight.
Report Post »BubbaCoop
Posted on December 27, 2011 at 8:43am@Black Carter
“Funny how once you are in the air the posibility of interference is less critical?”
Airways at cruise altitude are generally 8 MILES wide. Can you really afford to be 2 miles left of the runway centerline when the aircraft emerges from the clouds 200 feet above the ground?
Report Post »newmexicopatriots
Posted on December 27, 2011 at 7:05pmRe: john koenig’s comment about “just getting over your entitlement attitude and obeying the rules”….. I have been using PDA’s, Laptops, Regular Cellphones, Smartphone, iPads, iPods, Walkman tape players, and every other bit of electronics I have owned, on planes, for over 20 years, and I’m still here. I think the “No Personal Electronics” rule is more about control than anything else. And your attitude of “Just obey…”, well, I‘m sure that’s what Hitler said “It’s for your own good, just obey”. Now granted, we are talking something minor compared to WW2, but every day our rights and freedoms are taken away a little more. Until there if definitive proof that electronics use during flight causes cockpit interference, I will go right on texting, and ipading….
Report Post »