New FAA Ruling ?

[Dave Stadt]

In the years since portable radios first used transistors, the issue of interference has gotten a lot of attention from the FCC (not FAA). Modern devices must pass Part 15 testing to show that they do not radiate, or conduct back into the power line, electromagnetic interference (EMI) that can disrupt the operation of other nearby electronic devices. The modern FCC standards have likely taken care of the issues that the FAA originally was concerned about. Interference events that occurred 30 years ago are unlikely to be repeated today as most of that old and electronically ugly gear went to the scrap pile long ago. That said, the FCC and the FAA are almost two different universes that barely intersect.

As noted above, the airline companies are extremely risk averse for obvious reasons and it will only be the profit motive that gets them to update their policies. So you should look forward to the day when the airlines figure out how to put a cell phone mini-cell in each aircraft and try to charge you for it. That event will bring down the barriers to using other devices and with the competitiveness of the airline industry, you can expect "reasonable" pricing for using your cell phone in flight. That pricing will likely limit the number of chatterboxes you get to sit next to, but let you call the family to let them know when your delayed flight is actually arriving.

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS

Part 15 limits spurious radiation it does not require devices to have no spurious radiation. FCC standards do not guarantee interference free operation. PCs and other popular electronic devices are notoriously noisy when it comes to unwanted radiation. As others have said, it is impossible to test all devices in all configurations in all situations.

[Bob Dingley]

Did I miss a new FAA rule? So many replied to previous threads about their personal exeriences with portable devices interfering with aircraft systems that there might possibly be a germ of truth behind 91.21. I just re-read the previous thread regarding texting while flying. I invite all to read reply #35. The gentleman who wrote it obviously didn't just fall off the turnip truck. He is another one of many on this forum that reported interference. I had a couple. One of which required a diversion & unscheduled landing. Of course that required a written explanation to my bosses and to the FSDO. Not a problem. I had a manifest with the phone owner's name.

If I am seated near a person that decides to fire up their phone during a critical phase of flight, (if there is no new FAA rule) I will first politely ask that it be shut down. If I get any blowback, I will notify the cabin crew. I will also send a note to the flight deck with the time & details. Followed by a letter to the carrier's Dir of Safety. Who knows, they may need to report it under NTSB 830.B. I may likely sign it with my ATP cert number. I would certainly provide a statement to the FAA if asked.

I regard it worse than smoking next to an A/C being refueled.

[rwanttaja]

Part 15 limits spurious radiation it does not require devices to have no spurious radiation. FCC standards do not guarantee interference free operation. PCs and other popular electronic devices are notoriously noisy when it comes to unwanted radiation.

Back in the dawn o' time, a friend had one of the first-generation home computers. It didn't have a sound system other than the "beep," but for one game, you were instructed to place an ordinary transistor radio atop the PC. The computer would mess with the AM spectrum to produce "red alert" sounds on the radio when the Klingons were near....

Qapla'!

Ron Wanttaja

[FlyingRon]

Did I miss a new FAA rule?

No the FAA has done nothing regulatory. The article and Bill's headline are misinterpretting this. All that has happened is the a study has been done.

[RV8505]

No the FAA has done nothing regulatory. The article and Bill's headline are misinterpretting this. All that has happened is the a study has been done.

Fire, Ready, Aim

[WLIU]

Many years ago I was in charge a team of computer system builders who regularly had FCC testing (and UL, CSA, etc) done. I will note that the discussion above is intermixing two different issues.

Many devices must be tested to determine that their unintentional EMI is below spec'ed levels. This group of devices includes music players, PDA, laptops, GPS receivers, etc, that do NOT contain wireless network (WiFi, Bluetooth, etc.) interfaces. I will suggest that these devices are relatively passive today.

Now the devices that are designed to radiate signals are a whole 'nother problem. Mr Dingley and other folks are entirely justified in asking whether the cell phones, WiFi, Bluetooth, and other emitters have an effect on the aviation electronics on board that control the safety of the flight. Some of the aviation gear on the aircraft are farther behind the state of the art than what you hold in your hand today. I understand that there are still a few old 727's out there with King Silver Crown boxes in the panel. The point is that depending on the age of the electronics in the aircraft, those boxes may or may not have sufficient protection in them from our modern signals. When some of the older gear was built, no one dreamed that we would be walking around with stuff called WiFi, GSM, CDMA, etc. in our pockets. So if you walk on to a brandy new 787, your electronic environment will be much different that if you walk on to a old 737-100. And the FCC and FAA looks for a one-size-fits-all policy that does not require anyone to actually think when they go fly.

And I will note that to confuse the engineers scratching their heads over the issue of electronic devices in aircraft, more and more of what seem like easy to analyze passive devices like music players are having emitters like blue tooth and WiFi built into them. Ain't technology wonderful.

In 20 years folks will hear about discussions like this one and giggle that we once worried about this issue.

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS

[Bill Greenwood]

For those who don't like or don't believe this story, it was included in the 6 pm news on both CBS and NBC. The stories seem to say this change will be fairly soon, so we probably will know if I and the stories are correct or if those who believe in the bogey man are right.

And for Bob D, if you do actually work for a passenger airline as opposed to just having the ATP rating, do you think is it your company's idea of good customer relations to have you sitting in the cabin and annoying paying customers? Will you tell us what airline if any you are with? And do you really think the NTSB has so much spare time that they want to spend it on a report of a cell phone being left on, absent any accident or incident damage?
And how do you "fire up" a cell phone? Is it like lighting a cutting or welding torch? Or maybe starting a Harley or P-51. Does it make a roar and emit exhaust fumes?

By the way, both news reports say this new policy will not include cell phones yet.

[FlyingRon]

I don't know what CBS and NBC has reported, but the truth of the matter is the FAA has NOT yet done anything with regard to this. THere is much conjecture of what the study will finally say and what the FAA will do based on it, but the FAA has NOT officially received the report let alone having taking any action.

You should know by and large to avoid trusting the mainstream press to get anything techinical or aviation related correct.

[kscessnadriver]

Another important point is, even though the FAA may change their policy, until the airlines change their approved OpSpecs, nothing will change.

[WLIU]

And the FCC has to modify 47 CFR 22.925. You want TWO federal agencies to move?

For the record, I am not a nay sayer, just a skeptic from my experience in working with FCC, FDA, and FAA. But then, when my personal airplane won't do the job, I try to avoid flying the airlines, to the point of taking the train when it available.

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS