New FAA Ruling ?

[Bill Greenwood]

For years the FAA has had a rule against passengers using electronic tech devices on planes. It is not based on facts, and is plain ludicrous on it's face to think that a cell phone can affect an airliner. But truth and logic are often missing from official govt actions and there is always a portion of the public that is nervous about flying despite the statistics and gullible enough to believe that the FAA or Flight Attendant or someone must be vigilant to protect them from some unknown dread.

Anyway the story today is that an FAA panel may soon remove this restriction. So all those who believe in fairly tales better prepare their bombproof bunker in case one of the many falling planes lands on them.

A reader survey finds, 39% think the change will be safe, 16% believe it will be dangerous, 11% say they don't turn off their device anyway, and the rest made another reply.

[FlyingRon]

It WAS based on facts, it's just that things were out of date. Back when we used ADF and VHF radios and most portable electronics consisted of AM/FM radios and the like it was a problem. The FAA has ***ALWAYS*** granted the operator (i.e., airline) the authority to make decisions about what is safe. The issue has always been a risk versus revenue issue for the airliners. A few bad experiences with unexplained navigational events and early days of passengers carrying laptops didn't help the matter.

Your cellphone is largely useless in the plane these days (once off the ground). My phone rarely gets any useable service even at a few thousand feet in the Navion. The days of making unassisted cell phone calls died with the analog cell system. Of course, now the airlines have caught on that they can charge you for WIFI and soon relaying your cell phone calls, the "risk" will be recalculated.

[Greg Bockelman]

For years the FAA has had a rule against passengers using electronic tech devices on planes. It is not based on facts, and is plain ludicrous on it's face to think that a cell phone can affect an airliner. But truth and logic are often missing from official govt actions and there is always a portion of the public that is nervous about flying despite the statistics and gullible enough to believe that the FAA or Flight Attendant or someone must be vigilant to protect them from some unknown dread.

The way it was explained to me is that electronic devices could be used if it was proven that they did not interfere with the avionics/systems of the aircraft. Since it was impossible to test every device in every combination, it was just easier to ban all use in critical phases of flight.

It was also explained to me that a fuselage is like a giant wave guide and that the various emissions from the electronic devices could combine in unanticipated and undesirable ways. Again, the solution was to ban the use in critical phases of flight.

Given those explanations, I am ok with the ban. But I am also ok with lifting the ban if it is proven without a doubt that they in no way will interfere with the avionics/systems of the airplane.

[Bill Greenwood]

Ron, I don't think you or anyone can produce any fact that a portable am/fm radio, cell phone or any similar common device can affect an airliner. Saying that someone had "a few bad experiences" at the same time a passenger was carrying a laptop is not even in the same ball park as factual cause and effect proof.
Some years back, probably 20 or so, when all this nonsense started, Aviation Consumer did a practical test. They went up and did a actual flight, and tested it. They had the cockpit door closed so the pilots were isolated from the cabin, whiled back in the cabin some people had cell phones and computers, etc. The pilots flew both enroute and approaches and monitored their instruments while the passengers turned their devices on and off and so forth.
THEY COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY, NOT AN AFFECT AT ALL ON THE INSTRUMENTS AND AVIONICS, MUCH LESS THE PLANES FLIGHT.
Now the only thing is they didn't have an airliner like a 737 so they used a Learjet.

[FlyingRon]

Go back and READ carefully what I wrote before you decide to throw attacks at me. The 1960's era portable AM/FM radios and TVs *CAN* and *DID* cause issues with avionics. All you had to do is watch what happens when you got one near the antennas. So then how far away is safe, 10 feet, 100 feet? Where are the antennas on the aircraft compared to the cabin.

As for what I said about lap tops, again IF YOU BOTHERED TO READ, I didn't say it was a problem, I said these incidents in the day got a lot of attention and specifically led to them being restricted.

What aviation consumer is hardly a scientific test.


The biggest delusion is that people think the rules on electronic devices are all that is keeping them from using their cell phone in flight. In fact, it WON'T WORK. When it does work, it will involve a cell-like device on board, which I guarantee you will pay for (those who have used their cell phones on cruise ships outside of ports know what this is all about).

The FAA isn't budging on changing the rules. All there has bee commissioned is YET ANOTHER study on whether it is safe or not. Again, I very much doubt there will be any RULEMAKING on this. It will remain with the discretion of the operator, but given some INDUSTRY study with realistic guidelines, there may be some impetus for the operators to change their policy.

[Bill Greenwood]

Ron, did I catch you on a bad morning or a sore topic? Is just disagreeing with you the same as "decide to throw attacks at me." ? As or whether the FAA is going to change any rule, or not, what I reported comes from the news study as reported today on NBC and as previous reports. I didn't invent the story.It may be true and come to pass or not.

The Aviation Consumer flight was a real test,with real avionics and instruments in a real airplane during flight. It was blind in the sense that the pilots were not in communication and could not see the passengers, and vice versa, so that neither knew when the radios and phones in the cabin were being turned on and off. As I said, there was NO Affect at all produced on the airplane or instruments.
I have also tried this informally with cell phones and an Ipad in my Bonanza. Again, no affect on the plane. And my plane does have an ADF as well as vors, Loran, GPS.

Common sense will tell anyone that stops to think about it that if you could steer or disable an airliner this way, then Apple would sure be selling a lot of cell phones or I pads in the Muslim world and terrorists would not need to try to smuggle bombs or knives or guns aboard airplanes. Also since millions of passengers fly and perhaps 10% don't turn off their devices anyway, and US airlines have an excellent safety record, it is obvious that cell phones and I pad are not steering airplanes.

Lastly, can you find a single NTSB accident report where the prime cause of the crash is given as interference from a cell phone or laptop from a passenger? And I am not talking about a case of the pilot getting wrapped up in a computer and forgetting to land as planned.

[David Pavlich]

As an occasional airline passenger, I hope that the FAA NEVER allows cell phones to be used in flight. Imagine, if you will, someone sitting right next to you yacking on the phone for endless amounts of time. I know that cell phones don't do well at altitude, but someone will figure out how to make it work.

I got a great idea from the retired talk show host, Neal Boortz (he flies a Mooney, by the way). He said that if this ever happens and someone sits next to him (on an airliner, not his Mooney) and starts on the cell phone, he'll grab his copy of Sky Mall and start reading aloud. It would become an interesting moment!

David

[WLIU]

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

[rwanttaja]

For years the FAA has had a rule against passengers using electronic tech devices on planes.
Actually, no. The FAA has no such rule. The airlines themselves decide whether to ban passenger devices.

The FAA has a *recommendation*, but no regulation.

Ron Wanttaja

[Mike M]

In the years since portable radios first used transistors, the issue of interference has gotten a lot of attention from the FCC (not FAA)....

It appears Wes has read the rules, which is no surprise, based on his prior posts. As opposed to some others in this thread so far. Here, folks, gain knowledge to avoid posting uninformed opinions:

ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=b89e6139c463605e12f34d98841db068&rgn=div8&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.10.1.4.11&idno=14

faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=6275

ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&rgn=div8&view=text&node=47:2.0.1.1.2.8.27.12&idno=47 (http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&rgn=div8&view=text&node=47:2.0.1.1.2.8.27.12&idno=47)

[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:rollseyes:

[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

[Bill Greenwood]

Ron, the news report did not say the FAA had done this yet, nor die I, but was expected to do so soon. So, in the next weeks we can see how accurate the report is, or not. My guess is that the media has this one substantially correct.

And Wes as to avoiding airline travel, well certainly TSA is a unpleasant experience, and some airlines are too. But they have their place. I just went from Aspen to Austin mostly on Southwest, for a football weekend. Out early am Fri and back by 10 pm Sun. We had torrential rains in the Denver area, I probably couldn't have flown it safely myself, and the fuel cost migth make it as expensive or more so that the airline.I've thought about taking my plane to Ft. Worth for AOPA summit, but again the airline will be about as cheap and not have to sweat the weather.

I recenlty flew my plane to Provo, Utah for a weekend. Less than 2 hours over in good vfr, and almost 3 days back due to IMC.

[Flyfalcons]

This is an interesting compilation of ASRS reports regarding PEDs that NASA has published. If I try harder I might be able to get more acronyms in a single sentence, but it's not easy. While many of the reports are not related to interference issues, some of them are and it's something to think about.

http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/docs/rpsts/ped.pdf

[Bob Dingley]

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.

Thanks for asking. Retired from Bristow after 25 yrs. nothing less than a comm in airplanes, helos, gliders. between 22,000 to 25,000 all acc/incident free. Bob

[RV8505]

Ron, the news report did not say the FAA had done this yet, nor die I, but was expected to do so soon. So, in the next weeks we can see how accurate the report is, or not. My guess is that the media has this one substantially correct.



YEA!? I belive the news!?!? :rollseyes: I'm going to have to ask Captain Sum Ting Wong and see if he heard anything. http://www.mediabistro.com/tvspy/epic-ktvu-fail-anchor-reports-pilot-names-including-sum-ting-wong-and-wi-tu-lo_b97368

[Mike M]

YEA!? I belive the news!?!? :rollseyes: I'm going to have to ask Captain Sum Ting Wong and see if he heard anything. http://www.mediabistro.com/tvspy/epic-ktvu-fail-anchor-reports-pilot-names-including-sum-ting-wong-and-wi-tu-lo_b97368



:rollseyes:

[Bob Dingley]

This is an interesting compilation of ASRS reports regarding PEDs that NASA has published. If I try harder I might be able to get more acronyms in a single sentence, but it's not easy. While many of the reports are not related to interference issues, some of them are and it's something to think about.

http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/docs/rpsts/ped.pdf
Ryan, thanks for that ASRS report. I spent a couple of hours in it. I knew about cell interference, but had no idea that so many devices were exploding or catching fire. What is needed is a window that can be opened in flight.
Bob

[Bill Greenwood]

Do the number of ASRS reports equal the number of reports of sightings of Bigfoot?
And I hear that if the FAA does finally loosen their ridiculous rules on this, then the airlines are going to equip all the flight crews with those copper bracelets that you see sold on late night tv in order to ward off the evil spirits from a teenagers game boy.

The news report this Fri morning is that the FAA committee that has been studying PED use on airplanes has now recommended that things like laptops be allowed to be used on airplanes regardless of altitude.

And this news report is on FOX news so you know it must be true.

And for those who don't get their news through Rush Limpboy, MSNBC is reporting the same story.

[Flyfalcons]

Bill, these are professionals reporting their experiences. It is clear that your mind is closed on this subject, which is unfortunate. My mind is definitely open to the idea that PEDs don't bother airplane equipment, but I am also not going to discount the occasional report that may point otherwise.

[Bill Greenwood]

Ryan, if you really believe that nonsense that a little cell phone or ipad is going to down an airliner, how could you feel safe flying on one? After all it is well known that not all people turn off their devices, and the recent survey showed that 11 % admitted not turning them off. Would they FAA let planes fly if they could really be damaged by 11 % of the passengers?
Would you play Russian roulete with a gun if one of 10 chambers was loaded?

My mind is able to think, and if someone tells me a fairly tale that is not supported by facts, such as Not One real NTSB accident report the lists the real cause of a crash as a passenger using a P E D, as well as common sense, then I am not going to support such a false claim.

And as for as whose mind is closed, if the FAA does reverse it's long standing baloney, and P E D use becomes common without any more accidents because of it, then whose mind was full of bull?

As for "professionals" there are whole leagues of "professionals" ( means they get paid) who will tell you they never used performance enhancing drugs.

Years ago the professionals at airlines say women would not make good pilots and only about 10 years ago the pros at the FAA said pilots would not be safe to fly after age 60.

There are people whose profession is to sell you a stock or a used car or a mortgage. If you go shopping at these places, better take someone with you who is not so easily led.

[Flyfalcons]

Bill, it's quite clear you have made up your mind, which is great, but as shown in the ASRS reports, just because an accident hasn't occurred, doesn't mean there may be instances of interference. If you refuse to acknowledge the possibility, then it's tough to have a conversation. Really, talking with closed-minded individuals isn't that much fun. I'm willing to accept arguments from both sides to come to my conclusions; you are not. That's the difference here.

[Mike M]

Bill, these are professionals reporting their experiences. It is clear that your mind is closed on this subject, which is unfortunate. My mind is definitely open to the idea that PEDs don't bother airplane equipment, but I am also not going to discount the occasional report that may point otherwise.

COS, Nov 1992, snowstorm but above precision approach minimums. Me as PF using ILS. After passing outer marker the LOC and GS needles started going awry. Slow, erratic meandering is my best description. Not like my normal foul-ups. Went around. Tried again, FO flying, me NF. All well until nearly to MM, then happened again. Went around again, and as we did I noticed pax behind FO was using cellphone. Told him to turn it off and keep it off. Next try, me PF, LOC and GS worked correctly all the way. I reported it to mgmt, as per company rules; don't know if it was ever reported to FAA or FCC.

Granted, this is only ONE example and it was a long time ago. But it happened to me. Technology changes so I don't know if it would work the same on an airliner today. There's a procedure for checking devices before approval. After they do the checks required, fine, they can allow operation of whatever has been proved to work. And I'm sure that's what they do. But when I am PIC for IFR, any non-FAA-approved PED on which I did not personally do the full inflight EMI check must be off. Your mileage may vary.

[Bill Greenwood]

Des Moines, Iowa 1985, me flying Ils in Imc conditions. Verified audio I D of localizer when cleared for approach. Glideslope needle did not work, even if lateral needle worked fine for localizer. Flew to higher minumums and landed ok. The airliner ahead of me had no trouble with the ils nor the plane after me. The avionics shop checked all systems when I got home 2 days later. No problem could be found on any frequency.
It never occured to me to blame it on someone using a cell phone, if they were in fact even in use by then.

Ryan, do you know how the NASA system works? If something goes wrong, let's say a plane on an Ifr clearance deviates 400 feet from his assigned altitude. He may have just made a mistake, heard and set the autopilot wrong or whatever. Now he can accept blame for himself or his airplane system or he can file a NASA report and two things happen. One the problem may be something that can be changed and improved like controller being very clear when he gives an altitude and two the pilot gets imunity from the mistake under most circumstances.
What do you think the pilot is going to do?

Next as for these "experinces" that you put so much faith in, the pilot is in the cockpit, not the cabin. He may see a mistake or even something he thinks is an instrument anomally, but he is not in the passenger cabin, and can't know if someone has a cell phone on or not. And the stews are supposded to be seated on takeoff and landing, so they can't see all the passengers either, and they sure can't see through the cockpit door to see an instrument malfunction.
When someone tells me they believe something on faith ; I recall what Mark Twain wrote, that "Faith is believing in something when you know it ain't true."

When the NTSB report comes out on the recent crash at San Fransisco, do you think it will find that the pilots flew the plane into the ground , too low, too slow, and not enough throttle or do you think they will blame it on the kid in the cabin with a cell phone?

And what happened in the recent fatal crash of the Fedex plane? No passengers aboard, just crew. Maybe a previous passenger left a cell phone turned on in the seat pocket? Hey it's possible isn't it?

[Flyfalcons]

Bill, I'm not going to debate you. You have no reason or information to discredit these reports, yet you try so hard to. Chances are you didn't even read the ASRS report summaries, otherwise you wouldn't have made the statement about the terminal phase of flight, since reports were generated during cruise and FA's were in fact involved. This is the thinking of a closed-minded person, who refuses to acknowledge evidence contrary to their opinions. You're certainly entitled to do that, but I prefer conversing with folks who wish to examine both sides of an argument.

[Bill Greenwood]

Ryan, I read your ARSA reports and now I am scared to fly. I have a reservation on Southwest on Oct. 9, to go the Ft. Worth for the FAA summit. What do you think I should do?
I have also seen a movie where a drunk pilot flies his airplane upside down and crashes, and also one where a plane is full of snakes.
Anybody that thinks airline flight is safe, just because that is what the facts say, must not understand the full ramificatons of the possible problems.

[CDS]

Hi Bill,

Over many years of 121 operations, I've experienced several problems with interference from electronic devices. In the classic 737s, it seemed that the best clue to an operating cell phone was a "CHK FUEL QTY" message on the CDU. I can only remember one exception, where a cell phone apparently was not the cause of that message. Such a message was a nuisance, but hardly a threat to safety. Yes, I reported some of those incidents to the NASA ASRS system.

Later and newer aircraft, again in my experience, seem to be less susceptible to such interference. Or maybe it's that the cell phones are somewhat less powerful. At any rate, the situation seems to be getting better.

I've been commuting for 20 or so years (flying for the airline for nearly 30) and these days, I see passengers operating electronic devices before landing somewhat regularly. Mostly, I wonder what voicemail could be so important that you would just HAVE TO turn your phone on? It reminds me of smokers who just HAVE TO have a cigarette (I've had one passenger set a trash can on fire with a lit cigarette during a low IFR approach, but that's another story).

Based on my experiences, I'd support a partial lifting of the all-out ban now. For example, I'd permit the use of cameras (no doubt, you have seen the numerous videos on YouTube, etc.) and other non-transmitting devices. Cell phones still concern me, though and it's not possible to test every possible combination for interference. Before my last Cat III approach, I asked the flight attendants to be very vigilant for any cell phone use and to report it immediately; that approach went well, fortunately.

Blue skies,
CDS

[RV8505]

I looked for the Fox and MSNBC stories and didn't find them. But I found this that supports the idea of no electronic devices. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Piu5FcgJb_o . I respect what the BOEING engineers have to say. They built it! As far as the general pulblic goes they don't know sugar from shineola. Collective public opinion of preceived safety should not be taken into consideration for the removal of this restriction untill the BOEING engineers give their blessing.

[Bill Greenwood]

CDS, maybe, but not so fast. You had a fuel check light malfunction. But how do you know it was from a cell phone? Did you do anything to verify that, like bring the cell phone up to the cockpit after landing and turn it on and off next to the instruments to see if you could duplicate the cause and effect action? Probably not, you likely just assumed it was a cell phone cause. It might have just as well been internal to the airplane or from flying over one of those giant power transmission lines the emit a lot of EMFs.

I have had low fuel lights in 3 different planes. First time, I was almost out of fuel in one tank. Other time, the mechanical float valve was stuck, and then freed itself.
3rd time and several others in my Bonanza the fuel gauge was found to be erractic and often indicating too high. The problem was found to be a bad electrical ground. No cell phones, no boogey men.

The news stories were on MSN and Fox this morning, Fri. and previously on AOPA site. I don't see them now Fri. night.
The issue has been researched by a 26 man FAA committee and tested using Kindels in cabin, and no danger found. It is not just public opinion.

If I was a Boeing exec I would be ashamed to admit that my company, one of the largest airline manufacturer in the world history, was building a plane that could be damaged by one little cell phone. Notice that their cute little lab demo produced some wavy lines on a screen, but THERE WAS NO DEMO OF CELL USE ACTUALLY AFFECTING A REAL AIRPLANE IN FLIGHT OR EVEN TAXIING.

Once the gear in my T-34 did not lower as it should. Passenger in the rear seat had a cell phone. Turns out to be a short in wiring to gear switch in rear cockpit.
Once in another plane, had mechanical indicator of gear down ok, but no green lights. No cell phone on board, turns out to be a broken wire perhaps caused by taxiing over rough ground.

[RV8505]

Probably the start of it was right here! http://nypost.com/2009/12/16/schumer-calls-flight-attendant-who-told-him-to-turn-off-cell-phone-bitch/. Chuck probably did some arm twisting at the FAA.

This is what Boeing has to say about it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Piu5FcgJb_o (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Piu5FcgJb_o)

I guess it comes down to who you believe !?

[CDS]

CDS, maybe, but not so fast. You had a fuel check light malfunction. But how do you know it was from a cell phone? Did you do anything to verify that, like bring the cell phone up to the cockpit after landing and turn it on and off next to the instruments to see if you could duplicate the cause and effect action? Probably not, you likely just assumed it was a cell phone cause. It might have just as well been internal to the airplane or from flying over one of those giant power transmission lines the emit a lot of EMFs.

Bill,

No, there was cause and effect. The first time it happened (at a high cruise altitude), after investigating the situation, interference as a possible cause, came to mind. So I asked the flight attendants to check for a cell phone and she replied, "How did you know?" Once the cell phones were turned off, the message went away (the customer was transferring phone numbers from his old phone to his new phone; neither had an airplane mode).

This particular scenario presented itself several more times, each time - save one - turning the phone off (all located in First Class, by the way, so above/over the E and E bay) eliminated the message. That's more than enough proof for me.

As I said, it's clear that it was cause and effect. I'd estimate that this particular scenario happened about 15 times (in 12 years of flying 737s). 14 out of 15 times, when the cell phone was turned off, the message went away. 14 out of 15 - cause and effect.

Having said all of that, the issues do seem to be diminishing. Given the growth of cell phones, that's an achievement.

Blue skies,
CDS

[Frank Giger]

The research seems to point to new airliners being very cell phone resistant, which is a very good thing.

I do wonder sometimes about the difference between an undamaged ones (which are used in testing) versus some of the "amazing it still works" models I see people using with broken screens and tape holding them together.

Personally I'd like to see the ban remain in place so that I don't have to hear inane conversations while trapped in the metal tube.

"Yeah, we just landed and are pulling up towards the gate. Is Marge at the house? Her boyfriend [terrible relationship details best left to the Springer show] was in the hospital for [heinous medical condition] where they [horrible procedures]."

I never understood the sense of urgency with making calls while on a flight. If one is to be met, either they're already there waiting (and therefore not need to be told one has arrived as it's announced on information boards throughout the airport) or they aren't, in which case one would find out the minute they got to baggage claim. When I was flying on business, a call when I had obtained the rental car to confirm agendas was more on point as that was when I was in a position to act on any changes.

I'm convinced, however, that 90% or more of cell phone conversations is because the caller is bored and wants to be entertained in some way by another. This is why I rarely carry a cell phone and keep conversations very brief - it is not my job to be imposed on for the sake of keeping someone from being bored.

[Bill Greenwood]

Frank, your point is only on cell phones. Obviously no one in their right mind wants to hear a bunch of cell phone talk in an airplane. But that is not the way the ban is now. The FAA and the airlines claim that one has to turn off ALL electronic gadgets, ("anything with an on/off switch") and they use the safety boogey man to justify this. So it applies to computers, Ipads , Game boys, etc. Can't even listen to music in flight with ear phones when below 10,000.
And I agree that most cell phone talk is because someone is bored and/or nervous. I don't own a cell phone, but I carry a borrowed one when I travel. I don't leave it on and don't even know how to do the message part. I am pretty old fashioned I guess, because it never occured to me to try to spend time at EAA on my cell phone and then gripe becasue the wi fi reception wasn't as good as in N Y or L A.
I used to fly a lot over most of the U S with my kids in the back seat usually avidly playing their game boys, and I never had any spurious fuel warning lights or instrument or avionics signals.
Have you ever noticed that a lot of people, at least men cannot sit or stand still when they talk? If they are talking on their cell phone they are pacing around. I went to a maintenance forum at EAA and it was good but almost hypnotic as the presenter paced back in forth on the stage.

Anyway, as I read the announcement if the ban is lifted/modified it won't include cell phone talk. The next step for airlines who are always trying to find new revenue will probably be some hookup so that, FOR A FEE, you can make or send cell phone calls in flight, probably have to use an earphone.

[CDS]

Frank, your point is only on cell phones.

Bill,

My concern is mainly cell phones, but also anything else that transmits; I saw a boy try to use a radio control car in the aisle not too long ago. If you'll reread the last paragraph in my earlier post (reply #35), you'll see that I'd support a partial lifting of the ban now.

Also, you're probably correct in that airlines would find a way to impose a fee for phone use. They're earning billions in bag fees already.

Blue skies,
CDS

[Flyfalcons]

The research seems to point to new airliners being very cell phone resistant, which is a very good thing.

I do wonder sometimes about the difference between an undamaged ones (which are used in testing) versus some of the "amazing it still works" models I see people using with broken screens and tape holding them together.

Personally I'd like to see the ban remain in place so that I don't have to hear inane conversations while trapped in the metal tube.

"Yeah, we just landed and are pulling up towards the gate. Is Marge at the house? Her boyfriend [terrible relationship details best left to the Springer show] was in the hospital for [heinous medical condition] where they [horrible procedures]."

I never understood the sense of urgency with making calls while on a flight. If one is to be met, either they're already there waiting (and therefore not need to be told one has arrived as it's announced on information boards throughout the airport) or they aren't, in which case one would find out the minute they got to baggage claim. When I was flying on business, a call when I had obtained the rental car to confirm agendas was more on point as that was when I was in a position to act on any changes.

I'm convinced, however, that 90% or more of cell phone conversations is because the caller is bored and wants to be entertained in some way by another. This is why I rarely carry a cell phone and keep conversations very brief - it is not my job to be imposed on for the sake of keeping someone from being bored.

If it makes you feel any better, when I was on the CRJ I got to hear the smart phones being updated through the comm radios. Got the telltale "Dah dat dat Dah dat dat Dah" phone update sounds right in my headset.

[rwanttaja]

Bill,

My concern is mainly cell phones, but also anything else that transmits; I saw a boy try to use a radio control car in the aisle not too long ago.

In the brat's defense, many "radio control" tools actually use IR links, which should have an even lower possibility of causing problems.

Of course, I wouldn't want to put the crew in the position of having to decide that Johnny can use his toy, but Timmy can't....

This is the problem they'll have if they *do* permit *some* devices, or devices even in "airplane" mode. The crew has to turn into technology experts to be the arbiter of what can and what cannot be used. More and more people seem to retain that five-year-old's sense of outraged entitlement. "I paid for this, you can't tell me I can't use it here! You can't, you can't you can't!" The crew having to make these kinds of decisions is going to lead to some P.O.d customers.

If cell phone transmissions are the remaining issue, the airlines should install strong cell-phone jammers on their airplanes. That gives known signal levels and types to certify the avionics against; the phones won't produce a stronger signal that the jammer.

Ron Wanttaja

[Jim Hann]

If cell phone transmissions are the remaining issue, the airlines should install strong cell-phone jammers on their airplanes. That gives known signal levels and types to certify the avionics against; the phones won't produce a stronger signal that the jammer.

Ron Wanttaja

Ron, I think you are on to something. Since new composite airliners usually need mesh embedded in the structure lets just make the entire cabin into a faraday cage! (I might have spelled that wrong.)

CDS, thanks for the info on the classic Guppy. I'm with you, I support a partial lifting of the ban but transmitters still scare me. I don't fly pax anymore so unfortunately it's the piles of Li batteries that I need to worry about now. I've already lost two coworkers and the company has lost two airframes to these batteries.

Fly safe!

[Bill Greenwood]

The NBC news site has the story on it today, Tue. Oct. 1. dated 9-27.
The example given is Delta who had 2 million passenger flights and had 27 reports of "POSSIBLE" interference from an electronic device.
"NONE OF THE REPORTED INSTANCES COULD BE VERIFIED."

The real danger for an airline is not some passenger on a cell phone or I pad; rather it is financial. Delta , like others has already had one bankruptcy. I had some bonds issued to pay for their terminal at DFW which they defaulted on.

[Greg Bockelman]

The NBC news site has the story on it today, Tue. Oct. 1. dated 9-27.
The example given is Delta who had 2 million passenger flights and had 27 reports of "POSSIBLE" interference from an electronic device.
"NONE OF THE REPORTED INSTANCES COULD BE VERIFIED."

The real danger for an airline is not some passenger on a cell phone or I pad; rather it is financial. Delta , like others has already had one bankruptcy. I had some bonds issued to pay for their terminal at DFW which they defaulted on.

Isn't the fact that it might be possible worthy of some consideration?

[Bill Greenwood]

Greg, maybe we should all stay out of the woods, never go hiking or hunting or visiting places like Yellowstone. After all isn't there a possibility that some of these reports about Bigfoot might be true?
And of course, it is best to stay in the house at night, after all with at least 27 reports of aliens kidnapping people and taking them on board their spaceships!

Now there are a few spoil sports that might point out that there are ZERO NTSB reports of crashes due to cell phones or ipads, just at there are ZERO autopsy reports that list the cause of death as Bigfoot or aliens; but this just shows that some folks just lack imagination and want to confuse a good tale with facts.

[Greg Bockelman]

Seems you are on a vendetta, Bill.

Having said that, I am sort of playing Devil's Advocate here.

But, I do think that there are enough unknowns that the risks can't just be ignored.

[rwanttaja]

Seems you are on a vendetta, Bill.

Having said that, I am sort of playing Devil's Advocate here.

But, I do think that there are enough unknowns that the risks can't just be ignored.
One must also balance the risks with the rewards. I've flown commercial quite a bit over the last several months, and it's no hardship to shut down the Kindle for a few minutes in each flight. Remember, this latest round of the controversy started because a celebrity didn't want to stop playing a game. Boo flippin' hoo.

Ron Wanttaja

[Mayhemxpc]

It seems to me that there are two issues here. Maybe more, but two general categories. The first is engineering. Can such electronics interfere with the navigation or communications systems in an airplane (not just 787's but any aircraft operating under Part 135 or 121)? If so, then what kinds of electronics? Can they be categorized (e.g., things that transmit -- to include devices which poll or search for outside links)? Can the list be further refined and defined so that a list of potentially harmful devices is possible? Before I go on to the second category, a little anecdote. Like many government employees, I have to carry around a blackberry. Newer, but not the most current version. At night, I used to have it plugged into the charger on my sink. No more. When it RECEIVES a message (not sending a message) it turns on my electric razor! (Yes, I know that the way it is designed, it automotically sends out a transmit signal when receiving a message.) Move it a few feet away and the effect disappears (radiation dissipating by the square of the distance.) Still, it is enough that I make absolutely sure that the device is turned off in a plane, whether mine or commercial. Just an anecdote which may not be repeatable on Mythbusters.

The second is a human factors issue. If you found that some devices did cause interference and not others, or that undamaged devices were fine but devices with cracked cases or what not could cause interference, how realistic is it to believe that the passengers are willing or even able to discriminate in their use of such devices (or even flight attendants to keep up on the list.) There is also a safety issue. Someone plugged into a game or music or whatever is not listening to the safety instructions and may be completely unaware that there may be anything wrong with the airplane...say, requiring an emergency evacuation. You could say that it would just be Darwin in action, but in a crowded airplane, that can affect the lives of others, too. (Just look at people WALKING on the street, totally oblivious to everything around them...including red lights, cars, and other people.) Overall, it may be best just to restrict everyone from using such devices in critical stages of flight. What you do on your own airplane under your responsibility as PIC is up to you.

Remember, we are dealing with the same people who pressured the TSA into reinstating the restriction on pocket knives of any size (requiring me to return to using my teeth to open the hermetically sealed plastic eating utensils.)

[Jim Hann]

Seems you are on a vendetta, Bill.

Having said that, I am sort of playing Devil's Advocate here.

But, I do think that there are enough unknowns that the risks can't just be ignored.

I agree on all accounts.

[rwanttaja]

Considering this discussion, I found this discussion on HomebuiltAirplanes.com interesting:

http://www.homebuiltairplanes.com/forums/instruments-avionics-electrical-system/16613-charging-iphone-causes-radio-interference-hand-held-radio.html

"It seems that plugging in my iPhone to charge it while in flight causes some radio interference. It basically causes the channel to open on the receive side and I just get flooded with static. I can still hear people come on the channel and I can still transmit just fine but other than that the static gets very distracting."

Now, this isn't an airliner...may even be a homebuilt... but it's obvious that some combinations of common consumer electronics can cause interference in the aircraft band.

Ron Wanttaja

[Bill Greenwood]

Gegg, well, how does your idea that I "am on a vendetta" hold up to facts since I don't own a cell phone, nor an Ipad, nor a laptop computer, nor any sort of game playing or music playing device that is mobile and that could be used on a plane. If I listen to anything when I go on a plane it would be the conversation between pilots and controllers.
I do own stock in Southwest, that is up 82% since I bought it, and I have owned stock in other airlines before.
I travel often on airlines, mostly United and Southwest. I do get tired of hearing the same old nonsense over the P a, like the other night on a 25 minute flight Denver to Aspen the F A got a kick out of repeating the same banal announcement 3 times and we hadn't even taken off yet.
Probably a third of my friends who are pilots are/were flying for an airline.
And the same story is in the USA Today on Fri. Oct. 4. Maybe they have a vendetta also.

Well, your idea fits the facts about as well as the claims made over the years.

Maybe I am really Alec Baldwin writing under an alias and have my vendetta against airlines.

And speaking of unlikely, if possible, there is a story on the news today that a new scientific ? research group says Bigfoot is real and they not only have a video of him in the woods in Tenn. , but some DNA tests on hair that shows he is a humanoid that split off from our race 13,000 years ago.
I can't vouch for the truth of this story, but I didn't make it up, it is actually on the news. And it is possible, isn't it?

[Greg Bockelman]

Gegg, well, how does your idea that I "am on a vendetta" hold up to facts since I don't own a cell phone, nor an Ipad, nor a laptop computer, nor any sort of game playing or music playing device that is mobile and that could be used on a plane.

Well you are the one that started the thread with the premise that there is no interference from consumer electronics. If you truly don't use any of that stuff, why do you care?


Probably a third of my friends who are pilots are/were flying for an airline.

You need better quality friends. :D:D:D Seriously, I am also one of those that fly for an airline. As I said in my previous post, I am sort of playing Devil's Advocate. But there is enough weird stuff out there that it DOES warrant caution. Are we SO addicted to our electronics that we can't do without them for 15 minutes prior to takeoff and maybe 30 prior to landing?


And the same story is in the USA Today on Fri. Oct. 4. Maybe they have a vendetta also.

Really? All they care about is selling papers. And a lot of times, they don't even care if what they report is accurate.


Well, your idea fits the facts about as well as the claims made over the years.

What IS my idea? That MAYBE some electronics may cause a problem? Guilty as charged. Do I have any proof? Not really, but there isn't much proof that they DON'T either.


Maybe I am really Alec Baldwin writing under an alias and have my vendetta against airlines.

The only reason I said you appear to have a vendetta is because you seem to be so adamant about it.


And speaking of unlikely, if possible, there is a story on the news today that a new scientific ? research group says Bigfoot is real and they not only have a video of him in the woods in Tenn. , but some DNA tests on hair that shows he is a humanoid that split off from our race 13,000 years ago.

Talk about a non sequitur.

Bill, for someone who admittedly doesn't have a horse in the race, you sure are pursuing it hard.

[rwanttaja]

Bill, for someone who admittedly doesn't have a horse in the race, you sure are pursuing it hard.
Indeed. This is the fourth time Bill has started a thread on this topic, all with different "Subject" identifiers but all resulting in Bill giving other folks the same grief when they respond.

http://eaaforums.org/showthread.php?4353-New-FAA-Ruling

http://eaaforums.org/showthread.php?3635-Electronic-Bogeyman-Gone

http://eaaforums.org/showthread.php?3477-Jet-pilot-or-passenger-question

http://eaaforums.org/showthread.php?2687-Cell-phone-nonsense

And now he tells us he doesn't even *own* one of the devices?

"You no play-a the game, you no make-a the rules...."

Ron Wanttaja

[RV8505]

Indeed. This is the fourth time Bill has started a thread on this topic, all with different "Subject" identifiers but all resulting in Bill giving other folks the same grief when they respond.

http://eaaforums.org/showthread.php?4353-New-FAA-Ruling

http://eaaforums.org/showthread.php?3635-Electronic-Bogeyman-Gone

http://eaaforums.org/showthread.php?3477-Jet-pilot-or-passenger-question

http://eaaforums.org/showthread.php?2687-Cell-phone-nonsense

And now he tells us he doesn't even *own* one of the devices?

"You no play-a the game, you no make-a the rules...."

Ron Wanttaja

It is probabaly about as many times he has come up with.

" Where does the Gathering of Eagles money go.? "
" Why do they send me so many renewal notices. "
" America's failure in the Vietnam War "
" Salute to Enemy Combatants "

[Bob Dingley]

It seems that there is a strong case being built against using PEDs & cellphones on most aircraft. The personal experiences detailed on this forum and that pesky ASRS report that Ryan provided make a devastating case against their use. Sure, new aircraft are shielded against interference. But so many legacy aircraft remain in service.

If PEDs will be permitted, a few common sense precautions must be put in place. At least on air carriers. First, a pair of oven mitts or welders gloves must be available to handle the smoking, exploding, burning or fuming PEDs that may be encountered.

Second, a means to contain or jettison the offending items would be desirable. An in flight openable window is out of the question. However the USAF "hurricane hunter" C-130s use a kind of air lock installation to deploy drop sondes while still maintaining cabin pressure. It is no more than a capped tube rising out of the cabin floor with a remotely controlled opening on the belly. A proposed installation should be sized to accept a large laptop. This could also be used under controlled conditions to jettison other offensive material. Soiled diapers (infant or adult) for instance.

There are few problems using this installation on oceanic routes. Use over highly populated areas is problematic. But then, so is blue ice. Also forested areas experiencing drought may be exposed to risk. It may be required to post a notice for certain flights that say: USE OF PEDs ON THIS FLIGHT IS PROHIBITED DUE TO HIGH FOREST FIRE DANGER!

Bob

[Jim Hann]

And now he tells us he doesn't even *own* one of the devices?

"You no play-a the game, you no make-a the rules...."

Ron Wanttaja
:thumbsup:

It is probabaly about as many times he has come up with.

" Where does the Gathering of Eagles money go.? "
" Why do they send me so many renewal notices. "
" America's failure in the Vietnam War "
" Salute to Enemy Combatants "
:thumbsup:

[rwanttaja]

Second, a means to contain or jettison the offending items would be desirable. An in flight openable window is out of the question. However the USAF "hurricane hunter" C-130s use a kind of air lock installation to deploy drop sondes while still maintaining cabin pressure. It is no more than a capped tube rising out of the cabin floor with a remotely controlled opening on the belly. A proposed installation should be sized to accept a large laptop. This could also be used under controlled conditions to jettison other offensive material. Soiled diapers (infant or adult) for instance.
Boeing is building the P-8 sub-hunter aircraft, using 737 airframes, and they include a cabin-loaded magazine-fed sonobuoy dispenser. So you've already got a piece of hardware compatible with a large percentage of the commercial aircraft out there.
http://media.defenceindustrydaily.com/images/AIR_P-8A_Dropping_Sonobuoy_Concept_lg.jpg

Ron Wanttaja

[Bob Dingley]

Gratifying that technology has kept pace with the problem. I assume that the commercial version of the the P-8's dispenser would have the capacity equal of the sum of all seats on a Airbus 380.

[WLIU]

From today's news....

"(CNN) -- Airplane travelers will soon be able to watch videos and play games with their electronic devices throughout their flights -- and not just above a certain altitude -- the Federal Aviation Administration said Thursday in a long-anticipated announcement."

Entertainment but no talking.

Best of luck,

Wes
N78PS

[Bill Greenwood]

Back on 9-23 when I started this topic, it was because of news stories that I saw in the general media; whether true or not, I didn't invent these stories.
Most of you responding disagreed with me, and the gist of the stories and continued to insist that the ban on PEDs was factual and valid.
"FLYING RON" wrote "The FAA isn't bending or changing the rules" and "The FAA has done nothing regulatory", and seemed pretty upset that I wrote about this and especially how the ban defied common sense in the first place.
So now, just as I wrote and just as Wes wrote yesterday, the FAA has made it official with an announcement that PED can be used anytime on airplanes, below 10,000 taking off and landing, etc. The new ruling doesn't allow cell phone calls.
There is a little more detail ,the airlines have to say they have a plan to comply. I am not sure how you have a plan not to hassle passengers, but that is what it amounts to.
Delta has already announced that they are ready for this, and it is pretty obvious that any airline that wants to compete is going to do the same. Without this nonsense to babble over the P A system, I wonder what the stews will spend their time doing now, and what are they going to do with all the left over Kool Aid they had been serving for decades.
For some this is a big deal, but I don't even own or know how to use an Ipad,
BUT STILL, ANYTIME THE FAA OR ANY GOVT AGENCY CHANGES A POLICY, IT IS A BIG DEAL, AND SOMETHING PRETTY RARE TO WITNESS.

[rleffler]

Delta has already announced that they are ready for this, and it is pretty obvious that any airline that wants to compete is going to do the same. Without this nonsense to babble over the P A system, I wonder what the stews will spend their time doing now, and what are they going to do with all the left over Kool Aid they had been serving for decades.

I flew two segments on Delta yesterday. The first was on one of their regional airlines. It was business as usual. The FA even joked that this was one of the few aircraft in the Delta fleet that PEDs were still not authorized for use. The second segment was on one of their 737s. PEDs were allowed, but they did require larger devices like laptops to be stowed during take off and landing.

It had been awhile since I've flown commerically. It was also a pleasant surprise in that Delta now has humerous video safety briefings. I saw two different versions of them over the weekend. It's taken them awhile to follow SWA's lead in using humor to get people to pay attention.

[RV8505]

Aviation Engineers 0
Politicians/ Mob Rule 1


Next up the Health Profession VS Politicians / Mob Rule.