I assume this is in the politics tab because it's a link to the NY Post?

http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/aviation/unsafe-at-any-airspeed /0

Of the cockpit instruments that can be interfered with by RF emissions from portable devices, the most problematic might be those used for navigation. To understand what's at stake, we need to first note the variety of different technologies used today for aircraft navigation. The most common are the VHF omnidirectional range system and the instrument landing system, both of which operate near 100 MHz, and GPS, which operates between 1200 and 1600 MHz. PEDs have the potential to interfere with each of them, but the most serious concern has to be for GPS receivers, which are becoming key navigational aids these days--particularly when clouds or other weather problems make it impossible for pilots to see runways.

GPS-certified landing approaches are now widely used in general aviation. Though most airliners presently use instrument landing systems, use of GPS technology will increase significantly over the next few years. There are three times as many GPS-certified approaches as instrument landing system approaches in the United States.

In March 2004, acting on a number of reports from general aviation pilots that Samsung SPH-N300 cellphones had caused their GPS receivers to lose satellite lock, NASA issued a technical memorandum that described emissions from this popular phone. It reported that there were emissions in the GPS band capable of causing interference. Disturbingly, though, they were low enough to comply with FCC emissions standards.

Our data and the NASA studies suggest to us that there is a clear and present danger: cellphones can render GPS instrument useless for landings. Clearly, the cause of the problem is that the FCC issues RF emission standards for consumer electronics, conferring only minimally with the FAA and with no formal consideration of the implications of those standards for the aircraft environment. For its part, the FAA relies on the airlines to initiate safety plans and, like other government agencies, defers to the FCC on questions of electromagnetic radiation.

Have cellphones caused accidents? We cannot be sure they have, but the data support the belief that they may have. Without any direct record of the RF environment in a plane at the time of its crash, it is difficult to see how one could definitively attribute a crash to PED interference after the fact. This holds true even if investigators were to look for PED interference as the primary cause of the accident, which, typically, they do not.

p.s. F*CK RUPERT MURDOCH

The ban on portable electronic equipment during flight critical moments has nothing to do with interference, and everything to do with making passengers shut up and pay attention during the most dangerous parts of the flight.

Which is why it is reasonable.

heinekenftw: umad: EMCGuy: That doesn't mean your annecdote about leaving your cell phone on the whole flight means a damn thing.

But banning all devices because of an annecdote[sic] that a phone interfered with a plane's instruments is ok.

Uh, when there's a non-zero chance of the aircraft crashing because a cellphone is on? Yes. The more electronics that are on, the higher chance of interference. If the crew says "please turn off electronics" most people will turn off their electronics, and most likely you'll have a safe flight.

But do you really want to be that 1%? That one guy who brought an untested electronic on an approach that farks up the localizer signal, making the pilots think they are centerline to the runway when they really aren't, causing an incident?

You jump from "non-zero chance" to "1%" pretty easily. If it were a 1% chance they would confiscate all cell phones. What is the risk level? To say "if it is greater than zero then the policy is justified" is moronic.

heinekenftw: Can you give one motivation why the big bad government would demand that electronic devices would be shut off on T/O and Landing? What sort of conspiracy is that?

Because it makes most of the idiots flying feel better without any real benefit. See also "TSA screening".

fluffy2097: To play devils advocate.

In a poorly maintained jetliner, with bad grounds and shorted wiring. A cell phone call COULD cause some flight instruments to behave strangely. It's not the sort of thing that should effect a pilot though, unless they are doing an instrument only landing, or get so confused by the misbehaving instruments they forget to fly the airplane.

So naturally in such a case, the first thing the FAA needs to worry about are consumer electronics...

Empty Matchbook: And frankly if there's even a .00001% chance that someone's phone might cause the flight to suddenly cease, THAT'S TOO HIGH.

Well there is a larger chance of some idiot crossing the center line and killing you.

So I can only assume you don't drive because of the high risk.

AeAe: Bungles: Phins: Bungles: The ban on portable electronic equipment during flight critical moments has nothing to do with interference, and everything to do with making passengers shut up and pay attention during the most dangerous parts of the flight.

Which is why it is reasonable.

Yes, because all passengers must focus their telekinetic powers on the plane for it to takeoff and land properly. People reading books on paper have their telekinetic abilities suppressed and may continue reading. I just always hope that there's no terrorist paying attention during takeoff and focusing his thoughts on crashing the plane.



People rarely read books with headphones in, that prevent them from hearing instructions or blocking other passenger trying to get to an aisle.

This isn't complicated, nor unreasonable.

Oh certainly. Better make sure no one is sleeping or talking. Passengers need to be totally focused on take offs and landings, because .. you know.. they need to be.


You may not have noticed, but the cabin announcement that you hear on most aircraft when they are about to land is intended to rouse you from sleep as much as anything, as is the stewardess checking seat-belts.

It's not about being "totally focused", it's about not having earbuds in when you simply wouldn't be aware of an announcement.

Anyone who argues that such a request is unreasonable is probably the sort of obnoxious asshole that you'd be glad can't talk on his phone.

bangmaid: Also. The cellular function doesn't disrupt the instruments. The gps function does.

Yeah. It's a little known fact that the GPS antennas in iPhones actually suck up the GPS signals from the satellite, blocking out GPS availability within a range of 100 meters. This is why you cant use your iPhone in your car. You would not only black out your cars own GPS system, causing it to drive you into a lake, but you will also black out the GPS systems around you, and cause ALL GPS systems within a radius of 1 mile to operate in degraded mode.

Android phones are not effected by this issue due to superior antenna design.

TheGogmagog: Nasty_McFilth: They probably did the exact same thing that was done in the article posted yesterday.

I came to see two or three commenting on the situation, then 500 people pointing out the repeatness of it.

And instead you found the exact opposite.

Phins: Bungles: The ban on portable electronic equipment during flight critical moments has nothing to do with interference, and everything to do with making passengers shut up and pay attention during the most dangerous parts of the flight.

Which is why it is reasonable.

Yes, because all passengers must focus their telekinetic powers on the plane for it to takeoff and land properly. People reading books on paper have their telekinetic abilities suppressed and may continue reading. I just always hope that there's no terrorist paying attention during takeoff and focusing his thoughts on crashing the plane.



People rarely read books with headphones in, that prevent them from hearing instructions or blocking other passenger trying to get to an aisle.

This isn't complicated, nor unreasonable.

liam76: SoCalSurfer:
During take off and landing. It's similar to why you can't lean your seat back. If there's an emergency, people can't be blocked from exiting the plane or distracted from doing so

then why can't you read a book, magazine, etc.


Just flew on virgin and they had the back of headrest TV's going the enitre process so it isn't a "sound" issue either.


GriffXX: I suspect this is more about not having a hundred people crammed in a metal tube all screaming into their phones than about interference with equipment.

i think most peopel are fine with the phone issue for this reason, but the all electric devices off is BS.

Nem Wan: iPad approved for use during all phases of flight. By pilots. In the cockpit.

Once you go through the cockpit door a magical


99% of electronic devices used on planes usually have earphones.

That's one of the major things they're trying to stop you using. It's a rule across the world. It isn't just the FAA deciding to be a dick.

Walker: C and a repeat.

♫ ...TWO BITS!!! ♫

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

I suspect this is more about not having a hundred people crammed in a metal tube all screaming into their phones than about interference with equipment.

Just imagine trying to talk on your phone because it's allowed now and both people in your row are also trying to talk. And the people in front of you. And behind you. And all around you.

It sounds like a recipe for a brawl every single flight.

Rain-Monkey: "If there is even a minute chance that an iPad could take a plane down then it is the FAA's obligation to ban the devices from flights or require the airlines to confiscate them when you check in," he said.

THIS
THIS
THIS
THIS
THIS

No cell phones on airplanes is the biggest piece of horseshiat regulation the FAA has on the books. Recent studies of portable electronic devices interfering with safety of flight are inconclusive at best and there is ample evidence of continued use through all phases of commercial flight every single day.

During take off and landing. It's similar to why you can't lean your seat back. If there's an emergency, people can't be blocked from exiting the plane or distracted from doing so

TheGogmagog: It boggles my mind that they don't even scan for bluetooth devices to make sure everyone has their phone off (or at least in Airplane mode). Every flight I've been on have shown at least four active devices (besides mine).


It doesn't boggle my mind at all, because I have very little doubt that they are well aware that these regulations are in reality pointless and out of date.

You change your settings on an iphone to "airplane mode" when you get on a plane so that it can't transmit potential harmful electronic whatever.

The video camera still works.

FAA guy is a douche.

Charlie Freak: I predict this thread will be full of rational, reasonable, and, most importantly, scientific arguments on why electronics should not be banned during takeoff/landing.

I'm an electrical engineer - my senior thesis many years back involved the uselessness of these regulations. The TL;DR is that any newer (see 1980's+) planes have the correct shielding in place that modern electronics won't impact their communications and control circuitry. If you're flying grandpa's Cessna & you have an early 80's bagphone... then you might might maybe impact comms.

meh, par for the course.

He's lucky he wasnt' tased and beaten during an arrest

They probably did the exact same thing that was done in the article posted yesterday.