Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Still Think It's Okay To Use Electronics Onboard?  
User currently offlineHAL From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 2560 posts, RR: 53
Posted (3 years 2 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 22240 times:

I've been involved with a lot of discussions on this board regarding people using personal electronic devices, especially during takeoff and landing when they've been specifically told not to. The answer from these people is always the same: "Nobody's ever crashed because of these", and the ever popular "We see photos from the cockpits here on A.net all the time, so it must be okay."

If you feel this way, please read this: http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...e-cockpit-due-to-interference.html

So again, and please... until we know better what the real effect of your iPod, iPad, camera, cell phone, etc. is on our aircraft, turn the things off when we ask you to. Thank You.

HAL

[Edited 2011-06-02 01:06:09]


One smooth landing is skill. Two in a row is luck. Three in a row and someone is lying.
153 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinejpetekyxmd80 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 4389 posts, RR: 29
Reply 1, posted (3 years 2 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 22084 times:

I'll bite.

I think this is a red herring by you.

First of all, it has nothing to do with the electronic nature, but with connecting to the aircrafts own wifi system. The wifi system that the airline installed .... in the hopes of making a profit. And apparently from the testing of these wifi systems, they did not feel the need to remove them, but only to limit the pilots from using them, apparently indicating it was only an issue within close proximity of the flight displays. If an airline wanted to be COMPLETELY free of any possible risk from this interference, they would remove the wi-fi systems from their aircraft. The strength of signal this generates is many, many times more than a phone of any one passenger could generate. I suggest you focus your efforts on airlines (especially with DU3 equipment) still offering Aircell gogo, Row 44 or other internet products, instead of customers. It sends a very simple message: we can fool around with attaching wifi to our airplane from a much stronger connection via satellite or EVDO... because it can help our bottom line, but we will constantly harp on you for using devices that pose no risk whatsoever.

As far as your title, 'still think its ok to use electronics onboard?'. Yes. As far as camera, ipod, anything receiving a signal... absolutely. Completely. This is a completely disingenuous attempt to beat a dead horse with devices such as cameras and ipods. Do they pose a danger of interference with aircraft navigation? No, they do not. An argument for safety can be made, as far was wanting pax to have complete situational awareness in the event of an evacuation of the aircraft on landing... as you wouldn't ideally want 200 people zoned out with their ipod without a clue to events or instruction, but that is about it. As far as devices with signals, I have that turned off for all stages of flight... there is a slight, slight, slight chance of interference on older equipment (much less, apparently, from the wi-fi systems the airline chooses to install), and there is little chance of catching a signal until the very end, and surely talking on the phone would not be possible. As far as the non-cell phone electronic devices- yeah, that's a load of bull, and it's hard to believe you'd be so shamelessly opportunistic to try and tie this story of wifi in cockpit issues to our decision to occasionally snap some pictures on approach, or have some tunes going.



The Best Care in the Air, 1984-2009
User currently offlines5daw From Slovenia, joined May 2011, 253 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (3 years 2 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 21895 times:

I put my phone in flight mode (even though the instructions are to "switch them off completely") and don't use my digital during takeoff / landing. Just put your mobile next to FM radio and let it ring - the amount of interference is scary. No, I don't want to radiate that s**t anywhere near fly by wire systems. Specially because mobiles tend to use higher output when the signal is bad (and inside fuselage I guess it goes bad pretty soon). Now imagine each of the 200 pax having 1-2W transmitter transmitting on full power. It get's nasty.

One interesting thing is my Kindle: I switch wireless off, but most flight attendants require that I put it away. Arguing is pointless so I oblige (specially after reading about possibility of distraction / projectile). I don't switch it completely off though.

I plan to bring my completely analog cameras on one of the next flights. I'll see how that goes  


User currently offlinefauzi From Brunei, joined Jul 2005, 219 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (3 years 2 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 21724 times:

I think the issue here is because of the usage of Wi-Fi. If you use your Wi-Fi in flight mode, no problem whatsoever, as long as it's not during take-off or landing. Thus... AS are using them in the cockpit.

[Edited 2011-06-02 03:25:42]


BI - The Asian Underdog
User currently offlinedowntown273 From Spain, joined Aug 2005, 302 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (3 years 2 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 21490 times:

Quoting HAL (Thread starter):
turn the things off when we ask you to.

The day cabin crew switch off their own phones, then I'll switch off mine too.


User currently offlinesomething From United Kingdom, joined May 2011, 1633 posts, RR: 21
Reply 5, posted (3 years 2 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 21411 times:

A little scientific research would work wonders here to back certain claims up.

Electronics generally do not interfere with cockpit instruments. The radiation they emit is either not strong enough, or of irrelevant wave length aka frequency. The only wave length proven to cause severe interference is 800Mhz, which to my knowledge isn't even a used cellphone standard in the USA. In Europe it is though. WiFi uses between 2.4 and 5.4 Ghz.

And for some reason I find this hard to believe. Why can a simple iPad interfere with flight instruments, but the wifi router doesn't? Imagine the amount of radiation that thing emits.

The electromagnetic waves from cameras, mp3 players etc. however is hardly even measurable a meter way from them.



..sick of it. -K. Pilkington.
User currently offlinecaribb From Canada, joined Nov 1999, 1637 posts, RR: 8
Reply 6, posted (3 years 2 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 21362 times:

A camera is more of a danger as a physcial body that can be thrown around the cabin should the plane take a violent move than any threat to the instruments in the cockpit. My concern isn't turning it off during take off rather making sure I have a tight grip on it in case it flies loose and hits me or passengers near me. A D90 coming at you at high velocity could do some severe damage to ones face and even knock someone unconsious.

User currently offlinePlaneHunter From Germany, joined Mar 2006, 6757 posts, RR: 77
Reply 7, posted (3 years 2 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 21281 times:

Oh, I didn't know that my small Lumix needs Internet access for taking pics...  
Quoting jpetekyxmd80 (Reply 1):
As far as your title, 'still think its ok to use electronics onboard?'. Yes. As far as camera, ipod, anything receiving a signal... absolutely. Completely.

  

Quoting caribb (Reply 7):
A D90 coming at you at high velocity could do some severe damage to ones face and even knock someone unconsious.

Yes, but then it should say "store your camera safely". What about heavy books passengers use to read during takeoff and landing?


PH



Nothing's worse than flying the same reg twice!
User currently offlinejpetekyxmd80 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 4389 posts, RR: 29
Reply 8, posted (3 years 2 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 21235 times:

Where does it stop? Do you want us to remove the battery from our watches next, for takeoff and landing? Or, turn your pacemakers off! Do you and your colleagues wear watches in the flight deck? Next to all the flight instruments, that must make more chance for interfering than any non-transmitting device back in the cabin, which is to say, neither is a danger.

And don't get me wrong, i'm with you on the transmitting stuff, and theres no point in not turning it off. But how this has evolved to covering all electronic devices- probably for simplicity- has been nonsensical, and you seem to be exasperating that.

[Edited 2011-06-02 05:24:21]


The Best Care in the Air, 1984-2009
User currently offlineGolfOscarDelta From India, joined Feb 2008, 169 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (3 years 2 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 20508 times:

IMHO I've had VOR's go swinging all over when I accidentally left my cell phone on and when a msg started coming in to the phone. Of course I only fly a lowly C172. But in previous similar posts other members on this forum have shared their experiences of cellphones causing disturbances too. IIRC member (pardon me if I got the member wrong) Fly2HMO had a display blank out in the presence of cell phone disturbance.

Cell phone interference cannot be ruled out and until the day when there are 0 reports of cell phone interference it is always better to err on the side of caution.


User currently offlinesw733 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6321 posts, RR: 9
Reply 10, posted (3 years 2 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 20369 times:

Quoting HAL (Thread starter):
and the ever popular "We see photos from the cockpits here on A.net all the time, so it must be okay."

Ever popular? I must say I have been on this website for many, many years now and I have never seen this argument.

Quoting downtown273 (Reply 5):

The day cabin crew switch off their own phones, then I'll switch off mine too.

  

Twice now, on separate airlines, I have seen flight attendants, sat for takeoff, sending what appeared to be a text message during taxi or even once during takeoff roll.

Quoting jpetekyxmd80 (Reply 9):
Do you want us to remove the battery from our watches next, for takeoff and landing?

I remember a few times on WN the cabin crew asked to turn off watches, and then laughed saying "how many of you were actually looking for the off button on your watch?"  
Quoting PlaneHunter (Reply 8):
What about heavy books passengers use to read during takeoff and landing?

Heavier than my Kindle that I get yelled at for trying to use between the gate and 10k feet.

I have no problem turning my cell phone off but...really, my Kindle?


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 11, posted (3 years 2 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 19973 times:

Quoting jpetekyxmd80 (Reply 1):
It sends a very simple message: we can fool around with attaching wifi to our airplane from a much stronger connection via satellite or EVDO... because it can help our bottom line, but we will constantly harp on you for using devices that pose no risk whatsoever.

That may be the message you're receiving, but it's not the one they're sending. The message they're actually sending is "We can install a certified, tested, and EMI checked WiFi system in our airplane. You cannot run your non-certified, non-tested, EMI-unknown transmitting device."

Quoting something (Reply 6):
Electronics generally do not interfere with cockpit instruments. The radiation they emit is either not strong enough, or of irrelevant wave length aka frequency. The only wave length proven to cause severe interference is 800Mhz, which to my knowledge isn't even a used cellphone standard in the USA.

GSM phones, in wide use in the US, are proven to interfere with pretty much anything with a solid-state amplifier circuit...computer speakers, other telephones (especially Polycoms), and, most relevantly, *aviation headsets*. I don't know what the culprit is but I've lost count of the number of times we caught an inadvertently running BlackBerry or iPhone because we could hear it on the flight deck communication system. I'd rather not have ATC blocked out by EMI (and I've had it happen). I'd be curious how someone could explain that temporary loss of comms is *not* a safety issue.

Quoting something (Reply 6):
Why can a simple iPad interfere with flight instruments, but the wifi router doesn't? Imagine the amount of radiation that thing emits.

Because EMI is very frequency specific. Higher power doesn't help, but you can blast 1000W of one frequency and get less interference than you may from 0.01W of another.

Quoting jpetekyxmd80 (Reply 9):
And don't get me wrong, i'm with you on the transmitting stuff, and theres no point in not turning it off. But how this has evolved to covering all electronic devices- probably for simplicity- has been nonsensical, and you seem to be exasperating that.

I don't think it's non-sensical because I don't know how else you'd do it. In addition to the situational awareness issue (which is globally applicable), there's no way the general travelling public has enough knowledge of what transmits and what doesn't to make the distinction. In addition, there are some devices that aren't designed to transmit but are very EMI "leaky" just due to poor design. On top of all that, lack of access to a personal electronic device from taxi to 10,000' isn't exactly a hardship...the utter simplicity of "turn it off until we're up and away" is hard to beat.

Tom.


User currently offlineeinsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 3060 posts, RR: 8
Reply 12, posted (3 years 2 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 19866 times:

Quoting GolfOscarDelta (Reply 10):
IMHO I've had VOR's go swinging all over when I accidentally left my cell phone on and when a msg started coming in to the phone.

Ah, but here's a few things that can counter this argument:
1. Your C172 doesn't fly high enough (I'm pretty sure, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, that at the height you normally fly your cellphone can still pick up some signal).
2. Compare a cellphone right next to the avionics to a cellphone about 30-50 feet away from them. A few times my cellphone has turned on at cruising altitude and there's no signal...I'm still alive.

Quoting caribb (Reply 7):
A D90 coming at you at high velocity could do some severe damage to ones face and even knock someone unconsious.

So can a heavy book, a laptop, a children's portable game, even a baby. The problem then is not due to interference, but how well the item is secured in one's hands.

Quoting HAL (Thread starter):
So again, and please... until we know better what the real effect of your iPod, iPad, camera, cell phone, etc. is on our aircraft, turn the things off when we ask you to. Thank You.

I'm sorry, but like the stance of some on global warming (suitable for another thread please), until there is evidence that my iPod/iPad/camera interferes with aircraft communications, I don't see the need to turn them off (save for takeoff and landing where maximum awareness is needed). Cell phones are an exception (better safe than sorry), but the others are only Wi-Fi enabled. With airplanes now carrying Wi-Fi routers, it's safe to say that any Wi-Fi device can be used even when there is no Wi-Fi.

And notice two things:
1. You're asking us to turn off devices not because we need to be alert in case of an emergency, but because it can interfere with the aircraft. Apples and oranges.
2. The article you posted only covers pilots in the cockpit. Was there any mention of passengers causing interference in the cabin?



"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
User currently offlineThirtyEcho From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 1648 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (3 years 2 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 19651 times:

The 10,000th thread on this topic but here is why electronic devices should be off during critical phases of flight:

All operating electronic devices transmit signals and it makes no difference what kind of device it is.
The inside of an airplane is a Faraday cage. Signals within that enclosure bounce around and every time that they bounce, they shift frequency. Nobody has any idea of what frequencies are present at any given time; you could have hundreds or thousands of different frequencies flying around all over the place, all constantly shifting so that it is difficult to shield against them.

Instances of interference are well documented, especially instances of communications interference.


User currently offlinesomething From United Kingdom, joined May 2011, 1633 posts, RR: 21
Reply 14, posted (3 years 2 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 19598 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 12):
Quoting something (Reply 6):
Electronics generally do not interfere with cockpit instruments. The radiation they emit is either not strong enough, or of irrelevant wave length aka frequency. The only wave length proven to cause severe interference is 800Mhz, which to my knowledge isn't even a used cellphone standard in the USA.

GSM phones, in wide use in the US, are proven to interfere with pretty much anything with a solid-state amplifier circuit...computer speakers, other telephones (especially Polycoms), and, most relevantly, *aviation headsets*. I don't know what the culprit is but I've lost count of the number of times we caught an inadvertently running BlackBerry or iPhone because we could hear it on the flight deck communication system. I'd rather not have ATC blocked out by EMI (and I've had it happen). I'd be curious how someone could explain that temporary loss of comms is *not* a safety issue.

But this interference is usually only noticeable if the phone is very close to the speakers. In any way, I am switching my phone off as soon as boarding commences anyway. I love flying and I want to keep it sacred and not interrupted by phone calls or text messages. I'd love the internet on long haul flights, but take offs and landings are entertainment enough for me to do without it during these stages of the flight. But as far as taking pictures or videos goes, I must admit I have a more than hard time following that rule.



..sick of it. -K. Pilkington.
User currently offlinejpetekyxmd80 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 4389 posts, RR: 29
Reply 15, posted (3 years 2 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 19364 times:

Quoting ThirtyEcho (Reply 14):
The 10,000th thread on this topic but here is why electronic devices should be off during critical phases of flight:

All operating electronic devices transmit signals and it makes no difference what kind of device it is.
The inside of an airplane is a Faraday cage. Signals within that enclosure bounce around and every time that they bounce, they shift frequency. Nobody has any idea of what frequencies are present at any given time; you could have hundreds or thousands of different frequencies flying around all over the place, all constantly shifting so that it is difficult to shield against them.

Instances of interference are well documented, especially instances of communications interference.

And yet Alaska is transitioning from paper manuals to ipads. Obviously this is a huge concern...

Do note this is about wifi interference, on the aircrafts own installed wifi network. If there is such concern about garden variety electronic devices interfering with communication/navigation/display, I find it very hard to believe an airline would want to swap their flight manual for it. In fact, I don't believe it.

Also, why are PTVs/overhead monitors kept on then?

[Edited 2011-06-02 07:47:46]


The Best Care in the Air, 1984-2009
User currently offlineInnocuousFox From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2805 posts, RR: 14
Reply 16, posted (3 years 2 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 19287 times:

One explanation I didn't see for the issue in the original article was distance. It is quite likely that the blanking of the screens was simply due to the proximity of the devices to those screens. Move them 3 feet away and you may not have a problem. Use them in the main cabin? Nothing. This is similar to how you used to be able to screw with the picture of a tube TV by putting a magnet next to it. Not pleasant... but sit on the couch with the magnet? No big deal.

The inverse square law is king.



Dave Mark - Intrinsic Algorithm - Reducing the world to mathematical equations!
User currently offlinecomorin From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4896 posts, RR: 16
Reply 17, posted (3 years 2 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 18934 times:

Quoting InnocuousFox (Reply 17):
The inverse square law is king.

Tell that to someone yodeling in the Alps  

The inside of a plane can also be a waveguide - though I wonder how much that matters in real life.

I am surprised that this is still discussed - this subject must have been studied to the nth degree by now - are there any definitive publications out?


User currently offlineRamblinMan From United States of America, joined Oct 2010, 1138 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (3 years 2 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 18204 times:

Quoting jpetekyxmd80 (Reply 1):
First of all, it has nothing to do with the electronic nature, but with connecting to the aircrafts own wifi system.

        

Helluva post. My thoughts exactly.

I THOUGHT this issue had been put to rest on here... crew wants electronics off during t.o./landing not because the devices are inherently dangerous but because they would create an unwanted distraction in an emergency. But I should've known better. Aint no place like a.net for dead horses to get beaten.

Quoting ThirtyEcho (Reply 14):
The 10,000th thread on this topic but here is why electronic devices should be off during critical phases of flight:
All operating electronic devices transmit signals and it makes no difference what kind of device it is.

no no NO!!! That doesn't make any damn sense whatsoever! If this were true then pacemakers, hearing aids, watches, and my e-reader that I sneakily leave on would pose a problem. Yet they don't. Oh, and I can't tell you how many times I drop my phone into my bag for security, then never dig it out again, thereby leaving it on- and NOT in "airplane mode"- the whole flight. And guess what? Ain't crashed yet!

So, do I "still think it's okay..." ABSOLUTELY.


User currently offlineJBirdAV8r From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 4489 posts, RR: 21
Reply 19, posted (3 years 2 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 18037 times:

Quoting jpetekyxmd80 (Reply 1):

As far as your title, 'still think its ok to use electronics onboard?'. Yes. As far as camera, ipod, anything receiving a signal... absolutely. Completely. This is a completely disingenuous attempt to beat a dead horse with devices such as cameras and ipods. Do they pose a danger of interference with aircraft navigation? No, they do not. An argument for safety can be made, as far was wanting pax to have complete situational awareness in the event of an evacuation of the aircraft on landing... as you wouldn't ideally want 200 people zoned out with their ipod without a clue to events or instruction, but that is about it. As far as devices with signals, I have that turned off for all stages of flight... there is a slight, slight, slight chance of interference on older equipment (much less, apparently, from the wi-fi systems the airline chooses to install), and there is little chance of catching a signal until the very end, and surely talking on the phone would not be possible. As far as the non-cell phone electronic devices- yeah, that's a load of bull, and it's hard to believe you'd be so shamelessly opportunistic to try and tie this story of wifi in cockpit issues to our decision to occasionally snap some pictures on approach, or have some tunes going.

Shows a basic misunderstanding of the operation of electronic devices. An electronic device doesn't have to include a transmitter to emit signals.

Quoting jpetekyxmd80 (Reply 16):
And yet Alaska is transitioning from paper manuals to ipads. Obviously this is a huge concern...

Certified by the FAA and built to their standards. Your electronic device is not.

Quoting jpetekyxmd80 (Reply 16):
If there is such concern about garden variety electronic devices interfering with communication/navigation/display, I find it very hard to believe an airline would want to swap their flight manual for it. In fact, I don't believe it.

What do you think it is, some sort of conspiracy?

Quoting jpetekyxmd80 (Reply 16):
Also, why are PTVs/overhead monitors kept on then?

Certified to the FAA and built to their standards. Your electronic device is not.

I had a glideslope flag when someone got a text message once. The little "buzz" you can hear over the intercom when an AT&T cell phone gets a message is unmistakable.

Another point: avonics boxes are not always confined to the pointy end/cockpit. There are localizer antennas in nose gear doors, avionics boxes in the aft, etc.



I got my head checked--by a jumbo jet
User currently offlinefxramper From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 7263 posts, RR: 85
Reply 20, posted (3 years 2 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 18044 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I think an Alaskan FO got caught looking at porn.  duck 

Quoting jpetekyxmd80 (Reply 1):

I look to jpetekyxmd80 for my aviation electronics/systems related information and I agree with his statement 100%.

  

[Edited 2011-06-02 09:04:37]

User currently offlinegigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 21, posted (3 years 2 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 17945 times:

Quoting JBirdAV8r (Reply 20):
Certified by the FAA and built to their standards. Your electronic device is not.

Not true. They're standard iPads.


NS


User currently offlinesw733 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6321 posts, RR: 9
Reply 22, posted (3 years 2 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 17821 times:

Quoting gigneil (Reply 22):
They're standard iPads.

Not sure what airline you are flying on, but I have never seen standard iPads as PTVs...


User currently offlinecschleic From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 1247 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (3 years 2 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 17745 times:

How about all those pilots taking approach shots and posting on sites like this one? Hmmmmm?

User currently offlinecaribb From Canada, joined Nov 1999, 1637 posts, RR: 8
Reply 24, posted (3 years 2 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 17721 times:

Quoting PlaneHunter (Reply 8):
Yes, but then it should say "store your camera safely". What about heavy books passengers use to read during takeoff and landing?
Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 13):
So can a heavy book, a laptop, a children's portable game, even a baby. The problem then is not due to interference, but how well the item is secured in one's hands.

In all my flying experience I've only been told to turn off my camera a handful of times and all of them with American air carriers. The only other exception was with Air Canada who's FA on one flight asked me to stow my camera for the reasons I said above. It was the only time the "don't use your camera" rule made sense to me although with my camera strap wrapped around my wrist the only person really in danger would probably had been me had the plane suddenly moved in an unusual extreme way. She let me take pictures on landing up to a point then literally took it from me and stowed it in the bin above. Their argument was for physical safety. One experience in the US left me with a Northwest flight attendant getting out out the FAA rule book to show me the rule that camera's should be turned off. When I asked her how they could affect the cockpit instruments she could not come up with an explanation.. She was nice about it and I think I left her questioning the logic of the rule. There is nothing being transmitted from my Camera and unless I get up and throw it at the cockpit instument panel and break something it isn't going to affect anything electronic and if that happens I think the last thing I'd be worried about would be taking pictures LOL..


25 jpetekyxmd80 : No, there is plenty of understanding. Yes, anything electronic will have some kind of electromagnetic waves. But on the items we're discussing, they
26 tugger : The other thing that is not addressed in these discussions is the millions of watts of energy and thousands of frequencies that aircraft fly through a
27 jpetekyxmd80 : Absolutely agree , some perspective is really lacking.
28 gigneil : Sorry I thought we were still on the EFBs not the PTVs. NS
29 RobertS975 : Why not? Because it takes three seconds to turn it back on and navigate to where you left off?
30 Post contains images Fly2HMO : Oh boy here we go. Please do tell where you achieved your aviation electronics wisdom because you are waaaay off mark. Oh please lets not turn this i
31 Post contains images JBirdAV8r : Where did I say they were special iPads? They've been certified by the FAA as Class I EFBs. They've gone through interference testing. I encourage yo
32 Post contains images Fly2HMO : Yeah I don't even know why I even bother anymore. It's not like we're arguing if Mila Kunis is hotter than Megan Fox or not that's just opinion. But
33 tugger : Not to put too fine a point on it but your are wrong, you simply do not know what you are talking a about. A "Faraday cage" only exists where you are
34 kaitak744 : A non airplane question: So, when I use my wifi computer or cell phone around a screen or tv at my house, why doesn't anything happen to it?
35 goblin211 : It's purely for profit reasons but since it's not very professional to say we're just making you shut therm off so we can profit, isn't going to fly w
36 RamblinMan : I'd bet both of you are excellent pilots. This does not make you physicists. Similarly, the article referenced in the OP doesn't prove anything eithe
37 heathrow : What about on airlines where it's okay to use "Only ear-bud type headphones" like AC? What does this change?
38 s5daw : No, if I understand correctly Kindle is basically in some kind of sleep mode even when it's showing you a page. As I said my wireless is turned off (
39 JBirdAV8r : I largely agree with your statement. I take issue with those who believe they are the regulators and the testers.
40 Fly2HMO : Alright alright I should've said "like" a faraday cage but yes being nitpicky planes are not strictly faraday cages HOWEVER the fuselage does diminis
41 JBirdAV8r : I don't understand how you're asserting it's for "profit reasons." Could you explain this a bit?
42 YYZatcboy : On AC it is headphone type earbuds (When you stand up and move away they will fall out, and also don't create a loop for other people to trip over in
43 tugger : To answer it simplistically, electronics are designed to either ignore the interference, compensate for it, or are protected from it. It all depends
44 signol : I've always been under the impression the reason why electronics need to be switched off during takeoff and landing is that they cause a distraction t
45 nonrevman : My big question would be: If use of electronics onboard is not safe, then why would airlines/TSA allow these devices to be carried on the plane? After
46 WNCrew : STOW all CARRYONS items for TAXI, TAKEOFF, and LANDING!!!.... period.... Aside from the possibility of interference, none of you has a leg to stand on
47 tugger : Good point. And the scary "other side" of that is could someone build an innocuous looking item that generates a pulse/interference that will disable
48 chopchop767 : I suspect that passengers would be less hostile to the policy were this type of policy in place, eg some items were permitted for use during take off
49 jpetekyxmd80 : There is similarly no need for you to make an announcement at the very start of descent that I need to stop listening to music or doing something to
50 jalig : I can completely understand that you should turn off ed during to and landing as you need you attention focused in case of an evacuation. However, whe
51 Post contains images HAL : Yep! I guess I raised a s#!^storm again. I don't know if I can add anything more, other than to ask every single person here who declares that it's o
52 413X3 : If these systems are so fragile and weak, do you really want to fly in it to begin with?
53 RVV2011 : Not true. The maximum output power is comparable, slightly less or slightly more depending on the power class of the device.
54 WNCrew : This isn't MY announcement to make, this is procedure and is fairly standard at all carriers. The reason is, the closer we get to the ground, the mor
55 RVV2011 : Forget it. Some people just can't be reached.
56 707lvr : .. what does this say about our brains, a few centimeters away from all this effective radiated power? I imagine a day twenty or forty years from now
57 DesertFlyer : I wish I could give your post a thumbs up. The ignorance of some people is remarkable. "I won't turn it off until they do!" and "I refuse to stop usi
58 comorin : Our brains are not affected by radiation at that frequency, and there are no conductors in there to convert RF energy to current.
59 413X3 : I agree. If we sit in a cockpit with those devices, I could see them interfering. But 50+ feet away in the passenger cabin? God help us all if these
60 indolikaa : If you are so desperately addicted to your electronic devices that you cannot turn them off for even a few minutes, you need professional help.
61 Post contains images captainstefan : Amen amen amen. True, but a Canon wouldn't pose a threat - a normal face would break it instead
62 acidradio : Just a kind request to everyone to not make this into a personal argument. People are starting to get mad at each other. I've had to pull a few posts.
63 brilondon : The problem as I see it is that on this forum and many like it, we are preaching to the choir and I would say that the vast majority of people comply
64 Post contains images cptspeaking : Anybody ever heard the phrase "federal law mandates that all passengers must comply with all placards and crewmember instructions." Great. Now, has an
65 indolikaa : There are plenty of informed people out there who simply choose to disobey the rules. Whether it is because they think they should be held to a highe
66 COS777 : Yes, I think it is okay to use electronic devices. The article is very vague as to what the conditions were which is quite useful in a review of a sci
67 contrail25 : I always get a good kick out of these discussions. Round-and-round they go. I can't speak to the technological ins and outs of the issue here, just pl
68 kaitak744 : Thanks for the great explanation. Honestly, plane electronics should just be made to withstand interference. period. Avoiding the problem is not a wa
69 aviators99 : I am so sick of the "projectile" argument! Someone is going to tell me that my Kindle/Nook/whatever is more of a projectile danger than my hardcover
70 Post contains images lightsaber : It is a ploy by the big6 to keep paper sales high. For without the ability to read that Harry Potter or other large tome during takeoff and landing,
71 Post contains images Fly2HMO : Good for you. That does not make any more authoritative than me or anyone else either. Like what? You think my interference encounters were in my ima
72 Toni_ : What always stuns me the most about this discussion is how we keep ignoring the bigger picture and forget about the more important issue. Do I believe
73 Viscount724 : The following WestJet passsenger on a flight from YEG to YHZ Thursday probably now wishes he'd turned off his phone when requested to do so. Fom Trans
74 Eltomzo : If electronic devices were a real danger to flight then the authorities would ban them and seek them out at the security checkpoint in the airport - n
75 ursh : I could agree for HH devices. There could also be seen as a distraction in case of an emergency. However Aircraft manufacturer need in my opinion also
76 WROORD : I remember when smoking was permitted on flights everyone obey the rule not to smoke on take off/landing. I think the issue is not with the electronic
77 titanmiller : I've flown on military aircraft as crew before (where such rules are often loosely followed by crew members) and have heard the distinctive noise of a
78 ThirtyEcho : For those of you who think that all potentially affected avionics are in the cockpit, your ignorance is showing. There might be a VHF antenna, located
79 Post contains images NZ107 : What I find most annoyng is the lack of consistency shown. Here's a photo I took from the back of the Jetstar safety card: Under the "devices not rest
80 Kngkyle : Bring on the high speed rail.
81 cpd : Can you explain this testing procedure in finer detail? Particularly - can you tell us 100% if every single device will be tested. If they are not, t
82 lhr380 : So im to stow my book then on take-off? Depending on the read that could cause way more harm then a kindle, or ipod. umm, is not every Ipad made to t
83 HAL : Yes, I had my hand slapped for using sarcasm in a post that got deleted. I am sorry to all involved. The point that I've been trying to get across her
84 Post contains images BEG2IAH : If I use my camera to shoot a takeoff or landing I make sure wrist strap is really tight. If my cam becomes a projectile, then probably my arm or my
85 Post contains images s5daw : I really don't see what is there to debate...
86 BN747 : Wow..60 post later, and not a single person went near this... which every member of this site has either witnessed, committed or both. The truth (rea
87 thunder9 : If you've (probably) been a pilot that long, then surely you follow the FAR's/AIM's/JAA Regulations and ensure that you, your crew members, and passe
88 Eltomzo : And? A person eating a doughnut onboard hasn't caused a crash yet either (as far as I am aware!). Does that mean we should all refrain from eating do
89 Eagleboy : An instruction given in each of my pre-flight briefings, having your phone on acts as a distraction for the crew.
90 jpetekyxmd80 : What is not proven safe about it? Cameras are far from a recent invention. Music players/PED have been around awhile now. All these devices have been
91 Post contains links and images fly2hmo : For all the naysayers, want substantial proof of interference, including devices that don't transmit anything? Go look at the NASA ASRS reports. Do a
92 aviators99 : Exactly. Thank you. Maybe. But more likely just irrelevant. I choose to follow the scientific method as opposed to anecdotal stories. As Eltomzo poin
93 fly2hmo : So do I. But I don't think I or anyone else needs to have a PhD and be wearing a lab coat to connect the dots here. it should be obvious to anyone wi
94 exFATboy : I like the JetStar policy, looks like a decently-thought-out set of rules that take into account potential electronic interference, "situational awar
95 jpetekyxmd80 : Wow, where do I even begin? Do you ever bother to read my posts? I guess not, because... What don't you get? I have never advocated the use of cell p
96 jpetekyxmd80 : Absolutely. Good job to them, I imagine all the other airlines who don't have this policy simply don't care enough about an enthusiast to have anythi
97 aviators99 : Actually no, it's not. That's the way the scientific method works. By the way, you should note that whether your phone is on or not, the plane would
98 s5daw : "We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct. My own f
99 Lufthansa : And the classic case of a corrolation doesnt imply causation. This is very important because people use correlations do get away with all kinds of ab
100 Viscount724 : If you don't want to follow the airline's (or government's) rules and regulations, pick an airline that doesn't apply those rules. Do you also make y
101 fly2hmo : That was aimed at everyone else and not you specifically so chill out. I suggest you study up on how cell phones function. Obviously exterior signals
102 jpetekyxmd80 : Wow, brilliant example there using speed limits. By definition "limit": A point or level beyond which something does not or may not extend or pass. W
103 jpetekyxmd80 : Also for everyone, I am much, much more likely to take a picture during taxi than during takeoff or landing, i'll usually only do that if I see someth
104 aviators99 : I invite you to reproduce this in a controlled environment and put an end to us disbelievers. I'm sorry if you took my statement that way, but I neve
105 rwy04lga : Thankfully they were above 10000' ...Infant in Arms... So, using a cell phone/detonator above 10000' would be OK? And if the vaunted TSA is as good a
106 sovietjet : It's funny how wrong some of these arguments are on both sides. There is no extreme case and there are good arguments on both sides although I tend to
107 Bennett123 : What I do not understand is this, why is a camera OK for Jetstar, but not for other airlines.
108 jpetekyxmd80 : Because Jetstar actually has common sense and concern for the wishes for a small majority of the passengers who might wish to take a picture of the sc
109 indolikaa : So true.
110 exFATboy : I'll admit it, I speed, pretty frequently in fact. And so do tens of millions of other people do too, every day, around the world. Why? Because many
111 Post contains links HAL : The rules in Australia probably differ a little from that in the US. But after 100+ replies, nobody has shown what the actual rules are. In the US, t
112 jpetekyxmd80 : How would you handle such situations?
113 exFATboy : And yet Jetstar has managed to summarize a somewhat nuanced set of rules that differentiate between devices in a single, easy to understand, table. I
114 jpetekyxmd80 : Which, in a perfect world, wouldn't have been triggered by since removed post or yours essentially calling me a federal criminal or whatever you said
115 Post contains links and images Fly2HMO : And here, for part 121 ops: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text....1.1.5&idno=14#14:3.0.1.1.5.11.2.4 So strictly speaking not even us pilots can
116 jpetekyxmd80 : So which is it?
117 rwy04lga : Is that like 'Jumbo Shrimp' but in reverse?
118 HAL : That is why so many are confused. The answer is that it is both. That's the way the FAR's work. Part (a) says you can't use any electronics, except a
119 indolikaa : "(a)" devices are prohibited and not subject to exception by the operator unless the device qualifies under (b); i.e., the pilot cannot overrule (a) u
120 jpetekyxmd80 : Ok, fair enough, i've said many times, I will not disobey if asked by a crew member. But this seems like a far cry from what you said to me yesterday
121 HAL : In the language of the FAA, the word 'operator' means the airline. The crew onboard is simply tasked with enforcing those rules. HAL
122 BrouAviation : Besides the fact that you are comparing apples and oranges here, I believe that any aircraft with the avionic systems which can be fooled by the litt
123 HAL : Somehow this thread devolved into an 'everyone's-an-expert-on-electronics' conversation. Yes, aircraft avionics systems should be able to withstand a
124 bikerthai : People, can we just listen to the Pilots? These pilots are a cautious bunch because their lives are at stake. They will be extra cautious because many
125 Post contains images C46 : I’d venture to say that most people here who are pushing back have never been in a position of responsibility and authority that includes ensuring
126 BrouAviation : Neither to the airlines. They may decide on what they consider a risk, and yes, a heavy DSLR can for sure impose a risk when you slam the brakes in a
127 indolikaa : Those same people will be the first to criticize "you" for not being forceful enough on the issue if there is a subsequent accident because of a PED.
128 cpd : I only asked a completely innocent question, is every "certified" iPad individually tested? The reason I asked is because even though we know that al
129 BN747 : Then I strongly suggest you two show us how committed to this you two are...1st with reporting to every airline the individuals who are pilots - who
130 indolikaa : If I am taking pictures in the cockpit with my Nikon D7000, what circuits within that camera are a threat to avionics in a modern commercial airliner?
131 Post contains images EZEIZA : I tend to always agree with the pilots, always, but from what I have been reading, even cameras could interfere. But this creates a problem since ther
132 ThirtyEcho : It is easy to tell the pilots from the duffers on this thread. We will continue to have those who flaunt the rules until, some dark night, we have a t
133 BEG2IAH : My impression was that no one suggested we should use phones on board. Aren't we talking we should be allowed to use cameras and other no-phone elect
134 NZ107 : And, just so you know, the same is written on the back of Qantas' safety cards too. Just wondering seeing that QF fly LAX-JFK, does QF need to satisf
135 BrouAviation : You are aware of the fact that it isn't even proven that cell phones do NOT increase your chance of dying of brain cancer. Does that stop that from u
136 Kaiarahi : I've been on a Jetstar flight where FAs had a long argument with a pax who was insisting that it was ok to have his iPhone on because he was using it
137 cpd : That's against the rules, as you suggest. I don't know if a traditional camera (eg, video/DSLR) is against the rules - but that's obviously a grey ar
138 MD11Engineer : As long as the dimensions of the openings is smaller than a wave length, they are. And for the material, to keep out the electrical field component,
139 tdscanuck : You are aware of the fact that you can't prove *any* negative statement, right? Traditional camera (video/SLR) isn't against the rules if 1) it's bei
140 InnocuousFox : I will be flying to LA and back next week. I plan on using my video camera and posting the videos on YouTube. Please alert the proper authorities. Jus
141 BrouAviation : That's exactly the point I am trying to make.
142 BN747 : And the same critics here - pilots and all - will tune in to watch your vids...providing that 1- your subject matter is one of their particular inter
143 MD11Engineer : What about the timing oscillator in the camera´s internal computer? After all it operates in the MHz range. I have taken pictures as well while sitt
144 indolikaa : I have no argument with electronics specifically designed to transit and receive RF. I have serious and honest questions about electronics not design
145 MD11Engineer : How would the pilot of an airliner know that somebody is using electronic equipment back in the cabin if something goes haywire? If I´m sitting in t
146 tdscanuck : It's not just anecdotal, it's documented under flight test conditions. Neither. FAA certification of anything is at the part number level and there a
147 indolikaa : There was a comment made earlier about having to obey a rule when a crew member may be violating the same rule. That line of thought began at Reply 4
148 ThirtyEcho : The fact that pilots sometimes use cells, cameras and iPads is irrelevant to the discussion. A pilot is capable of determining when PED interference i
149 InnocuousFox : I wonder how many people realize that the biggest source of electromagnetic interference is... the sun. People should stop booking flights during the
150 tdscanuck : It's the biggest source of electromagnetic *radiation*...not interference. Tom.
151 mandala499 : It only involves Phase 3 DUs by Honeywell... There is no continuous interference, intermitten and random, the occurence of which is statistically not
152 bikerthai : LOL, What we really need to to harden all the flight critical component on the aircraft like they do with Military aircraft. (I know, some Mil aircraf
153 md80fanatic : Navigation antennas are mounted outside the "faraday cage" and their purpose is to intercept external signals whilst filtering out extraneous "noise",
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
POS To PBM. SLM Still Flying It? posted Mon Apr 9 2007 02:15:30 by OB1783P
380 At JFK, Think It Will Still Happen? posted Sat Mar 17 2007 16:10:00 by Flyboy14295
AA Power Ports: What Do I Need To Use It? posted Mon May 2 2005 00:56:16 by Usa4624
Just How Safe Is It To Use The Lavatory On Planes? posted Wed Oct 2 2002 00:58:43 by Bobcat
JetBlue Diversion On It's Way To BDA posted Wed May 25 2011 10:30:39 by BDABOY
UA-CO To Use UAX Flights Between BWI And ORD? posted Thu Dec 16 2010 02:49:46 by 777fan
LH To Use 5th A380 To JFK. posted Thu Dec 9 2010 11:54:45 by jfk777
It's Illegal To Ask Why Sky Marshalls Fly F Class? posted Tue Oct 19 2010 18:51:09 by enilria
Germanwings To Use 747 For Flight To PMI posted Wed Sep 29 2010 07:28:30 by robffm2
LH To Use 747 On Some Domestic Flights In Sep posted Wed Jul 14 2010 02:26:53 by Tobias2702