Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
FAA Studying Allow More Use Of Electronic Devices  
User currently offlineGonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1985 posts, RR: 2
Posted (1 year 11 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 2941 times:

This could be a big change in the way we enjoy our flights, although is still in the first steps...
With the big number of Electronic devices of all kind we have now, it makes sense to revise the rules.

http://atwonline.com/international-a...-group-study-inflight-ped-use-0827


Rgds.

G.


80 Knots...V1...Rotate...Gear Up...DC-3 / EMB-110 / Fairchild-227 / Ab318-19-20 / B732 / B763
19 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineRKSofACinUSA From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 41 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 11 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2787 times:

This one is a real can of worms. On one hand, it's a bit ridiculous for me to be able to read my paper book during take-off and the person next to me is told to turn off their Nook. If they decide that Readers are no danger, where do they draw the line? There is an argument that it is not the technology that is a danger, it is the lack of attention of the passengers during a critical time in the flight. But if this is true, shouldn't I be told to put away my paper book during take-off and landing too?

User currently offlinesilentbob From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 2051 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (1 year 11 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2695 times:

Technically, all items are supposed to be stowed for takeoff, including books, papers, food, etc...

User currently offlineRKSofACinUSA From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 41 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (1 year 11 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2674 times:

Yeah, technically  

User currently offlinePHLBOS From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7511 posts, RR: 24
Reply 4, posted (1 year 11 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2664 times:

As long as these relaxations do not lift the ban on in-flight cell phone use; I, personally, have no issue w/such.


"TransEastern! You'll feel like you've never left the ground because we treat you like dirt!" SNL Parady ad circa 1981
User currently offlinetravelin man From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3477 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 11 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2643 times:

So many people don't even turn their phones off anyways, just put them in "black screen" mode to make them look like they are off. Just take a look around you the next time you land somewhere. Right at touchdown people are on their phones immediately, and no phone "turns on" that quickly!

Plus I wonder how the use of Ipads/tablets in the cockpit by the crews may be forcing a change in the policy as well.


User currently offlineGonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1985 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (1 year 11 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2582 times:

I will be happy with something so simple as not being forced to turn off and seal my camera during climb out and approach.
I missed very good pictures/films and opportunities of good catches just because this ban of "NO EPD", and I found a little ridiculous that I can have my little handy-cam turned on. It doesn't emit any kind of signal capable of doing any interference to the airplane's systems, and as long it is in my hands the chance of the camera being dangerous to others around me is zero.

Rgds.
G.



80 Knots...V1...Rotate...Gear Up...DC-3 / EMB-110 / Fairchild-227 / Ab318-19-20 / B732 / B763
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5419 posts, RR: 8
Reply 7, posted (1 year 11 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2568 times:

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 4):
As long as these relaxations do not lift the ban on in-flight cell phone use; I, personally, have no issue w/such.

Don't worry, they can't relax or change that. I read that the cell phone ban is via the FCC and not under the control of the FAA and so not part of the review.

I fully understand the "attention" and "objects need to stowed" aspect of the requirements. Those two apsects in particular are critical. Without going into my views on the topic, this review will at least address the issue of how much of an impact the in cabin electronics have on the performance of the aircraft. I suspect they will keep most of the rules in place "just to be safe" but we will have to wait and see.

For now, I look forward to a vigorous A.net debate where we blast each other for our ridiculous views that "electronics do not affect the plane or cockpit" or "electronic devices can greatly impact the electronic systems of a plane and they must be controlled"         

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7204 posts, RR: 17
Reply 8, posted (1 year 11 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2527 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 7):

For now, I look forward to a vigorous A.net debate where we blast each other for our ridiculous views that "electronics do not affect the plane or cockpit" or "electronic devices can greatly impact the electronic systems of a plane and they must be controlled"

Tugg

I just wish the FAA would watch that mythbusters episode  



One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5564 posts, RR: 6
Reply 9, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2430 times:

Quoting travelin man (Reply 5):
So many people don't even turn their phones off anyways, just put them in "black screen" mode to make them look like they are off. Just take a look around you the next time you land somewhere. Right at touchdown people are on their phones immediately, and no phone "turns on" that quickly!

I keep my cell phone on in flight, albeit in flight mode. When the 10K chime comes on, I put it away until we turn onto the taxiway. Flight mode goes off, and I don't have to wait 5 minutes for my phone to turn on.

No harm, no foul.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlinejetblue32 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 79 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2218 times:

Stated in article: 'Cell phone use for voice communications in flight will not be part of the study.'- Thank God!

User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13512 posts, RR: 62
Reply 11, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2193 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

As I stated in the comments section, the most critical need for continuous PED use is actually for medical PEDs such as Portable Oxygen Concentrators (POCs), nebulizers, pulse oxymeters, and other such medical devices that currently require individual manufacturers petition both the DOT and the individual air carriers avionics engineering departments for approval since there are no uniform testing standards.

Also, the "distracted passenger" argument is a flawed one; customers are not required to give their undivided attention during safety briefings, so restricting them from using a PED during safety-critical phases of flight won't keep passengers from reading books, magazines, having conversations with seatmates, or even sleeping - all things that will keep them having situational awareness.



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlinezkokq From Australia, joined Mar 2012, 473 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2178 times:

Quoting jetblue32 (Reply 10):
Stated in article: 'Cell phone use for voice communications in flight will not be part of the study.'- Thank God!

I dont think you can get cell phone reception at 35,000ft? Atleast not without some extra technology. Pretty much once youre above 10,000ft you cant get reception here in Oz. Not with Telstra (main carrier in Australia) anyway.


User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5419 posts, RR: 8
Reply 13, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2028 times:

Quoting zkokq (Reply 12):
I dont think you can get cell phone reception at 35,000ft? Atleast not without some extra technology.

That's only 5 miles up, so only 5 miles or so miles from a cell tower and the signal can cover that distance. Across the plains the big cell towers seem to be every three to five miles or so. Of course it may may be more for Australia. As I understand it, the speed and the switching from one tower to the next screws up the ground network a bit (a least it did in the early years).

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlinerwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2311 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1720 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tugger (Reply 7):
Don't worry, they can't relax or change that. I read that the cell phone ban is via the FCC and not under the control of the FAA and so not part of the review.

The only part that the FCC cares about is the radio connection to the cellular network. The 4G networks no longer have a special voice channel (as did 3G and earlier), and all calls using 4G are basically some variation of VoIP. Most (at least higher end) 4G phones will happily make VoIP calls over a WiFi connection. So if the aircraft had WiFi service, phone calls over that would be of no interest to the FCC.

Quoting zkokq (Reply 12):
I dont think you can get cell phone reception at 35,000ft? Atleast not without some extra technology. Pretty much once youre above 10,000ft you cant get reception here in Oz. Not with Telstra (main carrier in Australia) anyway.

While the antennas are focused somewhat horizontally, you shouldn't have any trouble connecting to a cell tower at any altitude a commercial aircraft will by flying at. Being inside a metal tube will impact reception some, but probably the biggest issue is speed - the switching process between cells is not that fast (basically the base stations wait a bit to see if you've really moved into their cell), and at high speeds, you're often going to transit cells in near the interval it takes the base station to get you connected. And speeds tend to go up above 10kft, after all.

So next time you want to make a call, ask the pilot to slow down.   


User currently offlinefat-g4 From United States of America, joined Sep 2011, 41 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1678 times:

How many people here on A.net have used there camera on T/O and landing? I bet 90% of us are guilty!

User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7204 posts, RR: 17
Reply 16, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1658 times:

Quoting fat-g4 (Reply 15):
How many people here on A.net have used there camera on T/O and landing? I bet 90% of us are guilty!

I've gotten yelled at numerous times for doing so  



One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5564 posts, RR: 6
Reply 17, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1512 times:

Quoting zkokq (Reply 12):
I dont think you can get cell phone reception at 35,000ft?

Sure you can. The problem is that you get too much service, tying up multiple slots, and also moving too fast to keep a reliable connection.

Quoting rwessel (Reply 14):

While the antennas are focused somewhat horizontally, you shouldn't have any trouble connecting to a cell tower at any altitude a commercial aircraft will by flying at.

Exactly.

The workaround is pretty simple, and is already in use on some airlines: have the tower on the plane. It works just like the wi-fi: you put a mini cell site on the plane, and then use a different, dedicated transmitter to communicate with base stations on the ground. There's the issue of interference with the airplanes systems, but workarounds are slowly being devised and tested.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineFI642 From Monaco, joined Mar 2005, 1079 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 1424 times:

I agree that more electronic devices should be allowed , however I also agree thar cell phones should not be allowed. Ever.


737MAX, Cool Planes for the Worlds Coolest Airline.
User currently offlineBEG2IAH From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 936 posts, RR: 17
Reply 19, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1338 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting fat-g4 (Reply 15):
How many people here on A.net have used there camera on T/O and landing? I bet 90% of us are guilty!

If I said no I would say a lie.  



FAA killed the purpose of my old signature: Use of approved electronic devices is now permitted.
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...
More Scrutiny For Electronic Devices posted Tue Aug 5 2003 20:34:59 by Jhooper
Use Of Portable Electronic Devices In Flight posted Tue Aug 1 2000 06:42:55 by KROC
Emirates, First To Allow Use Of Mobile Phones! posted Wed Nov 8 2006 09:10:31 by QatarA340
Use Of Simulators For FAA CPL posted Sat Oct 15 2005 23:46:35 by LimaFoxTango
Charge For Use Of Overhead Bins On Ryanair? posted Mon Aug 6 2012 11:45:53 by smbukas
FAA To Rethink Electronics Use Below 10K posted Tue Mar 20 2012 15:24:32 by airtechy
UA/CO Crews' Access And Use Of Crew Bases At Hubs posted Fri Mar 9 2012 09:34:24 by Chicagoflight
IB's Use Of A340s On MAD/LHR posted Thu Nov 3 2011 15:54:40 by SK736
Ground Use Of Cellphones While Taxiing posted Thu Oct 27 2011 08:44:17 by freakyrat
More Allegations Of Underhanded Tactics By AI, GOI posted Tue Oct 4 2011 09:59:52 by pnd100