Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
FCC To FAA: Allow Greater Use Of Devices Inflight  
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24312 posts, RR: 47
Posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 5960 times:

The FCC chairman yesterday called on the FAA to allow travelers greater use of use of electronic portable devices during airplane flights as part of input to FAA study group reviewing such policies.

FCC chairman says "This review comes at a time of tremendous innovation, as mobile devices are increasingly interwoven in our daily lives. They empower people to stay informed and connected with friends and family, and they enable both large and small businesses to be more productive and efficient, helping drive economic growth and boost U.S. competitiveness."

Back in 2004 the government considered lifting rules that prohibited in-flight use of cellphones and other wireless devices but it abandoned the idea because technical information was insufficient to ensure in-flight use of wireless devices would not cause interferes. Currently the use of non phone devices is limited to phases of flight above 10,000 feet.


Stories:
http://www.engadget.com/2012/12/07/f...o-allow-more-electronics-aircraft/
and
http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-va...-electronic-devices-during-flights

=


From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
56 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4757 posts, RR: 43
Reply 1, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 5881 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
They empower people to stay informed and connected with friends and family, and they enable both large and small businesses to be more productive and efficient, helping drive economic growth and boost U.S. competitiveness.

Interesting how the United States was a world economic leader ... long before smart phones.



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12060 posts, RR: 52
Reply 2, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 5749 times:

The FCC is jumping a little out of their area of responsibility here. The FAA shouldn't give in to the demand from another government agancy.

User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24312 posts, RR: 47
Reply 3, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 5703 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
The FCC is jumping a little out of their area of responsibility here. The FAA shouldn't give in to the demand from another government agancy.

 

The FAA has a study group on the subject and sought input. So the FCC accordingly provided its opinion along with pledging to support the FAA, airlines and manufacturers on the review.

Seems like quite valuable assistance the FAA could make use of.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinemaxamuus From United States of America, joined Feb 2011, 68 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 5654 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
FAA to allow travelers greater use of use of electronic portable devices

Am i missing something here ? Greater use? The 10 mins. restriction upon take off and landing is hindering us?


User currently offlineBE77 From Canada, joined Nov 2007, 455 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 5485 times:

Quoting maxamuus (Reply 4):
Am i missing something here ? Greater use? The 10 mins. restriction upon take off and landing is hindering us?

It's the "Communication" aspect. They figure that there should be no problem leaving your device 'on' in flight, not just in "Airplane" mode.
FCC figures you should be allowed to use the com part of your device.

Really, there has been a long term experiment underway proving the safety of leaving your cell phone on 'gate to gate'. So far nothing untoward has happened (at least not front page news), yet I think every single one of us here has either left their phone / tablet / etc on at least once by mistake (or otherwise), and for sure many (most/all?) have heard someone's phone ringing in the overhead bin.   

Of course, airlines are offering on board wifi at a price now, so that probably indicates that the wifi and BT links in your device are OK - and so it's not a stretch to imagine that 3G or 4G would be OK too, especially since there are already probably at least 5 or 10 phones left on every flight.



Tower, Affirmitive, gear is down and welded
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 6, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 5262 times:

Quoting BE77 (Reply 5):
So far nothing untoward has happened (at least not front page news)

Nothing untoward happening and not making the front page news are *not* the same thing. The NASA database is full (dozens per year) of EMI reports.

Tom.


User currently offline2175301 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 1022 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 5057 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 6):

Nothing untoward happening and not making the front page news are *not* the same thing. The NASA database is full (dozens per year) of EMI reports.

Tom.

But on which generation/age of aircraft.

I readily accept the argument that the older planes in the fleets can have interference problems because no one thought to design for that. I would accuse Airbus, Boeing, Bombardier, etc and various sub suppliers of up to criminal negligence if the most modern planes were to have any such problems as part of professional design standards is to design away any current problem that can affect aircraft safety.

Where is the dividing line on where this problem should have been dealt with from a design/modification standpoint; I suspect about 10 years ago - although that could vary somewhat model from model.

Have a great day,


User currently offlineBE77 From Canada, joined Nov 2007, 455 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 4861 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 6):
Nothing untoward happening and not making the front page news are *not* the same thing. The NASA database is full (dozens per year) of EMI reports.

I agree with the front page not equalling reality (proven every day, both for stories that make the front page, and those that should be and aren't - which is a subjective call for anyone!!!).

For the NASA (and similar) databases, they are also full of other incident types as well - as they should be. Hopefully the gate-keepers are effective at getting the priorities straight in picking which areas to focus on (overall I think they are actually very good at it - excluding the occasional politically driven initiative). They have done great work o things like runway incursions, CFIT, icing awareness, and other trends that were actively leading to funerals. Hopefully the EMI reports are being analysed by the same people and that real risks are being assessed and mitigated.

Still, if you sit back and think about it - what is really the risk and issues with cell phones and wifi in aviation. What can the risks really be. If a 1 to 3 watt transmitter can cause a real problem, maybe all the affected aviation electronics have to be upgraded 'immediately' (at monstrous expense) because the reality is that it is impossible to eliminate the risk that someone will leave their device on in a non-airplane mode state. Not hard or difficult, but impossible (well, impossible short of confiscating everyone's cell phones with their water bottles...and that would be a more monstrous expense than shielding the radios...and we'd be back to relying on the airport security screening to enforce it...).

Another way to think of it from an outsiders point of view might be that if a modern airliner is at risk from a 1 watt transmitter in 2012 then we have a problem with the airliner, not the transmitter. First there all the cell phones (sometime this year I saw a stat that said there were more ACTIVE cell phone subscriptions than there are people on earth (I have 3). Additionally there are a LOT of powerful transmitters over 50,000 Watts, to say nothing of the effects of solar storms which put out enough power to fry entire power grids...I would hope that airliners designed to fly great circle polar routes include designing to withstand pretty powerful signals across the entire EM spectrum (evidence suggests the must, since there haven't been many issues even during major solar storms).

If there is a trend in EMI disruption (perhaps identified in the NASA data) then mitigation could be as simple as education or redesign of one particular system on board. Overall I think it would be treated the same as every other failure mode for any system - no different than having learned partial panel, don't believe ADF indications near coast lines or T Storms, watch for false ILS captures when intercepting from above, and on and on....



Tower, Affirmitive, gear is down and welded
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 9, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 4856 times:

Quoting 2175301 (Reply 7):
But on which generation/age of aircraft.

All of them.

Quoting 2175301 (Reply 7):
I would accuse Airbus, Boeing, Bombardier, etc and various sub suppliers of up to criminal negligence if the most modern planes were to have any such problems as part of professional design standards is to design away any current problem that can affect aircraft safety.

Then you should do so. The attempt would fail in court, of course, but if you believe this is really the case then you should try (and you should stop flying).

Quoting 2175301 (Reply 7):
Where is the dividing line on where this problem should have been dealt with from a design/modification standpoint; I suspect about 10 years ago - although that could vary somewhat model from model.

The problem isn't on the aircraft side. By design, aircraft have to pick up and amplify a wide variety of EM radiation...that's how VHF, HF, GPS, ILS, etc. all work. You can't stop them from receiving frequencies in their respective bands and still have a functional system. The problem is on the personal device side...they have *terrible* controls on what they radiate. Nobody has, yet, figured out a way to reliably prevent several hundred uncontrolled devices per flight from screaming across the EM spectrum. Inevitably, by random chance if nothing else, one of them from time to time ends up leaking onto a fequency the aircraft actually has to listen to and then you get interference.

People always seem to think that the cell phone is going to screw up the flight controls or something...those are all shielded and essentially EMI immune for obvious reasons. But those aren't the problem systems. There is no way to shield a GPS receiver and still have it be a GPS receiver.

Tom.


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 10, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 4757 times:

Quoting BE77 (Reply 8):
Still, if you sit back and think about it - what is really the risk and issues with cell phones and wifi in aviation. What can the risks really be.

The primary risk, I suspect, is that a cell phone interferes with VHF (which happens pretty often) at the moment when ATC is telling the pilots to go-around in low viz due to traffic on the runway. The probabilities of that all lining up are pretty tiny, but they're always pretty tiny in aviation.

If we're willing to surrender our nail clippers and scissors due to fear of hijacking (which has a risk of *zero*, post 9/11) then we have absolutely no grounds to be insisting on the cell phone EMI risk as being acceptable.

Tom.


User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5246 posts, RR: 8
Reply 11, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 4706 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 9):
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 6):
The NASA database is full (dozens per year) of EMI reports.

And how many reports of other things failing and events happening are there? Probably ten times+ more. So apparently we shouldn't be flying at all because EMI isn't the real risk, everything else that can go wrong is. Especially weather and mechanical failure and crew failure or.... EMI is not a real issue more than everything else is a "real" issue. Aircraft fly through so much EMI radiation and encounter it internally now as well. The simple fact is that modern aircraft are relatively "hardened" to EMI as they are to mechanical failure and crew failures. They cause some interference but it is manageable as are the majority of the other problems (or flying would not be a primary mode of transportation and flying wouldn't be as safe as it is and has been for so long).

But I know people here have different beliefs on this and that "no additional risk" at all is acceptable and I will not be able to convince you or anyone else that has this belief to change so I will let it lie here.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 12, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 4691 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 11):
And how many reports of other things failing and events happening are there? Probably ten times+ more.

Much more than that. I'm just countering the often heard/blatantly-false assertion that there's no evidence of an EMI issue with cell phones on aircraft.

Now, if you want to ask whether cell phone EMI is the most productive avenue to pursue for air safety, that's a whole other question.

Tom.


User currently offlinerwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2238 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 4673 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 9):
Quoting 2175301 (Reply 7):
I would accuse Airbus, Boeing, Bombardier, etc and various sub suppliers of up to criminal negligence if the most modern planes were to have any such problems as part of professional design standards is to design away any current problem that can affect aircraft safety.

Then you should do so. The attempt would fail in court, of course, but if you believe this is really the case then you should try (and you should stop flying).

Obviously he'd lose now because he'd have no standing, but let's say an airliner did crash because of RF interference from some cell phones that were not turned off. I see two huge problems for the manufacturers (and the operators) - they can't claim unawareness of the problem (it's announced at the beginning of every flight), and they have clearly failed to take inexpensive and simple (and obvious!) measures to mitigate the problem. You could, for example, buy an RF detector that will pick up all common consumer-device RF frequencies for well under $1000 (which would still be a pittance compared to the cost of an aircraft, even after the usual aviation price markup). And such a thing would be easy to refit to existing vulnerable aircraft as well.

FWIW, that approach didn’t work all that well for Ford with the Pinto…


User currently offlineBE77 From Canada, joined Nov 2007, 455 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 4609 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 12):
Now, if you want to ask whether cell phone EMI is the most productive avenue to pursue for air safety, that's a whole other question.
Quoting tugger (Reply 11):
Probably ten times+ more
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 12):
Much more than that. I'm just countering the often heard/blatantly-false assertion that there's no evidence of an EMI issue with cell phones on aircraft

Before we throw the other guys phone under the drink trolley here...we're probably all pretty close to agreement here.

There is an EMI issue - but the existence of an issue and the risk it imposes are two different things as we agree - I know I mitigate the VHF interference (the clickclcikclick) by moving my 3G cell phone about 6 inches from my own comm and the click it goes away...the weird part is it's 6 inches further from the comm radio on the panel it has to be about 18 inches from the comm, but that puts it 6 inches closer to the antennae (about 6 feet away). But, the click goes away so it is what it is - then again, my comm was designed and built about 20 minutes after Orville and Wilbur did their thing. My phone doesn't seem to affect my 3 year old handheld transceiver that I use as backup for the antique in my panel. My IPad and BBerry with 3G on don't affect either comm...go figure.

Anyway - risk mitigated, and I can go about my business using my blue tooth enabled headset my cell phone and getting weather over 3G on the Ipad while doodling along at 100kts (which is also saving me time and money on trips longer than efficient in my truck, but to places not efficient to travel to by airlines...some of my personal flying is at the very bottom end of the entire GA value argument, which makes me a believer in the entire segment).

So in my experience (and based on very real reports and studies), there certainly can be an effect - but it seems small and non-significant, and we haven't seen things like the cheap detector option. And of course every airline flight in the last 10+ years has had at least one device turned on the whole time....and more and more every day - including a lot in the cockpit I imagine - not just in GA.

One last random relative risk assessment based on empircal analyis of accident / incident investigations - it seems to be safer to have the phone or tablet on in the cabin than off in the hold!



Tower, Affirmitive, gear is down and welded
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 15, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 4526 times:

Quoting rwessel (Reply 13):
they have clearly failed to take inexpensive and simple (and obvious!) measures to mitigate the problem.

How is that inexpensive or simple? You want to be able to run it in flight, which means it's certified, which means it's not inexpensive. And, if your RF receiver tells you something is radiating, you have *NOT* mitigated the problem, you've just confirmed that you have one (which you knew already)...now you actually need to find and turn off the device. That is not simple at all.

I think people are forgetting how fault trees work; the current system assumes that airlines give the "turn them off" order and that there is some level of non-compliance. Current reporting shows that the non-compliance is high enough to continue causing EMI issues but hasn't ever resulting in an actual event, yet. If you stop having people turn them off then everyone's going to leave them on and you "turn up" one of the probabilities in the fault tree by a factor of about 100.

Tom.


User currently offline2175301 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 1022 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 4500 times:

Quoting 2175301 (Reply 7):
I would accuse Airbus, Boeing, Bombardier, etc and various sub suppliers of up to criminal negligence if the most modern planes were to have any such problems as part of professional design standards is to design away any current problem that can affect aircraft safety.
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 9):
Then you should do so. The attempt would fail in court, of course, but if you believe this is really the case then you should try (and you should stop flying).

Actually, this is just about as close to a "slam dunk" court case of negligence against the Mfr's if there is an incident as you can get in the USA.

Quoting rwessel (Reply 13):
Obviously he'd lose now because he'd have no standing, but let's say an airliner did crash because of RF interference from some cell phones that were not turned off. I see two huge problems for the manufacturers (and the operators) - they can't claim unawareness of the problem

Bingo.

I don't work in the Airline Industry. But I am a Registered Professional Engineer (PE) - and no major structure or system that could impact safety of the public gets built without a PE. or equivalent, approval of the design. The PE Stamp (or equivalent) is really a stamp that all known and obvious safety issues have been adequately addressed in the design.

Part of my Professional Job is to keep abreast of the various legal liabilities out there related to misdesign and events.

The Professional Engineering Liability Literature has been full of discussions about designing consumer goods and commercial equipment to prevent RFI interference from cell phones, WIFI, etc for at least the last decade (and likely longer).

So if there is a safety incident in a modern airline due to interference from common modern communication devices, the legal liability is actually very clear (and while some states may have wiggle room in their state laws, the applicable sections of the federal laws I am familiar with do not). I doubt it would ever actually go to trial as its a virtually certain loss case with the potential of triple damages depending on the particulars.

The other thing is that the designers who certified the design of the systems and the plane will probably never be able to work again in the field as they will likely permanently loose their "Professional" certifications.

Have a great day,


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 17, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 4411 times:

Quoting 2175301 (Reply 16):
The other thing is that the designers who certified the design of the systems and the plane will probably never be able to work again in the field as they will likely permanently loose their "Professional" certifications.

Let me get this straight...the designer of the equipment clearly instructs the operator on the proper use of the equipment, the operator clearly instructs the users, the users disobey, and you're calling that the *designer's* fault? By that logic, if a terrorist successfully bombs the aircraft (considerably more likely than a safety-EMI event), the OEM is liable for not making the product resistant to bombing.

Also, a astonishingly small number of aeronautical engineers are PEs. The chance that anyone involved with detailed design of any system on any airliner has a PE, let alone the exposure to lose it, is virtually nil.

Tom.


User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5246 posts, RR: 8
Reply 18, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 4349 times:

Quoting BE77 (Reply 14):
the weird part is it's 6 inches further from the comm radio on the panel it has to be about 18 inches from the comm, but that puts it 6 inches closer to the antennae (about 6 feet away). But, the click goes away

An antenna is really designed (attenuated) to only pick up specific frequencies. From the antenna to the radio there is a shielded RF cable. So that does not surprise me.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 17):
Let me get this straight...the designer of the equipment clearly instructs the operator on the proper use of the equipment, the operator clearly instructs the users, the users disobey, and you're calling that the *designer's* fault? By that logic, if a terrorist successfully bombs the aircraft (considerably more likely than a safety-EMI event), the OEM is liable for not making the product resistant to bombing.

The issue is when it is a common and known (expected) "threat". And then throw in if the "users" environment is well know to not be able to easily fully controlled....

So yes, if bombs going off on a plane is a well known and common threat and a designer does not design for the normal, well known, and common threat and yet presents their craft and safe for flying in (in this "normal" environment), then yes, they would have fault. Probably not sole responsibility but certainly a good piece of it.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offline2175301 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 1022 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 4228 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 17):

Let me get this straight...the designer of the equipment clearly instructs the operator on the proper use of the equipment, the operator clearly instructs the users, the users disobey, and you're calling that the *designer's* fault? By that logic, if a terrorist successfully bombs the aircraft (considerably more likely than a safety-EMI event), the OEM is liable for not making the product resistant to bombing.

Also, a astonishingly small number of aeronautical engineers are PEs. The chance that anyone involved with detailed design of any system on any airliner has a PE, let alone the exposure to lose it, is virtually nil.

The courts have consistently ruled that you cannot escape liability by just providing instruction on how to avoid a danger - especially when it comes to ordinary consumers; who are not trained professionals. But even trained professionals cannot be dependent on their safety just by instructions.

This is why modern machinery from stamping mills to lawnmowers now have all kinds of automatic kill switches and other safety features that did not used to exist. It was not enough to tell people (even with obvious labels) to not clear the grass chute on a lawnmower. In order to prevent liability (and loosing more lawsuits) they had to put kill switches on the lawnmowers so that the engine has to shut down (or disengage a clutch) if you let go of the handle (to say reach down and clear the grass chute).

Terrorist bombing would be excluded by the courts as something beyond normal expectations.

But, you cannot expect the general public to just follow instructions on electronic device use as your defense from improper design for electronic interference. That argument is essentially dead on arrival - with a very long case history all across the US.

I will agree that the number of PEs, or equivalents, are small. Typically only about 10% of Engineers get a PE. But they also tend to be the overall design project managers who are directing the design (and build) process.

Have a great day,


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 18676 posts, RR: 58
Reply 20, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 4156 times:

I think the system is fine as it is. In-flight WiFi needs improvement, but I don't see that anything else has to be done. Voice calls should never be allowed in-flight because it disturbs surrounding passengers, not because of any technical reason.

In-flight WiFi can be made faster and have broader geographic coverage, but the basic service should be sufficient.

And, frankly, the 10,000 ft. rule is a good one. It means that passengers aren't distracted by devices during the two phases of flight where emergencies are most likely to happen.


User currently offlineDarkSnowyNight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1281 posts, RR: 3
Reply 21, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 4062 times:

Quoting 2175301 (Reply 16):


So if there is a safety incident in a modern airline due to interference from common modern communication devices, the legal liability is actually very clear (and while some states may have wiggle room in their state laws, the applicable sections of the federal laws I am familiar with do not).

I don't think liability is that clear, actually. Since there's not likely to be a PE stamp involved, (given the interstate commerce issues WRT aerospace engineering), I would think liability in such a case would default back to the operator, but also potentially even to the owner of the "offending" device; being that the warning at the begining of the flight could render such an occurrence as "foreseeable."


I postulate that since interstate commerce related disciplines in engineering are essentially unregulated.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 17):

Also, a astonishingly small number of aeronautical engineers are PEs. The chance that anyone involved with detailed design of any system on any airliner has a PE, let alone the exposure to lose it, is virtually nil.

Are those PEs there mainly for non-aeronautical disciplines that are tangentially related? I've always assumed that there were a sizable amount of Electrical & Mechanical Engineers involved in this field. But maybe it's not so sizable after all...



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlinejfidler From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 338 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 4015 times:

If the risks were that high, wouldn't a group of people with evil intentions just board the plane with 20 cellphones each, and threaten to turn them on if the crew didn't meet their demands?

User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 23, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3994 times:

Quoting 2175301 (Reply 19):
Terrorist bombing would be excluded by the courts as something beyond normal expectations.

Then what on earth is the basis for the TSA? It's pretty hard to argue that something is beyond normal expectations yet spend billions of dollars screening every passenger to try and prevent it.

Quoting 2175301 (Reply 19):
But, you cannot expect the general public to just follow instructions on electronic device use as your defense from improper design for electronic interference.

It's not an improper design issue (at least on the aircraft side). It's physically impossible to design an antenna that doesn't pick up RF...that's what antennas are for. It *is* improper design to build a consumer electronics device that radiates on the wrong frequencies but there is insufficient controls on consumer electronics to make sure that individual devices don't do that.

Quoting 2175301 (Reply 19):
Typically only about 10% of Engineers get a PE. But they also tend to be the overall design project managers who are directing the design (and build) process.

I know one OEM that has *one* PE of record, for the entire company. In my years within the industry he's the only one I've ever met who both has a PE and uses it within his job capacity. In aerospace, you're far more likely to find a PE in the facilities department than you are anywhere near the design process.

Quoting DarkSnowyNight (Reply 21):
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 17):
Also, a astonishingly small number of aeronautical engineers are PEs. The chance that anyone involved with detailed design of any system on any airliner has a PE, let alone the exposure to lose it, is virtually nil.

Are those PEs there mainly for non-aeronautical disciplines that are tangentially related? I've always assumed that there were a sizable amount of Electrical & Mechanical Engineers involved in this field. But maybe it's not so sizable after all...

There are a huge number of electrical and mechanical engineers in aerospace, but most of them went straight into the industry so they never got their PE because there's no requirement for it. Aerospace engineering drawings aren't signed off by individual PEs. I would assume the guys designing the buildings and monument tooling probably do have PEs within their ranks but they don't design the airplanes.

Quoting jfidler (Reply 22):
If the risks were that high, wouldn't a group of people with evil intentions just board the plane with 20 cellphones each, and threaten to turn them on if the crew didn't meet their demands?

This is a misunderstanding of the risk involved. No aircraft system that is necessary for safe flight and landing is vulnerable to EMI. That's designed in. The only way this would be an effective terrorist strategy would be to try it over and over and over and over, hoping to get the magical confluence of interference, a critical ATC communication, and the right operational situation to prevent the crew from realizing the problem. That would be an incredibly expensive attack vector with very low probability of success and very high probability of eventual capture. It would also have terrible PR value since it wouldn't be a credible attack after the fact.

Tom.


User currently offlinebond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5342 posts, RR: 8
Reply 24, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3951 times:

Guys,

Isn't whether or not the device can be used solely up to the FAA, airlines, and PIC?

The FCC has no say on whether it can used in an aircraft. The FCC restriction was because of the disruption cellphone usage could cause to the ground networks.

I think some may be misunderstanding what the FCC is saying here.

" it abandoned the proceeding a few years later because the technical information the agency received in response to the proposal "was insufficient to determine whether in-flight use of wireless devices" would interfere with wireless networks on the ground, the FCC said. "

Quoting BE77 (Reply 5):
It's the "Communication" aspect. They figure that there should be no problem leaving your device 'on' in flight, not just in "Airplane" mode.
FCC figures you should be allowed to use the com part of your device.

But the FCC is not saying that this in regards to interference with the aircraft, just their networks.

I think there is some mis-reading here guys ... the FCC did NOT say it was OK to use cellphones because they no longer think they are a risk to the aircraft ... that is , and always will be an FAA/Airline decision.


Jimbo



I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5246 posts, RR: 8
Reply 25, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3918 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 23):
It's physically impossible to design an antenna that doesn't pick up RF...that's what antennas are for.

Ummm... ts, I am sorry but if I understand what you are meaning, I think you are wrong on this. Yes, antennas pick up RF, as you say it is what they are designed to do, however they don't "pick up" ALL frequencies, they can be and are designed to pick up and exclude frequencies. It is why you can't easily just change/reprogram all cell phone sites to pick up other region's phone frequencies. The hardware, the antennas etc., are just not designed to receive and relay those frequencies. It is hardwired into the design of the antenna.

Also within an aircraft, it is not the antennas that are receiving and creating the problem, they and their respective cables are designed against RF intrusions via various means (RF shielding, coax cabling, RF connectors, tuning and attenuation). It is via the odd weak spots that renegade RF sneaks in, the gap in the face of the radio where a button or knob penetrates the shielding, the extraneous RF signal that is carried by the headphone cord into the panel, and the control cables (any that are left) that inadvertently carry signals, etc. It is in areas like these that RF intrudes where it should not. The billions of watts of RF energy that all planes fly through everyday are generally excluded due the "Faraday cage" nature of an aircraft overall, and with the debut of composite aircraft this feature is taken over (and planned for as well, don't think it is not) with the "lightening strike protection" systems (now THERE is one hell of an RF intrusion when that hits!) that are designed into the hull.

To be honest the biggest new weakness in aircraft have been the rise of digital systems and their wiring as they are often not requiring as robust analog RF signal protection for their own successful operation, and so have not always been designed to block it or not carry a signal (digital just looks at the data packets and rejects corrupt packets and does not look at variable analog RF). Now I don't say this as a general disparagement of digital systems, just to note that they have different design requirements and so were designed differently from the onset. For the most part anything for the aviation is designed rigorously to not create problems. It is just the odd "leaks" that need to be found and sealed. Aviation is still a mostly analog based system but that is changing.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlinebond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5342 posts, RR: 8
Reply 26, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3895 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 25):
however they don't "pick up" ALL frequencies, they can be and are designed to pick up and exclude frequencies. It is why you can't easily just change/reprogram all cell phone sites to pick up other region's phone frequencies. The hardware, the antennas etc., are just not designed to receive and relay those frequencies. It is hardwired into the design of the antenna.

You can optimize antennas and design them specifically to receive certain frequencies, but a 6" piece of wire can and will pick up any and all kinds of frequencies, some better than others.




Jimbo



I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 27, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3843 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 25):
Ummm... ts, I am sorry but if I understand what you are meaning, I think you are wrong on this. Yes, antennas pick up RF, as you say it is what they are designed to do, however they don't "pick up" ALL frequencies, they can be and are designed to pick up and exclude frequencies.

I don't think you got my meaning...yes, good RF systems will pick up only what they're designed to pick up. The problem isn't on the receiver side, it's on the transmitter side. Consumer electronics are notoriously leaky in RF. They radiate at all kinds of random frequencies because *they* don't have good shielding or controls. There are lots of consumer devices that radiate off their primary frequency and therein lies the problem...they often radiate at frequencies that the aircraft *wants* to pick up.

Tom.


User currently offlinerwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2238 posts, RR: 2
Reply 28, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 3648 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 15):
How is that inexpensive or simple? You want to be able to run it in flight, which means it's certified, which means it's not inexpensive. And, if your RF receiver tells you something is radiating, you have *NOT* mitigated the problem, you've just confirmed that you have one (which you knew already)...now you actually need to find and turn off the device. That is not simple at all.

All things are relative. We're talking a small, and fairly simple, device. Portable (handy for actually locating an emitter) devices manufactured to civilian standards are available for well under $1K. Take the standard 10-20 times aviation markup, and it's still cheap.

And unless you're saying that you can already detect all devices, because they all cause noticeable interference, knowing about the radiators as soon as they start radiating is certainly a plus. In many cases you may see a problem when enough radiators are turned on, or when certain configurations of desired signals and on-board radiators combine to create a problem. A detector would allow the dealing with many of those problems before they occur. Then being able to find them when they're causing a problem would be nice.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 17):
Let me get this straight...the designer of the equipment clearly instructs the operator on the proper use of the equipment, the operator clearly instructs the users, the users disobey, and you're calling that the *designer's* fault? By that logic, if a terrorist successfully bombs the aircraft (considerably more likely than a safety-EMI event), the OEM is liable for not making the product resistant to bombing.

You cannot declaim an ordinary or expected use of your product. An automobile manufacturer cannot say, "never drive this car faster than 10mph", and an airliner manufacturer cannot say "never operate this aircraft with a radiating cell phone on board", because we know that something approximating all flights *will* have a turned-on cell phone on board (at least in the absence of an effective countermeasure).

You don't in general have to build stuff proof against bombs because those are not ordinary threats. That applies to cars and buildings as well (although if a tiny bomb were to bring down a building, that would be pretty solid evidence that the building was not built correctly.

But that actually argues my side of this. If you cannot prevent aircraft systems from picking up stray RF from consumer devices, you should do something to mitigate it. Either confiscate the cell phones (along with the bombs) at the security checkpoint, or catch them as soon as possible on board (which is not particularly practical with bombs, of course).

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 27):
There are lots of consumer devices that radiate off their primary frequency and therein lies the problem...they often radiate at frequencies that the aircraft *wants* to pick up.

And if that's a sufficient problem for your hardware, then it's *your* responsibility to deal with. Again, either put in place an effective system for preventing the problem (reliably ensure that no cell phone is ever operated near your hardware, immediately detect and shut them down before they become a threat, etc.), or design your hardware to be immune.


User currently offlinespink From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 317 posts, RR: 1
Reply 29, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 3605 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 6):
Nothing untoward happening and not making the front page news are *not* the same thing. The NASA database is full (dozens per year) of EMI reports.

If the equipment on board an airplane is so susceptible that a handheld FCC certified transmitter can cause potentially life threatening situations to arise, then that airplane should be grounded and scrapped. It really is that simple. I can design and purpose build a device with orders of magnitude higher power that will fit in the same size as a laptop/tablet/cellphone. And if I can do it, certainly any nefarious person/organization can as well. It is also trivial to design one such that it would require a complete hardware teardown to tell the difference between the nefarious device and any commercial OTS cellphone/laptop/tablet.

Simple logic would dictate that any plane since the invention of the laptop should be fully emi shielded and tested or not be certified. Any commercial plane that isn't should be grounded.


User currently offlinespink From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 317 posts, RR: 1
Reply 30, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 3593 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 9):
People always seem to think that the cell phone is going to screw up the flight controls or something...those are all shielded and essentially EMI immune for obvious reasons. But those aren't the problem systems. There is no way to shield a GPS receiver and still have it be a GPS receiver.

This is only true to omnidirectional antennas with no signal discrimination. Designing any antenna for a multimillion dollar vehicle that is omnidirectional with no signal discrimination is quite simply, gross negligence, and has been true for quite some time. Any modern antennas system should be a mix of omni and directional antennas with well designed signal discrimination.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 9):
People always seem to think that the cell phone is going to screw up the flight controls or something...those are all shielded and essentially EMI immune for obvious reasons. But those aren't the problem systems. There is no way to shield a GPS receiver and still have it be a GPS receiver.

Any GPS receiver that is critical should have multiple directionally shielded antennas. There is no viable engineering nor logical reason for any GPS receiver to pick up radiation from below unless less it is used for noise cancelling and that would be done with a separate antenna.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 10):
The primary risk, I suspect, is that a cell phone interferes with VHF (which happens pretty often) at the moment when ATC is telling the pilots to go-around in low viz due to traffic on the runway. The probabilities of that all lining up are pretty tiny, but they're always pretty tiny in aviation.

A airplane VHF antenna should be properly designed to discriminate away any VHF signal transmitted from inside the cabin shell.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 23):
It's not an improper design issue (at least on the aircraft side). It's physically impossible to design an antenna that doesn't pick up RF...that's what antennas are for. It *is* improper design to build a consumer electronics device that radiates on the wrong frequencies but there is insufficient controls on consumer electronics to make sure that individual devices don't do that.

All consumer devices sold in the US pass FCC certification and almost all governments have regulations at roughly the same level as the FCC. If the device meets FCC standards, then the issue is with the design of the aircraft antenna and its related receiving hardware.

If on board a plane, I can spoof any received flight critical signal, be it comms or directional information (VOR/VORTAC/GPS/etc), then that is a failure of the receiver and receiving antenna design. Given that passengers are effectively within a Faraday cage, it is perfectly reasonable to expect the receiving systems of an airplane to be able to fully discriminate against any signal passengers may generate. In today's world, it is basically gross negligence if the systems cannot both for unintentional signals/systems and more importantly nefarious signals/systems.


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 31, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 3515 times:

Quoting spink (Reply 29):
If the equipment on board an airplane is so susceptible that a handheld FCC certified transmitter can cause potentially life threatening situations to arise, then that airplane should be grounded and scrapped. It really is that simple.

Then all airplanes should be grounded and scrapped. It's that simple.

Quoting spink (Reply 30):
Any GPS receiver that is critical should have multiple directionally shielded antennas.

That's a very hard thing to do when the satellites move and your aircraft moves. How many antennas do you want to put on the airplane to give you 360 degree coverage for 5+ satellites.

Quoting spink (Reply 30):
All consumer devices sold in the US pass FCC certification

Yes, but almost none of them are individually checked...when people do check, an appalling fraction of FCC certified designs don't pass.

Quoting spink (Reply 30):
If on board a plane, I can spoof any received flight critical signal, be it comms or directional information (VOR/VORTAC/GPS/etc), then that is a failure of the receiver and receiving antenna design.

We can argue about receiving antenna design, but how is that a failure of the receiver? How is the receiver going to seperate your spoof signalt from the real one? It's not like VOR or ADF or VHF is any kind of advanced digital waveform.

Quoting spink (Reply 30):
Given that passengers are effectively within a Faraday cage, it is perfectly reasonable to expect the receiving systems of an airplane to be able to fully discriminate against any signal passengers may generate.

Care to explain how all those passengers are making and receiving cell phone calls from within that Faraday cage? Airplane windows are just the right size to let VHF frequencies through, cell phone (and GPS) are much higher frequency and go through no problem.

Tom.


User currently offlineckfred From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 5065 posts, RR: 1
Reply 32, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 3505 times:

My wife used to work for a company that did, among other things, billing for cellular communication providers. So, she would ask questions of her contacts. The issue with allowing people in airplanes to use cell phones and other wireless devices is that a cell phone will be switching cell towers every few minutes.

The system wasn't built to handle a phone switching sites every 1 to 3 minutes. In a city, it may be every 10 minutes (say driving on a Chicago expressway), while in a rural area, it could be every 20 to 30 minutes (driving across rural Kansas on I-70).

Obviously, the cellular communication providers would like to have a better understanding of how the system will work, when a phone is moving at 500+ mph from JFK to LAX at 35,000 feet, constantly acquiring signals from cell towers under the flight path.


User currently offlinefutureatp From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 220 posts, RR: 0
Reply 33, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 3488 times:

I read a while back that one of the biggest concerns about letting people have these devices out during takeoff/landing is that they may become projectiles during an incident. That takes any FCC argument out of the equation.

As far as people talking on their cell phones in flight, I never can get service on my phone in flight (yes Ive fired it up just out of curiosity). I have Verizon nationwide plan. Something about the phone (android) must sense that it up to altitude and not allow it to connect. Just speculation. I am not a tech guru by any means.


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24312 posts, RR: 47
Reply 34, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 3473 times:

If this is so unsafe or taboo what about all the foreign airlines that offer inflight cell phone use ?

Emirates, Thai, Qantas, Malaysian, Turkish, Qatar, Virgin Atlantic, etc

Matter of fact their use has been staggering - EK says 10 million customers since 2008 have used their own devices for text messaging, and another 625,000 have made voice calls with their own phones.

To me its really only a matter of time before the US joins others in relaxing regulations about use of personal devices.

Quoting futureatp (Reply 33):
I read a while back that one of the biggest concerns about letting people have these devices out during takeoff/landing is that they may become projectiles during an incident.

 

Then what about all the other things we have out sitting on our laps, arm rest or or held in our hands?
Books, eye glass cases, phone/ipod etc..

The stuff is often out anyhow sitting around unsecured on the cabin, so its hardly much of an argument to worry about projectiles when there are already so many.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 35, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 3452 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 34):
If this is so unsafe or taboo what about all the foreign airlines that offer inflight cell phone use ?

They still restrict at low altitude, which is the only time possible EMI could realistically cause anything bad to happen.

Tom.


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24312 posts, RR: 47
Reply 36, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 3432 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 35):
They still restrict at low altitude, which is the only time possible EMI could realistically cause anything bad to happen.

I just flew Turkish. Had gate to gate Wi-Fi which I used on a tablet.

Did not seem to be an issue with the crew. Many passengers were tinkering with various devices during taxi and takeoff, plus descent and landing. Only restriction noted was inflight phone connection was only available outside US airspace.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineB727FA From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 710 posts, RR: 0
Reply 37, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 3390 times:

Quoting maxamuus (Reply 4):
Am i missing something here ? Greater use? The 10 mins. restriction upon take off and landing is hindering us?

To see people who "sneak" and "argue" about it, one would think so.



My comments/opinions are my own and are not to be construed as the opinion(s) of my employer.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 18676 posts, RR: 58
Reply 38, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 3374 times:

Quoting futureatp (Reply 33):

As far as people talking on their cell phones in flight, I never can get service on my phone in flight (yes Ive fired it up just out of curiosity). I have Verizon nationwide plan. Something about the phone (android) must sense that it up to altitude and not allow it to connect. Just speculation. I am not a tech guru by any means.

Probably more to do with the fact that the cell antennas are pointed laterally, not up.

But I will say it again: under no circumstances do I want to sit next to some jerkwad who is talking on his phone in silly corporate metaphors for the entire flight. Sound is an intrusive medium. If I don't like the movie he's watching on his device, I can look away. If I don't want to listen to one half of his inane Silicon Valley yammering, I'm stuck next to him and I don't have a choice.

It is for this reason and this reason alone that voice calls should never be allowed on an aircraft. Unless they maybe want to have a "talking/no talking" section.


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24312 posts, RR: 47
Reply 39, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 3344 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 38):
But I will say it again: under no circumstances do I want to sit next to some jerkwad who is talking on his phone in silly corporate metaphors for the entire flight. Sound is an intrusive medium. If I don't like the movie he's watching on his device, I can look away. If I don't want to listen to one half of his inane Silicon Valley yammering, I'm stuck next to him and I don't have a choice.

Would this truly be a problem?

If you listen to Emirates they claim they have only received a handful of complaints about the 650,000 occasions of inflight voice service.

I've flown on airlines that allow this service, and frankly someone talking on the phone is really no different than people chatting with each other. The cabin virtually always will have different noises.

I don't know, I just don't see it as being as big a problem for safety nor ambiance as some perceive it to be.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently onlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9375 posts, RR: 52
Reply 40, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 3310 times:

The FAA is one of the slowest changing industries out there. The regulations are extremely slow to change and be updated unless to address a safety concern.

In the 1950s and 1960s, transistors in portable electronic devices emitted enough of a magnetic field to skew ILS systems. Today, an iPhone emits an almost negligible amount of radiation and magnetic field, yet we still follow the requirements set forth in the 1950s and 60s.

Electromagnetic shielding and lightening protection have been getting more and more attention. Special Federal Aviation Regulation 88 and the Electrical Wiring Interface requirements are getting more and more strict. There are whole maintenance programs built on protecting an airplane from electromagnetic frequency and lightening protection. The FAA is slowly letting more wireless technology into airplanes, but it has to be certified to meet certain standards and is not same as anyone can bring and use anything on board.

The FAA is so cautious that I'd love to see looser regulations, but I don't see it coming.

[Edited 2012-12-10 11:59:29]


If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 18676 posts, RR: 58
Reply 41, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 3280 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 39):
I've flown on airlines that allow this service, and frankly someone talking on the phone is really no different than people chatting with each other. The cabin virtually always will have different noises.

It is different because
1) You can only hear one side of the coversation, which is unnerving and always will be.
2) People tend to talk much more loudly when speaking into a phone.


User currently offlinegsoflyer From United States of America, joined May 2001, 1093 posts, RR: 1
Reply 42, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 3251 times:

This is all well and good for USA, Canada, Australia, NZ, Japan, South Korea and European equipment. Items made for those markets have to fit into strict guidelines of compliance as for as EMI, Radiated emissions of electronics, safety of batteries and whatnot. And being an EE, I agree with nearly everyone here that gate to gate, those devices are built to not interfere with anything despite the age of the aircraft. There are strict regulations for those types of devices carrying the mandatory certifications to be sold legally in those countries.

Where you have problems are when the gadgets are not made following those guidelines. They can emit non-standard radiated emissions. The liklihood that they would affect most planes are minimal as most planes are built with safety mechanisms in place.... however, that may not always be the case.

The ban is purely based on the fact that there's no real way to tell if a device is compliant or not, especially with the amount of international travelers there are these days.

I conducted studies on cheap Chinese and Indian market phones and tablets a few years ago and I could easily get them to radiant electrical disturbances onto automobile CAN networks.


User currently offlinespink From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 317 posts, RR: 1
Reply 43, posted (1 year 4 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 3128 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 31):
That's a very hard thing to do when the satellites move and your aircraft moves. How many antennas do you want to put on the airplane to give you 360 degree coverage for 5+ satellites.

It can be done with 3 antennas reasonably. 1 top, 2 side slanted.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 31):

Yes, but almost none of them are individually checked...when people do check, an appalling fraction of FCC certified designs don't pass.

Then there is even more reason that any critical communication/location system used aboard planes need to be able to discriminate against their signals.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 31):

We can argue about receiving antenna design, but how is that a failure of the receiver? How is the receiver going to seperate your spoof signalt from the real one? It's not like VOR or ADF or VHF is any kind of advanced digital waveform.

By using multiple antennas to provide directionality and discrimination.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 31):
Care to explain how all those passengers are making and receiving cell phone calls from within that Faraday cage? Airplane windows are just the right size to let VHF frequencies through, cell phone (and GPS) are much higher frequency and go through no problem.

A simple metallic glaze coating will attenuate the EM signals from devices to a significant degree within the airplane cabin.


User currently offlinegigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16345 posts, RR: 86
Reply 44, posted (1 year 4 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 3099 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
The FCC is jumping a little out of their area of responsibility here. The FAA shouldn't give in to the demand from another government agancy.

What?

I'm sorry I have nothing more to ask.

A)The FCC is clearly the one of the two with the expertise here.
B) We know for an absolute fact that the FAA's ruling is a mistake.

NS

[Edited 2012-12-11 00:09:38]

User currently offlinegigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16345 posts, RR: 86
Reply 45, posted (1 year 4 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 3097 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 12):
I'm just countering the often heard/blatantly-false assertion that there's no evidence of an EMI issue with cell phones on aircraft.

There is no evidence, whatsoever, period end of story, of an EMI issue with cell phones on an aircraft.

NS


User currently offlinegigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16345 posts, RR: 86
Reply 46, posted (1 year 4 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 3101 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 6):
The NASA database is full (dozens per year) of EMI reports.

Can you link us to those?


I'm an electrical engineer, and I'm not aware of a single one that is a proven EMI incident involving a handheld cellphone.

NS


User currently offlinegigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16345 posts, RR: 86
Reply 47, posted (1 year 4 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 3100 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 38):
But I will say it again: under no circumstances do I want to sit next to some jerkwad who is talking on his phone in silly corporate metaphors for the entire flight.

Pay more for your ticket, then. Sit in first.

Otherwise its no different than him talking to his coworker in the next seat.

NS


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 48, posted (1 year 4 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 3037 times:

Quoting gigneil (Reply 45):
There is no evidence, whatsoever, period end of story, of an EMI issue with cell phones on an aircraft.

This is what is technically referred to as "a lie."

In addition to numerous documented evidence (note that evidence is not the same thing as proof), I have personally had cell phone EMI on a large jet multiple times and I know multiple other a.net posters who have (and have stated as such on this forum). It's a fairly predictable and repeatable thing if you know how to do it.

So, unless you believe that all of us are lying, I'm very curious how you support your contention of "no evidence."

Quoting gigneil (Reply 46):
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 6):
The NASA database is full (dozens per year) of EMI reports.

Can you link us to those?
http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/search/database.html

Just a few clips (there were 47 hits on "electronic% and interfere%):
" I feel that there could have be ouside interference causing the variations, perhaps an electronic device of some kind. "
"SUSPECTING ELECTRONIC INTERFERENCE I MADE A PA TELLING THE PAX TO TURN OFF ALL ELECTRONIC DEVICES IMMEDIATELY. THIS DID NOT HELP."
"AT Macedonian Airlines (Greece)">IN INVESTIGATING THE SOURCE OF THE INDICATION THE FLT ATTENDANT HAD ASKED THE PAX IF THEIR CELL PHONES WERE ON, THEY RESPONDED AT Macedonian Airlines (Greece)">IN THE NEGATIVE. HOWEVER, THE FLT ATTENDANT SAID AT THE TIME THAT SHE HAD OBSERVED A PAX SEATED AT Macedonian Airlines (Greece)">IN THE AFT OF THE ACFT TEXT-MESSAGING ON A CELL PHONE EARLIER DURING TAXI, AND THOUGH SHE SUBSEQUENTLY DIRECTED THE PAX TO TURN OFF ALL ELECTRONIC DEVICES, SHE LATER EXPRESSED REASONABLE SUSPICION THAT THIS INDIVIDUAL MIGHT NOT HAVE COMPLIED WITH HER INSTRUCTIONS. I MADE TELEPHONE CONTACT WITH DISPATCH AND MAINT. I COMMUNICATED OUR ENTIRE SITUATION TO THE MECH ON DUTY. I ALSO EXPLAINED OUR SUSPICION ABOUT THE CELL PHONE. HE AGREED WITH THAT POSSIBILITY OF CELL PHONE INTERFERENCE"
"THE FMC WAS PREFLTED, VERIFIED AND RE-VERIFIED AS CORRECT BY BOTH THE PF AND PNF. THIS WAS A VERY STRANGE EVENT AND WE CAN ONLY SPECULATE THAT THERE WAS SOME SORT OF INTERFERENCE (CAUSED BY CELL PHONES/ELECTRONIC DEVICES, ETC). "
"EITHER THE DRIFT WAS PERHAPS CAUSED BY SOME ELECTRONIC INTERFERENCE FROM THE CABIN OR WAS ANOTHER MD80 ANOMALY."

A *very* strong caveat...these are initial pilot reports. As a result, they're just the best data the flight crew had to go on at the time. They are not proof of anything (the NASA db rarely has maintenance followup reports). They are, however, common and show that this is on the minds of a lot of flight crews.

Tom.


User currently offlinebond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5342 posts, RR: 8
Reply 49, posted (1 year 4 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3008 times:

Quoting gigneil (Reply 45):
There is no evidence, whatsoever, period end of story, of an EMI issue with cell phones on an aircraft.

I guess you didn't read many posts from this thread then, or the NASA database.

Do you mean you specifically didn't read anything?? ...as opposed to 'There is no evidence ....'

Quoting gigneil (Reply 44):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
The FCC is jumping a little out of their area of responsibility here. The FAA shouldn't give in to the demand from another government agancy.

What?

I'm sorry I have nothing more to ask.

A)The FCC is clearly the one of the two with the expertise here.
B) We know for an absolute fact that the FAA's ruling is a mistake.

As I said earlier, a lot of folks here are completely misunderstanding the FCCs comments here. All the FCC said is that, if the FAA allows, cellphones can be used in flight because they do not cause an issue with the ground networks....which is why the FCC did not allow them in flight.

Allowing their use in flight is purely an FAA regulatory issue, and nothing to do with the FCC (if the FCC allow them to be used).

If the FAA changes regulations to allow cellphones in flight, the individual airlines would then have to agree to their usage, and as always, final say would come from PIC.




Jimbo



I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
User currently offlineDarkSnowyNight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1281 posts, RR: 3
Reply 50, posted (1 year 4 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3009 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 38):

But I will say it again: under no circumstances do I want to sit next to some jerkwad who is talking on his phone in silly corporate metaphors for the entire flight. Sound is an intrusive medium. If I don't like the movie he's watching on his device, I can look away. If I don't want to listen to one half of his inane Silicon Valley yammering, I'm stuck next to him and I don't have a choice.

Which is made worse by how much louder they'll talk to be heard over cabin noise. It's really not the same as a conversation being overheard across the aisle.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 38):

It is for this reason and this reason alone that voice calls should never be allowed on an aircraft. Unless they maybe want to have a "talking/no talking" section.

I actually wouldn't want to see that either. Given the propensity of most domestic carriers to "unbundle" these days, they would likely charge for the privilege, or make it available in Y+ on up. Which means for the rest of us already paying extra for a better seat, we'd have to contend with this problem for a higher price.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 40):
The FAA is so cautious that I'd love to see looser regulations, but I don't see it coming.

Hmmmm... Not sure about that one. Completely regardless of this issue, our safety record in the US is second to none, no small feat given the amount of flying done here. Archaic or not, I'm not especially anxious to see the FAA making a habit of getting looser on anything.

Quoting gigneil (Reply 47):
Pay more for your ticket, then. Sit in first.

Ok, and what then when the problem follows you to first?

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 48):

Whether your evidence evolves to solid proof or not, I can totally see how the jury might still be out on this one indeed. I think I agree that this can be left alone for now. It's not as if civilization will come apart if we don't start allowing calls on planes right this minute anyway.



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 51, posted (1 year 4 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2965 times:

Quoting DarkSnowyNight (Reply 50):
Whether your evidence evolves to solid proof or not, I can totally see how the jury might still be out on this one indeed. I think I agree that this can be left alone for now. It's not as if civilization will come apart if we don't start allowing calls on planes right this minute anyway.

That's my stance as well. The evidence that cell phones can interfere with airplane systems is absolutely rock solid and very well documented. Whether that can evolve into a safety issue is less clear...there are foreseeable circumstances where it could but it's very hard to assess the probability of that actually happening and the probability of other mitigation catching it before it becomes an incident. However, balanced against all that, is the "cost" of not having your cell phone for ~20 minutes per flight...I have a hard time seeing how that's a good trade.

Tom.


User currently offlineB727FA From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 710 posts, RR: 0
Reply 52, posted (1 year 4 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 2948 times:

Quoting gigneil (Reply 47):
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 38):
But I will say it again: under no circumstances do I want to sit next to some jerkwad who is talking on his phone in silly corporate metaphors for the entire flight.

Pay more for your ticket, then. Sit in first.

Otherwise its no different than him talking to his coworker in the next seat.

You don't think they'll be at least as annoying up front?  



My comments/opinions are my own and are not to be construed as the opinion(s) of my employer.
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24312 posts, RR: 47
Reply 53, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2738 times:

Now Congress is getting involved prodding the FAA to relax device usage rules.

US Senator Claire McCaskill who is on the Aviation Operations, Safety, and Security Committee has joined in urging the FAA to reconsider its limits on in-flight electronics, saying that she will take the matter to Congress if progress is too slow.

Story:
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/1...a-a-doesnt-relax-electronic-rules/

=



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinemrocktor From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1668 posts, RR: 50
Reply 54, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2656 times:

Let's just say that there is no cell phone use restriction on any of the systems test rigs for any aircraft I have ever worked on. An the equipment is usually installed even more carefully (ground paths etc.) on aircraft than on the rigs.

User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 55, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days ago) and read 2608 times:

Quoting mrocktor (Reply 54):
Let's just say that there is no cell phone use restriction on any of the systems test rigs for any aircraft I have ever worked on.

Let's just say that there was an absolute cell phone restriction on all of the full test birds for any aircraft I have ever worked on.

How many of your systems test rigs relied on actually using VHF, GPS, and ILS?

Tom.


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24312 posts, RR: 47
Reply 56, posted (1 year 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2316 times:

FCC is out today with new regulatory guidelines meant to make it easier and speed up process in getting technical approvals for inflight internet hardware.

Under the new rules, airlines will be able to self test equipment themselves (currently done by FCC on case by case basis) and establish that they do not interfere with aircraft systems and then subsequently receive FAA approval for their use.

Story:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...nes-internet-idUSL1E8NS53M20121228

=



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
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...
Emirates, First To Allow Use Of Mobile Phones! posted Wed Nov 8 2006 09:10:31 by QatarA340
AA To Brazil - Efficient Use Of Aircraft? posted Fri Sep 9 2011 06:10:29 by richiemo
USA To Allow Syria Repair Of It's Two 747-SP's posted Sun Feb 8 2009 10:06:47 by Beaucaire
Is The Use Of Tomtom (or Similar)allowed Inflight? posted Sun Sep 2 2007 00:18:49 by F.pier
Use Of New RWY At SIN Parallel To 02R? posted Tue Dec 26 2006 06:21:56 by BOACVC10
LA To Back Perks To Discourage Use Of LAX posted Thu Jan 19 2006 02:51:20 by Laxintl
New Iflypa Website To Promote Use Of PA Airports posted Fri Nov 18 2005 16:42:58 by PHLBOS
Use Of Simulators For FAA CPL posted Sat Oct 15 2005 23:46:35 by LimaFoxTango
FCC To Allow 802.11a/b/g (WiFi) Onboard Aircraft posted Wed Dec 15 2004 17:52:24 by N328KF
Use Of Portable Electronic Devices In Flight posted Tue Aug 1 2000 06:42:55 by KROC