Fliers Must Turn Off Devices, but It’s Not Clear Why • Hacker News Board

Re: Fliers Must Turn Off Devices, but It’s Not Clear Why

#71

Post by ramanujan » Mon, Nov 28, 2011, 1:40 AM UTC

Bud wrote: post #8

There is actually a very logical, sensible reason to have everyone power off and stow their devices during takeoff and landing, and this story disappointingly failed to cover it: By far the most likely time for any accidents or incidents to occur is during takeoffs and landings. If everyone has 15 objects out and is busily typing away, it's going to be tht much more difficult for flight attendants to get everyone's a…

The FAA/TSA alway justify things in terms of "safety" and "security", but never calculate the massive costs associated with seizing billions in toiletries and productivity.

Let's calculate that. There are about 800 million[0] passengers on domestic and foreign owned airlines in the US market, with many people flying more than once per year.

Each person is taxed between 1-2 hours in terms of "safety" regulations, ranging from backscatter scans to nail clipper seizures to water bottle appropriations. Once on the plane, they are again taxed by about 15-30 minutes on each end from the ban on use of laptops, including the emergency landing song-and-dance that the vast majority[1] of passengers have already seen.

So let's say conservatively about 2 hours in total. So 1.6 billion hours per year. At a conservative estimate of $10 per hour, that's $16 billion per year. This does not include the $8.1 billion wasted on the TSA itself.

[0] http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2010-03-29-airline-pa...

[1] In the unusual circumstance that a first time flyer is on board, a video could instead be played during check-in online, in the lounge, or on the seat back rather than slowing everyone down to look at the flight attendant. Would not be surprised if the percentage of first-time flyers on US domestic flights is less than 5%.

Re: Fliers Must Turn Off Devices, but It’s Not Clear Why

#72

Post by politician » Mon, Nov 28, 2011, 1:44 AM UTC

dmarquis wrote: post #48

mhb wrote: post #28

IEEE - Unsafe At Any Airspeed: Cellphones and other electronics are more of a risk than you think: http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/aviation/unsafe-at-any-ai...

The method used in that article is just counting flight incidents in some historical data that may possibly have been caused by interference. The evidence that consumer electronics are the cause is just anecdotal: "In one telling incident, a flight crew stated that a 30-degree navigation error was immediately corrected after a passenger turned off a DVD player and that the error reoccurred when the curious crew asked…

After a 30-degree navigation error was corrected by turning off a DVD player, would the pilot seriously endanger the aircraft by asking the passenger to turn it on again to test? Anecdotal, and probably completely false.

Re: Fliers Must Turn Off Devices, but It’s Not Clear Why

#73

Post by ArchD » Mon, Nov 28, 2011, 1:44 AM UTC

gchucky wrote: post #11

MythBusters covered this awhile back, and busted the myth: "The final explanation is that, even though the airplanes appear to be well-shielded against cellphone interference, there are so many different electronics in a cockpit, as well as so many different cellphones constantly coming out, the FAA doesn't want to do the necessary testing."[1] [1] http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2006/04/episode_49_cellphones_on_...

I thought preventing unwanted interference between devices was what FCC rules were for. Couldn't they design aircraft equipment to tolerate radio waves from devices meeting certain FCC standards?

Re: Fliers Must Turn Off Devices, but It’s Not Clear Why

#74

Post by aceofspades19 » Mon, Nov 28, 2011, 1:45 AM UTC

wglb wrote: post #36

mafro wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FACT: the risk of my mobile phone igniting vapourised fuel in a gas station forecourt is almost exactly equivalent to the probability that my ipod nano will tangle with an airplane's cockpit electronics. It's all myth and fud spread by a) people with ulterior motives (see above) b) people who are too uneducated or too stupid to make their own judgement. Like air hostesses, petrol attendants.

Inside your iPod nano, or any other device with a computer chip is a radio transmitter. Inside the cockpit are many radio receivers, some of which are pretty critical to the proper flight of the airplane. Your radio transmitter, and radio transmitters being run by other passengers, mix and mingle their signals, producing an unpredictable effect on these key cockpit receivers. The probability that this happens is not…

1. Not all devices with a computer chip have radios, my TI-84 calculator has a Z-80 processor but there is no radio in it 2. Aircraft radios operate on a very different frequency then consumer electronics, and I'm pretty sure the FCC wouldn't allow consumer electronics to operate on the same frequency as the radios in a cockpit regardless

Re: Fliers Must Turn Off Devices, but It’s Not Clear Why

#75

Post by lbrdn » Mon, Nov 28, 2011, 1:50 AM UTC

Relying on passengers to turn off their phones seems like the most ineffective approach no matter your desired outcome. Isn't it possible to insulate the cabin to prevent RF from exiting? This feels simplistic, but other than that is there a reason this wouldn't work?

Re: Fliers Must Turn Off Devices, but It’s Not Clear Why

#76

Post by arn » Mon, Nov 28, 2011, 1:52 AM UTC

RandallBrown wrote: post #52

lucasjung wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I currently work in developmental flight test. Any time we add a new piece of electronics to an aircraft (or replace an existing piece with a new version), be it a radio, a computer, or test instrumentation, we have to conduct an Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) Safety of Flight Test (SOFT) to make sure that the new equipment does not interfere in any way with avionics that are critical to safety of flight. Even i…

but wouldn't it make sense for Apple to pay to do the testing? Being able to say "The iPhone is the only phone you can use during your whole flight" would be worth quite a bit of money to them.

right, I was suggesting that the vendor (Apple, Amazon) of said products would undertake the testing cost.

Re: Fliers Must Turn Off Devices, but It’s Not Clear Why

#77

Post by knightgj » Mon, Nov 28, 2011, 1:53 AM UTC

I recall years ago sitting in the LAX UA red carpet club listening to a portable cd player (yup, long ago). My music cut out, and thru my cd player, that didn't even have a radio as I recall, I was listening to the pilot pulling into the gate outside the window communicating with the ground crews over his headset.

Now, as I understand it, that lovely FCC stamp on the back of our electronics means the device must accept any interference received since it's a consumer product... but I'd also hate for my pilots to unexpectedly get my co-passenger's latest dubstep mix opposed to the air traffic controller during takeoff.

For the record: I'm the guy that intentionally leaves his phone on, in airplane mode, idling. I think this is good enough.

Re: Fliers Must Turn Off Devices, but It’s Not Clear Why

#78

Post by look_lookatme » Mon, Nov 28, 2011, 1:55 AM UTC

noonespecial wrote: post #25

The last time I flew, most of the people around me didn't know the difference between "airplane mode", "standby", and "off". I'd bet that at least 80% of the phones on that flight were full on despite the efforts of the crew and the device's owners. Everyone turning off everything successfully before takeoff is pure fiction.

Reminds me of a Southwest flight attendent on a recent flight: "The definition of 'turn off all electronic devices' is to 'turn off any device that is electronic'.

Re: Fliers Must Turn Off Devices, but It’s Not Clear Why

#79

Post by lucasjung » Mon, Nov 28, 2011, 1:55 AM UTC

RandallBrown wrote: post #52

lucasjung wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I currently work in developmental flight test. Any time we add a new piece of electronics to an aircraft (or replace an existing piece with a new version), be it a radio, a computer, or test instrumentation, we have to conduct an Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) Safety of Flight Test (SOFT) to make sure that the new equipment does not interfere in any way with avionics that are critical to safety of flight. Even i…

but wouldn't it make sense for Apple to pay to do the testing? Being able to say "The iPhone is the only phone you can use during your whole flight" would be worth quite a bit of money to them.

They would have to test every model of iphone against not only every model of commercial airliner in operation in the U.S. (including puddle-jumpers), but against every major variation in avionics suite among each model. This testing is not cheap. Even for Apple, it would be prohibitively expensive.

Re: Fliers Must Turn Off Devices, but It’s Not Clear Why

#80

Post by jser » Mon, Nov 28, 2011, 1:55 AM UTC

FaceKicker wrote: post #26

gchucky wrote: post #11

MythBusters covered this awhile back, and busted the myth: "The final explanation is that, even though the airplanes appear to be well-shielded against cellphone interference, there are so many different electronics in a cockpit, as well as so many different cellphones constantly coming out, the FAA doesn't want to do the necessary testing."[1] [1] http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2006/04/episode_49_cellphones_on_...

If they actually aren't willing to test whether cell phones interfere with their equipment, they shouldn't be allowing cell phones on the plane at all. Relying on people's compliance (or even just their attention) to ensure the plane doesn't explode is absurd.

Tests are performed when inflight connectivity is added to a plane -- and it has resulted in finding interference issues, such as WiFi blanking avionics screens (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/wi-fi-interference...).

For cellphones, there have been many reported incidents of interference when pilots had them on (search Google). I'd assume testing on cell phones would officially commence with installs of pico cells on US airliners.