It was pointed out to me, years ago, that this is an FCC regulation not an FAA regulation, the reason given being that cellphones in the air can/do lock onto many more towers than on the ground (due to the inverse square law), and the network control protocols & software are (or were) not robust against this.
Fliers Must Turn Off Devices, but It’s Not Clear Why
101–110 of 301 posts
Re: Fliers Must Turn Off Devices, but It’s Not Clear Why
#102Re: Fliers Must Turn Off Devices, but It’s Not Clear Why
#103What are the consequences for simply refusing to obey a crew member's instruction to power down your Kindle? Sort of like willfully ignoring the distinction between the first-class and economy security lines---something I wish more people would do.
If you are getting ready for take-off, the plane returns to the gate and you are escorted off the flight and charged with compromising airline safety and ignoring a steward's order. This happened to a guy two rows in front of me on an American Airlines flight a couple of years ago. He twice refused to turn off his mobile phone as we were taxiing towards the runway.
Why not just lie? You genuinely are making the attendant's job harder by telling them point blank that you refuse to comply with the order they have to give to you to take off. It's much easier for everyone if you just act like you turned it off.
Re: Fliers Must Turn Off Devices, but It’s Not Clear Why
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
That costs money though. There's a reason that a good number of the planes in use are decades old.
I've heard the level of cut-throat competition between airlines causes prices to be so low that it stunts the development of the industry. They are barely scraping by. Seems like a terrible business to be in.
Re: Fliers Must Turn Off Devices, but It’s Not Clear Why
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
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, rang…
In another, more macabre calculus: 1.6 billion hours per year = 182648 person years per year Divided by forty (perhaps the average number of years of life expectancy remaining for fliers) = 4566 remaining lifetimes stolen = equivalent of 4566 deaths which is more deaths than caused by 9/11. Every year.
That's a ridiculous way to look at it.
Re: Fliers Must Turn Off Devices, but It’s Not Clear Why
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do we know there isn't a bug in a device's off switch? Most of them are software-based these days.
Most of them allow you to take the battery out if it comes to that.
But nobody actually does, so clearly we're content to trust the software on that matter.
Re: Fliers Must Turn Off Devices, but It’s Not Clear Why
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you are getting ready for take-off, the plane returns to the gate and you are escorted off the flight and charged with compromising airline safety and ignoring a steward's order. This happened to a guy two rows in front of me on an American Airlines flight a couple of years ago. He twice refused to turn off his mobile phone as we were taxiing towards the runway.
Why not just lie? You genuinely are making the attendant's job harder by telling them point blank that you refuse to comply with the order they have to give to you to take off. It's much easier for everyone if you just act like you turned it off.
This particular guy was in the middle of a conversation on the phone :)
Re: Fliers Must Turn Off Devices, but It’s Not Clear Why
#108MythBusters 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?
Standards for airborne electronics are actually even more stringent - FCC rules say in essence that your device may not produce interference and don't exactly care about whether you device works when exposed to interference. This is not exactly what you want in safety critical system. On the other hand, it's not about designing interference resilient system, but about testing that such system really works as intended, which would probably involve impractical number of tested combinations of devices (ie. consumer phones and whatever else). It's mostly about manufacturer's liability than anything else - it's cheaper to say "not supported and not tested".
Re: Fliers Must Turn Off Devices, but It’s Not Clear Why
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
> cell networks aren't designed to deal with the rapid > tower transfers I always see this argument brought up (on HN), but what does the FAA care about cell carriers' networks? Why don't they ever use this justification when asked to justify their policy?
They don't use this justification exactly because they mostly don't care about that. It's interesting that there probably is no regulation that forbids usage of cell phones at high speeds and high altitudes (as opposed to "on board of a plane"). At least ETSI specifications seems to imply that it's perfectly legal to operate whole GSM network on board of plane, while hinting at fact that direct communication with bas…
> So conclusion might be something along the lines of
> "it's not designed to do that", which seems like
> pretty good justification when you are talking about
> airplane safety.
1. "it's not designed to do that" refers to cell-to-ground communication, nothing to do with the safety of the plane.
2. cell-to-ground communications issues only apply to cellphones, but the FAA policy applies to all electronics.
Re: Fliers Must Turn Off Devices, but It’s Not Clear Why
#110Let's presume for a moment that some sort of interference which could be generated by a box the size of a laptop might have a non-trivial risk to passenger safety. Now, think as a terrorist might. How about sending your minions onto planes with devices which look like standard consumer electronics devices but are capable of generating high levels of interference? Around the holidays in the US, someone checking or carrying on what appears to be an A/V receiver in a box would not raise suspicion -- just a gift for a relative. Now, inside that "receiver" is a battery and a transmitter (I'm not an electrical engineering sort of guy, so substitute the appropriate components) which emits what signals the terrorists hope will interfere with onboard avionics. Via a remote switch, the terrorist turns on the device during take-off and landing. If the plane crashes, is forced to make multiple attempts at a landing, etc., then the terrorists know they're onto something. They will refine their techniques until they can make plans fall out of the sky. If not, they try other experiments -- different frequencies, etc. Could such experiments even be carried out through transmitters on vans which could be temporarily parked on highways near airports? What if the terrorists could purchase airplane components with which to conduct their own testing and refine their "weapons"? Surely such an avenue of attack, if feasible, would be less effort than training your minions to fly an airplane, even if learning to land was not required? That no known terrorist attacks via this vector have been reported suggests it implausible. A problem with most terrorism "experiments" is that, if the experiment fails, the experimenter ends up imprisoned and thus incapable of further experimentation. Given the obvious recruiting issues the likely outcomes of either imprisonment or death present, terrorists ought to take like ducks to water toward techniques which allow repeated experimentation and refinement. That no incidents have been reported due to avionics malfunction suggests the near impossibility of actual passenger risk. QED?