181–190 of 301 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do we know there isn't a bug in a device's airplane mode?
How do we know there isn't a bug in a device's off switch? Most of them are software-based these days.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When I looked into the topic years ago, ISTR finding a few FAA incident reports that did involve consumer electronics causing harmful interference with cockpit navigation systems. They didn't result in accidents but seemed well documented. Did you come across anything like that?
I once was talking to a pilot who swore first-hand that he had the plane doing odd things, asked the attendants to go through the cabin looking for people using devices and to shut them off. They closed down one particular laptop and the plane started behaving again. Whether this is 'friend of a friend' type tale that pilots like to say (and co-opt as their own story) or not is difficult to say. The same pilot also t…
This was about 10 years ago, so things have likely changed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand how planes are seizing productivity when the nearest competitor -- an illegally driven car -- is about 5 times slower. Yes they have quite a bit of overhead during take off, landing, baggage claim, driving to the airport, security screening, etc. But what else can reduce a trip's time from days to hours? The amount of time wasted in that overhead compared to the time gained is minuscule.
Unless you are going a long way, it may well be faster to drive. For me: 1 hour drive to the airport, 1+ hours at the airport for check-in, security, etc, 1 hour at destination to retrieve baggage, get a rental car, and get out of the airport... plus the time of the flight. If I can drive in under 6 hours, I'll seriously consider doing that rather than deal with all the hassle of air travel.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As the author of the piece, I have to disagree with you. First, the F.A.A. never used this as a reason when I spoke with them for my story. Second, if that were the case, then why are people allowed to read books, magazines, and play crossword puzzles on paper? Reading a book on a Kindle will not cause more distraction during an emergency than reading one on paper. Thanks, Nick Bilton.
there was a mythbusters on this. if i recall correctly, though they couldn't find any way to make the plane's instrumentation fail by bombarding it with a myriad of frequencies, even the mythbusters guys (possibly for legal reasons, or because they succumbed to pressure from their network) concluded that because the FAA can't rigorously test every device that comes out, that this is somewhat of a blanket policy to en…
If you broadcast on the radio frequency the pilot is speaking on, you can jam their transmission.
If you broadcast on, say, the instrument landing frequency (ILS) frequency, the ILS needle the pilot is looking at will stay centered, no matter how much he deviates from the approach path.
The pilot would undoubtedly realize something was amiss, switch comm frequencies, use GPS etc. But it could cause some distraction and wreak some havoc.
Back in the 90s, there were cheap CD players and whatnot that would generate all kinds of crazy RF.
The FAA said, this is all unapproved electronics, we can't test it, it has to go off during takeoff and landing, unless the pilot OKs it. Of course, the corporate pilot will OK it for his CEO/passenger.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd be very interested in that data, mostly because a handheld device capable of producing enough EM radiation to interfere with a cockpit from dozens of feet away (at a minimum) through metal bulkheads seems implausible, at the least. Remember that EM fields are subject to inverse-square law. If it was possible, I can't imagine that the TSA would let us carry as much as a 9-volt battery on board. Even if it were pos…
If it were trivially possible for you to interfere with cockpit computers, why wouldn't terrorists be going after that? Seems like a massive, massive oversight if that were the case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd be very interested in that data, mostly because a handheld device capable of producing enough EM radiation to interfere with a cockpit from dozens of feet away (at a minimum) through metal bulkheads seems implausible, at the least. Remember that EM fields are subject to inverse-square law. If it was possible, I can't imagine that the TSA would let us carry as much as a 9-volt battery on board. Even if it were pos…
There are three cases that I know of, they were in an NTSB report which is not online sadly. They all involved interference with the ADF [1] and frequencies used in ILS [2]. Basically the local transmitters around airports are relatively low power so as to not interfere and they only need to 'talk' to planes that are landing, the ILS frequencies are in the 108 - 115Mhz range (just above the FM band). For a fairly lon…
The cell phone ban is an FCC ban, not FAA like devices during takeoff and landing - http://www.fcc.gov/guides/wireless-devices-airplanes
In the old days of analog cell phones, a single cell phone would talk to all the towers in range and hog bandwidth on every one. On the ground not many towers were in range, once you got to 20,000 feet, there were a lot. If cell phones were on on all the planes over LA, it would be like a DDOS attack.
Possibly still an issue with digital phones, but they can do a lot of smart things, modulate power, drop calls to not overload the network LOL.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unless you are going a long way, it may well be faster to drive. For me: 1 hour drive to the airport, 1+ hours at the airport for check-in, security, etc, 1 hour at destination to retrieve baggage, get a rental car, and get out of the airport... plus the time of the flight. If I can drive in under 6 hours, I'll seriously consider doing that rather than deal with all the hassle of air travel.
Except that if you drive for 6 hours, you can't talk on the phone and you can't use your laptop. Your point doesn't make sense to me: if you're willing to drive for 6 hours, you're also willing to stop working during all that time, while if you flight you'll always find some time to work, at the terminal or in the plane.
Yet, a B737 or an A320 is a much more complex plane. For instance, it has a lot of different electronic systems, ranging from the displays to the multiple, backed-up computers that enable flight controls (manual flight) and manage auto-pilot inputs.
I've seen a CRJ-200's first officer's (copilot) flight PFD and ND gone black and reboot because someone in the back was trying to call home, without much success.
The thing is, that never happened to my friend pilot before even with passengers trying to call. And the power output of a phone trying to call without much coverage isn't the same as the power needed in the center of a big city (and at 8000ft, inside a huge metal tube, the cell reception isn't great).
That's one of the main reasons. Granted it shouldn't happen and plane manufacturers do test against these kind of things. And really important systems, like backup instruments (standby) or flight computers are hardly going to be affected by any kind of interference, so, no, the plane isn't just going to drop from the sky. Yet an automatic A/P disconnection on long final on the PF's (pilot flying) PFD and ND displays going nuts is something serious.
And on the side of that, you don't want people having unknown electronic devices sending signals when pilots have to be more focused (take off and landing) and you better have them keeping an eye outside (or at their newspaper, but you can't help that). That's pretty much the same reason why they ask you to have everything stowed and leave your window 'opened' (you can see if there's something wrong outside, like fire, and report it) during takeoff and landing.
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…
You've never flown first class, I take it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
If 1 billion people take a 20 minute nap every day... that's equal to 38,000 years wasted time every day... which is about 20 lifetimes every HOUR! OMFG nobody should nap!