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

#241

Post by Terretta » Mon, Nov 28, 2011, 12:40 PM UTC

lucasjung wrote: post #228

ghshephard wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's probably only 80 different commercial airplane models. This testing probably costs around $1000/hr - figure 5 days testing @ 8 hours a day = 3200 hours = 3.2 million dollars. Seems to be a reasonable price to pay.

As I said, it's not just the different models, it's the different avionics suites within each model (e.g. two aircraft of the same model might have different radios or different navigation equipment, etc.). For each plane, you would need a few hours of testing, which probably costs more than $1000/hour: you have to pay for the plane, the crew (who have to be qualified to perform this type of testing), the ground supp…

The US Treasury has less cash on hand than Apple. Apple makes prepayments of a billion dollars for parts. The numbers you're tossing around are, in context, very cheap.

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

#242

Post by sjwright » Mon, Nov 28, 2011, 12:57 PM 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…

If a portable DVD player (which presumably doesn't contain any transmitting radios) causes a 30-degree navigation error, the problem is with the aircraft, PERIOD. FULL STOP.

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

#243

Post by stef25 » Mon, Nov 28, 2011, 12:59 PM UTC

A good friend of mine pilots commercial airlines and I asked her we're forced to turn off devices, she says it's cause cell phones can interfere in the same way as they do with music equipment. If one rings close to a loud speaker you get that tell-tale electronic ticking sound and she says that can make pilots not understand what air traffic control is saying … Not sure if this is true or if she'd actually experienced it before.

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

#244

Post by sjwright » Mon, Nov 28, 2011, 1:01 PM UTC

X-Istence wrote: post #216

bdonlan wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a big difference in power levels between wifi (that only has to go a few hundred feet to the on-plane transceiver) and cell phone radio (that has to go possibly several miles to a ground tower). Additionally, GSM has a transmission pattern that can cause noise in radio receivers and other audio devices - just try holding an active GSM phone up against a poorly shielded speaker sometime!

Wifi is limited to 1 watt of power max. Cell phones can transmit at up to 2.5 watt.

Awesome. So I'll turn on my laptop, mobile phone AND my iPad. That's three watts.

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

#245

Post by lucasjung » Mon, Nov 28, 2011, 1:02 PM UTC

Terretta wrote: post #241

lucasjung wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I said, it's not just the different models, it's the different avionics suites within each model (e.g. two aircraft of the same model might have different radios or different navigation equipment, etc.). For each plane, you would need a few hours of testing, which probably costs more than $1000/hour: you have to pay for the plane, the crew (who have to be qualified to perform this type of testing), the ground supp…

The US Treasury has less cash on hand than Apple. Apple makes prepayments of a billion dollars for parts. The numbers you're tossing around are, in context, very cheap.

Apple only pays for things that they expect good ROI for. I doubt very highly if they would recoup the money spent to get their phones FAA-certified, let alone the opportunity costs compared to spending that money on something else.

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

#246

Post by bad_user » Mon, Nov 28, 2011, 1:19 PM UTC

viraptor wrote: post #232

bad_user wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If driving you can talk on the phone for the whole 6 hours. I did something similar at least once. Also, the driver can't use a laptop, but because of the driving activity itself, the driver is not so easily bored. Boredom is the main reason why I power on my laptop on a plane. Also, the other passengers can easily work on a laptop, watch a movie and so on. If you've got a 3G connection, the passengers can also go on…

> even I as the driven, I often find myself checking my emails while driving Why would you ever do that? If you don't care about your safety, at least make sure you're less likely to kill others, please...

Oh, cut the drama. I use text 2 speech.

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

#247

Post by zig » Mon, Nov 28, 2011, 1:25 PM UTC

RockyMcNuts wrote: post #185

daeken wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not an effective way to bring down a plane. The pilot would just switch to another instrument or frequency. You could land the plane without any radios or navigation. But it would raise some pulses.

In visual conditions it would be a total non-issue - GPS/VOR/IRS guidance to the airport (or radar vectors or pilotage), with a visual landing.

For an ILS approach to minimums in hard instrument conditions, it could be problematic - especially if you are off course and don't realize it. There are minimum safe altitudes on approach plates that could be violated if you are way off course (putting you into a TV tower, for example).

I'm not an airline pilot but I am pilot. I'm not aware of anything better than ILS for those types of conditions (very low ceilings and visibility). VOR/NDB approaches are non-precision approaches. The GPS I have access to does not permit a precision approach - maybe the airliners have something better.

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

#248

Post by ddagradi » Mon, Nov 28, 2011, 1:42 PM UTC

BrianLy wrote: post #140

ceejayoz wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 attention to give instructions, and crucially, much much more difficult to evacuate the plane as quickly as possible. I'd imagine the screaming, flailing, flickering lights, smoke, and vibrations would do a decent job of getting people to look up from their iPhones. > It's the s…

> I'd imagine the screaming, flailing, flickering lights, smoke, and vibrations would do a decent job of getting people to look up from their iPhones. That's not the point. The fact that people have items out (and are possibly blocking exit rows etc), and are not fully aware of the events leading up to the situation is likely to have some impact on the eventual outcome. > None of those restrictions are in place to ma…

> That's not the point. The fact that people have items out (and are possibly blocking exit rows etc), and are not fully aware of the events leading up to the situation is likely to have some impact on the eventual outcome.

Books and magazines present the same problems as a Kindle. So does a sleeping passenger. Safety should be taken as seriously as possible, but the inconsistent application of the rules only implies that no one has put any real thought into it thus far.

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

#249

Post by darklajid » Mon, Nov 28, 2011, 1:44 PM UTC

gnaffle wrote: post #225

ramanujan wrote: post #71

Earlier 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…

How many airports make you spend an hour or two going through security? When flying, I usually spend an hour or two in total at the airport, but that includes check-in, security, waiting for and boarding plane, then de-planing and sometimes waiting for luggage. Not to mention the transport time to and from the airports. Security and safety is a pretty insignificant part of that time, and waiting in line at the airpor…

Israel.

No, really. Especially iff

- you are leaving the country (...)

- you are a foreigner (that is: Everything but a citizen)

Everybody around me (including the airport) tells me to arrive ~2.5 (some say 2. Some 3) hours early. The procedure consists of

1. waiting in line forever, waiting for the luggage to be scanned

2. a passport check in that line, asking you questions about where you're from, where you stayed, what you did in Israel and if you happen to carry weapons or presents that might be bombs. If they are inclined to waste some time they are going to ask you for more: Do you know people in Israel? What are their names? Where do _those_ live? What's your connection ... it's something between a 3-4 questions interview and a nice interrogation

3. Your luggage was scanned. Someone is going to tell you to go to that place over there and unpack it. If it's your birthday or Fortuna is with you: Go to step 5.

4. Some guy/girl is ripping apart your luggage. Some are gentler, some really completely mess everything up.

5. The ticket counter! Get your ticket..

6. Wait in line before the security check of you and your carry-on stuff, metal detector, shoe removal station. If you don't have a laptop with you, go to 8

7. Your laptop is suspicious. You have to wake it up from suspend. Close it again. They x-ray it three times. They need to take it to another room, for a special treatment. After 30min they return, the laptop is not suspended anymore. It's off. You are supposed to prove (again) that it's a laptop and not a weapon of mass destruction. Powering it on, booting, logging in is not enough. 'Open a file!'. If you open a picture or a random text file in Notepad, you're good to go.

8. Proceed to the gate, please. You are late for your flight. Remember that for next time and get to the airport earlier, stupid.

Yes, it's that bad. Nothing is invented here, all experienced by yours truely. Not all steps are that bad all the time, but .. I wouldn't bet my ticket on having a lucky day..

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

#250

Post by ddagradi » Mon, Nov 28, 2011, 1:50 PM UTC

Bud wrote: post #66

nickbilton wrote: post #19

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.

Hi Nick: Regardless of what the FAA says, my reason is still valid. It is also not really in conflict with what you're saying...you're right that it's not really consistent since folks are still allowed to read books, but that doesn't invalidate my point either. I would point out that people are not really as likely to take a crossword with them in an emergency as they would be a computer. Also, you're frankly wrong…

If people are desperate to hold onto their laptop in an emergency, it's not going to matter if it's on their lap or in the bins above their head: they're going to try to get it.

There are a reasonable set of restrictions for safety (i.e. headphones). There are others that are not. For a point of reference, JetBlue provides satellite radio and TV both in-flight and during landing (as well as sometimes during take-off). They've clearly chosen to prioritize passenger comfort in lieu of relaxed FAA regulations, and aren't concerned about the impact of distractions.