FAA Device Rules Illustrate the Folly of a Regulated Internet 449
First time accepted submitter cathyreisenwitz writes "The New York Times' Bits blog has a great piece on the FAA's inconvenient, outdated and unhelpful rules regarding electronic devices on planes: 'Dealing with the F.A.A. on this topic is like arguing with a stubborn teenager. The agency has no proof that electronic devices can harm a plane's avionics, but it still perpetuates such claims, spreading irrational fear among millions of fliers.' The rules illustrate why we shouldn't let the government regulate the internet: Government regulations are nearly always outdated and too cautious."
Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
When the plane crashes due to a vibration induced failure you will sing a different tune. Much of the cost of avionics is due to the necessity of making them much more robust than a desktop PC. If you PC glitches you just reboot. Try that on short final at night in the rain. The main factors that go into the high costs of avionics are as follows;
1. Large design costs due to necessity of robustness.
2. Large design costs due to the need for FAA certification.
3. Large manufacturing costs to due small productio
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine if the avionics industry wasn't regulated?
Regulate it and make millions. Outlaw it and make billions. Your call.
Banking was deregulated and now we are in a state of want, the oil industry was deregulated and now we are in a constant state of war. Oh joy!
Re: (Score:3)
Your local electrical code protects your house. Yet the appliances you plug into that system are almost never government-inspected. Who does it? Underwriters Laboratories.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Interesting)
I have watched many episodes of Air Crash Investigation where the incident turned out to be caused because the airline decided that the costs of maintanence to correct an issue (and the huge costs of having airplanes out of the air while the fix done) were big enough that it was judged to be worth the risk to keep flying with the flaw. (and in some cases it took multiple incidents caused by the same flaw before the airlines, aircraft manufacturer and FAA agreed to a timely fix)
The problems with the McDonnell Douglas DC-10 cargo door (which were first picked up during the investigation into American Airlines flight 96 and not actually fixed until after Turkish Airlines flight 981 had a similar mid-air cargo door blowout) is a good example. As is the very similar problem that affected the cargo door on the Boeing 747 in United Flight 811.
Its the same reason we have government regulation on automobiles covering everything from the shape of the headlights to the minimum number of airbags a car has to have. If we didn't the automobile manufacturers would skimp on safety anywhere they thought they could do it and still have customers buying their cars.
Re: (Score:3)
Its the same reason we have government regulation on automobiles covering everything from the shape of the headlights to the minimum number of airbags a car has to have.
It's funny you mention that, because I own a 1982 Mercedes-Benz 300SD W126. From the factory, it came with the ugliest headlights that Mercedes ever put into a vehicle, because its release coincided with regulations requiring the use of sealed rectangular headlights. They are a mockery of the W116's headlight design at best. They made a less-ugly version for the later-model vehicles when the US backed off from the "sealed" part and started permitting capsule lamps, which I have installed in my early-model W
Re:Wow (Score:5, Interesting)
There is a segment of the avionics industry that isn't regulated. Experimental aircraft. I speak (honestly I'm typing, but if you wanted I could read this whole comment out loud) from a position of some knowledge on this. I am a commercial pilot and a flight instructor and am also building my own experimental aircraft. (Go Velocity! - http://www.velocityaircraft.com/ [velocityaircraft.com]
A TSO'd two panel glass avionics display consisting of about 8 to 10 inch PFD (Primary Flight Display) and MFD (Multi-Functional Display) will cost you in the neighborhood of $70,000 for a certificated system. (http://www.avidyne.com/products/release-9/r9-cirrus.asp)
An experimental setup with similar capabilities can be had for perhaps $15,000. (http://www.dynonavionics.com/ http://www.grtavionics.com/ [grtavionics.com] )
While I may personally think that the FAA has been overly cautious about allowing unknown devices on commercial flights, I would like to point out two things:
First, their goal is to make things SAFE. Not comfortable. Not convenient. Not mobile-app-enabled. Safe. And they have done a heck of a job of that. Look at the safety record of the commercial aviation industry in the US. It's incredible. More people die on the way to or from the airport than die after they get there.
Second, if device manufacturers wanted to pony up the cash to certify their devices they could. If Apple, Samsung and Motorola really wanted to they could pay to have their devices certified. But it's easier to simply blame the FAA. There is no budget in the FAA for certifying these devices. If they spent the money on this instead of other things the accident rate would go up. What do you think is the right choice for an organization whose goal is to make aviation safe?
Re:Wow (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
They don't think that wireless devices will interfere with the plane, they just don't have proof that they won't. Getting proof isn't as simple as just taking a few random devices on an aircraft and seeing if it still works, they have to check that there are no subtle errors introduced into instruments or problems with high power non-FCC approved devices bought overseas. It is paranoid, but the public seems to demand paranoid when it comes to aircraft.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm a retired military pilot currently employed in the military industrial complex. I call BS. All it requires is standards and a standards based certification process. You determine how much RFI the airplane can take (which I imagine is quite a bit considering it has to operate in close proximity to all kinds of high powered RF transmitters) and then you establish a standard that is some fraction of that (half/third). You then require certification as "FAA APPROVED". Manufacturers would be falling all over themselves to get certified and get the "FAA" sticker on the box. Throw your iPad in an anechoic chamber and figure out what the emissions are.
This ain't rocket science, however the FAA has the "You never know" safety mindset. The risk management decision for them is "does the benefit outweigh the risk? To the FAA, the benefit of allowing liberal use of electronics is zero, so unless the risk can also be proven to be zero, it is impossible to outweigh the risk (no matter how small). That type of thinking is often desirable in a high risk, high consequence business like aviation, however taken to extreme it drives out common sense and logical risk management.
Re: (Score:3)
I cannot read your comment, Mr. wall of monospace, because it hurts my brain. If you want people to read what you write, don't get so froggy with the unnecessary HTML tags. You're not a fucking weather advisory.
Boeing thinks there is interference ... (Score:5, Informative)
"Boeing conducted a laboratory and airplane test with 16 cell phones typical of those carried by passengers, to determine the emission characteristics of these intentionally transmitting PEDs. The laboratory results indicated that the phones not only produce emissions at the operating frequency, but also produce other emissions that fall within airplane communication/navigation frequency bands (automatic direction finder, high frequency, very high frequency [VHF] omni range/locator, and VHF communications and instrument landing system [ILS]). Emissions at the operating frequency were as high as 60 dB over the airplane equipment emission limits, but the other emissions were generally within airplane equipment emission limits. One concern about these other emissions from cell phones is that they may interfere with the operation of an airplane communication or navigation system if the levels are high enough."
"Operators of commercial airplanes have reported numerous cases of portable electronic devices affecting airplane systems during flight. These devices, including laptop and palmtop computers, audio players/recorders, electronic games, cell phones, compact-disc players, electronic toys, and laser pointers, have been suspected of causing such anomalous events as autopilot disconnects, erratic flight deck indications, airplanes turning off course, and uncommanded turns. Boeing has recommended that devices suspected of causing these anomalies be turned off during critical stages of flight (takeoff and landing). The company also recommends prohibiting the use of devices that intentionally transmit electromagnetic signals, such as cell phones, during all phases of flight."
The problem seems to be that anomalies observed in flight are being reproduced in a lab.
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_10/interfere_textonly.html [boeing.com]
Re:Wow (Score:4, Interesting)
Big difference. Free speech can not cause aircraft instruments to malfunction and the plane to fly into the ground killing hundreds of people. The opposite is also true. One could get drug companies saying "Prove that this drug does not harm people or let us sell it". It is a risk reward issue. People have lived quite happily on aircraft before wireless devices were invented and they can continue to do so with their wireless devices turned off. If the wireless industry wants to be on aircraft let them pay for the testing to prove that they won't kill people.
Re:Wow (Score:4, Interesting)
I was going to say much the same.
The context that we are in a metal tube flying 500+ mph at ~35k feet in the air deserves to be considered.
Apparently nobody can prove anything either way, but a smart person would err on the side of caution.
I turn off all the wireless capabilities of my devices while flying the entire time. Whatever electromagnetic radiation is being given off a PSP is short range, and not much different than a portable CD player, or DVD player. I'm not afraid of my cell phone in airplane mode. Gee, wonder why they chose that name for the function?
Wireless technologies like cell phones, Bluetooth, and wireless transmission standards are designed to saturate the spectrums they operate in. Especially, technology we have now, as that is how it obtains the speeds that it does. Cell phone technology is designed to operate up to the point of saturation as well. I have absolutely no idea how interference in those spectrums affects any equipment on a plane at all. Only the designers and manufacturers do, of which, I have not heard a peep from.
So until they say I can use the equipment that way, I'm perfectly fine leaving it shut off.
It's either that, or me saying that I'm smart and informed enough to risk a failed landing because I want my fucking Android tablet operating while we land so I can get the high score in Angry Birds.
Re: (Score:3)
There is also the importance that needs to be considered. Freedom of speech has been proven as a basic human right. The use of wireless devices on an aircraft has not. They are nowhere similar in scale. There are different criteria for different issues.
burden of proof goes the other way (Score:5, Informative)
The agency has no proof that electronic devices can harm a plane's avionics
That is not how it work is aviation. The rule is you have to prove it is not harmful.
Don't like it ? change the rules, but then those rules apply to everyone and everything involved in aviation, not only consumer electronic devices.
Re:burden of proof goes the other way (Score:5, Insightful)
The agency has no proof that electronic devices can harm a plane's avionics
That is not how it work is aviation. The rule is you have to prove it is not harmful.
Don't like it ? change the rules, but then those rules apply to everyone and everything involved in aviation, not only consumer electronic devices.
If the FAA really thinks iPads, cellphones, and other devices are harmful or could be harmful, then they should treat them as such and require that the devices be stored in an RF shielded container, or that batteries be removed and held by the flight crew until it's safe to turn them back on.
The power button on my cell phone is easily pressed by accident when I stuff it in my carryon bag, so more times than not, it's turned itself on at some point after I put it in the bag. I'm sure there are dozens of cell phones on every flight tucked away in checked and carryon bags that are powered on. Ironically, if I was allowed to hold the phone in my hands during takeoff, it would not accidentally turn on. (yes, I know my 4 ounce phone could become a hazardous projectile in an emergency, but so could the 24 ounce hardback book my seatmate is reading)
If the FAA really thinks the devices may be harmful, they should treat them as harmful devices, instead of just looking the other way and ignoring them even though they know that the devices *are* in use during all phases of flight.
It's kind of like how the TSA makes people discard drinks and other liquids before going through security since they could be explosives or hazardous explosive components, yet the trash is not treated as the hazardous waste they suspect it is. If they really think that the liquids may be hazardous, then they should treat them as hazardous waste - why would they let the janitor haul out a bin full of suspected explosives?
Re:burden of proof goes the other way (Score:5, Interesting)
If they really think that the liquids may be hazardous, then they should treat them as hazardous waste - why would they let the janitor haul out a bin full of suspected explosives?
That's the part that always gets me. If they believed to even 0.001% of a chance that the bottle of water I'm drinking from is a potentially explosive material, would they really tolerate having me toss it in a plastic garbage can next to them?
If they're going to perform Mystery Security Theater 3000 and want us to believe in it, they should at least make sure that Tom Servo is reading from the same script.
Re: (Score:3)
The consequences of having something go boom on the ground are very different from the consequences of same happening in the air.
That said, this particular rule is almost surely a massive overreaction to a one-time unsuccessful event. Obviously there are certain liquids we don't want on planes, but the same applies to certain solids (and I'm sure any self-respecting nerd can come up with plenty of them, including ones that are sensitive to water), and I don't see why the liquid vs. solid state has much to
Re: (Score:3)
But the consequences to an airplane full of people, and people on the ground in the path of any hypothetical debris, are very different.
Most explosives that are stable enough to make it from a person's home to an airport are stable enough not to detonate without an appropriate detonating device. Once they're safely in that barrel, there's nothing to activate them. If they're in the air, in the possession of someone who wants to do something bad with them and has something to detonate them with (which migh
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Guess what, we're already at those lower numbers. Most are not turned off.
We still don't have problems.
It's not a carefully controlled test. It's a live fire test with planes going up in the air every day like that. Random numbers of devices, (relatively) random numbers of frequencies & power strengths, random interference patterns.
And we still don't have problems.
Re: (Score:3)
Hahaha.
From the article:
The F.A.A. then told me that “two iPads are very different than 200.” But experts at EMT Labs, an independent testing facility in Mountain View, Calif., say there is no difference in radio output between two iPads and 200. “Electromagnetic energy doesn’t add up like that,” said Kevin Bothmann, the EMT Labs testing manager.
Re:burden of proof goes the other way (Score:5, Insightful)
It has been proven. Consider that 90% of flyers have a cell phone and 20% of them on every flight either forget to or refuse to turn off their transmission functions. (It's not like the stewards actually check this.) So, we have millions of experiments every year and not one single adverse effect. I doubt many other flight-safety regulations receive this level of testing.
Re: (Score:3)
What exactly is your evidence that there's been no adverse effects?
I was on a plane once where the landing gear indicator insisted that the landing gear wasn't working, and had not actually dropped, but the pilot made the call to land anyway because he heard and felt it drop.
Things like this happen all the time. Did you have some kind of evidence that they are not sometimes caused by cell phones?
yup, and I have personal experience here (Score:4, Interesting)
The rule is you have to prove it is not harmful.
Yep. And 10 years ago, my father and I tried turning on a laptop inside the single-engine plane on the ground, during engine-warmup/preflight checks.
Buzzing on the intercom, and the RDF/VOR both went bonkers, even when set to local beacons where there was strong signal. Turns out the cheap laptop was unbelievably poorly shielded, leaking RF coming from the screen's backlight and the various major clocks.
Do you really want your life to be endangered by the guy who brings some crappy laptop that isn't FCC/ECC certified onto the plane you're on?
I find it funny that plenty of Slashdotters are HAM operators or 'get' interference, but are absolutely RIPSHIT that they have to turn off their devices while flying. Grow up, and recognize that you have an addiction and entitlement issues. Read a damn book, take a nap, meditate, strike up a conversation. You're not ENTITLED to sit there and surf the net.
Re:burden of proof goes the other way (Score:5, Insightful)
Liberty ALWAYS comes first.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
How about you prove it is safe?
Not having electronic devices is known to be safe, since planes have been flying that way for decades.
Now, you want to do something different, so it is up to YOU to show that it does not adversely affect safety. That's a fairly straightforward process, but it does cost time and money. So there are two places where that time and money come from:
1) the airlines
2) the government (i.e. you and me paying taxes)
The airlines are free to do the testing (presumably in collaboration w
Re: (Score:3)
During takeoff and landing I want passenger attention focused on following instructions in the unlikely event of a problem, not zoning out with headphones stuck in their ears.
Then ban headphones. Though, generally if there is a problem during takeoff and landing, passengers following instructions doesn't matter too much.
Re: (Score:2)
OK take that one. An engine fire starts and the crew calls out "everyone in seats 13 on up move towards the front exit, everyone in 14 on back to 22 towards the middle exit and everyone in 23 on back...". OK 65% understand what to do and the other 35% just follow the herd. What's the big deal?
Re: (Score:3)
During takeoff and landing I want passenger attention focused on following instructions in the unlikely event of a problem, not zoning out with headphones stuck in their ears.
You have a few problems with this argument.
1. Headphones, or earplugs as you might call them when there's nothing playing through them, are very effective in helping you hear in a high noise situation, like a crashing aircraft with a hole in the skin.
2. Books and magazines are perfectly fine to be read during announcements, and are just as distracting as an e-reader/iPad/Kindle.
Also, there is not cumulative effect from the devices. One device causes just as much interference as 200. With typically triple-
Re: (Score:2)
Thats all well and good, but our Governemnt doesnt work on that principle. Liberty ALWAYS comes first. The FAA needs to provide proof of their claim or shut the fuck up. Anything less is tyranny.
"Liberty always comes first."
Are you being ironic, or are you speaking of some other government?
Re:burden of proof goes the other way (Score:5, Insightful)
Liberty doesn't always come first. Liberty gets balanced all the time against other interests. There wouldn't be FAA regulation of what goes on between private ticket holders and private airlines at all if liberty always came first. They would just leave it up to the airlines. The airlines don't want that though, because they don't want ultimate responsibility they want shared responsibility.
The FAA is way too cautious about safety in a rational universe. But note that every time a plane goes down and few hundred people die it makes national news, often for several days. Which means the public weighs flight deaths much more heavily than deaths from heart attack or car accidents or poor nutrition. We live in a representative democracy and the FAA is irrational because the public is.
Re: (Score:2)
It's worth noting that the airlines don't really greatly object to the system either, despite occasionally kvetching. Not only does the public weigh flight deaths at an irrationally high level, but their travel plans change based on it: people really are scared of these one-in-a-million crashes, and avoid flying if they hear about them too much. So it's in airlines' best interests for the public to feel that every incident is investigated fully, changes are made after each one, etc., etc., even if the chang
Re: (Score:2)
As much as I don't want a regulated Internet... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The article links to "The Anarcho-capitalism Blog", which links to a NY Times article that has fuckall to do with Internet regulation.
Just another symptom of Slashdot going downhill. The editors don't mind trolling, and a bunch of teenage anarchists in the commentariat just eat this stuff up.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The Internet is quite different from flying airplanes, medicine, building cars, running large factories etc.
All those activities are high risk and at the same time there are big incentive to cut corners (after all those crash test dummies are not free...).
On the other hand, there are very few ways that the internet can kill you. So there is very little reason to create regulations for the internet as it is mostly harmless (even though some people blame suicides, purchase of fake medications and other physic
Unhelpful article (Score:5, Insightful)
The blog uses a lot of charged words without saying anything of value. "Rules bad. Regulations bad. FAA dumb." And somehow this translates directly into "regulating the Internet is doomed to fail."
First, I completely disagree with the "FAA dumb" comment. The FAA may be cautious, yes, but their mandate is aircraft safety -- it's their job to be cautious. I don't disagree with the other sentiments, but there is no logical argument put forth that explains why the rules are bad, why the regulations fail, or why the approach taken by an agency whose job is human safety (and not human convenience) will somehow doom the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if your only concern is safety, one thing that definitely interferes with safety is a developing practice of people considering airline regulation too onerous and ignoring / circumventing it. If we reach a point where even 15% of the public supports just breaking the rules the FAA has serious problems. Their odds of being about to get 12 people to convict on smoking in the bathroom or using a cell phone or carrying liquids on a plane in your underwear or... diminish. And their ability to effectively
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, it's the same as the "50 danger/warning stickers on a ladder" problem. Nobody reads them all, and very few people read any of them.
And despite actions appearing to the contrary, their mandate is not the growth of the airline industry. The closest thing their mission statement [faa.gov] says is "Our continuing mission is to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world." I'm not sure where "efficiency" comes from other than providing air traffic control services.
Are there lobbyists pushing
Re:Unhelpful article (Score:4, Funny)
Basically the article is saying: "When you arbitrarily assign a job to a government agency, they're not very effective." Wow, I'm so glad that got cleared up. I was about ready to tell the local water works that they need to get me faster internet speeds.
The proof is inverted in an airplane (Score:5, Insightful)
There has to be proof that such devices CAN'T harm a plane's avionics. Once that is done, we'll be able to play with our toys.
Re: (Score:3)
There has to be proof that such devices CAN'T harm a plane's avionics. Once that is done, we'll be able to play with our toys.
You are allowed to bring them on board. That's all the proof you need.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I agree and I think that it probably causes no issues. What is funny is that people are getting that pissy over not being able to use something for 15 minutes at the start and 15 minutes at the end of a flight... really this is an overblown non-issue.
There are 730M air passengers in the USA each year.
If just 10% or 73M of them want to use their mobile device during takeoff/landing, that's 36M hours of time taken away without any apparent reason. If the average air passenger's time is valued at $20/hour, that's $730M of productivity (or leisure time) taken away.
Re: (Score:2)
that's $730M of productivity (or leisure time) taken away.
That is not time that was taken away, that is time you never had to play/work with you gadgets. I agree if there is no viable reason it should be allowed but this is not something we were able to do and then it was taken away. This is $730M of productivity or leisure time you did not have.
Re: (Score:2)
that's $730M of productivity (or leisure time) taken away.
That is not time that was taken away, that is time you never had to play/work with you gadgets. I agree if there is no viable reason it should be allowed but this is not something we were able to do and then it was taken away. This is $730M of productivity or leisure time you did not have.
How is it not time taken away? It's time I *could* be using my iPad, but I'm not allowed to because of some regulation that may have no reason to exist. Just because we haven't been able to do so in the past doesn't mean we shouldn't be able to do so in the future. We used to get hot meals (with real metal silverware) included in the price of a plane ticket, now we're lucky to be offered a $9.99 "snack pack", so apparently the amenities of air travel do change with the times.
Re: (Score:2)
If just 1 % of those 36M hours of time were being used for anything other than twitter, facebook, music/movie streaming, slashdot? or angrybirds/wordswithfriends, I would be shocked. Productivity can wait for 15 minutes. And just how exactly would a passenger's _leisure_time_ be valued at $20 an hour? You lumped productivity/leisure time together for a cost analysis? If you choose to fly, there is an opportunity cost. If you don't like not being able to use your devices for brief periods - drive, take a bus or take a train.
FWIW, I think they will eventually change the regulations, and it does inconvenience me often - but it really IS an overblown issue - regardless of whatever made up cost you associate with it.
How people choose to spend their leisure time shouldn't really be your concern (or the FAA's). If people feel more relaxed and satisfied playing Angry Birds than staring at the seatback in front of them, what's the problem with that?
I know, $20 is pretty low for leisure time -- I value my leisure time at twice my regular salary.
Re: (Score:2)
Not too clear on avionics are we? (Score:2, Funny)
Avionics are safety critical. Is playing with electronic toys that important to you?
Maybe you should pause from your obsession with continuous entertainment to think. That's the stuff some people do when they're not being entertained.
It's called CYA (Score:3, Insightful)
Cover your ass
I learned about it in high school
The whiners are whining now but if there is an accident and the smallest shed of a hypothesis that someone's iPhone or droid caused the crash during takeoff or landing the same media and whiners will be calling for everyone to be fired for allowing it
FCC, not FAA (Score:5, Informative)
Passenger Safety Threatened (Score:2)
Yet allowing in-flight devices and seeing passenger safety threatened as a result could threaten funding, power, and end several promising bureaucratic careers.
Sure, maybe they only care about losing funding. But maybe, just maybe they care about that whole passenger safety thing.
Don't blame government (Score:4, Insightful)
AT&T was convinced that circuit switching (rather than packet switching) was the way to go. It took DARPA (you know, the government) years to convince them otherwise, in some cases going behind their backs to do so. They also spent decades telling people that only AT&T equipment can be installed in their homes, and there's no way you can use your own phone since it may damage their circuitry.
Don't think that only government comes up with crappy rules.
Ask a A+P mechanic (Score:3)
The agency has no proof that electronic devices can harm a plane's avionics
That's weird. Just ask an A+P mechanic who's had to track down weird interference problems on a plane.
Also its just gossip but most pilot lounges have had an informal conversation or two along the lines of "fly over that tower and your avionics get weird"
The killer is stuff like ancient NDB/ADF radios... as long as there's a published ILS NDB approach in the entire USA airspace, you'll be stuck with what amounts to AM radio avionics on planes which are pretty good at hearing interference. Its possible, although hard, to mess up a VOR rx. I'm guessing VHF FM land mobile hand held radios (like, police and fire radios) are never going to be permitted on flying aircraft unless permanently installed and tested. GPS seems pretty hard to jam, but now you've got a single point of failure. Maybe a GPS, glosnass, and galileo triple stack of satnav would be approved, in a couple decades. Maybe.
The FCC is uninterested in REALLY enforcing unintentional radiator regulations. Once in a while for a political stunt. The most /. famous story I can think of was the original class A rated TRS-80 model I being sold to class B residential users, that thing was so electrically noisy that the 'Shack gave up and released the model III instead of trying to patch up the model I. If they really enforced standards, then maybe the FAA could do some EMC/EMI work to prove a VOR rx cannot be interfered with, etc. But they don't, and there's a world full of noisy junk as any HF ham radio operator will attest, so...
backwards (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you got that backwards.
The FAA does not have to prove that mobile devices endanger aircraft electronics. Those whose manufacture or those who want to use those devices on a plane need to prove that it doesn't.
Yes, I know that some people get a heart attack if they can't check their e-mail, FB and Twitter for 20 seconds, but last time I checked, we all agree that "default deny" is the proper firewall policy. So with all security systems. If you don't know something is harmless, you need to treat it as a potential danger, until it is proven to be safe.
And when a mistake can kill a few hundred people, you err on the side of caution. Always.
Danged expensive... (Score:2)
Let apple/samsung/microsoft foot the bill for a test plane and a bunch of devices. Certification for a life or death application should be VERY DIFFICULT, as far as I am concerned it is hard to be TOO conservative at 37000 ft. travelling 300 + mph. Besides what could possibly be so important that you couldn't wait till you landed ?
The argument against regulation ... (Score:2)
... is NOT that "because some government regulations are unfounded, all of their regulations will be so.". The argument against regulations in general is that they punish innocent people (by restricting their liberty) without proof that the regulated activity will harm anyone. This is distinguished from objectively-defined law, where:
a) the restricted activity (in the case of good law) is a violation of someone's rights.
b) the violation must be proved in court (including civil court).
So, to choose an exam
I asked an aircraft electronics expert... (Score:3)
I just RTFA. So “Cathy” says the FAA is dumb. OK. She doesn’t supply a last name, so I’m not sure that inspires confidence.
I once had a rather large aircraft manufacturer as a client. I asked one of the engineers about the cell-phones-off policy. He gave me several insights that were rather interesting.
One of the functions of his group is to customize aircraft with electronic devices used by government agencies. As part of that, they had to insure such devices would not interfere with the aircraft control and navigation systems – and they found minor changes in position would greatly affect the results. It turns out putting all that gear inside a metal tube creates all sorts of reflections and other fun stuff. He was of the opinion that some combination of cell phone quantities and positions would surely create an issue. Just because we get away with it does not mean it won’t happen.
This is outside my field, and he might be totally wrong. But I thought I should share a data point.
Many articles get this wrong (Score:2)
does NOT spread irrational fear (Score:2)
Because people are a) too stupid to understand RF interference, b) they know its bullshit, or c) don't understand English.
Where Do I Begin? (Score:2)
The agency has no proof that electronic devices can harm a plane's avionics, but it still perpetuates such claims, spreading irrational fear among millions of fliers.
The null hypothesis here is that electronic devices may or may not harm a plane's avionics. The FAA is taking the safe approach and not allowing those devices to be used during takeoff and landing. The author, however, is attempting to assert that electronics do not harm a plane's avionics. Unless one can come up with a way to prove all electronics will not harm a plane's avionics, I don't think the FAA should change its opinion on the matter.
The rules illustrate why we shouldn't let the government regulate the internet: Government regulations are nearly always outdated and too cautious.
When trying to argue in favor of Net Neutrality, I'd hear this
Libertarianism (Score:3)
"Government regulations are nearly always outdated and too cautious."
Um, no, that is the opposite of the truth. Government regulations are nearly always up-to-date and too lenient -- but if you look hard enough, you can find the one or two exceptions, such as Kindles on airplanes. You can weigh that one single instance against, say, the hundreds of thousands of building codes and food safety regulations.
That's not to say we shouldn't clean up those rare exceptions when we find them. We should, and we should with this one instance. But only a libertarian would be so daft as to ignore the vast overwhelming evidence presented by reality in order to hole up inside a small dark den of anarchistic ideology.
The one has nothing to do with the other (Score:3)
The FAA's role is to be extremely cautious. Aviation's one of those things where minor mistakes can have disastrous consequences. Same kind of thing as with medical devices: they had better work, perfectly, every time. And since individual components can fail, the backup systems also need to just plain work. The more outside factors can interfere with the system, the harder it is to analyze down to some large number of 9's. So don't expect the FAA to move quickly when it comes to authorizing any changes, including RF that might or might not be generated from the cabin. Given the wide range of consumer electronics, they want to make sure that the worst case scenario won't come close to generating problems for the avionics, particularly during takeoff and landing. They'll get around to it, but only after doing lots of homework. I wouldn't want to fly on a plane whose owner is allowed to cut corners on safety; the airlines would do everything they could to save money.
The internet is a very different kind of system, and the role of government regulation is different. I *do* want government regulation of the form that protects us from "regulation" by private service providers -- things like upload/download limits, preferential treatment for certain kinds of content, functionality with all devices (I don't want to be told that I have to run Windows, for example). Net neutrality requires either effective government regulation or real competition, and for some strange reason, real competition in telecommunications doesn't seem to be a stable situation. Look at what's happened since ATT was broken up; the industry has reconsolidated around a couple of big companies that seem content to divide up the pie rather than seriously compete with one another.
Chattanooga, Tennessee is doing very nicely with public internet. Around here my only choice for fast internet seems to be Comcast, with its high prices and 250 GB monthly cap (I ran a script on my system, and found that it's not hard to hit half of that, on a much lower bandwidth DSL line). Verizon hasn't bothered to build out FIOS to my area, and while that may be fast compared to most of the US, it would be very slow in Chattanooga (or many other countries).
I just don't believe that that kind of situation is going to get fixed without government regulation. Google is in the process of building out Kansas City (?), but that kind of piecemeal approach isn't going to solve the broader problem.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
"FAA" and "Government" are not synonyms.
The FAA has a distinctly different reputation, M.O., and set of priorities then, say, the FCC. You know, the people who would actually be regulating the internet.
Re:Network Neutrality (Score:4, Funny)
The FAA has a distinctly different reputation, M.O., and set of priorities then, say, the FCC.
Is there an FBB which is somewhere in between the two?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yes, the Federal Bullshit Bureau. They are the interface between the government and the public.
Re: (Score:2)
So which one is it? Should the government create and enforce laws about the internet or not?
Yes.
wanna bet??? (Score:2)
I would bet anybody here that there is currently RIGHT NOW a nonzero number of cell phones current in normal mode in flight (on commercial aircraft) BONUS BET there is currently at least one person on a cell phone equipped aircraft reading/posting to Slashdot RIGHT NOW
Re: (Score:2)
the first plane crash after devices are allowed and people will change their tune real fast.
That's true - if you have a "shake phone to pick next song in playlist", I suspect the impact of the crash would trigger your phone's accelerometer and could change to the next tune even before the wreckage came to a halt.
If that's not changing your tune fast, I don't think I could come up with a better example.
Re: (Score:2)
the first plane crash after devices are allowed and people will change their tune real fast.
Yeah, I'd change my tune to "Why in the h*ll didn't the FAA require enough Avionics shielding to prevent a 300mW transmitter from taking down a plane?" It wouldn't be hard to turn a laptop into a 30 watt transmitter, equivalent to 100 phones - the electronics would fit within the hard drive and optical drive bays (with an mSATA drive to make sure the computer is bootable), a typical 85 watt-hour laptop battery could easily power the transmitter for an hour or longer.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because with the flight crew you're dealing with a limited number of devices and a limited amount of potential RF interference. Extend that to passengers and you have not just 1-2 but possibly a hundred or more devices simultaneously, and that can have a drastically different effect on the avionics.
If I pour a gallon of water into a standard rowboat on a lake, it's not going to sink. If I pour another gallon of water in, it's still not going to sink. 2 gallons just isn't enough to cause a problem. even 5-6
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Nope. All you need is a number of devices greater than the number required to cause a problem. We have evidence that it's greater than 2-3. Can you present any evidence that it's always going to be greater than the number of seats on the airliner in question?
Re: (Score:2)
We have evidence that it's greater than 2-3.
Complete and utter bullshit.
Guess what? Every hour of every day, planes take off with >>3 devices running. Let me know when there's a problem.
Re: (Score:3)
You mean there are infinitely many seats on an airplane?
Of course there are. Just keep booking as many paying passengers as you can, and if too many show up just bump them to the next flight.
Hasn't it always worked that way?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'd agree if it weren't for 3G connectivity. Most of the comments here don't differentiate between, say, my wristwatch with an oscillator running at 32.768kHz, an Android tablet w/o 3/4G connectivity and no WiFi connection, and an iPhone trying to connect with the closest cell tower. We're talking orders of magnitude differences in signal strength, and different parts of the electromagnetic spectrum. A pilot using an iPad with no cellular activity and with WiFi turned off is a lot different than dozens of c
Re: (Score:3)
No accidents, but there have been issues.
NASA keeps a database [nasa.gov] which people will voluntarily contribute to discussing various issues that occur on flights. Do a quick search for PEDs (Passenger Electronic Device) and you'll see a few incidents. And these are just ones that are Voluntarily reported.
That said, I also note that many of the incidents come from older planes.
Re: (Score:3)
Here's a list of all of them.
http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/docs/rpsts/ped.pdf [nasa.gov]
Not a single one is proven to be RF interference from a handheld device.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, yes. Pilots are allowed to do all kinds of things we aren't allowed to. I am in favor of looser regulation re:electronics (mile-high LAN party, anyone?), but I disagree strongly with your reasoning.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, no. You can use your iPad, Kindle or whatever during cruise. As long as it is in airplane mode. That means disabling RF transceivers.
Pilots can be trusted, as professionals, to operate their devices in the correct modes. Passengers, not so much. And the cabin crew can't be expected to police the situation and figure out who is using their iPad to read a book, play online games or download porn. So there's a blanket rule: Shut the damned thing off during the most dangerous flight modes (takeoff an
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Pilots... (Score:5, Informative)
There's still a strong argument against permitting passenger electronics, but it's convoluted and you'll have to stick through a few points.
When you add up all those factors, the FAA is playing it cautiously, but rationally. They don't get to say "let's see just how many flights are adversely impacted if we allow everyone to turn on randomly RF emitting electronics."
Sure, I know my iPad and iPhone and Kindle won't harm the plane's avionic system. You may know yours won't, either. But my nephew bought a cheap gray market phone that spews RF noise like a plague rat. How does a non-electronic-engineer flight attendant tell the difference?
Re: (Score:2)
Aircraft are not designed with Faraday cages for the passenger compartment, nor are they equipped with RF interference detectors.
Both of which are easily solved problems. 2.4 GHz WiFi wavelength is about 4.8", meaning something as coarse as chicken wire would block it (and has, for example http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126221116097210861.html [wsj.com]). Although if you're designing a cage, you usually aim for mesh holes about 1/10 of the wavelength so 1/2" rat wire would work well. Of course since a plane is already a long aluminum tube, you just have to worry about the windows, internal gaps, cable runs, and emf picked up from non-shiel
Re: (Score:3)
It's amazing the mental contortions one must go through to convince themselves this is actually a problem. If this danger was actually present, it would be used to take down airplanes. The fact that that has not occurred, and the fact that the FAA permits me to bring these devices on board but won't permit me to bring a metal fork on board, should be evidence enough for anyone that this is a load of bullshit.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, the reason airplanes are not crashing from the sky is that airplanes are not automated. There's a human being who can detect whether or not the messages are reasonable.
For example, I read a recent incident here [nasa.gov] where a smoke alarm went off in the cargo bay of an airplane. But just for a moment. It would come on and go off intermittently. The pilot reported it to the ground crew who checked out the system and found no problem. The maintenance people believed that somebody probably left a cellphone
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean the "thin ABS plastic wall" between the cockpit and the passenger compartment? Regardless of the construction materials, most planes were not engineered for RF isolation. That big metal tube probably reflects radio waves forward and aft better than a non-metallic skin would. Because it wasn't designed to suppress RF, the tapering of the tail cone may even act as a focusing device for a transmitter located in just the right spot inside the cabin near the back of the plane.
So no, it's not a Farada
Re:Pilots... (Score:4, Interesting)
Anecdotally, I believe there is an infinitesimally small chance that the EMI from even a gray market electronic device is going to bring down a plane. Pilots have many independent devices working separately confirming they're on the proper heading, approach, glide slope, etc. And interference causing a misreading on one device would not likely cause the same misreading on another unrelated device -- a rogue GPS reading isn't going to bring down a plane when everything else is working.
But one failure of one system never brings down a plane. The RNAV is broken? Check the GPS. GPS is out? Check the compass. Compass is stuck? Look out the window. Foggy? Check the RNAV. There's three or more redundant ways to do anything in a plane.
Your phone might be fine today, or it might be leaking RF ever since that one time you dropped it and an internal shield came loose. It still wouldn't be a problem on an airplane unless a half dozen other things are going wrong for the pilot. It might be a cloudy, rainy day, right about the time he is flying the crazy tight approach into the Hong Kong airport, when a lightning strike takes out one of the engines and the nav radios. And perhaps the mechanic failed to properly seal the GPS antenna connection. At that very particular time a GPS that's being confused by the EM from a faulty phone is not something the pilot needs to deal with.
The thing is that while a series of unfortunate events is extremely unlikely, there are enough flights and planes in the sky every single day, such that the laws of probability are still going to line up the bad stuff every so often. While it would be nice if the pilot asked for the passengers to turn off their phones as a precaution only when he could anticipate difficulty, that would be a lot more convenient, but that's the thing about bad luck: if they could predict all of it, they'd never crash again.
Re: (Score:2)
From what I understand while the rule was originally conceived because of interference with the first generation cell phones with the navigation equipment, this has since been corrected in both the airplane navigation equipment.
The rule is still in place though because the FAA and the airlines want you able to pay attention in case of emergency. You can hear the warnings or commands if issued by the flight crew because you're not using your headphones to drown out all the noise. Or get your headphones
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are allowed to use iPads in all phases of flight, but if I read a book on mine... It's trouble.
Pilots are also allowed to flip any switch they like in the cockpit, but for some reason they don't let the passengers do the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
iPads don't have the same effect as the switches in the cockpit.
In fact, an iPad for every passenger, downloading data via wifi & cellular, while sharing photos & music doesn't have the same effect as any switch in the cockpit.
But nice try.
Re: (Score:2)
No they're not.
Re: (Score:2)
Was not a book !!
it's the "Best laid plans o' mice and men" and it's a quote from Robert Burns.. and the quote was used for the title of the book by Steinbeck ;)
MY family are from Ayr, literally just round the corner from where Burns was born and thus it was compulsory learning in school as he is the eternal national bard of Scotland
Re:Just because one agency (Score:5, Insightful)