If this is true (and I don't really believe it) then all electronic devices should be banned from the cabin and carried in the checked luggage AND flight critical systems should be designed to be robust against such interference in case there is a terrorist attack using a hidden electronic device designed to operate at many times the power.
Do you believe that our current rules would do anything at all to prevent someone from attacking flight control systems on the plane? You could easily have a device that looks just like a phone or tablet in your bag, or even in the pocket of your seat, which is actively performing the attack.
Not to mention that policing of the "no electronics" rule is spotty at best. I fly constantly and damn near every time, I end up with my media playing device in the pocket, with my headphones on listening to music for the entire flight, from takeoff to touch down. In the many dozens of flights I've taken, I've only once actually had to take out my headphones.
I doubt there's any validity to this claim, just another TC bad reporting most likely.
Banning electronics on flights would be the final nail in the coffin for air-travel, even just on international flights it would piss off so many corporate travellers that the airlines wouldn't cope with the losses - many large corps only accept 8hr+ flights for business trips because the employee(s) can work while in flight.
The article noted that people ignore the rules all the time. Even if they didn't, devices would be left on accidentally, and devices in luggage will get left or turned on accidentally.
If there's any measurable risk from consumer electronics, instead of "Please make sure all your electronic devices are turned off," the announcement should be, "Please make sure all your electronic devices are turned off, and pray that everyone else does too, pray that no devices are accidentally turned on or left on, and pray that stray rf bursts from ground transmitters don't cause the plane to crash either."
The mandate for everyone to turn off their electronics (and pray) is the equivalent of the industry and the FAA burying their heads in the sand. It reduces the risk, but if that risk was measurable and unacceptable to begin with, it's still measurable and still unacceptable, and the planes' electronic shielding needs to be improved.
It really seems to me that all this regulation about personal devices is just more theatre. Or some kind of psychological strategy to emphasize to the passengers who is in control.
If a cell phone or an iPod could really cause harmful interference with the avionics, they would not be allowed at all.
Assuming that's true - there's evidence the other way, of course - the question is why devices are permitted on board at all. If there's even a possibility that an active device can interfere with navigation and/or operation, the policy should presumably that they not be permitted on planes at all.
Because apart from those actively disobeying as in the OP, there are countless more who forget to turn their devices off.
From a safety standpoint, isn't the right thing to do to test flight equipment against interference from consumer devices? Simply assuming that everyone on the plane will turn off their cell phone seems like a cop-out.
Having flight safety depend on the (unverified) compliance of consumers is ridiculous. There are only two cases here:
1. Consumer electronics represent a real threat to air safety. They should be banned from planes or disabled (i.e. the battery removed and turned over until the flight ends.) There should be real penalties for non-compliance.
2. Consumer electronics are not really a threat to air safety. We should stop wasting everyone's time and adding unnecessary stress to the travel process.
If they can come to my seat and tell me to turn off my device because they detected a source of interference, then I will turn off the device. If they can't or aren't willing to detect the source of interference, the real risk is likely dubious.
Furthermore, avionics equipment should be and is designed to work despite minor external interference. If a consumer electronics device, such as an iPhone or laptop, could drastically effect the operation of avionics equipment, it should not be considered flight worthy. Granted, certification tests probably don't consider such radiation sources, but the risk is so small its likely its not even worth testing.
I remember reading here during an earlier discussion that the ban on electronic devices had less to do with interference and more about safety in case of emergencies.
During takeoff and landing are when most accidents happen and if people have cables from earphones/laptops, are listening to music or are on their phone, it would be considerable harder for the flight crew to get the attention of the passengers and direct them.
Taken to the logical extreme, it would seem that no electronics should be allowed on the plane.
There is a reasonable line here. In a year 90% of us will think the current one was idiotic. Seriously - I can't read a kindle on takeoff/landing?
Don't get me wrong - I'm all for eliminating risk - but it would have taken very little effort to add WiFi/Eletronic transmitter detectors to planes - the fact that they didn't, means that it was never a real risk.
Another reason I've heard argued by a coworker is that they aren't banning electronics for the sake of interference, but for your attention.
If anything were to go wrong during a flight, takeoff and landing are the two times that they want you to be able to react with zero hesitation. If something goes wrong and you have seconds to react, the less things you're fiddling with the more likely you are to survive.
Lithium Ion batteries are allowed on planes as well. Is this conclusive proof that they can't damage the plane if they catch on fire?
All decisions are trade-offs, banning laptops and cellphones today would probably bankrupt the airlines since nobody would fly. Likewise, non-critical computer systems in an airplane have less stringent certification standards than critical systems (it's OK for the electronic flight bag laptop to occasionally crash if you keep a stack of paper charts in the cockpit).
It's not like a plane is likely to just go down because of interference, but instruments acting will certainly increase the workload of pilots, making an accident more likely. Likewise, people shining lasers at airplanes tell themselves that this is OK, surely the pilots can deal with a little light disturbing their night vision? They don't appreciate that the pilots already have a high workload during landing.
The wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_on_aircraft) has a link to a NASA study of interference events showing that they can in fact happen (although not often). Of course, you can still claim that these pilots are making stuff up or that this is another NASA conspiracy, but it's actually possible to read up on the subject instead of just offering wild theories and speculations based on your own opinion and wishes.
This was answered and discussed at length in the article
>The battery bombs would need to be manually triggered, a source explained, which is why the electronics ban is only for the aircraft cabin not checked luggage.
Obviously stuff in the cabin are much easier to access and manually manipulate than stuff in the cargo hold. Im also very disappointed at the slew of other answers and their up-voters who clearly did not read the article.
Yes, and I would add some (hopefully) "common sense" consideration.
IF you were a captain, responsible for a several millions dollar aircraft and for hundreds of lives, AND IF there was a teeny-tiny, extremely low probability that using a phone (or computer or other electronic device) could cause a disaster, including the possibility of a suicide act of sabotage, how would you implement in practice the Federal Rule you cited?
1) Kindly ask the passengers to have the devices switched off.
2) Seize each and every such device before boarding, and X-ray/scan each and every passengers to be 100% sure that they don't carry with them one (hidden).
Agreed, I'm not claiming there is any real safety risk.
The issue is that FAA rule requires the operator to determine that any allowed electronic device does not cause interference. It clearly places the burden of proof on the airline operator, that's a pretty high bar by some interpretations.
Even on the slightest chance that a consumer device would cause interference, do you think having to put them away is so bad? On take off and landing you are also near other planes, populated areas.
Also don't forget with the 3.5 oz limitation someone did use that kind(Liquid) as an explosive to try and take down a airplane. poor electronics getting jolted from a peaceful sleep with a bullhorn.....
reply