All these rules are there for a reason. I completely agree with you that it is perfectly all right to leave electronics on when you are giving rides. Even in the very unlikely chance that a device that your friend has is faulty, and by some wild chance it self-excited at an entirely wrong frequency and started transmitting wildly at CTAF, so what... It is a perfect day, and you'll land no problem.
But airline pilots are routinely flying IMC. They do want their radio aids working. And there is just no knowing what faulty device of some shady manufacturing one of these five hundred passengers is using. Who knows. May as well " interfere with the navigation systems" at a wrong moment.
If there was a risk to the aircraft, do you think that safety point would be left to the passenger to turn off the device? Of course not so if there was any risk at all of them being used they would not have been allowed on the aircraft.
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.
For the same reason the above message cites as reasons to think the rules were always bunk, the "reported incidents" are also likely to be bunk. It is very unlikely that any one passenger's electronics are the only electronics left on, and therefore very unlikely that the guy who gets berated for leaving his iPod on is causing any problems.
To be honest although, they don't go around meters to detect radio transmitting devices. There are tons of people who forget to turn off the cell phone inside their carry on in the over head compartment, yet that test case hasn't shown a single flight problem.
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.
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.
And there is just no knowing what faulty device of some shady manufacturing one of these five hundred passengers is using.
Except that faulty device is already on the plane, and the lowest estimate seems to be there's about a 1-in-3 chance it's powered on already, despite regulations saying it needs to be off.
As many people are at pains to point out, if there were sufficient risk to justify action, then we would not be needing to have a debate and point to anecdotes (of which there are some in this discussion) from commercial pilots who once experienced an equipment problem and said "well, I heard maybe a cell phone could cause that". We would know beyond question that something's up from the corresponding number of serious incidents.
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.
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.
"Once the interference has been discovered ... the plane doesn't fly again until it can pass an EMC SOFT."
Yet, turning off consumer electronics is enforced by the honor system? Is there something else going on that makes consumer electronics unlikely sources of interference that would justify this lazy approach to safety? Why aren't all of these devices confiscated and locked in Faraday cages?
It just strikes me as odd that failure to pass an EMC SOFT grounds the plane until the issue is debugged, but then they just allow an random passenger to bring any random radio aboard just so long as they promise/remember to turn it off during critical phases of the flight.
That example may sound highly unlikely, but it does happen.
So highly unlikely that an honor system approach is justified?
3. Consumer electronics are not a big threat to air safety, but they can (and have, see Wikipedia article / NASA study) interfered with airplane navigation instruments.
Since it's much more likely that 1 out of 100 or 300 active devices will cause interference during takeoffs and landings than 1 out of 4-5 that are turned on by accident or ignorance, it's better to err on the side of safety and tell everyone to turn them off.
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.
It's easier to get passengers to behave and not cause accidental danger during takeoff and landing by telling them to shut off devices and place them away.
It's much harder to explain that the continuing reason is that during RTO or worse, a crash, your device can turn into deadly projectile killing someone by blunt trauma.
> The F.A.A. does allow some electronics during takeoff and landing. Portable voice recorders, hearing aids, heart pacemakers and electric shavers are permitted during all times of a flight
For pacemakers, do they have a choice? Could the user reasonably turn off his pacemaker during takeoff and landing if he wanted to?
Yeah, it's a little annoying, but it really drives you absolutely insane? You really can't just turn it off for a few minutes without whining, "but, it's a kinnnnndle"?
I don't think flight attendants should be required to identify and evaluate each device and its capabilities. They are trying to keep planes flying safely and on-time.
Probably like most, I sensed (but didn't know for certain) that the rule might be overkill, but I don't think it's completely unreasonable and I assumed that someone must have seen some degree of at least theoretical risk, then traded that off against passengers reading a magazine or actually talking to a neighbor for a few minutes.
And, in any case, I certainly don't pin it on the flight attendants.
Something about that attitude of being irate or angry about it just comes off as entitled and bratty. Like, "how dare you pry me away from my precious device for a few minutes in the name of public safety".
That's dumb, just because someone isn't willing to go to an extreme measure to prevent something doesn't mean that more moderate measures are unreasonable. Banning all electronic devices on airplanes would be a major headache for everyone involved and would probably be overkill, but the risk is still non-zero and asking passengers to turn devices off for a few minutes during the two most dangerous times in a flight is perfectly reasonable.
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.
Yes. Furthermore, if the people responsible for these rules really believe there is a need for them then surely they are being derelict in not requiring RF monitoring devices in the cabin.
But airline pilots are routinely flying IMC. They do want their radio aids working. And there is just no knowing what faulty device of some shady manufacturing one of these five hundred passengers is using. Who knows. May as well " interfere with the navigation systems" at a wrong moment.
reply