I should point out that I don't know what is true. It just seems to be a contradiction that every passenger can take on board and use whatever they want in-flight, yet transponders specially engineered to be safe on a plane must be able to be disabled.
I suspect the answer is that the transponder doesn't need to be under the control of anyone on the plane.
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.
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.
Great article. If Boeing won't install them and flight crews can't use them, is there anything stopping normal passengers from bringing detection equipment in their carry on luggage?
> This is specifically because of the transmission function. Lufthansa claims that the transmission function needs to be turned off during flight when in checked luggage, just as is required for cell phones, laptops, etc.
Can anyone confirm/deny whether Airtags can interfere with aircraft navigation and communication systems?
> Airlines and regulators decided that, for safety reasons, electronics are banned for passengers.
Huh? Electronics are allowed on flights in most countries, including in Japan, and including on the specific flight we're talking about. We're discussing whether it would be good for regulators to ban devices and anything else distracting during takeoff and landing.
If airlines really believed that use of electronics could bring down an aircraft then they would ban passengers from using them entirely. Allowing passengers to take them on the plane and simultaneously claiming they are extremely dangerous is simply confusing. The passengers guess that the risk is being exaggerated as a way to control them so they resist on principle rather than because they care very much about using the devices.
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.
But that's the part I don't get; there's no "ban" at all! I can bring a bunch of phones on the plane and just not tell them about it. If they search my bags, they'll remove my 200ml of water citing "it's too dangerous" but they'll leave the cellphones alone.
That's not much of a "ban". So I still disagree that phones could interfere in any meaningful way with any aircraft's systems.
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.
There are good reasons to ban a device like that on an active passenger flight. A modern airplane relies on a lot of radio frequency communication I think.. a reason for strict ban is - there is no feedback to the person in the passenger area when they stomp on some sensitive channel, or they may notice but find it exhilarating perhaps..
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.
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.
A passenger not hearing the flight attendants' instructions because they have loud music blaring into their ears is surely a concern. Also, in the event of impact, the devices become projectiles that can injure others.
Maybe it has to do with the location on the transponder? A laptop in baggage or an electrical component buried deep in the bowels of the plane would be hard to get to in the event of a potential fire. A passenger's laptop would be fairly easy to put out with a fire extinguisher.
I should point out that I don't know what is true. It just seems to be a contradiction that every passenger can take on board and use whatever they want in-flight, yet transponders specially engineered to be safe on a plane must be able to be disabled.
I suspect the answer is that the transponder doesn't need to be under the control of anyone on the plane.
reply