Why can’t we use e-devices on airplanes during takeoff?
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.
A year ago, when I first asked Les Dorr, a spokesman for the F.A.A., why the rule existed, he said the agency was being cautious because there was no proof that device use was completely safe. He also said it was because passengers needed to pay attention during takeoff.
When I asked why I can read a printed book but not a digital one, the agency changed its reasoning. I was told by another F.A.A. representative that it was because an iPad or Kindle could put out enough electromagnetic emissions to disrupt the flight. Yet a few weeks later, the F.A.A. proudly announced that pilots could now use iPads in the cockpit instead of paper flight manuals.
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.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
There has also been extensive testing on the electronic “output” of devices such as cellphones and Kindles, and those tests prove that hearing aids and pacemakers are just as potentially disruptive, which is to say not at all.
This is just another power-play by lifer federal employees to justify their paychecks.
Bishop on January 1, 2013 at 10:25 PM
Because the Federal Aviation Administration said so.
We’re dealing with the federal government here. Don’t expect any reason or logic.
Norwegian on January 1, 2013 at 10:26 PM
Similar stories will play out time and time again except it will be the govt’s healthcare decisions.
WisCon on January 1, 2013 at 10:27 PM
Never understood this as a kid, either. How exactly was my Gameboy going to mess up the extremely sophisticated machinery in the cockpit? Does playing Tetris magically hijack the controls?
Good Solid B-Plus on January 1, 2013 at 10:31 PM
While I think that erring on the side of caution at 35,000 ft is a good thing, I think it also has taken too long to determine whether or not these devices are truly disruptive to the flight electronics.
Or at least to report on any findings and then act on those findings.
A cellphone would be hopping between too many stations at 500mph to be reliable, even at the 50 times a second it checks to transfer to another antenna. A plane full of cell phones doing it may have unintended side effects on cell towers. But that too needs to be tested. And reported.
And now, of course, we get to buy wireless connection on flights for our wireless (2.4ghz stuff) devices.
And I would expect that if we did allow voice it would become something that would cause a ruckus as well. A five hour flight with some loudmouth drunk talking on their cell phone would be truly annoying.
ProfShadow on January 1, 2013 at 10:32 PM
Fly by wire. It is potentially possible for an electronic item to disrupt flight controls. The reality is that nothing we have today have the power to accomplish this, even when you have 300 passengers using two or three devices, it just could not happen. Theory says it is possible, the real world argues it is impossible, bureaucrats always err on the side of limiting those they have power over.
astonerii on January 1, 2013 at 10:35 PM
Only the US does this. No other country’s airlines do this. So, no, there is no reason for it.
Warner Todd Huston on January 1, 2013 at 10:35 PM
Meh.
We did the same thing in ICU’s when I worked there. “If you use your cell phones in here, ALL of the ventilators will stop working and the IV’s will go backwards!!!”
Complete BS. It’s just to keep people from using phones and what-have-you in the hospital units and disrupting our work…..
mjk on January 1, 2013 at 10:37 PM
Of course hand held devices do not bleed off enough interference to interfere with anything. That’s been a crock since the beginning.
Timin203 on January 1, 2013 at 10:38 PM
I’ll tell you why:
If you’re head-banging to Motley Crue or laughing your butt off watching Beavis and Butthead on your iPad while the flight attendant is explaining the seatbelts/floating seat cushions/etc. and you are injured while escaping the crashed plane, the airline is liable for not making sure you paid attention. If you paid attention, but screwed up, it’s all on you.
Sekhmet on January 1, 2013 at 10:38 PM
I’ve yet to power-off my iPod during a flight since I got one in December 2009. Haven’t crashed yet.
Jeddite on January 1, 2013 at 10:38 PM
Well, in the event of an emergency, I know that I can Shout At The Devil.
Good Solid B-Plus on January 1, 2013 at 10:42 PM
Mythbusters busted this years ago.
JeffWeimer on January 1, 2013 at 10:53 PM
This is simply not true. Google about it. I cannot recall an international airline on which I flew where this rule wasn’t announced.
Shy Guy on January 1, 2013 at 10:55 PM
I think you nailed it.
You know what you call 100 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?
A good start.
Hog Wild on January 1, 2013 at 10:58 PM
I’m not sure why this rule bothers people so much. There’s nothing wrong with asking people to put them away so that they’ll pay attention during the pre-flight stuff, or simply out of an abundance of caution for that matter. Some act as if it’s some great hardship to be “disconnected” for several minutes…frankly, I enjoy those moments when I’m away from all the devices, the internet, etc (especially during fiscal cliff negotiations…;)
changer1701 on January 1, 2013 at 11:11 PM
Since it is a government mandate, I do not like it. If it was a business decision, then I would work to make the business work for me.
astonerii on January 1, 2013 at 11:38 PM
Thank you Mayor Bloomburg, the man who, because of his human failure to be able to stop himself from partaking in a free choice must mandate it outlawed!
astonerii on January 1, 2013 at 11:40 PM
I, for one, always make a point of leaving my phone, iPod, Kindle, notebook, etc. powered on (but stowed) during takeoff and landing.
The other week I was on a flight and as soon as the flight attendant made the announcement about fastening safety belts, remaining in seats, powering off all mobile devices, etc., an elderly women became frantic upon realizing that she had left her phone powered on in her purse in an overhead bin halfway down the aisle.
Of course the flight attendant deemed it necessary to walk down the aisle, retrieve the phone, give it to the elderly woman to be turned off, and return the phone safely to the overhead bin.
As soon as she had done this, a half dozen other passengers became similarly frantic about their mobile devices downing the plane, so the flight attendant had to attend to them one by one until the mobile device menace had been neutralized.
We were twenty minutes late taking off.
steebo77 on January 2, 2013 at 12:31 AM
You’re using sloppy definitions here. Fly by wire implies that there is an electronic (versus mechanical) interface between a pilot’s inputs to the yoke and rudder pedals and changes to the aircraft’s aerodynamic surfaces. Fly by wire is not vulnerable to electromagnetic signals from the fuselage.
What is vulnerable is the aircraft’s accurate measurement of navigational, approach, and landing radio signals.
blink on January 2, 2013 at 2:02 AM
Because, shutup, that’s why. Unless you want the “special treatment” from our friendly TSA officers.
Somehow I hear Cartman’s voice when the FAA speaks.
Socratease on January 2, 2013 at 2:28 AM
Cell phones should be turned off while in flight, but mostly because they interfere with the cells on the ground (too many can hear your phone at the same time while in the air) rather than with the plane.
Socratease on January 2, 2013 at 2:34 AM
Here is how I know there is no danger: Because they don’t collect them at the door. If I was a member of the Pilots’ or Flight Attendants’ union and I thought there was a real danger, I’d be on strike until the airline confiscated the devices.
Odysseus on January 2, 2013 at 7:20 AM
Well, that right there tells me they don’t know what they’re talking about, unless they’re claiming zero emissions.
It’s not just the cockpit. There is a lot of electronics (including the fly-by-wire cables that run under the main cabin) throughout the aircraft. The problem is generating noise in those electronics.
No, experience says it hasn’t happened in a noticeable way, yet. That is not the same as “impossible”.
Not entirely true. Fly-by-wire in many cases sends electronic signals through the aircraft to be acted on locally at the control surface. It is as vulnerable as any other electronic signal, unless it exists in a Faraday cage.
The problem exists because (as Sekhmet noted) there’s no way to guarantee individual devices don’t cause interference. And, the potential for lawsuits would be enormous if – that 1 in a billion chance – one did somehow cause a problem, even one as slight as a bump in flight causing someone a boo-boo on their cranium. If there were a way to guarantee each individual item’s safety, then a much easier case could be made to turning off the general restriction. (And, yes, it would involve very invasive searches, to make certain that you didn’t have a device that wasn’t guaranteed.) Maybe it shouldn’t be that way, but that’s reality right now.
I also agree with changer that an awful lot of normal people have no problem whatsoever with this restriction. It’s not really that big a deal (especially during TO and landing). Some people do chafe simply because it is a government-imposed rule and they don’t like that. (And, I understand that entirely.) Some of those same people would defy it, even if it were an airline-imposed rule – because they don’t like being told what to do. (I’ve seen plenty of a-hole passengers intentionally defy rules that *are* really about their safety – just because they don’t like being told what to do.) A lot of the people who refuse to follow this rule are also the people whose time is just so important that they *have* to check their emails while driving, etc.
GWB on January 2, 2013 at 9:37 AM
Motley Crue? Beavis and Butthead? Let me guess, you’re over 70.
Seven Seas on January 2, 2013 at 11:51 AM
Name one aerodynamic surface that is controlled by a wireless signal.
blink on January 2, 2013 at 1:07 PM
No, no, no.
These electromagnetic signals are NOT strong enough (not even close) to interfere with any wired electronic system – even an unshielded electronic system.
You don’t know what you’re talking about.
Again, the problem is with possible interference with electromagnetic signals being sent to the aircraft.
blink on January 2, 2013 at 1:10 PM