Researchers Say, Just Trust Us On This One -- Phones and Planes Don't Mix
from the here-comes-the-science! dept
There's been plenty of debate about the real danger of using mobile phones during airplane flights, with various governmental agencies re-examining the current ban. Traditional thinking held that wireless devices and even many common pieces of consumer electronics could interfere with planes' cockpit instruments, but the technical issues looked to be easily overcome (unlike the social issues). Now, though, a group of researchers say that phones and other devices can interfere with aircraft systems "even more so than previously believed".. The researchers can't point to any incident that's definitively been caused by an electronic device, but, in a tribute to specificity, say they're sure something will happen, sometime. The researchers add their studies show that on every commercial flight in the northeast US, an average of one to four cell phone calls are made. Combine this with what must be the huge number of devices accidentally left on by travelers, and it's hard to see reality backing up their prediction. We should stress that it's not just phones they're saying are dangerous, but all sorts of electronic devices. But given the number of computers, MP3 players, video game machines and other devices in use on pretty much every flight -- and the startling lack of problems they've caused -- it's doubtful this research will be taken too seriously.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Half-Truth
In fact, on my private pilot checkride, my FAA designated examiner talked on a blackberry (not really one, but looked similar) for virtually the entire flight! Not that I'm sure how, being as loud as it was, but he sure managed. And I paid the loser $350 to talk on his cellphone. Anyway. That didn't interfer with anything, but some models make the radios crackle a bit, I'm assuming the same models that get pegged with putting out the most radiation in tests looking for cancer.
Other then that, nothing. And when I say my cellphone makes the radio make little noises, thats when its literally 1 to 2 feet away. A cell phone fifty feet behind the plane where a passenger would be in a 777? I don't know.
The FAR's leave it at the pilots discretion as to if we think a device is interfering. I personally dont bother to tell anyone I take up to turn anything off. If something went horribly wrong, I'd appreciate having a potential communication device immediately available should radio's fail.
I've had my phone go off while playing around in a 172SP w/ a G1000 "glass panel", and saw no interference there either, and its the exact tech an airliner would use.
On one hand, a jet would have twice as much. On the other, there's five times as much mass to the plane to weaken a passengers signal by the time it got to the cockpit.
I'm no engineer, but I wouldn't lose sleep over it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Half-Truth
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Idiot
SOMEONE ELSE ON THE PLANE RATTED YOU OUT!!
Ever heard of Occam's razor? Simple as that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Idiot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Idiot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
Puh-leeze.
This ban is all about the FCC and the FAA collaborating to support that Monopolistic In-the-Air Phone Company and their $9.00/minute air-to-ground phone calls. The idea that a device that can barely create noise on an AM radio from 2 feet away could actually interfere with Commercial Aircraft Communication Systems is Typical Government Bullshit.
What pisses me off is NOT that they want me to turn-off my phone and iPod, but that they lie to me about the reason why.
I hate it when my government lies to me, and I hate it even more when they coerce private organizations, (airlines), to lie on their behalf.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
The risk here is not that RFI or EMI would cause an airplane to crash. Avionics computers and data lines are multiply redundant to prevent such an occurence. The risk is that your electronic device would interfere with electronic guidance equipment like the RDF (Radio Direction Finder) or GPS receivers. The RDF, a primary guidance tool, uses weak radio signals and a phased antenna array to determine the location of airports by direction finding their beacons. The risk is that the 500 mW to 1 watt that your cellphone puts out could desense the RDF receiver, preventing it from hearing the beacon. This could come from spurious emissions from a cheap RF amplifier, an IF leak, or a manufacturing flaw. Likewise, the processing chips and displays in portable audio devices and PDAs put out RFI and EMI in the 2-100 MHz range, with unfiltered harmonics extending well into the receive ranges of this type of equipment. I know from personal experience as an amateur licensee that CD-ROM drives put out significant RF noise at a frequency of 440.300 MHz, our repeater's output freq. If a plane is on IFR and using the RDF, and your cellphone jams the homing beacon, or the guideslope beacons on final approach, then the pilot is flying blind!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
In my extensive experience with having my boss sit in the cockpit with me on his Nextel phone, which happens to put out the most interference I have ever seen in a cell, never had any effect on my gear other than to make a ticking sound in my headset. And, yes, even during an ILS approach. So take your research and shove it. I know from real world experience that this is BS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Pilot
Not to mention that RDF is pretty old technology.
Your experience does not constitute a comprehensive study.
It only takes one time, where a miscalibrated RDF receiver meets a poorly manufactured radio transmitter, during a landing in fog, to cause an accident. Is it really worth the risk?
Finally, "personal experience" ≠ "research" Electronic devices interfere with other electronic devices, that's a fact. Even my calculator has to be FCC certified.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
And everyone with half a brain knows the reason given by the FAA is BS but why risk it. At cruise altitude most phones don't work anyway. Just get the call at the airport like everyone else. If it was that important you should've been there hours ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No talky .. I happy
If somebody needs to get ahold of me, they can wait until I land and turn on my phone back on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
If I have to sit for six hours next to some idiot yammering away idefinitely, the biggest danger to air travel won't be terrorism, it will be outraged passengers killing each other.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cell phones are DEADLY!
The sky isn't falling when you're getting closer to it because your cell phone caused an EXPLOSION that's sending you flying into the air!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cell phones are DEADLY!
For those advocating use in air - get off the teat already. You can go a few hours without answering your phone. Yes, you can.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cell phones are DEADLY!
The thread isn't about "WHY ARE PEOPLE TALKING ON THE PLANE?! THIS ANNOYS ME! BAN CELLPHONES!"
This is "Are cellphones dangerous to the aircraft's electronics?"
So, get off your damn "I don't want to hear people talking on their cellphone." That's like saying "I WANT TO KICK A BANANA IN THE FACE." At a Red Cross meeting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The real
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
I don't know the validity for certain, but my brain boggles at the destructive force of a CD player spinning or the electronics of any small device affecting anything under NORMAL conditions.
Can't the FCC and the FAA (maybe the TSA) get together and find some way to update the affected plane equipment? The blame-game may be more fun and less expensive, but it's hardly a solution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course they interfere...
There are obvious signs they interfere with stuff -- we just overlook it because of the convenience of having a cell phone. I caused my car to "reboot" at 70mph one day when I put the phone too near a section of the dashboard. Someone called, the stero started hissing, I hit the speakerphone button and vehicle's computer system crashed. In the panic of losing the engine and seeing the dash light up like a xmas tree, I slammed the phone shut the car instantly recovered. I know now not to keep the phone on the dash, and am willing to overlook the interference.
However, I'm not willing to overlook having my flight fall out of the sky because some cheap taiwanese phone herfs the autopilot system. If you can't survive 3 hours without a phone call, seek professional help.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ring tones would be the worst.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is no danger.
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/communications/wireless/0,39020348,39160924,00.htm
http://seattlepi.n wsource.com/business/248486_air16.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There is no danger.
The UK CAA (alledgedly) did a study on interference in the 70s, which found that the avionics actually interfered with consumer electronics.
I'd personally prefer to keep cell phones off commercial flights for the social reasons outlined in comments above.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
so how big is the risk?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Truth
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
jonny
[ link to this | view in chronology ]