FCC Boss Tired Of Having To Put His iPad Away For Takeoff, Tells FAA To Fix It
from the inter-agency-squabbles dept
Numerous people have talked about the ridiculousness of requiring airplane passengers to put away their iPads or other portable devices during takeoff and landing on airplanes. There used to be excuses about how it could impact the equipment in the plane, but no one actually believes that any more. Now, even FCC boss Julius Genachowski is getting impatient with all of this and has asked the FAA to stop procrastinating and start allowing the use of such devices. The letter, of course, was more polite than that, but makes it clear that the FCC is ready to get on with the show and would like the FAA to finally "enable greater use of tablets, e-readers, and other portable devices."
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
Filed Under: faa, fcc, flying, ipads, julius genachowski
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
FCC AND FAA Who are they
Although I could mprobably look up these abbreviations (FCC FAA) it would have been helpful to know what they mean from within the article. Just saying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FCC AND FAA Who are they
The FAA is the group that controls standards for air travel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: FCC AND FAA Who are they
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: FCC AND FAA Who are they
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: FCC AND FAA Who are they
Who are the FBB? Sure, you know all about the FAA and the FCC, but the FBB ——who are they? Who the hell are they? Who the fucking hell are they? Bet you don't know, smart guy... Cat got your tongue? Huh? What you say? Ha!
And don't let me get started on the FZZ.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: FCC AND FAA Who are they
It's primary responsibility is telling the American public what they want us to believe, and to attempt to hide what is really going on. This is known as Bullshitting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: FCC AND FAA Who are they
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: FCC AND FAA Who are they
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FCC AND FAA Who are they
There is this new-fangled technology called a search engine. I hear there are quite a few of them on the interwebs. If you type FCC or FAA in the search box, it returns the results, Federal Communications Commission or Federal Aviation Administration, respectively. Just saying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FCC AND FAA Who are they
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FCC AND FAA Who are they
I can only assume that with a name such as yours, you are perhaps Japanese, that is to say, living outside the USA, and as such not familiar with the acronyms FAA and FCC. That would be the only excuse for asking for an in-line definition for those acronyms.
Otherwise, if you are reading Techdirt and daring to comment in a chastising tone, you best know those acronyms without assistance.
Oh, and yes... Either way, you could have just looked them up if you didn't know them. How easy does the world have to be these days? Perhaps we could send someone over to wipe your ass for you?
COMBB
PS: FTFU and RTFM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FCC AND FAA Who are they
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: FCC AND FAA Who are they
I would assume people from other countries. Since this is explicitly a US-focused blog, I think those people should expect to have to look some things up now and then. It's hard to believe there could be any US Techdirt readers not familiar with the FCC and FAA (though I'm sure plenty of US citizens who are not).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FCC AND FAA Who are they
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: FCC AND FAA Who are they
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Safety?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Safety?
Wouldnt it make sense to ban these items too to keep a coherent policy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Safety?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Safety?
And honestly the 'I fear they will become projectiles' has to be one of the weakest arguments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Safety?
In fact, they probably infringe on the "rounded corners" patent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Safety?
If I'm gonna get hit by something, better make it something good, like an Android.
/flame on :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Safety?
Come on, at least one of these
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Safety?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Safety?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Safety?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Safety?
Clearly, you've never flown Spirit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Safety?
Way before I became the weirdness that is to do with Digital Forensics, in another life it seems now (ie:pre1991), I was a fully Qualified and licenced Avionics Engineer (747-300/400, 767) with QANTAS and I can absolutely state that the bullshit that has been spouted by your FAA in regards to laptops, digital mobile phones (not analogue they were a risk in certain cases with TACAN) and other 'consumer' digital devices is exactly that.. pure and unadulterated bullshit!
Its nearly the same as the bullshit they tell you about turning your mobile off whilst filling up with petrol (static electricity is more a danger - as are lit ciarettes) or manufacturers saying how HDMI cables need "high end shielding, gold plating and other marketing puffery" to give you best performance. ITS A LOAD OF FUD & CRAP!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Safety?
Electricity in contact with air produces ozone with in significant amounts is a toxic gas.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Safety?
Dihydrogen monoxide.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Safety?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Safety?
And one of the most toxic gases on the planet is actually oxygen.
Both of those statements are true but lack context.
Whereas with the current subject of aircraft there is absolutely NO truth in the notion that digital devices can interfere with the instrumentation, electronics, or electrical systems of planes and airfields. There have been NO documented instances of digital devices causing failures of aircraft system. There have been no documented cases of digital devices causing safety injuries by themselves or by their batteries or otherwise 'blowing up' due to the aircraft taking off or landing or anything else anyone could conceivably think of.
It's only scary because people still do not, to this day, understand how electricity and by extension radio actually works. It's still to the average person PFM (For those that have never seen it before this acronym stands for Pure Fucking Magick! in most technical journals)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Safety?
> is actually oxygen.
Toxic to what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Safety?
Actually oxygen at low pressure (ie: in elevated environs like mountains or space or at partial pressure at scuba depths ) is highly toxic to humans, mostly resulting in pulmonary fibrosis even blindness.. This is why babies are not given 100% oxygen any more in humidycribs either.
Also if you scuba dive any more than 22% oxygen can result in absolute seizures below about 60metres (from memory) though 100% oxygen at less than 6metres depth will most likely than not give major seizures. It affects not just the lungs bit the central nervous system.. basically oxidises your insides.. So if the Nitrogen doesn't give you the bends the oxygen can rust ya.. Scary hey? ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Safety?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_toxicity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Safety?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Safety?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Safety?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Safety?
if your flight sensors are not accurately indicating like AIR SPEED, ALTITUDE, HEADING, BANK !!! you can fairly expect the pilots to want those indicators being accurate during critical flight times, that is during take offs and landings.
you don't want to be landing in the rain, at night, using IFR and be 5Deg of heading !!, or have your altitude indicate you are 50 metres higher than you actually are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Safety?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Safety?
GM Samaras Pueblo CO
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Safety?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Safety?
> head by a flying iPad in case of an aborted take off
> or rough landing.
And yet strangely enough if you're reading a hardcover book, they don't make you put that away for takeoff and landing, even though such books are typically bigger and heavier than an iPad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Safety?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SHIT...... Rich and powerful people say
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SHIT...... Rich and powerful people say
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: SHIT...... Rich and powerful people say
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: SHIT...... Rich and powerful people say
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SHIT...... Rich and powerful people say
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FCC Boss
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FCC Boss
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Despite the public reason that it's about interference with airline equipment that's NOT the reason why cell phones are banned on flights. It's because the FCC (or whatever government group) was worried about the impact planes of several hundred people talking on cell phones will have on phone reception for people on the ground (think 9/11, where so many people were trying to make phone calls that phones didn't work for emergency responders who needed them).
It's a really stupid rule, since that only happens in big national emergencies, and people on the ground will be plenty enough to overload the cell phone towers on their own.
Rules for iPad's and such are probably just that rule being carried over blindly because most people don't know the real reason for the no cell phone rule.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Even supposing that you did, you'd be wreaking merry havoc on the towers as you switch towers somewhere around once a second, there's no theoretic reason that you shouldn't be able to do so, but in practice, I'd be willing to bet it'd result in a dropped call after no more than 10 seconds, again, even assuming that you're making perfect locks on each tower.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yes, you can connect to cell towers without any difficulty whatsoever while in airplanes.
The rule banning cell phones in the air was put in place in 1993. Before the ban went into effect I was able to use my cell phone while on commercial aircraft. Such calls did not appear to me, or the person on the other end to be any different than any other cell phone call.
And by the way, there were no dropped calls so long as we were near any cities or major highways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's not a concern in light planes AT ALL!
The real reason was more to do with commercial concerns (charge heaps for the amazing ability to call from the aircraft) than the switching and hand-off of cell towers, which can easily handle standard commercial jet speeds (and more) no problem up and down built up areas that actually have towers in place. For example the whole east coast of Australia (3000kms or more) is easily traversed whilst conversing on a mobile in a plane.
And whoever the engineer was, I suspect they suffered from that ubiquitous of maladies the ID-TEN-T error!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
About the only time that you can get a successfully call is during the most critical phase of flight, less than 2,000 ft above ground and flying near the stall speed. Only in that configuration can the cellular system support the call request and process the handoffs between towers quick enough.
Look it up, what's the fastest hand-off speeds? How often are channels reused in metropolitan areas?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I can give you an example of a call that is very memorable to me. About 3 weeks before the ban I was flying from San Francisco to Seattle. The flight happened to pass over my hometown in Oregon. I was able to look out the right side window and identify my parents' property. I called my mother on the cell phone and told her to go outside and look for a plane in the sky to the west. She was able to see the plane I was flying on. That call was made at cruising altitude, and as I said above, there was no problem whatsoever with the call. The only point I can award you is that yes, the call was only 2-3 minutes long. I didn't have a 30 minute conversation, but kept it short was because I didn't want to annoy the person sitting next to me. I certainly didn't hang up because the call dropped.
Don't think that you can use theory to debunk actual experience.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
What are you saying, he imagined that normal phone call he only thought he made from an airplane?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
FACT: Analogue circuits are more vulnerable to RFI than their digital counterparts.
FACT: When comparing cell phones, the older AMPS phones had the greatest susceptibility to RFI, followed by D-AMPS phones. Fully digital phones are less susceptible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What you do get when flying in Europe is a lot of "welcome to This network" texts as you change countries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
There are numerous times that I (and others) have left their phones on accidentally during flight. They don't ring at 30,000 feet. But get down below 5,000 and all of the sudden you start hearing "You have mail" messages starting to go off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You refer to the idea that the existence of too many potential cell tower connections would be a problem. Hypothetically your cell phone on-board a plane could be switching to a new stronger signal every few seconds.
Even if this did cause problems for the service providers, perhaps from a billing/minutes accounting standpoint, I don't think the actual phone user would have a problem.
It should be observed however, that if the service providers WANTED to make this possible, it would be easy to control frequent tower switching with programming in the phone which would limit the frequency of switches when multiple connections are present. Think of the way your thermostat prevents frequent on-off cycling by being programmed not to immediately switch on the furnace just because the temperature has dropped one degree below target.
**Bonus Patent Idea**
It would even be possible for software to go beyond time delay limitations and address the issue in a more sophisticated way by using the phone's position and speed to calculate the flight vector and predict the best tower to switch to next in a way that would reduce the number of necessary switching events while maintaining optimal signal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also, did you consider the possibility that the cell carriers may be using tower multilateration, GPS, and/or speed calculations to identify the fact that your cell phone is on a commercial flight, and thereby actively block in-coming calls?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I used to hear that claim from people a decade ago, but it's simply not true. At all. You can lock onto towers just fine.
Even supposing that you did, you'd be wreaking merry havoc on the towers as you switch towers somewhere around once a second, there's no theoretic reason that you shouldn't be able to do so, but in practice, I'd be willing to bet it'd result in a dropped call after no more than 10 seconds, again, even assuming that you're making perfect locks on each tower.
Also, not true. For the most part, they can handle tower switching without too much difficulty, but even in the cases where there are tower switching issues, that's easily solved by putting a pico cell on the plane -- effectively making the plane itself the nearest cell tower with some sort of wireless backhaul to the ground. That's a solved problem, and it's why you can do WiFi on so many planes now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
with ALL THE FREAKING WIRINGS for the aircraft within that faraday cage, the aircraft is also effectively a resonant cavity, (just look it up)..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
but cell phones that can see many cells, simple pick the cell with the shortest response time and therefore the closest.
It might be able to see many towers, but it will take the first tower that responds that it will talk to, the first is usually the closest, for obvious reasons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And for others interest, cell tower switching is mostly a passive event. The phone and tower only actively communicate if the tower is in a new town/subdivision or country!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: effectively a giant faraday
IF it was, you would not be able to see any towers with your phone, as the signal would not be able to penetrate the aircraft.
is that the case ???
clearly not, therefore that statement is false.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Cell towers are placed so that channels are reused. In dense city environments, a channel may be reused only a mile or so away. In rural environments, it may be 10 miles.
Get in an airplane and get up to 10,000 feet and you have direct line of sight to every tower in the city. And you can't get a clear channel. Your phone won't be able to make a call because there are 50 other people on the same channel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So looking forward to sitting next to someone on a plane talking for hours on end about his or her unimportant shitty life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If we lift the ban on mobile phones in planes then we also need to lift the ban on weapons in planes and the ban on murder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HA! Yet again Mike's re-write totally hosed the case:
Now my emphasis from the ref'd piece: "wider in-flight use of electronic portable devices during airplane flights." And later again "during flights".
THE SOURCE DOESN'T APPEAR TO MENTION TIMES THAT MIKE FOCUSED ON. And I'd be surprised if does, because of missile hazard at those times. He's got all you ankle-biters barking down the wrong trail!
Obviously Little Mikey is upset he's ever told to put his toy away for a while during those most likely times, and isn't concerned about getting hit in back of the head by one of those gadgets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: HA! Yet again Mike's re-write totally hosed the case:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: HA! Yet again Mike's re-write totally hosed the case:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: HA! Yet again Mike's re-write totally hosed the case:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: HA! Yet again Mike's re-write totally hosed the case:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: HA! Yet again Mike's re-write totally hosed the case:
So, the source may not have directly mentioned it, but there is no other time it could have been referring to.
Critical thinking, for the win.
Missle hazard? what a joke. They allow books and magazines during all times of cabin occupancy. So much for that argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: HA! Yet again Mike's re-write totally hosed the case:
nuff said
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uhhhhhhh....
Why not just ask everyone to put their devices in AIRPLANE MODE?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Uhhhhhhh....
Airplane Mode on most devices, turn off the explicit transmitters, the telephone, Bluetooth, 802.11c, etc. but it leaves the electronics to operate the device on.
But anything that is electronic is actually a transmitter. Something as simple as a light dimmer can be a powerful dimmer, capable of being heard for miles. The FCC has created laws that make sure that an electronic device can not radiate too much signal. It still does, and it can still interfere with certain things. Put an AM radio next to a computer and you can hear the interference.
But the level of interference that the FCC certifies stuff at is low enough that it shouldn't impact anything in the aircraft. There were instance, before the FCC passed the law, where devices did put off enough interference to cause problems with an aircraft's avionics, but that was 50 years ago.
Since then, the aircraft have been better protected and the devices regulated.
Now, the laughable part of this is that a number of airlines have started giving their flight crews tablets to use in the cockpits for explicit use during takeoff and landings. Heck, they provide the very maps used to guide the plans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Uhhhhhhh....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Uhhhhhhh....
it's not really an issue with the instruments in the aircraft, but the vast quantities of wiring through the plane that connects the instruments to the sensors, the interference is on the low level signal lines and fed into the instruments in that manner.
there have been real work tests and trials using actual real aircraft, and actual real phones and radio's and yes, it was clear that the rapidly switching signal can and DOES often cause errors on these instruments.
Often not noticeable errors, in that your HEADING indicator might be a "bit off", or your altitude might be 20 metres of so out..
No big deal you might think, unless that 20 metres is the top of a mountain.
If you don't like turning off your phone during take off and landings, you probably would really not like a CFIT (controlled flight into terrain).
So turn off your freaking phones, and I am sure you will get over the distress of being disconnected for a few minutes.
the real live tests were performed on commercial aircraft, as well as military aircraft using both scientific radio transmitting equipment, and standard cell phones.
The FCC head can whine all he likes, and so can you, but it's not going to change the facts, don't expect to be able to use your phone on any aircraft during the critical take off and landing procedures.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Uhhhhhhh....
the real live tests were performed on commercial aircraft, as well as military aircraft using both scientific radio transmitting equipment, and standard cell phones.
Has it been published on the web? That would be excellent information to add to the discussion if so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uhhhhhhh....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FINE but you will scratch our back
We at the FAA will gladly allow you to use your Ipad and other devices during take-offs and landings, if you allow Pornography on our airlines and on TV. I'm tired of having to launch open my computer and Launch Internet Explorer during the flight to watch some.
Yours Truly,
FAA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FINE but you will scratch our back
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ignorance is bliss.....
We'll actually, I still believe it.
I've worked in the Aviation Industry for a quite a while and I specializing in communications.
That instrument in the front of the aircraft, you know, the one that the pilots use to land the aircraft in poor weather, It's called the ILS (Instrument Landing System) and it works in MICROAMPs, that's microamps people (1 millionth of an amp).
75 microamps out and your flying outside the optimum square and at 150 microamps the "needle" is pegged at its stops. That’s not a lot of space for errors....
The "radio" that produces that signal from the ground is putting out about 5 to 20 Watts. By the time it hits the aircraft it’s down to less than 20 microwatts.
The problem with modern radio equipment (cellphones, wifi bluetooth) is that they are frequency agile (they work on a range of frequencies). This means that the transmitter has very little filtering on the output. That’s not a problem on its own but antennas work both ways (they transmit and receive).
The problem is when another frequency is received and mixed with the transmit frequency new frequencies are created (that are no longer filtered out). It's when these new frequencies coincide with the ILS frequencies that the problem happens. The signal from the ILS is swamped by the frequency coming from inside the aircraft and blam! the aircraft flies itself into the ground.
Did I mention cellphones turn up their transmitter power if they are not in communications with a cell site?
Oh! and why do we need to turn off all electronic equipment... well they transmit signals as well, that latest high speed quad core whatever you're so proud of, runs at radio frequencies... It radiates like a small star!
So it won't be the fault of a single cellphone that takes down an aircraft and it seriously won’t be on a nice day. It will be on a stormy night where the pilots will be relying on their ILS because they can't see the ground and people sitting in the back of the aircraft, smug in the (incorrect) knowledge that it doesn't really matter about turning off their cellphone or laptop or ipad.
One day you'll be in for a rude awakening, but don't worry, it won't hurt for long........
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ignorance is bliss.....
This assumes the pilot is stupid enough to actually crash the aircraft without looking at the ground outside the window, it also assumes that the error caused by RF interference will only cause the ground to look lower than it is. The error is likely unknown for any individual situation, and quite possibly correctable with the human brain.
Small stars are the size of Jupiter and generally too emissive to fly next to with your average jetliner. Are you really trying to insinuate that leakage RF from a CPU/rf-quiescent portable electronic device is anything more than pico/femptoamps of power by the time it gets to a critical system in a plane?
Portable electronics are safe on planes. Now, if someone is bringing on their portable ham radio, well that's a different matter. But don't give me this nonsense about having to turn off my kindle before takeoff and landing. That's a device that is off by default.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ignorance is bliss.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ignorance is bliss.....
Last time I did a ILS cal flight we were still claibrating in microamps. e.g. so many microamps off centre....blah blah.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Ignorance is bliss.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ignorance is bliss.....
So I really do know what I'm talking about.
Why don't you try looking things up before you try to make people look stupid...!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ignorance is bliss.....
If they're flying on instruments it's because they can't see the ground.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ignorance is bliss.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Ignorance is bliss.....
GPS is a radio signal that is even weaker than the ILS signal and is easily "swamped". It is currently being used as a Cat 1 landing system (lowest ICAO grade of ILS) but it will also stop working when passengers will be allowed to leave their electronic devices on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ignorance is bliss.....
The GPS receiver in my phone works fine while the phone is on, and that's a lot closer to an electronic device than the one on a plane is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ignorance is bliss.....
Got it!
Oh, and while I don't have any real experience in aviation electronics I do have an electronics background, I am pretty sure it is more robust than you claim. Otherwise, terrorists would routinely 'bring down' planes using ILS all the time.
There are more robust alternatives to ILS. As of November 2008 the FAA listed more LPV (Localizer Performance with Vertical guidance) systems than ILS systems. Another enhanced system called Ground-Based Augmentation System (GBAS).
Oh and let's look at the frequency ranges. They look to all be between 108.10 MHz and 330.95 MHz while cell phones operate at between 700 - 2,690 MHz.
Finally, the pilots could always request (read demand) that electronic devices be turned off if they were using ILS or felt the devices were affecting the avionics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ignorance is bliss.....
I'm now wondering what exactly your job description is after this claim that my tablet radiates energy like a small star. Not to mention stating that it "runs at" radio frequencies. Just because both processor clock speed and transmission frequency are both measured in hertz doesn't mean they are related in any way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ignorance is bliss.....
That quad-core definitely puts out signals that can be heard on a receiver.
On some of the really early computers like the TRS-80 and Apple, there were actually programs that played music over a AM radio by adjusting the speed of the processor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ignorance is bliss.....
That quad-core definitely puts out signals that can be heard on a receiver.
My point is that just because my processor runs at one GHz does not mean the aircraft systems will be picking up a 1GHz radio signal. Yeah maybe if you have an antenna sitting right next to the thing you'll pick something up, but seriously these things are designed with low power consumption as a primary consideration. You think they're going to let watts go to waste as radiated noise?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ignorance is bliss.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ignorance is bliss.....
Actually, they are
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ignorance is bliss.....
Where are all of the aircraft's antennas located? Outside the aircraft.
One of the key requirements for most parts of the flight guidance system is a working/failed indicator. If a system is receiving a valid signal, then it indicates that it is working. If it starts to receive a bad signal, then it indicates that it is bad.
And in the case, as you said, people are sitting in the back complacent, the pilots see their instruments start to indicate invalid information and they can generally implement a recovery maneuver with no impact to flight safety. Remember, the generally it's not one system providing fight guidance, it's two or three or more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ignorance is bliss.....
First they build the signal with a carrier frequency of 0 hz, then they stick it through the band filter. Only after that do they shift it up to the higher frequency and if they are only transmitting on the the + frequency side, they'll stick it through a generic high pass filter.
So being frequency agile doesn't actually affect the leakage, that's just due to them using a cheap filter to begin with.
Next i'd like to point out that in power stations where they have MVA transformers sitting around they are able to accurately read analog transmitters (in fact a lot of digital comms simply don't work in these areas) by simply using a standard shielded cable.
A quick google search shows 75 *possible* cases where electronic devices might have affect instruments in airplanes as reported by the international Air Transport Association between 2003 and 2009. That's a 6 year period in which thousands of flights took place every year. None of these flights flew into the ground.
There are many factors that can affect induced currents, including simple orientation, and proximity. Now as everyone is so up in arms over this sort of thing one would expect that manufacturers of such instruments would be testing these devices against all sorts of electronics and types of intereference to make sure that the instruments themselves are properly shielded (easier to shield the instrument than depend on electronics to be properly shielded). Given that antennaes and induced currents caused by electronics with changing currents are no longer theoretical or experimental sciences, it's long past time when such things should be expected by design. If older planes aren't protected... place a warning on that plane. Lets get rid of this blanket fear-mongering for a transportation system that is currently the safest form of transportation to date.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ignorance is bliss.....
Actually I think it's tens of thousands per day. So millions per year.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ignorance is bliss.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ignorance is bliss.....
And I think a cell phone has a maximum output of about 2 watts. So if the ILS signal is only 5 to 20 watts, then a cellphone (or several) ON THE GROUND at an airport - or maybe on a road, twice as close to the plane as the airport - would be a major problem, if they really used the same frequency.
But it seems like we don't see a lot of cases of airplanes homing in on pedestrians with cell phones. Or cell towers, presumably broadcasting on the same frequency as the phone with even MORE power.
But maybe... just maybe... electronic devices in general, even those that switch frequencies, are programmed to NOT use the restricted aviation bands? Just a thought. It's not like you turn on your cell phone and get interference on your FM radio (which is surprisingly close to the frequencies used by ILS - if you could tune your FM up to 108.1 you'd be at the start of those frequencies.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ignorance is bliss.....
A single cellphone/Laptop etc left on won't down an aircraft, two won't but allow them to all be left on - it won't take long.
Cellphones don't transmit on ILS frequencies but the mixing of frequencies will one day generate the right frequency and blam....
As aircraft age cables age and corrodes the quality of signal reception degrades and they will become more susceptable to these effects.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ignorance is bliss.....
MLS is just that much better for high precission landings and it is a shame that it is only really getting deployed in Europe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Ignorance is bliss.....
A combination of GPS and MLS would be best IMO.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ignorance is bliss.....
So, what aircraft are you currently licensed to sign off systems on? hmmmm? Me I'm 747 (300 and 400 series) plus 767 (238ER and 338ER ) licenced for all avionics (that's radar, electronics, instrumentation and electrical - though you should know that) as well as Pratt & Whitney and Rolls Royce qualified under 747's. With 707 thrown in for good measure.
The reason I ask is that you have no idea whatsoever of what you are spouting off about, and the comment regarding the cables is proof positive that you have never ever been involved with aircraft maintenance procedures in commercial airliners who have rotating maintenance schedules that specifically in the electrical area change whole cable looms all the time.
The "mixing" of frequencies that you so casually claim has no scientific basis under known physics and even if a high end energy spike (piezo lighters are more inclined to do it then any mobile device EVER) did interfere with the ILS, TACAN, or even VOR it is robust enough being highly error checked to compensate for it.
wow.. just freakin wow!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Ignorance is bliss.....
So dual conversion super hetrodine receivers (the most common receiver type ever) doesn't work because there is no scientific basis for mixing of frequencies (So local oscillators don't mix with the incoming radio frequency to create an intermediate frequency).
Can you please tell me what what airline you work for so I can avoid it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ignorance is bliss.....
> it won't hurt for long
If all that were true, we'd already have carnage in the skies, since most people *don't* turn off their phones and iPads. They just don't actively use them where the flight attendants can see them. But they're on by the dozens, in their bags, and on their belts, and in their purses. On every single flight, every day.
If there was even the slightest chance that a cell phone could bring down a plane, they'd be banned just as thoroughly as guns and knives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ignorance is bliss.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ignorance is bliss.....
1x10-6
1x10-9
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ignorance is bliss.....
I was working in microamps 1x10-6.
What you on about?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
an amplifier can easily become an oscillator if a fault occurs, that means your electronics toy could develop a fault and generate the aircraft self-destruct protocol (I bet you didn't know about that !!!) and cause all sorts of problems.
It would be very rare for it to happen, but you only need it to happen once to you, to be enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It is quite implausible that anyone charged in protecting public safety would want a device with explosive potential on-board commercial aircraft, as it would increase the risk of further damage or loss of life in the event of a crash. Why would authorities want to take the risk that a lessor problem such as a landing gear malfunction turns into a major tragedy? Even if this device did exist, the potential to remotely trigger it raises the possibility not only that a terrorist might somehow become aware of this secret device and search for ways to trigger it, (How secret could if be if it truly exists, and yet we are talking about it here on Techdirt) but also there would always be the small possibility that someone with inside knowledge of the device could become psychiatrically deranged with murderous intent and decide to bring a plane down. After all, such an action would be much safer for the psychiatric patient than going into a theater with a loaded assault weapon.
In short, I call BS.
Now what about your ideas that a consumer electronic device could malfunction and begin emitting radio waves that would trigger such a self destruct mechanism, and further that this is a reason why electronic devices can't be allowed during take-off and landing? If this were true, electronic devices would not be any safer in mid-flight than during landing. Wouldn't a plane falling from 36,000 feet when this 'self-destruct' mechanism inadvertently triggered be more terrifying and horrific than a much briefer fall from 300 feet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I addressing another of the AC's arguments however. He was contending that there is a self-destruct device on-board airliners which he hypothesized could be triggered by interference from consumer electronics.
A) I don't believe such devices exist.
B) If they did exist, and interference triggering was possible, then electronic devices would never be allowed at any time during flight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
spy camera watch
[ link to this | view in chronology ]