magiciansampras

The irony of this statement is rich.

clrankin

The difference is that I'm judging the rule, and not the person. And my opinions are backed by at least anecdotal evidence, as opposed to no evidence.

N965VJ

The “error message on the screen” was likely an indicator anomaly that the pilot attributed to RFI/EMI. The FA was simply asked to check to make sure that no PEDs were in use to help resolve the anomaly. There's no such thing as a BlackBerry detector in the cockpit.


Here's some more on that from Boeing's website (the whole article is interesting):

The first national committee that investigated interference by passenger-carried PEDs was created in the early 1960s. Its activities were initiated by a report that a passenger-operated portable FM broadcast receiver caused an airplane navigation system to indicate that the airplane was off course by more than 10 deg. The airplane was actually on course and, when the portable receiver was turned off, the malfunction ceased. A final report from this committee, RTCA DO-119, was issued in 1963 and resulted in the revision of the FAA Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) by establishing a new rule (FAR 91.19, now 91.21), which states that the responsibility for ensuring that PEDs will not cause interference with airplane navigation or communication systems remained with the operator of the airplane.


The problem with having this happen during a critical phase of flight is that the pilot's workload is greater than if they were at cruising altitude.

themicah

In the synagogue context, I assure you it wasn't near field. I was very skeptical of it at first, since I'd only seen blackberry buzz in the near field. On my conference calls when there is 'berry buzz we can usually get rid of it by asking everyone to move their 'berries a little further from their phones.

But there was something about the PA system in that particular synagogue where a GSM phone anywhere in the room (and it was a pretty big room) could start the PA system buzzing.

Spiff

I'd be happy to take a look at it for you...

1) Are there any transmission lines in the near field? (Speaker wires, other wires, any other conduits...)

2) What is the frequency of operation of the PA system?

Boggie Dog

I'm not saying that a electronics cannot interfere with aircraft systems. The ADF thing though is questionable.

ADF signal is generated from a transmitter not on the aircraft. The aircraft's receiver is tuned to a transmitting station, sometimes AM radio stations, and the aircraft indicator points to the station.

Multiple receivers located in close proximity should not keep any of them from receiving since the signal is created on the ground.

LuvsParis

And they say that no electrical devices at all can be operated? Do they make people turn off hearing aids? Battery operated medical pumps? Seriously?

At any rate, I guess some airlines are just LAX about this, as I've talked to even more iPhone users since yesterday and none of us has been hassled about having our phones still on, but on airplane mode, while flying.

And then...there are the flight attendants themselves (ahem). With their phones. When they accidentally have them go off during take-off (I've seen it once and it's been reported on this forum and on other travel forums, so it's not unusual), they just laugh and turn them off (or put them on airplane mode).

Anyway, someone should certainly tell Apple that it should not have airplane mode on its phones as it is clearly confusing an entire industry.

birdstrike

The problem is that you are not going to be able to get an entire planeload of pax to obediently stop their phone conversation in the moment between "taxi into position and hold" and "cleared for takeoff".

I'm a private pilot, software engineer, and avid follower of the electronics-in-flight debate. Personally, I would prefer that RF emitting devices be turned off when departing or approaching at weather minimums. Faith-based assumptions by self-important pax carry little weight with the laws of physics.

Or, perhaps I misread your comment. Perhaps you mean there are no legal consequences to flouting the rules? I suspect you are correct in that.

A polymath lawyer/political analyst, -and- an aircraft/avionics expert.

Spiff, you're probably the one person in this thread who has the technical chops to post authoritatively. Isn't this statement true about any radio source, including radio-navigation beacons hundreds of miles away? It is the sensitivity of the receiver, not so much the the power of the transmitter, that allows the system to work. Near field radio could theoretically couple through the aircraft structure in unexpected ways. Tough to prove one way or another.

I guess what irks me about the closet electronics users is that they have no understanding, since no one does, about the impact of their electronics usage on the safety of the aircraft. Yet they elect to do it anyway rather than suffer 10-15 minutes of separation from their media.

On the other hand, they probably elected for an aisle seat and don't gaze raptly out the window for the entire flight.

clrankin

You hit the nail on the head. There are no legal consequences to ignoring the "turn your phone off rule" from what I've seen, so there's not really much motivation on any passenger's part to go out of their way to obey it.

Here's what most likely happens in 99.99999% of all cases:
1. FA announces that all electronic devices must be turned off.
2. Passenger ignores rule and continues to text/play game/read email.
3. FA walks by, asks passenger to turn off device.
4. Passenger acknowledges request, then proceeds to take no action.
5. FA walks by and asks a second time.
6. Passenger acknowledges request, then complies.
7. FA sits down in front.
8. Passenger continues to play with device by turning it back on.

At either #6 or #8 above, it could be "end of story". With either ending, the FA doesn't do more than ask-- and most of the time politely. Hence, no legal/financial penalty for ignoring the request is levied. Hence, the request has/had no teeth.

To put it another way, what's the rational response to a request for an inconvenient action that carries no penalties for its denial? Why, one ignores it, of course.

sweeper20

Seems like not complying with crew member instructions might carry some legal consequences... but go ahead and see how that works for you.

Ari

The whole point of the post to which you responded was that, in practice, the very consequences to which you elude are not enforced. That's how it "works out" and that was the point of the post.

FA's don't get all hot and bothered about this therefore they enforce they enforce the rule in a half-asked way and violate it themselves sometimes. Compare that with someone standing up and going to the lav during taxi; very different responses from the flight crew.

Bottom line: The civil and criminal penalties for interfering with a flight crew (not to be confused with "not complying with crew member instructions" which is a gross and inaccurate oversimplification of interference with a flight crew) are quite rarely meted out in cases not involving physical altercation or smoking. That isn't to say that it never happens, just that it is rare.

Use of electronic devices when not permitted is the quintessential example of such a case. @:-)

sweeper20

"Not enforced" and "no legal consequences" are two very different statements. I was responding to the quote that there are no legal consequences. Many, many laws are not enforced every day - Such as speeding, but that doesn't mean there isn't a process in place to enforce said law if they want to. Please don't confuse the comment I was refering to.

Ari

I was talking about the "see how that works for you" part of your post which I read to imply that something would happen to the passenger.

As far as "legal consequences" is concerned, I understand what you mean in the technical sense, but a rule that is never enforced could be said to have no legal consequences for its violation. It would be akin to speeding on a highway where there is never a cop who issues speeding tickets, or perhaps more accurately, a cop who pulls people over sometimes but only issues warnings and never issues a ticket.

clrankin

I did... just about every time I flied when I was on travel in the past. And I've yet to be hauled off to jail, taken to court, or issued a fine for not turning off my phone. Have you seen or experienced something different than I? If so, please... do tell-- I'd love to hear about it.

sweeper20

Again, please take a deep breath and actually read what I wrote. I didn't say I have ever seen anyone hauled off, please point out to me where I wrote that..What I did say was there are remedies in place should they choose to enforce them. Interesting that you think rules don't apply to you.