Personal electronic devices at takeoff and landing
 

I am not an uptight traveler, but I do get uncomfortable when I see other passengers using their phones and iPods after being asked to turn them off. Last night there was a guy in an exit row across the aisle from me with his cell phone conspicuously on through landing (I don't think it was transmitting, but who knows?) and the guy in front of him was skipping through songs on his iPod and making sure to hide it each time the FA walked past doing pre-landing checks. Typically I tap them on the arm and politely remind them that they need to have turned their devices off, and probably 25% of the time they just turn it over and pretend they did.

I know that transmitting wireless devices are genuinely a problem, and that other small electronics are "probably" really okay, so I'm curious what others do in these situations. Or are you the folks with the iPods playing as we land?!

Since this is not just a United issue, I am going to move this to Travel Safety/Security.

iluv2fly
Moderator, UA

yeah, probably worrying too much. lots of electronic items are probably on in the luggage hold. and really, if a $50 gameboy can bring down a $200M plane then I better short Boeing stock and sign up for greyhound.

but yeah, you do what the FAs tell you to. is listening to 10 more minutes of Carrie Underwood or whoever worth it.

Personally, I'd butt out. It's their business, and if they get in trouble, well, it's their own problem.

Just my two pennies. =)

It's more of a risk management issue since they do not want that one random cell phone version 9.2344191823 with a weird antenna possibly interfering with the plane. Sure it's bad form, but there isn't much you can do. If you really feel uneasy, feel free to mention it to the FA and they can tell them to shut it off.... I don't know why people have to use their devices for those 15/20 minutes on take off and landing....

There have been exceptions though. When we are stuck on the tarmac (ground stops) I don't hesitate to whip out either my broadband card or cell phone.

Do you also "tap them on the arm" and remind them that their seatbacks must be upright? That their tray tables must be stowed? That their carryons must be completely under the seat in front of them? That their seat belts MUST be fastened?

Anybody ever give you a stern MYOB? Or worse?

As has been posted before, if the use of these devices had ANY potential to cause harm during any portion of flight, they would not be permitted onboard.

Indeed.

I never get nervous when my seatmate uses electronics at anytime. I've been 'on the range', 'in the chamber', done the math, and have no concerns whatsoever.

You can't spell geek without an EE, btw. ;)

The only acceptable reasons to tap someone you do not have a personal connection with on an airplane:

1. The pax has requested that you wake him in the event he is asleep when the FA comes with drinks/snacks/meals.
2. The pax is seated between you and the aisle, and is asleep/zoned out to music/etc. and you need to get his attention to permit safe/polite passage to the aisle.

Any other touching is assault and battery in most states and usually unwelcome contact. If you have a problem with the actions of another passenger, take it to the FA.

I agree with FWAAA and DevilDog438. =/ FWAAA put it harshly, but, yeah, like I said, you should butt out. It's their business, and we're all adults here.

Hey, we all make mistakes. :) I've been guilty of being the "annoying seatmate" once or twice, I'm sure.

"Those who give up essential liberties to purchase temporary safety deserve neither and lose both." -Benjamin Franklin-

I might be concerned about people using their cellphones, but not their iPods. What's that gotta do with it? Besides, at 35000 ft in the air, you'd be lucky to get a signal.

This is always an interesting back and forth and a I finally get it! I'm pretty firmly entrenched in the myob camp, however this line of reasoning doesn't work because those that would tap you likely believe that it IS their business because they believe you are directly endangering them. Not sure how to amend the argument though.

I don't often need my device(s) in those 15 or 20 odd minutes during climb out and final approach; however when final approach turns into a holding pattern my seat often goes back and sometimes the bose qc3s reappear.

assault? seriously? wow.

Aren't we being a tad bit dramatic here? The reason I always thought that all electronic devices are banned during takeoff/landing was to have your undivided attention in case of an emergency since it's most likely to happen during takeoff/landing.
Cheers
Howie

There are numerous posters here with impressive credentials who are totally sure there is absolutely no danger from PEDs, including cell phones transmitting.

There are equally qualified observers who are just as certain that it's a statistical crapshoot - and the fact there hasn't been an accident doesn't prove there's no problem. (This is known in casinos as The Gambler's Fallacy.)

For myself, I simply point out to the miscreant that in today's highly-charged security environment, the FAs could easily bust them for non-compliance with an order issued by the crew.

If they don't take the hint, I mosey up to the galley and say "cell phone in 12C" and get a can of Cranapple.

IMO, you are being a bit uptight.

Why do you think transmitting wireless devices are genuinely a problem? What is the "problem?" I turn my devices off for takeoff and landing because I don't want to be hassled, not because I think they will cause a problem.

Also, people honestly forget to turn off electronic devices all the time - haven't you ever heard a cell phone start ringing in the overhead compartment halfway through a flight? If that doesn't cause the plane to plummet from the sky, I'm not too worried about the guy who his BB or iPod on during landing. :rolleyes:

You are missing a vital distinction - between transmitting devices and (largely) non-transmitting devices. If you operate a cell phone up in the air, there's a very small chance of impacting some vital aspect of the plane's function. Very small. If you operate an ipod in the air, the chance of impacting a plane's function is essentially zero. The RF emissions from an ipod, a pair of sound canceling headphones, or a portable DVD player are all very small. The distance between the users and any vital equipment is also a big issue - electrical fields decrease with an inverse square of the distance. There are plenty of anecdotal reports of "interference", especially from FAs, who, in all due respect, don't tend to have much EE under their belt. Correlation is not causation.

duplicate post please delete

There are also posters who don't know the slightest thing about RFI and the reinforcement of coincident harmonics who will offer their opinion nonetheless.

An FA once argued that the reason we should not use iPODs and equivalent PEDs is that they can divert our attention and keep us from hearing important safety announcements, in the unlikley event that they are necessary.
That sounded like a reasonable argument to me until I noticed that they have a problem with someone wearing headphones -which might limit what the passenger can hear - but have no problem with someone wearing really good ear plugs. Somehow, the limitation on hearing caused by the ear plugs is OK, while the iPOD headphones are not OK.
IMHO, it's all BS. I have used my cell phone on a private plane (at low altitude) with no problems. My son has operated an RC toy on a private plane. Again, no problems whatsoever.
Perhaps there are devices which can interfere with Nav/Com instruments. But the evidence for that seems thin, at best.
It has more to do with the airline staff's power trip than any safety issue -- IMHO.
Having said that, I still "follow the rules" so that Mrs. Rawan doesn't have to come bail me out of jail.:rolleyes:

I'm not missing that distinction - in fact, I may have been the first one to point that out in another discussion on this board. But notice the terms that I bolded in the quote above. The key point is that all of these effects are cumulative. No one knows exactly what effect one out-of-band harmonic from a cell phone coinciding with the 3rd harmonic clock oscillator of a GameBoy superimposed on the normal emission of an iPod will be. There is ample documentation of these effects in engineering papers all over the internet.

It is true that correlation is not causation. It is also true that the plural of anecdote is data. And enough very smalls add up to a noticeable.

And there are those of us who are intimately familiar with RFI and know that the amount of energy radiated by these devices in the far field is very small and that the amount of energy radiated in the harmonic frequencies that coincide with aircraft navigation/communication is essentially zero.

And claims that lots of such devices being additive and somehow then causing an effect: 100 * (very very small) = (still very very small).

The issue isn't that iPod, it's the person who brings on something that does cause interference and sees that others are using electronics that are not causing a problem and thinks its ok to use it. Those situations do sometimes happen.

If anything that people are doing that are against the rules causes you discomfort or anxiety then you should call for a flight attendant. Their job, the reason why they have to be on the plane, is for safety reasons.

There is some proven electrical interference on some types. However, this is usually not the main element of accidents. All headsets should be removed so that you can hear the instructions. I deal with too many fried bodies in aircraft where they could have got out to support any form of delay in evacuation.

Noise Cancelling Headsets are an interesting point and depend upon their frequency cancellation ranges. Those that are low frequency can make instructions clearer, but as the aircraft was not certified for evacuation with them operating, tough, switch them off.

There used to be some intereference with ILS receivers before they were all FM immune hardened (and other frequencies) in the late 90s. The roll that could be induced was "interesting". I am not sure if they ever cured the fuel level needles bouncing around in the 146

happy landings

spottie

I remeber once being woken up by the bump of the plane landing. I was in first. My seat was reclined. My earphones were in and my iPod was playing. They let me sleep through landing and didn't even make my sure my seatback was up the upright and locked position! But oddly enough the plane didn't crash.

I find that turning off my electronics, putting down my book, and watching the xxxth safety dance in my life serves to gruntle the FAs. It must be frustrating for them to have so many people ignore the briefing.

The same thing with keeping devices turned off below 10K ft, and for that matter, leaving my shoes on below 10K ft.

I don't worry about random microelectronics in a system designed to survive lightening strikes. :D

Cellphones are regulated by the FCC, not the FAA.

The FCC is responsible for the allocation of spectrum and cell carrier operating practices. FAA is concerned with the safe, orderly, and expeditious flow of air traffic. To the extent that control of electromagnetic radiation impinges upon flight saftey, the FAA has a role.

It says so in the FARs: http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/...fm?newsId=6275

Airliners are mostly immune to lightning strikes, because the metal skin conducts the electric charge around the fuselage and empennage, leading it to a path to ground. In the future, this immunity is likely to be affected dramatically by the widespread introduction of aircraft built of composite materials such as carbon fibre/fiberglass plastic.

The FAA's role is intentionally vague in in the CFR, leaving them out of the loop as far as actual determinations of ruling on usage of PED. Both CFRs that you noted (14 CFR 91.21 & 14 CFR 121.306) leave the determination of usage of PED specifically to the aircraft owner/operator, with the specific exceptions of:

• Personal Voice Recorders
• Hearing Aids
• Heart Pacemakers
• Electric Shavers

Actually, that's the only time I would tap an arm, if they are blocking my potential egress. Almost accidents happen on the ground and almost are survived -- but I'll be damned in some asshat in front of me is going to reduce my chances by narrowing my path to the nearest exit.

[QUOTE=CessnaJock;8627811]The FCC is responsible for the allocation of spectrum and cell carrier operating practices. FAA is concerned with the safe, orderly, and expeditious flow of air traffic. To the extent that control of electromagnetic radiation impinges upon flight saftey, the FAA has a role.

It says so in the FARs: http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/...fm?newsId=6275

Which specifically admit the primacy of the FCC. If the FCC rescinds it's regulations, then the FARs will take effect.

That page also hasn't been updated since 2005 @:-) Since then, airlines have proposed allowing cellphones in flight. :mad:

Why did I expect you to say that? :D Airliners have holes blown in their aluminum skin while the electronics survive.

No they aren't.

A cell phone transmitting at 100 times the normal power within 10 feet of avionics wiring with the insulation stripped off will cause a minor disturbance.

I am asleep with my ipod playing for the majority of the flights I am on. If the FA asks, I am happy to remove it, but they don't bother waking me. My seatbelt is done up though!

Yes I'd tap them on the shoulder, and if it was a bad weather approach I'd be calling a FA directly. ILS receivers are very very sensitive. No? They've all been intereference-hardened? Have a look at this:

http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/docs/rpsts/ped.pdf
(PDF - full of jargon - boring to many people)

"waiting is the hardest part..."

Evidence? Please?

Yeah, I did. And that seems to be the biggest bunch of bull I've ever seen. They could just as well have said "INTERFERENCE CAUSED BY INVISIBLE MONKEY SCREAMING AT PILOT". That document has nowhere near what I'd call proof.

NASA. The same agency that buried a safety study because it might hurt profits.

This report (as noted by NASA) is not statistically valid. It is also based on self-reports by aircraft and cabin crew.

And, most people don't realize that the ASRS reports are a "get out of jail free" card for pilots/other FAA licensees. In other words, if you self-report under ASRS - unless the violation was outright willful - the FAA will waive any possible certificate/license actions against you. Thus, there is an incentive to file these reports and blame something other than crew action.

ASRS is a tool, and nothing more, that can identify potential issues for further study. It, by no means. provides a definitive result.

"Out of an abundance of caution we should think of the children"

Airliners have also blown up or become uncontrollable for unknown reasons. What's your point?

I guess my point is you are going to have to come up with cold, hard studies to support your speculation. Of course, those don't exist.

Funny anecdote: my IFR instructor really didn't like flying in actual. It really made her nervous, yet it was her job and she did it over and over again. She was an excellent pilot, and a good instructor, yet I had to wonder if she had made the best career decision. @:-)

How many phantom TCAS alerts were reported when a pax was using cellphone in the back? As well recent (not 10 year ago) ILS diversions? No, that's my safety.

(Yes I'm an IFR private pilot, I know exactly what and what not an ASRS report is)

That is the wrong question. The correct question is "How many phantom TCAS alerts were caused by cellphone use in-flight?".

Consider the logic, then ask if you would rather Lycoming used my logic, or yours, when building the engine you fly behind.

One pilot to another: Your thinking, my friend, is an early link in an accident chain.

I don't know whether these meet your criteria of "coldness" and "hardness," but google crash lightning factor and read a few dozen reports. See if you can discern a pattern emerging.

I fail to appreciate the humor. I have never met a CFII who lacked a healthy respect for the hazards of flying blind. My guess would be that only the very cavalier or adrenaline junkie would take it lightly. The same personality type might misconstrue their prudence as nervousness.