Calchas

Thanks for providing this interesting nugget.

deniah

For all of the accusations of people acting as "armchair physicists/engineers" in dismissing the risks of electronic interference, the hundreds of "technical experts" with hundreds of degrees who have spent thousands of man-hours with many millions of dollars at their disposal, have never been able to document this Great Risk empirically.

Yet the realists are painted as looneys in denial. Thats funny human behavior.

SeriouslyLost

I'm not clear why the manufacturer would be in a better position to say what will interfere over an outside panel: they both have access to the same aircraft and they're both considering third party devices as the problem, not the aircraft.

Calchas

I don't think anyone in this thread has accused anyone else of being an "armchair physicist/engineer" (though to my ears "armchair physicist" rather describes a professor emeritus or two I've met!). Some arguments presented by some posters (including my own) have been criticized---but this is what actual physicists do all day.

To be fair, there is not much evidence pushing in the other direction either, i.e., that commercial cell phones definitely do not disrupt any important commercial aircraft system under any reasonably foreseeable conditions. There is also the problem that, in identifying why aviation accidents have occurred in the past, no record is taken of radio signals emitted during the incident. So to claim that there are no reported incidents of cell phones causing accidents may be misleading---we have no way of telling how cell phones have or have not contributed to past incidents.

Finding well-designed, peer-reviewed studies of this is not easy. The best I can do is quote the IEEE Spectrum article I mentioned upthread, which discusses a number of probable concerns, including a 30 degree navigational error perhaps introduced by a miniature DVD player. (The article would not, in my opinion, survive a peer review.)

I certainly hope none of my posts have upset you.

telloh

Here is a realistic proposition: prove that cellular phones that exist now or will ever will exist, in any combination, cannot interfere with aircraft systems that exist now, or ever will exist.

Cell phones are high-powered transmitters. Airplanes are loaded with electronics.

The burden is on you to prove what you are so convinced of.

deniah

Well I have no desire to be, or represent myself , as a physicist, and I dont take anything on the web personally, so let's push that tidbit aside.

But I am capable of some rational thought. So let's give this a spin:

The strongest evidence, as presented here, are mere hypotheses in an article that would probably not survive peer review?

There are those who are highly experienced, incentivized, financially empowered, and -- one would think -- morally and socially motivated to prove conclusively the risk of electronic interference on commercial avionics. And yet they have failed to do so.

But there are those, unqualified and less-directly qualified (not trying to make this personal), who still maintain that notion. A tenuous grasp, dont you think?

All crashes survivable and catastrophic have had extensive investigation by various agencies and authorities to determine root cause; PED had never been one. Are there many mysteries left? When a plane goes down from volcanic ash or bird strike, you can safely assume Blackberries didnt play a role. To assert they *could have*, is even more tenuous thought than the previous.

There are not much evidence pushing in the other direction? Similarly there are no evidence these crashes weren't "possibly" caused by horsehide shoes, stuffed teddy bears, digital watches, ballistic luggage. Burden of proof.

FYI, yesterday, the FAA recommended easing the PED rule on takeoffs AND landing. Maybe they've finally seen the light

CaptRobPhD

I kinda like the oxygen mask decoy The emergency exits (not to be confused with some main exits; above poster mentioned problem with ground pressurization) are almost always plug-type doors--pull door in, twist/turn, push it out. On an plug emergency exit 30" by 18", at cruise you're probably looking at over 4000lbs if strength required to open door; with two handles, gotta pull a ton with each arm. Airplanes with 'lower' cabins have even great pressure differentials means the force required is even greater. Even if you were megamuscles, not so sure handles wouldn't break before those limits.

As for cellphones (transmitter receivers): yes you can tell when txmit/receive, makes kinda like a "ant eating wire" sound (imagination required)--can't hear contents. Reference above post re: phone next to radio for interference. I don't know about death spirals though that's kinda far fetched; still won't be allowed during takeoff or landing but there are those who will STILL find it proper to use during those phases if flight then complain about something (announcement) never made (too occupied to notice). Happens often now; new rule won't change that just make plane increasingly 'rude'.

mandolino

and then the article went on to say, "But because planes are not pressurized to sea level (it's the equivalent of breathing at about 8,000 feet up), there's less oxygen in the air, which can make you feel drunk".

As far as I'm concerned, drunk is a feeling, whatever the blood-reading says.

Just to stoke the "mobile phone in the air" barney:

There can hardly be a commercial flight these days where someone hasn't left their phone on. I know I've done it several times. If it were that dangerous, I'd hope they'd take more effective steps than just asking passengers via the PA to turn them off.

And they must pick up signals. I've harvested quite a few SMS welcomes from Caucasian and Central Asian networks after leaving my phone on while flying between Europe and S E Asia/Australia.

SeriouslyLost

Didn't they ever teach you that you can't prove a negative? Demanding they do so just makes you look silly.


Has nothing quoted by anyone so far made any impression? Even the FAA (or are they not qualified enough?) says the ban isn't because of interference per se.



I should have thought the burden was on the people epressing the positive claim: that cellphone/PED use would "Doom Us All To Die Instantly From 30,000 Feet!!!!!1!"

PED can be used in some other countries. Planes aren't falling out of the skies in those countries. What more reality-based evidence do you want? Oh, that's right: you want not just proof of a negative, but proof of all future negatives too. And the "relax the regs" side are the loonies?!

telloh

You're mistaken. The FAA and the FCC are different agencies.

The only question is about cell phones during critical phases of flight, not "PED" (sic) in general.

It's the same silly line of argument: cell transmitters can't affect plane electronics because they just can't. Magical thinking.

GRALISTAIR

^^^^^

SeriouslyLost

Except no one is making that argument. And there's those pesky other countries where the planes aren't falling out of the skies. Besides that, yeah, sure.

telloh

As I said, cell interference won't "make planes fall out of the sky".

Neither will drunk pilots.

Pilots have flown and landed commercial airliners while drunk. That's a fact. No planes fell out of the sky. Pesky other countries aren't as strict about that either (which seems to be your main point).

Loren Pechtel

It's not thousands but it is a very real problem with cell phones in a jetliner--if they work at all they're going to mess with the system on the ground because they end up taking up a channel on several cell sites and they require hand-offs more frequently than the system is designed for.

These things by themselves would make their use illegal--you're operating a transmitter that interferes with properly licensed stuff and that's a no-no.

SeriouslyLost

Maybe you should go back to demanding someone prove another negative?