

Tests Cast Doubts on iPad and Kindle Restrictions - jeffreymcmanus
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/25/disruptions-tests-cast-doubt-on-fcc-rules-on-kindle-and-ipad-html/

======
vectorpush
I can see the logic in wanting to keep the cabin area uncluttered during
landing and takeoff, that debris could really do some damage if it all went
flying, but the same logic is true regarding all hand-held electronics and
most books too (imagine getting hit in the face with a hardcover copy of The
C++ Programming Language)

~~~
its_so_on
I'd prefer that to having to learn C++ from it.

------
KingOfB
This reads like terrible journalism. "This is one metric used for safety and
this one device can't possibly violate that one metric, so the ban is
arbitrary." Taking the words of this one test of one device and then jumping
to the conclusion that the FAA restriction is arbitrary is deceptive trolling.

[http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_10/interf...](http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_10/interfere_textonly.html)

"Emissions at the operating frequency were as high as 60 dB over the airplane
equipment emission limits, but the other emissions were generally within
airplane equipment emission limits. One concern about these other emissions
from cell phones is that they may interfere with the operation of an airplane
communication or navigation system if the levels are high enough."

I would agree that the recommendations are strongly based in paranoia, and I'm
completely ok with that. Being based on inertia, and policy vs the latest
science is something no one wants to see, but it will take a lot more than a
NYT pseudo-test to change it.

------
Anechoic
While I'm just as annoyed as other frequent fliers in having to turn off my
devices, it's not as simple as this article would have us believe - for
example, it's not just power output, it's also the frequency of the radio
emissions (do electric razors have quartz oscillators radiating in the MHz or
GHz ranges?)

If you get a chance, read through this recent Ars Technica thread discussion
these issues (if you don't have time, start on page 4), there's a lot of info,
including links to NASA research, about this topic.

edit: to save readers some time, here are a couple of links from that thread-

<http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/publications/callback/cb_237.htm>

[http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/2001006...](http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20010066904_2001108092.pdf)

------
tzs
> The F.A.A. does allow some electronics during takeoff and landing. Portable
> voice recorders, hearing aids, heart pacemakers and electric shavers are
> permitted during all times of a flight

For pacemakers, do they have a choice? Could the user reasonably turn off his
pacemaker during takeoff and landing if he wanted to?

~~~
smhinsey
Electric shavers are a really odd addition to that list.

~~~
dfox
They are on the list probably exactly because they look like weird addition.
Electric shavers were probably first consumer devices that look simple (and
thus not relevant for EMI/EMC) but often contain surprisingly complex switched
mode power supplies.

------
eof
I guess I am so jaded by the FAA, etc that my reaction to bringing things to a
lab, getting contradictory letters, etc is simply, "..."

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate someone doing the legwork of articulating the
inanity of these rules, I truly do. It seems to me though something akin to
bringing carbon dating or geographical records to a young-earth society
meeting.

------
joelhaasnoot
Meh, this is going to be back and forth. I'm all for this rule, not just
because of "undevided attention" but unfortunately there's always going to be
some sort of device every now and then that'll throw off navigation equipment
because someone messed up.

I've heard a story where the chief pilot for a large company with a fleet of
corporate jets banned Blackberrys because everytime the plane was landing and
the CEO was onboard, the plane lost it DME localizer (older type of aircraft
navigation beacon). No biggie, but in a worst case scenario that could easily
become an issue.

~~~
Terretta
> _there's always going to be_

If that were true, all terrorists would have to do is keep their devices on.
This cell phone rule dates from when the airline wanted you to swipe your card
and pay $10 to use the seatback phone.

