
Airline industry divided over passenger electronics - jrnkntl
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-15/turning-off-iphone-critical-to-pilots-citing-interference.html
======
DoubleMalt
So there are less than 100 reports of interference of radio devices with
planes. And then there is the study where 30% of the people said they do not
turn off their devices.

The probability that something happens is minuscule, but above zero.

Other examples where the trade off between security and convenience has to be
made is the driving of cars and liquids on a plane. I'm really curious in
which direction this debate will swing. (FTR: I'm all for convenience ;) )

~~~
tallanvor
I'll admit to being in the 30%. I put my phone and Kindle in airplane mode to
save battery power, but otherwise I leave my devices in their normal state. Is
it 100% certain that none of my devices could possibly interfere with critical
systems on the plane? Well, no, but 99.99% is good enough for me. And for what
it's worth, I made my decision based on the available research plus what I
learned based on my EE courses in school (my degree is in Computer
Engineering, but I still took quite a few electrical engineering courses,
including one on traveling waves).

~~~
kbutler
> 99.99% is good enough for me

99.99% is 1::10,000. Multiply that by 643 million passengers per year
(<http://www.transtats.bts.gov/>), and you get a lot of interference (64,300
passengers whose devices interfere...).

I believe that the chance of any typical passenger device interfering with
critical plane systems is much less that 0.01%, but we need to be careful with
seemingly unlikely events multiplied by large numbers.

~~~
enraged_camel
30% of all airplane passengers never turn off their devices during flights.
Now THAT is a large number of devices. How many of them interfered with
critical plane systems, and what percentage of that interference caused an
accident?

This is a situation where we need to move beyond platitudes and run some
actual experiments, preferably random controlled trials. Load a couple of
planes with several hundred smartphones and tablets each. Have the devices on
one plane turned off and the devices on the other turned on. Fly a third plane
completely empty as a control group. Measure the interference on all three
planes and then compare the numbers.

------
stevvooe
If they can come to my seat and tell me to turn off my device because they
detected a source of interference, then I will turn off the device. If they
can't or aren't willing to detect the source of interference, the real risk is
likely dubious.

Furthermore, avionics equipment should be and _is_ designed to work despite
minor external interference. If a consumer electronics device, such as an
iPhone or laptop, could drastically effect the operation of avionics
equipment, it should not be considered flight worthy. Granted, certification
tests probably don't consider such radiation sources, but the risk is so small
its likely its not even worth testing.

~~~
ScottWhigham
I'm sorry but your first sentence is just bad logic. Just to play devil's
advocate, while you are on the ground/taxi-ing in the plane, let's say that
you play a disconnected game (one that is a single player game and requires no
connection of any kind). No interference is detected. An hour into the flight,
you launch an app that proceeds to send your contact list to their home
servers. You surely don't expect the pilots to stop what they are doing and
come show you, "Look - here's what the problem you are causing is. Turn off
your phone!"

The second paragraph - sure, fine. I think that's what we all want to know.

~~~
Karunamon
>You surely don't expect the pilots to stop what they are doing and come show
you, "Look - here's what the problem you are causing is. Turn off your phone!"

No, but I would expect one of the pilots to notice something that looks,
smells, or feels like electronic interference, and ask the FA's to make an
announcement asking everyone to make sure their devices are off because actual
interference has been found and is causing a problem.

~~~
ScottWhigham
I agree with you that the FAA has done a poor job of explaining what
electrical interference there is, and what it's effects are. I also agree that
avionics gear is not so sensitive that an iPhone's connection should harm it.
But your argument that the pilot should deal with problems like this in-flight
is just a tad bit on the silly side IMO.

The typical pilot's mindset is, "Fly the plane but, when a problem occurs,
stop focusing on flying the plane and solve/identify the problem. Once the
problem is solved/identified, get back to flying the plane." You're
effectively wanting to change this to something more like, "Fly the plane but,
when a problem occurs, stop focusing on flying the plane and solve/identify
the problem except if the problem is 'electrical interference'. If that's the
case, ask yet again that people turn their phones off. Hopefully they'll
listen this time. Wait for all of the people to comply and, once the problem
is solved, get back to flying the plane."

It just sounds silly, doesn't it? I think we'd all agree that, if there's a
problem with electrical interference during flight, we want the pilot to be
flying the plane rather than having him/her wait for the passengers to do
anything. Again - I'm not arguing whether this is right/wrong; I'm simply
pointing out that the logic of having a pilot wait on passenger behaviors
before being able to continue doing his/her job is a bit silly.

~~~
Karunamon
Admittedly yes, but I think the average person would have a different reaction
to "Hey, someone's electronics are actually causing an actual problem, shut
down everything" rather than ignored much like the safety briefing that any
air traveler who has flown more than twice can recite from memory.

Why? Because anyone who has flown and forgot to put their phone in airplane
mode and didn't experience a firey death can attest, the usual warnings lack
both urgency and a factual connection to reality. Having them announce "there
is a problem due to interference" solves both of these.

------
bsg75
Curious - why are people so damn resistant to turning off their devices for
takeoff and landing, given the chance it _might_ be safer?

Even in the absence of hard data, I would prefer to ensure all cockpit
instruments work with minimal interference, than read another email or send
another tweet. Then when data is available to make a conclusion as to the
effect or lack thereof, informed decisions can be used to create procedures.

People are so attached to their devices that they take any inconvenience
towards using them as some sort of rights violation.

~~~
Karunamon
Seriously, how hard would it be to set up a rigorous test in an average
airliner, noting what interference was detected, how much, and its objective
effect on avionics?

That's why people are so resistant; the whole thing has the stench of
unsubstantiated BS about it. Kinda like the TSA.

~~~
gnaffle
They do perform those tests, but they can't account for all potential future
electronics devices.

Likewise, you can test your database server for all known exploits and it
might come up clean, but if you open your firewall you can still be hacked if
someone later on finds a new exploit. A security minded person would ask you:
"Was it _really_ necessary to open that port, of could you have inconvenienced
your developers a little bit and made them use a VPN instead?"

Trust me, this isn't the only rule in aviation that seems stupid, but the
mindset that results in rules like this has had a positive effect on aviation
safety.

~~~
Goronmon
_They do perform those tests, but they can't account for all potential future
electronics devices._

So, our defense against potentially dangerous future electronics devices is a
generic safety announcement at the beginning of the flight with only cursory
verification that it was followed?

~~~
gnaffle
Yes. This is a trade-off. Do they search your hand luggage for air band
radios? No, they don't. That's also a trade-off, even though you could
certainly cause interference with one.

~~~
Karunamon
It's also logically inconsistent. Either the threat of interference and danger
is great enough to warrant bag checks, or it is not, and this threat is
overblown like every other "threat" in air travel nowadays.

~~~
gnaffle
Of course it's logically inconsistent, but this is the real world and trade-
offs like these are made. Same with Lithium batteries, although there have
been several confirmed cases of such batteries catching fire in flight they
are still allowed. It's just not feasible to ban cell phones and laptops.

Likewise, airlines have a "clean cockpit" policy disallowing small talk during
landings. Do they monitor the CVRs and fine pilots who break this rule? I
don't think so. Will some pilots find the rule exessive and make exceptions?
Maybe. But the rule still has an effect, and is in place because of previous
accidents where distracted pilots have been a contributing factor.

While I think this rule about electronic devices might be too stringent, and
that it will eventually change, I don't think the airlines have overblown it.
Pilots will handle instrument failures gracefully in 99.99% of all cases, and
then there's the fatal accident where some stupid malfunction caused the pilot
to screw up (AF447, and many others before). Because they know this is a
"numbers game", they try to minimize potential problems, even though they may
not be able to eliminate them altogether.

------
tekromancr
Wow, Title is a bit misleading; One piece of anecdotal evidence is no evidence
at all. I would also like to take this time to bitch about the fact that
airplane mode on many devices also prevents WiFi, which is allowed on board
many flights.

~~~
shawnc
On the iPhone you can just turn WiFi back on after you switch on airplane
mode. Simple.

~~~
tekromancr
My old nook couldn't do that. I had to have the mobile data on to use the Wifi
on the flight. I briefly thought that that might (in a very unlikely scenario)
result in my fiery demise, and not putting a particularly high value on my own
life, continued to read wikipedia, It wasn't until I considered everyone else
on board that I elected to switch back to airplane mode.

------
michaelfeathers
That has to be one of the most incomprehensible titles I've ever seen.

~~~
jrnkntl
You are right, I changed it now to reflect a bit more what is in the article.

[edit] seems like I can't change it anymore. I tried changing it to "Airline
industry still divided over usage of personal electronics and their supposed
interference"

~~~
ScottWhigham
Whew. I was asking myself, "It was changed to 'Turning Off IPhone Critical to
Pilots Citing Interference'? That can't be an improvement!"

------
16s
RF is somewhat like magic. Crappy 802.11 devices can cause interference with
radios and antennas. I have one computer system that I can't use in the same
room with a HAM radio. It causes too much interference. When I shut it off,
everything works fine.

~~~
mahyarm
That might be power circuit interference or just unshielded power cables. What
happens when they are on different circuits?

------
batbomb
In these anecdotal reports, I'd like to see whether or not the actual
navigation devices have been tested. In my opinion and past experience, it's
possible that there actually is interference, but it's very like it's a result
of a faulty/fragile board or bad shielding. In that case, it would seem like
the prudent thing to do is to verify that it's not the actual device that is
faulty/fragile, and routine testing of essential navigation devices should be
as important as checking the engine.

------
_mulder_
Like using mobile phones at gas stations, this is an issue I've heard numerous
justifications for over the years.

One interesting one was the health effects of having 200-300 mobile phones
ranging at full power inside a sealed metal tube in the sky. Not so much an
issue for passengers, but flight crew on long haul flights subject to these
signal levels for 8 or 9 hours several days a week! Obviously Airplane mode
would solve this but telling everyone to switch off sounds a better way of
enforcing this. Of course this assumes there are any adverse health effects
from mobile phones at all, but that's a whole different can of worms.

Another 'theory', I've since dismissed, relating to the requirement to switch
off particularly at take off and landing, is because a plane load of 300
mobiles roaming between base stations at 400mph can cause the mobile operators
a few headaches!

~~~
lawnchair_larry
Do you have any idea how much _ionizing_ radiation simply being in the upper
atmosphere exposes you to? Whoever made that claim apparently doesn't. They
probably don't know the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation
either. Which means you should not pay any attention to them.

------
ricardobeat
So where are the tests? Actual reports, not anecdotes? The whole FAA report is
based on word-of-mouth from flight crew. Surely the industry can spare some
change for research in such an important area.

------
ISL
Avionics design must be resistant to interference.

Unfortunately, perfect resistance is impossible (see GPS and LightSquared).

The notion that you should turn off "anything with an off switch" as an open-
loop solution to the problem is folly. Short of removing the batteries from a
device, it's hardly guaranteed that it is truly de-powered.

Furthermore, plenty of things don't have an off switch. Pebble watches run via
Bluetooth. I doubt users think to turn them off.

It's not an easy problem. Sealing the passenger cabin into a Faraday cage may
be the only way to ensure RF isolation of instrumentation.

~~~
duaneb
Why isn't the passenger cabin sealed into a faraday cage? I would think that
would have been the first thing they would build into a plane once devices
that broadcast RF became common.

I also am quite bad at classical physics, so I don't know the limitations of
such a cage.

~~~
genericresponse
Nope, there are windows. That's why your microwave has that grid-looking stuff
over the windows. It keeps the cage intact and avoids cooking your eyeballs
when you look in.

~~~
duaneb
Well I'd be happy to sacrifice a few inches of cloud visibility so I could
plug myself in to music and turn off the rest of the plane.

------
WorkingDead
Remember that sound your computer speakers made when you put your old cell
phone near them? Try landing a plane and listening to direction from the tower
with that going on in your headset. Interference is a real thing and
mitigating it is just a small inconvenience to the passenger who entrust their
lives to their pilots.

------
kbutler
Would TSA allow the passengers to carry cell phones on the plane if there were
any perceived risk?

Passenger electronics are so obviously safe that screening for them would
break suspension of disbelief even in the airport security theater.

------
nemesis1637
I have a friend who's a pilot for one of the major commercial airlines. He
uses his iPhone during flights all the time (seems to be common among pilots).
I guess only the passengers are subject to the regulations. Though, I do
realize that the pilots can easily turn theirs off if there's an issue; it's a
little harder to track down the phone causing problems if it's one of the
passengers'.

Regardless, the data doesn't seem to concretely prove that phones are causing
any of the problems

------
drcoopster
So much misinformation.

------
tocomment
My last flight said you couldn't use iPhones during the whole flight even in
airplane mode. What's the deal with that?

The person next to me just lied and said he had and ipod touch ...

