
The ban on electronic devices rests on anecdotes - jseliger
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444273704577637703253402734.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read
======
enko
Nice article, but it didn't mention the most telling data point about the
nonsense basis for these rules - the lack of any sort of onboard EM detection.

Any other measurable factor that can conceivably have an impact on a flight
has an instrument, or many, devoted to it. If mobile phones were of any risk
whatsoever, there'd be a flashing light in the cockpit if something on board
was radiating on a phone frequency. The cabin crew would then sweep the cabin
with a detector to find the offending person. Instead, they rely on a visual
search of items the passengers have in their hands only!

The fact is that there are two parties with real skin in this game - the
manufacturers and the airlines. It's those parties whose are motivated and
empowered to evaluate the actual risk of EM emissions on a flight, and to take
concrete actions to mitigate the risk if the if the danger proved genuine.

In over 20 years since the general availability of mobile phones neither of
these parties have taken these actions, or made any sign of needing or wanting
to do so, and IMO that says all you need to know about the for-show-only
nature of these rules.

~~~
taligent
Your suggestion is illogical and unworkable. Because the time take to search
the plane for transmitting phones would be anywhere from 0 to say 30 mins for
a phone left on at the bottom of a suitcase.

How on earth would you then schedule flights when you don't have a fixed
journey time ? How would connecting flights work ?

Airlines revolve around managing risk. They don't ground flights during wet
weather even though it's slightly more risky to fly. Likewise they don't need
to switch off every phone. Just enough of them to get the risk down to an
acceptable threshold.

~~~
VMG
You could also imagine that the punishment for leaving a cell-phone was much
more severe. I'm not totally in agreement with the article, but it _is_
strange that the airline claims a phone that's switched on is a major problem,
yet the way of enforcing that they are of is by giving stern looks.

The rule can very easily be broken which suggests that it is useless. They
either have much stricter enforcement or none at all.

The comparison with weather conditions is problematic since there is no way to
control the weather while you could introduce a detection system and severe
punishments for cell phone use.

~~~
taligent
You seem to be missing the key point here: risk management.

Nobody has said that phones are a major risk compared to all of the other
risks a plane has to deal with e.g. weather, maintenance, pilot experience.
Only that they do represent a risk and the status quo represents the most
reasonable way to manage it.

What evidence do you have that stricter enforcement is warranted ?

~~~
beagle3
> Only that they do represent a risk and the status quo represents the most
> reasonable way to manage it.

And yet, the status quo dictates employing people to throw out water bottles
you purchased at the duty free after already having been screened for it
yourself (and probably screened the store's inventory as it was coming in).
And consider nail cutters a deadly weapon.

I did not read the GP to say that stricter enforcement was warranted - just
that it was not in-line with how other controllable risks associated with
passengers risks treated.

------
drcube
I violate this rule all the time. It's pure superstition, and verifiably
wrong. Rules like this cause a distrust of ALL rules, making people think
twice about following rules that actually are necessary. That's why having
misguided rules like this makes us less safe.

~~~
anonymouz
> It's pure superstition, and verifiably wrong.

Would you care to point out a source for this?

~~~
drcube
The article, for one. And quite a few hours personal experience using
electronics on planes without incident.

Can you point to any evidence anywhere that using a cell phone, laptop or
e-reader on a plane can cause problems in flight?

~~~
anonymouz
No, but I didn't claim that I have it. That bit of back-of-the-envelope
calculation in the article does not justify a claim anywhere close to
'verifiable wrong'.

------
hristov
What a load of shit. There have been studies made that show electronic devices
disturbing airplane systems. There are many recorded incidents of
interference. The WSJ call these "anecdotal evidence" but they happened, and
they were documented by the FAA.

Just think for a second about the term "anecdotal evidence." What really is
the problem with "anecdotal evidence?" Well the term is an example of a
logical fallacy only when one seeks to deduce broad all encompassing
conclusions from such evidence. Thus, for example, if you see one drunken
irish person it does not follow that irish are drunks. It is anecdotal
evidence. But does the same logic follow for plane crashes? I suppose if you
have one recorded event of a device interfering with flight instrumentation,
you could call that "anecdotal evidence." But what if the plane crashes and it
kills 300 people? Well that would still be a rare occurrance, and you could
still call this an anecdote. But it would also be a terrible tragedy.

You see, rare occurrences are not sufficient to create an overall rule about
the majority of cases, but they are sufficient to create tragedies. I am
willing to bet that even most drunk drivers end up getting home safely. Then
why ban drunk driving? Because the danger of death even if relatively rare is
still unacceptable. Because we value life in this country. So my point is that
the usual rule against anecdotal evidence does not apply when dealing with
airline safety. In airline safety even things that happen very rarely can be a
problem. Because, again, we value our lives.

Their other point is also rather dumb. They say that they did a survey that
showed that many people do not turn off their devices completely and few
people (2%) even use them blatantly. The thinking here goes a little bit like
this: "since some people broke the rules and no disaster happened then it must
be ok for more people to break the rule". This is train of logic is similar to
the one used in the Peter Principle. This kind of thinking is basically
guaranteed to result in a disaster. Because, every time they would say "well
nothing bad has happened thus far, so we might as well increase the sources
interference", and this will go on until something bad happens.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
Could you cite said studies? I studied aerospace engineering in college and
was taught that there is no evidence of this beyond a pilot and some air
hostesses, at some point a few decades ago, hypothesising that some avionics
error was caused by passenger electronics.

~~~
snom380
A quick google search reveals a study including a case where the pilot in
cooperation with the passenger identified his laptop as causing interference
on navigation instruments.

Is it really too much to ask to do a quick Google search?

~~~
officemonkey
Yes, anybody can do a google search. You can also do a google search for "9/11
was an inside job" and "JFK killed Marilyn." Doesn't mean that the first
google hit is a study that is reliable, repeatable, or even factual.

~~~
gnaffle
I didn't tell you to look at the first Google hit, did I? But if you're going
to voice your opining, I do expect a minimal amount of effort to educate
yourself. You can easily find reports hosted by for instance NASA, and to
discredit those you have to thing that pilots are imagining things or part of
a worldwide conspiracy.

However, most people here seem content to disregard any evidence that may
contradict their beliefs.

The real reason why PEDs are still banned are because neither FAA, airlines or
manufacturers have been willing to perform comprehensive studies in order to
determine the effects on planes.

The reason we have WiFi access on planes nowadays is because very detailed and
expensive studies have been done, and improved shielding has been added to
certified planes. Apparently such studies are underway, but risk-aversion in
the aviation industry means nothing is going to change before the results of
those studies are in.

I'm a private pilot and I leave my cell phone on as a safety measure in case
the radio breaks down. I disable cell data and try to place it away from the
avionics so I get a minimu amount of noise in my headset. However, if I was
instrument rated, I wouldn't attempt an instrument approach in minimal weather
conditions with my cell phone on. I can't conclusively prove that my phone is
incapable of influencing the instruments, but I'd rather not find out "the
hard way".

------
ghjm
It may well be that cellphones present no danger to airliners, but I have had
two occasions when forgetting to turn off a cellphone produced interference
noise in my headset while flying a C172SP. Of course it was my own cellphone
so I just turned it off.

Maybe it's not a problem on airliners because they are better shielded, or
just bigger, than a Skyhawk. But I can say first-hand that it is at least
_possible_ for a cellphone to interfere with an aviation radio.

~~~
justin66
There are some incidents recorded at <http://www.37000feet.com/>

Incidents involving interference from GPS, cell phones, etc. are recorded. The
way people react when reading those reports is more interesting to me than the
reports themselves. It's interesting how strong opinions are on this subject.

~~~
beagle3
I don't have time to read it, but .. GPS?

GPS devices are completely passive; how can they interfere?

(Unless you are talking about incoming GPS satellite signal. In which case --
dah, they've been out there for the last 40 years, the planes farrady cage
structure should have accommodated this long ago, and it can be solved with
strategically placed tin foil on the offending openings)

~~~
CamperBob2
_(Unless you are talking about incoming GPS satellite signal. In which case --
dah, they've been out there for the last 40 years, the planes farrady cage
structure should have accommodated this long ago, and it can be solved with
strategically placed tin foil on the offending openings)_

Interesting bit of trivia: the energy received from a GPS satellite is said to
be roughly equivalent to a 40-watt light bulb on the other side of the
continental US.

~~~
tesseract
In fact the GPS signal at a typical receiver is actually 100x (or more)
_quieter than the noise floor_ in its band.

------
asynchronous13
I am an Electrical Engineer working in the aerospace industry. I hate articles
and discussions about this because they fundamentally miss the point.

The FAA does not ask, "are electronics likely to cause a crash?". Instead,
they ask, "can we guarantee that electronics will not cause a crash?".

There is a big difference between claiming that something is dangerous vs
claiming that something is not guaranteed to be safe.

~~~
RockyMcNuts
Exactly.

There's absolutely no requirement or testing that says your portable device
can't interfere with an ILS. Landing on instruments in zero visibility with
untested consumer electronics that don't conform to aviation specs is a bad
idea. Maybe it's time to change the regs so anything that can go on a plane
has to be tested and regulated to not interfere with aircraft navigation.

When PCs came out, they interfered with TV. There's a set of standards for
consumer equipment, eg won't interfere with your neighbor's TV, and a set of
standards for aviation, eg won't interfere with an instrument landing system
etc. And even if in the current crop of digital devices, it's a low-percentage
problem, new devices get invented all the time, with new power and frequency
profiles. There is so much change that eventually something is guaranteed to
interfere.

In any event, the reg about no cell phones on during flight (as opposed to no
electronics during takeoff and landing), is an FCC reg, not an FAA reg, to
help out the cell phone companies not having to deal with fast-moving cell
phones on max power talking to all their towers at once.

------
Thrymr
The other irritating thing about the ban is that no distinction is made
between devices that transmit RF and those that do not. Granted, there are
fewer and fewer devices that one is likely to carry and use on a plane that
are not capable of transmitting something (e.g. wifi or bluetooth), but iPods
were banned during takeoff even before they had wifi, and AFAIK portable CD
players and tape players were never allowed either. It actually makes more
sense now to ban everything because enforcing that they were all in airplane
mode would be impossible, but 10 years ago the ban was universally applied to
electronic devices and not only radio-transmitting devices.

Mostly I just want to be able to use my Kindle during takeoff and landing.
Maybe it will happen:

[http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/03/flight...](http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/03/flight-
testing-the-kindle-the-experts-speak/255149)

~~~
tatsuke95
> _"but iPods were banned during takeoff even before they had wifi, and AFAIK
> portable CD players and tape players were never allowed either."_

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the ban on music players
during take-off/landing is to ensure that the passenger can hear instructions
from the flight crew.

As for phones, well, I don't shut mine off, either.

~~~
vacri
Also, a blanket ban during takeoff (seriously, it doesn't take that long!)
avoids arguments with cabin crew about whether or not your device has wifi or
not. Are cabin crew really supposed to keep current on all models of new
personal electronic devices?

~~~
erichocean
First, the ban is not just "during takeoff". It's actually from the time the
pilot leaves the gate, until well into the air. If there's any delay getting
on the runway, it's easily 45 minutes or longer, and the usual wait is closer
to 20 minutes.

Both ends of the flight. On short flights, you'll spend more times _without_
your smartphone on then you will with it.

------
w1ntermute
What's really sad about this whole fiasco is how many people take the word of
the authorities at face value without spending some time to consider that they
might be wrong (as they have been about various things over and over in the
past). In this day and age, finding accurate information about almost anything
is just a matter of spending a few minutes on the internet.

Same goes for the TSA, which a vanishingly small number of Americans realize
is nothing more than security theater and an enormous government jobs program.

~~~
taligent
I always find this anti-TSA rhetoric hilarious.

You do realise that EVERY country has a TSA equivalent with almost exactly the
same policies and procedures. And yes some of it is security theatre but most
of it isn't.

~~~
losvedir
This doesn't agree with my experience at all. I've had flights in the US,
England, Spain, Bahrain, the UAE, Japan, and China, and the US is by far the
most invasive and tedious.

I think it's unique to the US that you need to take off your shoes, thoroughly
empty all your pockets and take off your belt, get scanned by the new RapiScan
things, and throw away your bottles of water (well, I've experienced that in
some of the other countries, but not all).

I'm curious what other people's experience are like. Taligent's comment caught
me by surprise because my international airport experience has almost
invariably ended with, "wow, that was refreshingly painless. I wish the US was
still like this".

~~~
cstejerean
My experience was the same. I flew in India, China, Australia and UK last
year, and I didn't have to take off my shoes or worry about liquids (except
they would so secondary screening for liquids in the boarding areas on US
bound flights).

US however was the only place where I could leave my 11" Air in the bag.

------
DanBC
Mobile phones are an old technology. They've had a few different types of
technology.

It's trivially easy to see analogue mobile telephones disrupting a wide
variety of electronics. Luckily, no one uses analogue phones anymore. It's
trivially easy to get a GSM phone to disrupt other electronics. (The burbling
noise you hear over a nearby radio when the phone connects to the cell tower
is one example.)

Airline safety is conservative. Very many people travel by plane. (Over 133
million just in London each year.)

Being conservative is probably a good thing.

But how are the rules supposed to change? Given that many people think these
rules are nonsense, how should the regulatory bodies test phones on planes?

~~~
cheald
The strength (and capability to interfere) of EM radiation is subject to the
inverse-square law. You would cook yourself long before your phone could put
out enough juice to interfere with the cockpit.

If you can disrupt a speaker's magnetic field by placing a phone 3 inches from
it, then you would need _16,000 times_ as much power to perform the same
disruption from 10 feet away.

If every passenger in a 149-seat Boeing 737 had a cell phone, and you daisy-
chained them all together to produce an EM pulse, you could improve your
disruption distance to 3 feet without anything in between your output and the
target to disrupt.

------
peeters
I don't think this will come as a surprise to anyone. Most people have thought
it's ridiculous for ages.

From the very first episode of the West Wing, in 1999:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZTUTuSqqG4> (just an anecdotal argument
_against_ the ban).

------
jakejake
I wouldn't mind seeing the rule overturned for general usage or data. But I
hope that voice calling continues to be prohibited. Sitting on a 6 hour flight
listening to multiple people screaming into their phones over the sound of the
engines would suck so bad. Its bad enough on a 15 minute bus ride.

~~~
gizmo686
A ban on voice calling should come from airline policy, not FAA regulation.

~~~
akldfgj
cell phone conversations lead to in-flight murder[0], which causes chaos,
which is a threat to airline safety, under FAA purview.

[0] (well, justifiable homicide, anyway)

------
alan_cx
Its interesting that its the same logic as people claiming premonition type
events.

So, you're sat there thinking about some one and the phone rings and its that
person. Some people say that is such a huge coincidence that it must prove
some sort of premonition. The counter argument is that you don't think of all
the times it doesn't happen.

So, the "proof" of a connection between mobile phones and airline systems is
very similar to the proof people use for premonition. Same argument to
disprove it.

------
rll
Forget the radio interference, put hard projectiles like laptops and tablets
away during take-off and landings so they don't go flying around the cabin if
there is an incident.

~~~
mahyarm
That logic doesn't make any sense, since you can have other hard projectiles,
such as a saxophone or a textbook during those times. They'll have to tell
everyone to put away ALL objects, which they don't.

~~~
CamperBob2
A musical instrument would have to be stowed under the seat. A book, though,
represents a pretty big loophole. I've never been asked to put a book away
during takeoff or landing, even a textbook that's heavy enough to serve as a
murder weapon.

~~~
rll
There are also way more laptops and tablets around on planes than big heavy
textbooks. People tend to bring smaller softcovers when they travel for
obvious reasons.

------
masterzora
A few things I think the article either left out or didn't consider:

1\. It discusses the odds that somebody on the plain has their phone on. As
someone who frequently flies with his phone on, I can attest I have yet to die
in a plane crash. However, it doesn't necessarily follow that a relatively
small number of us rule breakers imply complete safety if the rule is removed.
I'd be willing to bet that there hasn't been a flight where every single
person had their phone on let alone with airplane mode off. I don't think even
this would be an issue on modern planes but it's still silly to claim "a few
phones is okay" to "a few hundred phones is okay" without further connecting
evidence.

2\. In today's terrorist-focused air world it seems implausible that the rule
would be handled so casually, especially given criticism of the rule, when
they would likely be insistent about this potential terrorist weapon. The
prototypical terrorist specter that modern security theater seems so concerned
with would love nothing better than a magic electronic box that could take
down a plane as easily as some suggest.

3\. The focus on safety as the cause seems to ignore other effects. In
particular they've created a system that handily avoids people talking loudly
on their cell phones for the entire flight. I would not be surprised if they'd
keep the rule in the face of conclusive proof on the safety of cell phones
just because of this effect.

------
jff
If they actually have any intention of having people follow this rule, they
need to actually start punishing people who blatantly ignore the rules. I've
sat on many planes and watched people be told to shut off their iPods... only
to turn off the screen until the stewardess walks away, then immediately re-
activate it. If people were fined, I doubt the rule would be broken as much.

If, on the other hand, there is no intention to actually enforce this rule,
get rid of the damn thing.

------
adrinavarro
And it's not just about devices themselves, it's about being alert. Other
rules also require to have the window shades up so you can see what is
happening overwing when taking off or landing, for example.

Having a phone on, or let's say, an iPod, won't disturb at all the electronic
systems on board of the airplane. Maybe if you're flying a small airplane
you'll have a phone doing weird stuff to your headset as someone said below
(my personal experience is that it only happens when the phone starts
transmitting with more power after you lose cell coverage). Or perhaps if it's
a very old plane. But not a really big deal.

But when accidents do happen, you'd better be ready, and one of the reasons
the FAA hasn't removed this rule yet, is that it forces most users to actually
mind about what's happening (during t/o and landing) instead of being looking
at their phones or listening to music. In case of an accident, or if an
evacuation takes place, everything would happen in under two minutes and it is
usually a good thing to have people see by themselves what's happening and
ready to listen for instructions (and not disorientated).

Of course your plane won't crash if you're playing Angry Birds during landing.
It's just not a good idea to do it.

~~~
sareon
Yet you're still allowed to read a big old heavy book (which can easily become
FOD itself), or sleep through take off and landing. People aren't alert during
those activities.

~~~
adrinavarro
But it would still be a bit excessive to wake up everyone and force them to
close their books, don't you think so?

~~~
sareon
You mean like walking by and making sure everyone has their kindles off?

------
dbecker
Personally, I'm skeptical that cell phones materially affect plane
electronics, but the WSJ's argument is laughably thin and illogical.

They show that people leave their phones on. But they didn't measure whether
there was interference with plane electronics on those flights. They simply
state that all these phones didn't affect navigation systems, with no evidence
whatsoever.

It's always disappointing when someone makes a bad case for what is probably a
good cause.

------
plouffy
I remember reading here during an earlier discussion that the ban on
electronic devices had less to do with interference and more about safety in
case of emergencies. During takeoff and landing are when most accidents happen
and if people have cables from earphones/laptops, are listening to music or
are on their phone, it would be considerable harder for the flight crew to get
the attention of the passengers and direct them.

~~~
BitMastro
I remember this same topic being addressed in an earlier discussion too. When
the "fasten your seatbelt" lights are on, for example during turbulences,
electronic devices should be off too, mostly because you may need to be in a
state of alertness rather than playing a game.

------
dhimes
Why don't they test it? I find it very disturbing that they would continue a
policy without data, except for the small point that it's not that big of a
deal. I'm only slightly inconvenienced that I have to turn my Kindle off on
take-off and landing.

But it really does blow my mind that they are not subjecting cockpit
instrumentation to emf interference and seeing what happens. This used to be a
big part of military research- shielding and such- so why not?

I would expect to see something like 'signal strengths above WW dBm in the
cockpit reduce the reliability of XX readings by Y% causing an unacceptable
error in ZZZ. This can be achieved with N devices transmitting within a
distance of R meters. Therefore, we require these devices to be turned off.

I find it dumbfounding that people aren't doing/haven't done this.

~~~
andrewflnr
The article mentions that they failed to reproduce the problem, so presumably
they tried.

~~~
dhimes
I didn't read that as meaning systematic testing. I really mean: test with
transmitters of variable frequencies in cockpits or mock-cockpits. Measure
induced emf in the circuits. Record instrument errors.

They could even require a certain spec on the manufacturers (akin to mil-spec
on military grade computers, for example). Much like somebody else said:
shielding.

------
antman
My anecdotes are as follows: In my fathers car back in the early 90's, right
before the phone rang the speedometer and rpm meter went nuts. Since that was
happening only during some sort of negotiation phase between the mobile and
the tower and then stopped, I waited a few seconds and the interference
stopped.

Regarding the projectile flying, that is not a small problem and it doesn't
happen only during take of and landing. There is a reason they tell you to
remain buckled up at all times when seated. During a flight, just as I had
unbuckled my seat belt, a turbulence made the airplane fall about 40cm and I
landed on my seat's armrest, which hurt.

------
steveh73
Mobile phones absolutely do interfere with aeroplane systems. You know how
your radio goes dit dit-dit dit when you change cell towers or receive a
message? Happens with aircraft radios too. Extremely annoying when your
passenger ignores your request to turn off their phone. VOR, ADF, NDB and ILS
also all use radio waves and could therefore also be subject to interference.

