PED's on/off during various flight stages - Why?

[AdamR]

Re: Approaches for dealing with 'electronic devices off'

It is not correct to say a rule is a rule. There are many rules and laws which are violated every day with no comment or consequence. Rules that exist without good foundation, or which are not clearly explained and enforced, undermine respect for all rules. Airlines have made a rod for their own backs with the rule about electronic devices. It is obviously arbitrary because so many electronic devices are permitted without comment.

No-one asks passengers to turn off their electronic watches. Noise cancelling headphones are officially permitted for no good reason. Hearing aids and pacemakers are allowed. Airline AV are allowed and are frequently used during take-off and landing.

There is no meaningful difference between an iPad which is off and one in standby and not being used. Power draw is negligible. Batteries are still connected.

But the best example I can think of is my digital slr camera. The camera has a standby mode and an on-off switch. However, according to something I read from the manufacturer a while ago, the switch is really just a physical lock-out. There is no difference in power draw or electronic systems between off and standby.

E-ink devices like kindles are another similar situation. Other than the very second when the page is being refreshed, there is no difference between off and on.

All of that leads me to the conclusion that I wouldn't dream of telling someone to turn off a device unless they were causing a problem for other passengers or were being socially disruptive (such as talking on a crowded phone). If the airline makes a rule, let them enforce it rigorously and consistently or drop it entirely. It is not my job to police nonsense.

That said, I don't use electronic devices during the forbidden period, and I do use flight mode. I sometimes switch my phone off and sometimes leave it in standby.

 

[drsmithy]

Re: Approaches for dealing with 'electronic devices off'

There is no meaningful difference between an iPad which is off and one in standby and not being used. Power draw is negligible. Batteries are still connected.

An iPad in standby is still running background tasks. Current is still flowing and therefore an EMF is still being generated.

I am not saying the EMF is significant, I am saying there is, demonstrably, a difference between "off" and "standby".

The same is true for laptops and such in "sleep" vs off.

About the only thing it might not be true for is, as mentioned, e-ink devices - though probably not since they need at least something going on to know when you try to turn the page (and, obviously, to redraw the next page).

 

[markis10]

Re: Approaches for dealing with 'electronic devices off'

Folks, isn't the issue: is it really a problem? If it is a serious problem, please, airlines, tell us so on this forum - and explain why, because being correctly informed leads to communication that actually WORKS. I have my doubts, but - if there is evidence, please, airlines just TELL us. As can be seen by virtue of the many posts on this forum, people actually do want to do the right thing.

Have you failed to indicate a turn on a deserted country road? Duhh. Next question: was that illegal? Answer: DID IT MATTER? Of course laws should be obeyed, but let's (i) understand the context, and (ii) keep it in context.

Aviation operates on a safety profile that is based on past learning's, whether there is even a slight risk action is often taken to eliminate that risk, erring on the conservative side. While modern aircraft a built with interference from transmitters/mobiles and PEDs in general in mind, the Australian public is flying in aircraft that are up to 30 years old in design when most equipment we use today was not invented, and as such the shielding from such interference is non existent, which is why you have aircraft with WiFI on board flying around while others ban the use of PEDs at all times (Alliance FK100).

Interference from PEDs has been a factor in incidents in the past, and this is Boeings take on the matter:

Aero 10 - Interference from Electronic Devices

PEDS cause interference to some planes, and you are required to follow the airlines rules in this respect and any direction given by crew. Would you like to be on a plane that has its speed break deployed due to interference from a PED, thats one of the more critical errors reported in this study by NASA early this century:

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20010066904_2001108092.pdf

 

[drsmithy]

Re: Approaches for dealing with 'electronic devices off'

Aviation operates on a safety profile that is based on past learning's, whether there is even a slight risk action is often taken to eliminate that risk, erring on the conservative side. While modern aircraft a built with interference from transmitters/mobiles and PEDs in general in mind, the Australian public is flying in aircraft that are up to 30 years old in design when most equipment we use today was not invented, and as such the shielding from such interference is non existent, which is why you have aircraft with WiFI on board flying around while others ban the use of PEDs at all times (Alliance FK100).

Personally, if I thought there was any meaningful danger from PEDs, I'd never set foot on a plane again. Not because I was worried about someone's mobile phone bringing it down, but because it would obviously be trivial for someone to purpose-build a device to cause massive levels of interference (ie: the terr'ists) and because it would be a pretty strong indication that the aircraft designed had done a cough job.

Interference from PEDs has been a factor in incidents in the past, and this is Boeings take on the matter:

Notable quote from that page:

"As a result of these and other investigations, Boeing has not been able to find a definite correlation between PEDs and the associated reported airplane anomalies."

 

[dodgeyhack]

Re: Approaches for dealing with 'electronic devices off'

Notable quote from that page:

"As a result of these and other investigations, Boeing has not been able to find a definite correlation between PEDs and the associated reported airplane anomalies."

The fact that the incidents were not repeatable at a different time and place just demonstrates how difficult a problem it is.
Or maybe Boeing just can't hire the right people. But with the huge number of 'experts' around I don't see how that could be the case

 

[markis10]

Re: Approaches for dealing with 'electronic devices off'

Personally, if I thought there was any meaningful danger from PEDs, I'd never set foot on a plane again. Not because I was worried about someone's mobile phone bringing it down, but because it would obviously be trivial for someone to purpose-build a device to cause massive levels of interference (ie: the terr'ists) and because it would be a pretty strong indication that the aircraft designed had done a cough job.



Notable quote from that page:

"As a result of these and other investigations, Boeing has not been able to find a definite correlation between PEDs and the associated reported airplane anomalies."

Did you read the NASA report I also linked to, I think its important to note one is trying to sell a product while on is research with commercial intent! This topic does come up on a regular basis here, and we do get input from crew that say they have experienced interference from a PED, the definitive proof is always harder to find given the lack of standards in use - even the same plane type can be very different.

 

[drsmithy]

Re: Approaches for dealing with 'electronic devices off'

Did you read the NASA report I also linked to, I think its important to note one is trying to sell a product while on is research with commercial intent!

I can't because the site is timing out.

This topic does come up on a regular basis here, and we do get input from crew that say they have experienced interference from a PED, the definitive proof is always harder to find given the lack of standards in use - even the same plane type can be very different.

With all due respect to the crew, there is a vast gulf of difference between a layman's "we saw this happening once or twice" and a scientist's "this interaction is consistently demonstrable under controlled conditions and happens because of factors X, Y and Z".

As I've already said, so long as the pilots are prepared to sit at the front of a plane with no way of guaranteeing the hundreds of people behind them don't have PEDs blasting out EMI throughout the entire flight, I'm prepared to sit in the same plane and not be concerned if the person beside me has their phone on.

 

[markis10]

Re: Approaches for dealing with 'electronic devices off'

With all due respect to the crew, there is a vast gulf of difference between a layman's "we saw this happening once or twice" and a scientist's "this interaction is consistently demonstrable under controlled conditions and happens because of factors X, Y and Z".

I beg to differ, getting a RAIM warning on your GPS that disappears when you turn your phone off is not a bad litmus test , while calling technical crew layman in the context of systems knowledge is probably derogatory (especially given many NASA scientists are pilots) given the training pilots receive, their observations have been supported by your "scientist's" in a study published by the IEEE in 2006 that states : "Our research has indicated that PED interference occurs at an appreciable rate and that some of these events create hazardous situations."

Some background on the authors: "BILL STRAUSS is an expert in aircraft electromagnetic compatibility at the Naval Air Warfare Center and is the technical activities committee chairman for the IEEE Electromagnetic Compatibility Society. He recently completed his Ph.D. on this topic in the department of engineering and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University, in Pittsburgh.

M. GRANGER MORGAN (IEEE Fellow) is head of Carnegie Mellon’s department of engineering and public policy and a professor in the department of electrical and computer engineering.

JAY APT is a distinguished service professor in the department of engineering and public policy and a research professor at the Tepper School of Business at Carnegie Mellon. He is an active pilot and former NASA astronaut.

DANIEL D. STANCIL (IEEE Fellow) is a professor in Carnegie Mellon’s department of electrical and computer engineering.



For more about electronic devices on aircraft, see the following:
“Do Portable Electronics Endanger Flight?” IEEE Spectrum, September 1996; Bill Strauss and M. Granger Morgan,
“Everyday Threats to Aircraft Safety,” Issues in Science and Technology, pp. 82–86, Winter 2002–03; Bill Strauss,
“Portable Electronic Devices Onboard Commercial Aircraft: Assessing the Risks,” Ph.D. Thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, 2005.
NASA performed a series of tests on emissions from cellphones and other PEDs. See “Wireless Phone Threat Assessment and New Wireless
Technology Concerns for Aircraft Navigation Radios,” NASA/TP-2003- 212446, July 2003;
“Portable Wireless LAN Device and Two-Way Radio Threat Assessment for Aircraft Navigation Radios,” NASA/TP-2003-212438, July 2003;
“Evaluation of a Mobile Phone for Aircraft GPS Interference,” NASA/TM-2004-213001, March 2004.
The National Telecommunications and Information Administration has performed two studies of potential interference with
GPS from ultrawideband systems:
“Assessment of Compatibility Between Ultrawideband (UWB) Systems and Global Positioning System (GPS)
Receivers,” Special Publication 01-45, U.S. Department of Commerce, February 2001;
“Measurements to Determine Potential Interference to GPS Receivers From Ultrawideband Transmission
Systems,” Report 01-384, U.S. Department
of Commerce, February 2001.

 

[harvyk]

Re: Approaches for dealing with 'electronic devices off'

Ultimately the answer is simple, it does not matter if PED's cause flight interference or not, the airline is the legal owner of the aircraft you are boarding, and just like I can say what can and can't happen within my own home (within legal boundaries of course) an airline can say what can and can't happen within their aircraft (within legal boundaries of course).

So all this talk about no scientific proof (despite anecdotal evidence to the contrary from pilots and cabin crew who also frequent this forum) is simply a moot point. The fact is airlines have made it a condition of being on their aircraft, enforced by laws and regulations, and that is all that matters.

 

[drsmithy]

Re: Approaches for dealing with 'electronic devices off'

So all this talk about no scientific proof (despite anecdotal evidence to the contrary from pilots and cabin crew who also frequent this forum) is simply a mute point. The fact is airlines have made it a condition of being on their aircraft, enforced by laws and regulations, and that is all that matters.

Just as an aside, is there any scientific proof that immigration and custom lines will fall apart if PED's are used there? Because there is another place where PED's are not allowed to be used.

It's "moot point".

Also, I think the restrictions in customs is because of the audio and video recording abilities of such devices (a whole 'nother can of worms), rather than any EMI they might cause.

 

[mannej]

Re: Approaches for dealing with 'electronic devices off'

I still don't get as to why people find it so hard to comply with instructions.

You agree to the conditions of carriage, and that aircraft you are traveling on is not your personal property.

With this in mind, you are not free to do as you wish no matter what you believe of the rules and requests in regards to PED's are.

We have had evidence on this forum from a very distinguished pilot that a Furby has interfered with his flight controls/displays before, so it is not as mythical as some think.

 

[dodgeyhack]

Re: Approaches for dealing with 'electronic devices off'

We have had evidence on this forum from a very distinguished pilot that a Furby has interfered with his flight controls/displays before, so it is not as mythical as some think.

It wasn't actually a Furby. The Furby thing was a joke because of the picture on the safety card.

I don't recall exactly what it was now, but I think it was one of the early gameboy type devices. Perhaps he had a 767 remote control game....

 

[mannej]

It wasn't actually a Furby. The Furby thing was a joke because of the picture on the safety card.

The point is still the same.

The furby stuck in my mind for some reason.

 

[drsmithy]

Re: Approaches for dealing with 'electronic devices off'

I still don't get as to why people find it so hard to comply with instructions.

You agree to the conditions of carriage, and that aircraft you are traveling on is not your personal property.

With this in mind, you are not free to do as you wish no matter what you believe of the rules and requests in regards to PED's are.

It's not a matter of it being hard, it's a matter of apathy for something that, by any rational examination even without knowing the technical details, has an insignificant risk profile.

I am in fact quite free to ignore the instructions, and the airline is free to eject me from their aircraft at their discretion as a consequence if they so desire. I have no obligation to act as the airline's enforcer if the person beside me wants to keep reading their e-book while the plane takes off, and have little to no other inclination to do so simply because "rules is rules".

 

[harvyk]

Re: Approaches for dealing with 'electronic devices off'

I am in fact quite free to ignore the instructions

Actually you are not quite free to ignore their instructions, as you have a legal obligation to do any request which is made of you by crew whilst on their aircraft. Choosing to ignore said instructions (regardless of how meaningless you feel it is) can easily result in not only removal from aircraft, but also a little talk with the boys in blue and potentially a dressing down by a judge coupled with some other form of punishment.

 

[epsc]

Re: Approaches for dealing with 'electronic devices off'

Some clarity as to the actual legal position might be relevant. I have done a search and cannot see any specific regulation prohibiting the use of mobiles etc on-board. The general power to determine behaviour on flights seems to be regulation 309A of the Civil Aviation Regulations:

'(1) Subject to subregulation (2), the operator, or pilot in command, of an Australian aircraft may give an instruction, either orally or in writing, prohibiting or limiting the doing of an act on board the aircraft during flight time in the aircraft. (2) The operator, or pilot in command, must not give an instruction unless he or she is satisfied on reasonable grounds that the instruction is necessary in the interests of the safety of air navigation.'

As can be seen, this requires an instruction to be given on each occasion - no instruction, no offence.

And by the way, harvyk, while it is true that one can be prosecuted for disobeying such an instruction, you're still free to do it - as long as you're prepared to wear the consequences.

My point about understanding the 'danger' of using phones on-board is this - before people get hot and bothered about the rules being broken, unless there is some clear evidence that it IS a danger to use devices, people are not going to care all that much. I read that in NZ you can now use your mobile on-board. I also read that back in 2009 CASA was working on a specific safety regulation dealing with the use of devices on-board - a regulation which does not seem to have gotten off the ground, so to speak. The holier than thou types may have their view, but I would think most people would want to know that there is a REAL risk before they contemplated dobbing someone in for playing their gameboy. We have a police force - save in extreme circumstances, volunteers are rarely encouraged. There is a reason for that.

But then, there will always be those who want to tell others what to do, I guess.

 

[medhead]

As I've never seen any evidence that phones, etc, present any problems to aircraft systems, I just let them do whatever it is they're doing.

You've done testing? Citations to peer reviewed papers?

With *that* said, the arguments from the other side about people leaving their phones on being personal safety risks, or phones and ipads being projectile risks because they're turned on, are equally dumb.

People who don't turn off are a potential safety risk because they have demonstrated that they will ignore crew directions. I do not want to be in an incident with someone who ignores crew directs.


Sent from the Throne

 

[drsmithy]

You've done testing? Citations to peer reviewed papers?

Plenty of them out there. Some already linked in this discussion. I don't care enough about internet arguments (especially with White Knights) to keep a bibliography, but I've read enough to convince me.

However, as I've already said numerous times. If the risk were anything more than infinitesimal, you'd never be able to bring them on board, nor would any pilot take off so long as he thought there could be an unsecured device in his aircraft. Consequently, if the pilots are willing to get into a plane that could easily have hundreds of active PEDs in it, then so am I, and so should you.

People who don't turn off are a potential safety risk because they have demonstrated that they will ignore crew directions.

This is what's called a non-sequitur. You might as well be arguing someone could be a serial killer because they downloaded a song off the internet.

 

[SeatBackForward]

So drsmithy is basically saying, you can do whatever you want, as long as you believe you can get away with it? So how does that work with speed limits, or drink driving?

It's not your own safety I care about in such circumstances, but you become a risk to others. Which is why society develops laws and rules..yes they need to appeal to the lowest common denominator, but tough.

Sent from an Android device, it leaves a less fruity aftertaste.

 

[drsmithy]

So drsmithy is basically saying, you can do whatever you want, as long as you believe you can get away with it?

No, he's not.

It's not your own safety I care about in such circumstances, but you become a risk to others.

No, you don't.