FAA on PDA use on planes

[marlof]

<a href="http://www.usatoday.com/money/biztravel/2002-08-19-pdas_x.htm">http://www.usatoday.com/money/biztravel/2002-08-19-pdas_x.htm</a><br /><br />It seems like only <a href="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2961">yesterday</a> that we were discussing the use of Pocket PC Phone Editions on board an airplane. It also seems that the FAA is not up-to-date with the latest technology when it comes to the use of electronic devices on planes.<br /><br />I'll quote the linked USAToday article (source: <a href="http://www.pocketnow.com">PocketNow</a>): "On a recent flight from Newark, N.J., to Orlando, Mike Corbo decided to check his e-mail. Instead of plugging into a $3.99-a-minute in-flight phone, he powered up his Palm VII and downloaded the messages wirelessly, at 35,000 feet. "I found that as long as we were flying over a major city, I would easily connect and send or receive e-mail without a problem," says the Lyndhurst, N.J., information systems manager. No one tried to stop Corbo because what he did is legal. The Federal Aviation Administration doesn't ban the onboard use of a personal digital assistant — even one that can connect to the Internet through a cellular network — according to FAA spokesman Paul Takemoto. "He isn't violating any rule," he says." <br /><br />"Terry Wiseman, an expert on in-flight communications systems and editor of the newsletter Airfax.com, says people may bicker over where a PDA ends and a cell phone begins, but in some respects, both devices do the same thing. "A personal digital assistant may use less bandwidth to check e-mail, but basically you're using the same frequency as a cellular phone, and in much the same way," he says. He suggests that the government's policy on PDAs may be outdated, given the convergence of phones and computing devices."<br /><br />New rules given the current convergence of devices might be a good thing. Because now this might lead to strange situations. I've heard quite the opposite stories from people using their Pocket PC Phone Edition that they were not allowed to use their PDA at all, not even with the phone switched off. The arial antenna of the T-Mobile / XDA betrays its powers to the flight attendants, and they are probably not aware of all the other possibilities of such a PDA / phone combination.<br /><br />It is exactly for these situations that Microsoft has implemented a very easy way to switch off the phone (tapping the radio icon in the title bar, or holding the red button for a few seconds). If the phone is off, it remains off until you manually enable it again. Even a soft reset will not switch the phone back on. Although it's a Pocket PC / Phone combination, the unit can function as a standalone Pocket PC as well. Not only <a href="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3019">developers</a> but also the FAA and flight attendants got to learn, and learn fast.

[GregWard]

I took a flight on a small plane in South Africa last year. It was so small almost everyone's luggage had to go into the hold. Somebody left their phone on in their bag. The crew told us this - so presumably there was some interference - or what ever.

I'm not a flight systems engineer - I have no idea if this really matters. But the fact that you can "see" a phone via some sort of interference would worry me more than a little. I can't see any distinction between voice calls and data calls. If voice is dangerous then data must be too.

There was a case a year or so back when a guy got done for sms'ing his girlfriend. The crew asked to stop and he refused. He got done for endangering the aircraft!

I wish there was a CLEAR (consistent) message on this. Like if using your phone in a Petrol (Gas) Station is so dangerous why do they let some many people do it!

[PlayAgain?]

The person who used his Palm for e-mail should be reprimanded. I work in a world class centre for heavy maintenance on 747 and 777 aircraft. Whenever I go into the hangars, the first rule is 'Phones Off'.

The Nokia 9210 long ago implemented a 'flight' profile which allowed PDA use and totally restricted any form of transmission, but I think we need to respect the concerns of the airlines who say "switch it off".

We cannot afford to take any risks with aircraft, no matter how stone-age the policy may be. If a member of cabin crew ask us to turn off a device, whether it is connected or not, we should turn it off (I've even seen clauses in the user manual for a Gameboy saying that it should not be used during landing or takeoff). But they (cabin crew) also need to be able to recognise other forms of transmission.

What really galls me is that the Palm user in question said that as long as he was over a city, he could connect. Great! Just the place for an aircraft to come down! Not!

Safety first! Safety second! Safety third! Safety always!

I can't tell you the atmosphere in work whenever we hear of an aircraft coming down. We dread the day that an aircraft may come down after being maintained by us and Quality is the 100%, absolute, total, top dog! The thoughts of a behemoth like that, full of living, thinking people, coming down on a city, town or village should sober the most geeky mind into switching it off.

[marlof]

We cannot afford to take any risks with aircraft, no matter how stone-age the policy may be. If a member of cabin crew ask us to turn off a device, whether it is connected or not, we should turn it off (I've even seen clauses in the user manual for a Gameboy saying that it should not be used during landing or takeoff). But they (cabin crew) also need to be able to recognise other forms of transmission.

I completely agree with your argument for safety first. That's why I feel that the FAA should take a look at their rules if those would allow device A to be used and device B not, if they are similar devices. Safety first, so in case of doubt, deny access to all those devices.

But... I also feel that not only should the cabin crew be aware of other forms of transmission, they should also be aware of non-transmission. They need to learn that there are safe ways to use devices (perhaps not during take off and landing, but during flights). I can't see why a notebook might be used, and a Pocket PC not if its radio is shut off completely. Therefor I think it's good that the cabin crew learns about new devices, and learns how to check for their safety.

Still I agree with you that it's the cabin crew that should have the final say in what is to be used and what not. We're in their domain, and we could possible endanger their lives, as well as the life of others. It's their responsibility to give us a safe ride, and we should respect their decision on what to use, and what not to use, even if we don't agree.

[Brad Adrian]

My fear? That until suitable definitions and rules are created, the prevailing law will be *nothing* in use during flight. Back when fears about notebook interference were just emerging, a few airlines actually banned their use altogether for awhile.

[don dre]

While I do not disagree that safety comes first. I'd like to point out that the FAA is quite feckless. The FAA is and always has been behind thetimes. Their record for safety is not one to brag about. This is an agancy that has prevented small airports form adopting their own landing systems because they feel all airports should use the same system. It doesn't seem to occur to them that mayube a system designed for a large, multi-billion dollar airport might not fit the bill for an airport for cessna's and other puddle jumpers. so these small airports still use their eyes to land planes. That isn't to mention that completely out of date technology they use to land out large planes. The airlines themselves shouel make it clear what can and can't be done. I am always willing to give people the benefit of the doubt that maybe they hadn't realized that they were interfering with communications before beating them into a pulp in a self-righteous fit of anger. At any rate, I agree with Marlof Bregonje that the cabin crews shoudl determine what can and can't beused. Just as they are the first line of defense in a terrorist situation and should be trained as such.

[DavidHorn]

Personally, though I've never used a phone on a plane, and don't intend to in the future, I think that the matter is being exaggerated a little bit. I can't see how a mobile phone on board a plane is any more likely to affect the computer systems than the signals being transmitted from a mobile phone mast... they must be at least as powerful, if not more.

I have to confess that I'm not completely guilt free.... I once forgot to switch off my phone and it rang as the plane was accelerating down the runway for take-off. Fortunately, non of the flight crew heard it.

[jmulder]

Coicidentally, I just read yesterday (I can't find the article today, but I think it was on CNet) that Sprint is going to be developing (or buying) phones that have an 'airplane' mode where the radio portion of the phone is shut down. This would allow the user to work with downloaded apps on their phones without causing interference.

With this in mind, I think everybody here has the right attitude: The FAA needs to reassess the reasons why a device can or cannot be used (rather than the type of device), and more importantly, the cockpit crew is in charge, regardless of their knowledge of these convergent devices--and the flight attendants are their deputies. (I just hate it when some blowhard gets all bent out of shape when a flight attendant asks him to turn off his phone, return seat to upright position, etc...)

-Jim

[jerrytroll]

Guess this makes the FAA and flight attendants like most Circuit City and Best Buy salepeople...clueless about these devices :D , I honestly feel that more than just flight attendants need education on these devices and their capabilities.

Also, I think that the convergence of devices will only lead to more public issues. As it is, many people complain about cellular phones these days because they're everywhere, and no matter where you go people are calling folks or whatever else. I mean, how long until you have to yell at the guy in front of you in the movie theatre because the light from his XDA is distracting you? :)

[wrevans]

Guess this makes the FAA and flight attendants like most Circuit City and Best Buy salepeople...clueless about these devices

The FAA will most likely band all PDAs, they will say it's too hard to tell if one has wireless support or not.

[David C]

If you are flying your own airplane, you can use what ever phone, pda, radio device you want. See, the thing is, ban on radio device is only a precaution kind of rule. Truth is, radio wave is all around us. They just don't want it to be a safty concern.

[marlof]

I mean, how long until you have to yell at the guy in front of you in the movie theatre because the light from his XDA is distracting you? :)

I've been to movies with my girlfriend where I wouldn't have minded watching another movie on my Pocket PC....

[Lotak]

My understanding of the issue is that while there are some possible issues with interference with the aircraft itself, the main issue with cell usage on planes is with the cellular network on the ground. At high altitudes, a phone can access multiple points on a network simultaneously, and cause problems that way, including cutting in on other people's calls and otherwise interrupting service for other people. Those built-in phones on planes are essentially cellular phones that all use one big antenna mounted on the plane itself.

I know that I'll be one unhappy customer if I'm not allowed to use my Pocket PCs during flights. I read ebooks and listen to mp3s the whole time (except takeoff and landing of course) and I can't imagine having to go out and buy a new paperback book and dig out my crusty ancient Discman every time I fly...

[DrtyBlvd]

Catching trains in the UK, especially to and fro the capital on 'peak' trains, is a nightmare

Ring Ring.
Ring Ring.
Ring Ring.

Followed by a conversation that is usually prefixed by the question 'where are you' because the first thing anyone seems to say is "On the train". Why on earth do people want to know where you are just because they have rung a mobile? And I'm not talking about 'the boss' or whoever trying to find you, most everyone seems to want to know! Or at the very least, it seems de rigeur for the recepient to have to inform the caller where they are.

If MOSSAD and Counter surveillance stores can have phone jammers, why can't planes and trains? They retail for around the $400 mark - and I have been sorely tempted to carry one with me wherever I go - it would be so nice to get back to the peace and quiet that used to exist...is there a technical reason d'you think?

[jerrytroll]

If MOSSAD and Counter surveillance stores can have phone jammers, why can't planes and trains? They retail for around the $400 mark - and I have been sorely tempted to carry one with me wherever I go - it would be so nice to get back to the peace and quiet that used to exist...is there a technical reason d'you think?

Because said jammers work by emitting MORE radio waves, and I'm sure the last thing the FAA wants is to have aircraft using more, higher power radio waves to counteract the ones they want to prevent in the first place

[Carlos]

Ironically, I read this on an MD-80 somewhere over Houston...

Lotak was the only one with a correct answer. This is far more of an issue that affects the cell system, rather than the planes. In all studies done on the issue, not once has cell phone interference with avionics ever been found. With today's 1900MHz phones that emit 1/3 the power, interference would be even less likely (from no problem to even less of a problem?).

I've been a business flier for about 18 years. I used to use 5-watt 800MHz trunking phones on planes all the time, and later the analog cell phones. Then one day a stewardess told me I couldn't use it for the first time. Huh? Why hadn't I been bringing down planes all this time? The rules changed along the way but without any reason.

I've been using 802.11 on planes for a year, and lately, Bluetooth. Boeing themselves has 802.11 running as a test on a number of planes, and the comm systems are not specially modified. I'm a criminal. Maybe. Nobody really knows.

I leave the PPC on all the time, playing music. Another crime. And I leave the noise-cancelling headphones on. Today the stewardess bitched at me for using the PPC while we were taxiing, but I was just silencing a reminder. She said, "Turn it off completely so reminders can't turn it on." I tried to explain to her that it can't be done. That Palm and PPC devices are always on, so all you can really do is shut off the screen and put them into a low-power sleep mode. She didn't get it. I'm surprised I didn't get pulled off the plane.

On today's trip I was told yet one more stupid thing by another stewardess. I mean, these are just glorified cocktail waitresses, of course they're going to come up with BS to make it look like they're doing something more than getting me a drink and a pillow. She told me to remove at least one headphone for takeoff and landing, in case there was an evacuation so I could hear it. You know, if the plane shuddered to a sudden halt, the lights went out, and people started running madly I'd probably catch the hint rather quickly. It was even funnier because I was in the exit row. I'd probably notice people running towards me.

All of the airport security (a useless farce) and the rules on the plane are just about power and control. Losers who got pushed around in school grew up to be bureaucrats and are getting their revenge now. Safety is just the excuse to control us.

[jerrytroll]

Wired has a few articles about cell phones and aircraft. Here is one of them: http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,41177,00.html

[Steven Cedrone]

She told me to remove at least one headphone for takeoff and landing, in case there was an evacuation so I could hear it. You know, if the plane shuddered to a sudden halt, the lights went out, and people started running madly I'd probably catch the hint rather quickly. It was even funnier because I was in the exit row. I'd probably notice people running towards me.

I won't touch some of your other comments......

This didn't make sense until you stated that you were in the "exit row". The airline industry is starting to change the way they brief and train the passengers that fly in these rows. It does not seem unreasonable to have you stop playing music (or whatever you were doing) and pay attention to what was going on during takeoff and landing. BTW, did you understand how to open the exit and assist the passengers if there was an emergency?

Just curious....

Steve

[Carlos]

I've actually had to operate the exit door twice (one training drill, one real emergency), not exactly a challenge. Pull the big red handle that says "PULL" on it... The slide is no fun. Talk about rug-burn!

She actually didn't say anything about the exit, and the briefing was already over. Her exact words were, "If we have to evacuate we want you to come with us." She said this with a smile and a laugh. I told her the music was off, she just didn't want me to be obscured from noise. I guess deaf people would just die. I nearly always fly in the exit row or in first class; this is the first time anything was said, and on my other flights nothing was said about my headphones. I put it down to another cocktail waitress trying to be important.