Using Wireless Devices On Airplanes

[Janak Parekh]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.newsonline.nu/release.asp?PmId=25315&ComId=202' target='_blank'>http://www.newsonline.nu/release.as...25315&ComId=202</a><br /><br /></div>One of the biggest problems with Smartphones, Pocket PC Phones, and similar devices is the blanket "no-phone-ish-thingy" rule on most airlines, even if the device clearly says that the phone module is off. This is only going to get worse, not better, considering all mobile electronics of various sizes are integrating both general-purpose computing and wireless technologies together. In fact, one of my pet peeves is that the above is stringently followed, while at the same time the person next to you is probably using a laptop with built-in WiFi that's scanning for an access point but the user (or the airlines) don't know it. :evil: Have you guys had negative experiences like this?<br /><br />In any case, there's positive news by at least one carrier, SAS:<br /><br />"Scandinavian Airlines will be the first airline to allow the use of some mobile phone functions during flight. In the so-called flight-safe mode, the mobile phone is switched on without sending or receiving signals and won’t therefore affect flight security. It is the latest mobile phones, such as the Sony Ericsson P800, which have this flight-safe mode. With this, the traveler on board a SAS flight can use a mobile phone to update his or her diary, write e-mail and take notes, edit documents, play games, listen to music and even take photos with a built-in camera – everything except make a phone call."<br /><br />It's about time, I say! Of course, I'm skeptical any of the US airlines will adopt it, and will continue to ignore the WiFi and other built-in features while freaking out over exposed antennas. :roll: (BTW, I now see why the internal antenna and removable keypad on the P800 are so useful... you can turn it into a non-phone-looking device. :))

[Fzara]

But do you expect any airline attendant to suspect the difference from the P800 and say, any other cell-phone model?

Every three montsh, new cellphones are unveiled; no way in heck airline attendants could keep track of them.

Besides, with the budget defciancies of the airline industry, I doubt a program like this would ever take off.

[seanturner]

I just flew back from LA and I realized after landing that I had my cellphone on the entire time and I'm still here to post about it...

[DaleReeck]

"Flight safe mode"? Since most of the PDA-phones can turn off the phone independent of the PDA (like my Treo 300), this seems like a rather non-event.

[Daimaou]

Well nothing is clear, every airliners are doing almost whatever they want. In some case they completly forbid every electronic devices, like air europa (spanish firm), some will allow only PC without a CD/DVD drive, and some don't care because they implement wifi onboard, I think it is the luft, but itnis really time for them to make it clear, as well as they all provide a std way to charge PC/PDA, coz even if I got 6h of battery on my laptop, a Tokyo London is 11h, and sometimes I am short of battery.

By the way 90£ the charger for a PC/PDA in BA and wich only work in their 1st, Biz and Plus seat and in their plane, that F... expensive,

[gorkon280]

My favorite thing is when they tell you FAA Regs tell us that...blah blah blah......

Most of the rules that airlines make are bunk and are not FAA Rules. Otherwise, how can one airline rules be different than another? EVEN in the same country? One example I noticed recently is that they forbid the use of Personal GPS devices (they work so long as you hold them up to the window). Um, it's NOT transmitting...it's RECEIVING! IN fact, most commercial planes even have the same thing (only much better) integrated into their avionics suite. There's practically no way that this will cause an issue with the plane. The rules they make are just fear mongering rules that make no sense. Have they actually DONE scientific studies to see if prohibited devices cause interference? I think the real reason airlines allow no GPS devices is because they are afraid that the passengers will panic if we see the plane making large drops in altitude! 8O

I mean I can see no laptops during takeoff and landing (and not because of interference.....both of these can be rough and I'd hate to have a laptop smack me in the face during turbulance on landing/takeoff....), but CD players? MP3 Players? Some of these don't even have RF recievers in them let alone transmitters. If your going to prohibit something, SHOW ME PROOF! The only reason cigarettes were banned on the flights is because of fear mongering again. But at least there IS some proof of second hand smoke creating a cancer risk. Not to mention the fact that if you have more then one or two smokers on the flight you'd have a rough time filtering the smoke! :) I am tired of people banning things without much thought or scientifiic evidence!

[Daimaou]

I mean I can see no laptops during takeoff and landing (and not because of interference.....both of these can be rough and I'd hate to have a laptop smack me in the face during turbulance on landing/takeoff....), but CD players? MP3 Players? Some of these don't even have RF recievers in them let alone transmitters. If your going to prohibit something, SHOW ME PROOF! The only reason cigarettes were banned on the flights is because of fear mongering again. But at least there IS some proof of second hand smoke creating a cancer risk. Not to mention the fact that if you have more then one or two smokers on the flight you'd have a rough time filtering the smoke! :) I am tired of people banning things without much thought or scientifiic evidence!

I am not totaly agree with you on 2 points
-CD player, I don't have a CPL, but working on my PPL (FAA/JAR) but my co workers are CPL (757, 747 qualified) and they do tell me that the engine of the CD player (DVD as well) are emiting "noise" on the radio system
-Smoking, will be cost effecting on plane, need to change more often the seats and need to clean more often the air conditing system. Also it will burn more oxygen. And well that Stink !

[griph]

One of the biggest problems with Smartphones, Pocket PC Phones, and similar devices is the blanket "no-phone-ish-thingy" rule on most airlines, even if the device clearly says that the phone module is off.

I have an O2 XDA and have never had any problems on regular European flights - RyanAir, Easyjet, Olympic, BA when using it (when the seat belt signs are off - of course).

Oddly enough, on an Easyjet flight I was once asked to stop reading a (paperback) book as the plane prepared for takeoff! The flight attendant was not able to say why - just that I had to stop! Bizarre!

I have been on several planes where we have actually been taking off or landing with someones mobile phone ringing in the overhead luggage racks! No problems with the flight!

[jimski]

[quote="

I mean I can see no laptops during takeoff and landing (and not because of interference.....both of these can be rough and I'd hate to have a laptop smack me in the face during turbulance on landing/takeoff....), but CD players? MP3 Players? Some of these don't even have RF recievers in them let alone transmitters. If your going to prohibit something, SHOW ME PROOF! I am tired of people banning things without much thought or scientifiic evidence![/quote]

While there may be some interference from these devices, I think the airlines just want your undivided attention. That's why they also insist that window shades be in the up position during takeoff and landing. With our sue happy society (at least in the U.S.), should there be a "real" emergency, flight attendants would want to be sure that they could manage the cabin without distractions.

Regarding Smartphone use in flight, I used my Kyocera 6035 for more than a year (about 60-70 domestic flights per year) and althought I did have a few flight attendants question my device, once I convinced them that the phone functions were disabled, they did not questions it's use.

But this subject does bring up another good reason for two devices :) (Bluetooth enabled cell phone and PPC).

[griph]

The only reason cigarettes were banned on the flights is because of fear mongering again. But at least there IS some proof of second hand smoke creating a cancer risk. Not to mention the fact that if you have more then one or two smokers on the flight you'd have a rough time filtering the smoke!

I would have thought a good justification for banning smoking is the potential fire risk, in addition to the unpleasant atmosphere for fellow travellers, along with increased wear and tear on aircraft furnishings (cigarette burns, staining etc).

Getting back to topic though, the airlines are not required to provide proof - and in the current mood following several air rage cases, I wouldn't want to push it if a flight attendant told me to stop using a piece of electronic equipment. I can do without it - If I have to! :-)

[hollis_f]

I think the real reason airlines allow no GPS devices is because they are afraid that the passengers will panic if we see the plane making large drops in altitude! Actually quite a few airlines have no problem with a GPS device. I've often used my Garmin with an external antenna held next to the window.

[hollis_f]

The only reason cigarettes were banned on the flights is because of fear mongering again.Don't forget - it also saves the airline quite a bit of cash. That's because they don't have to filter the air so effectively and can recirculate it many, many more times. Of course, both these practices make transmission of infective agents more likely. So one contributing factor to SARS is the fact that they';ve banned smoking on planes :devilboy:

[DavidHorn]

Look, wireless things don't affect anything to do with the plane's electronics and navigation. I mean, I was told not to use my phone on the ground in case it affected the aircrafts navigation systems. I mean, for God's sake, do they need the radar to find the end of the runway?

Secondly, half the time the flight attendants don't know what's going on anyway. The last flight I was on my had a wireless Quake 3 game on my laptop with another passenger. So, instead of a mobile phone, I had two powerful 801.22g cards blasting out their signal. And yes, the plane didn't fall out of the sky or miss the runway.

[Ramjet]

Here is an interesting article that discusses mobile phones & laptop usage on planes. Its from the Flight Safety Auslia magazine.

http://www.casa.gov.au/avreg/fsa/download/01jul/58.pdf

[Janak Parekh]

Secondly, half the time the flight attendants don't know what's going on anyway. The last flight I was on my had a wireless Quake 3 game on my laptop with another passenger. So, instead of a mobile phone, I had two powerful 801.22g cards blasting out their signal. And yes, the plane didn't fall out of the sky or miss the runway.
Perhaps, but I'm not a big fan of it. 2.4GHz devices can certainly cause interference -- my cordless phone and the WiFi network at home sometimes get in each others' way. Certainly more so than a cellular phone, which emits much lower-power signals. I agree with you attendants are clueless about it -- and it's not clear how to clue them in.

My big problem is, and I think I agree with a number of people here, their policy is highly arbitrary and doesn't accomplish anything. I've heard various pilots say there are noticeable effects on their instruments. If so, I think the only real solution is better RF shielding around the passenger cabin. As an increasing number of devices become wireless, there'll be no other way.

--janak

[topps]

... along with increased wear and tear on aircraft furnishings (cigarette burns, staining etc).


and there you have the nub - this is why they banned smoking - because it saves them money. They don't really care about health matters - if it were to cut into profits, they would allow smoking. Yes, it increases the fire risk but if it were by much then smoking would have been banned long ago.

It's like the situation with hotel towels. Brilliantly marketed idea - save the environment from soap polllutants etc. All true but the real reason that they want to do this and why it took off so well is that it saves them so much money in laundry bills. In this particular case, I am happy that there is a synergy between saving money for them and helping our environment. But don't let's kid ourselves that they are really doing this for the environment.

[topps]

2.4GHz devices can certainly cause interference -- my cordless phone and the WiFi network at home sometimes get in each others' way. Certainly more so than a cellular phone, which emits much lower-power signals. I agree with you attendants are clueless about it -- and it's not clear how to clue them in.

My big problem is, and I think I agree with a number of people here, their policy is highly arbitrary and doesn't accomplish anything. I've heard various pilots say there are noticeable effects on their instruments. If so, I think the only real solution is better RF shielding around the passenger cabin. As an increasing number of devices become wireless, there'll be no other way.

--janak

Better shielding is not the answer. Too much weight. As many have pointed out, this is largely myth and misinformation - the fear that something might happen. No evidence to back it up - just some suspected cases that FAA and similar orgs have mentioned that interference might have been part of the picture but have been unable to reproduce.

Better designed equipment is the answer - we now live in a world of increasing RF penetration but radio waves do happily pass through one another without affecting each other - this is NOT the same physical phenomenon as wave interference in a pool of water - overly simplistic thinking that has dominated the airwaves for the past century. This myth is propagated by the broadcasting companies who own bandwidth, have paid large chunks of cash for their slice etc.

Interference with RF is a property of the receiving equipment. Old simply designed analog receivers do have trouble discriminating between two close signals. But in the world of digital, this is a different situation. Receivers are designed to look for their own bits. Cell phone and other RF activity may be detectable on navigation equipment but does not have significant adverse effects.

Think of our new advanced fighters - fly by wire etc - all the control surfaces are operated by computer. The aerodynamics of these new craft are designed to create inherent instability because this translates into increased manoeuvrability. The only thing that keeps them in the air is continous adjustments, very very quickly, from the onboard computers. Now, imagine if a bit of RF interference could affect these signals - hmmm, nice little trick that Osama could pull - simply beam some strong RF at them and they would fall out of the sky.

If they were to pack a whole bunch of extra shielding, they would be too heavy and easier to spot on radar. So the engineers build in some smarts so that these control surfaces only respond to the right messages. This is not rocket science...oh,er,...I guess it is...well you know what I mean.

[Evee Ev]

griph,

that was so funny about the flight attendant telling you not to read your paperback book! lol!!! :D

[Janak Parekh]

Better designed equipment is the answer - we now live in a world of increasing RF penetration but radio waves do happily pass through one another without affecting each other - this is NOT the same physical phenomenon as wave interference in a pool of water - overly simplistic thinking that has dominated the airwaves for the past century. This myth is propagated by the broadcasting companies who own bandwidth, have paid large chunks of cash for their slice etc.
Ah, good point. Digital is indeed one of our saviors, and we have to utilize it better. The problem is that the airline industry can't afford to revamp all of their existing old equipment. And yet, they have to. Not a good time to be an airline carrier, I have to say...

--janak

[thomas1973]

These strict guidelines for using electronic equipment on planes has been annoying me for a long time! Tests trying to reproduce this interference have come out empty handed, and rightly so: I mean, I would really be scared of flying, if my CD player could bring my plane to the ground!

And just think about how widespread radio senders and electronic equipment are! Close to any airport, there might be several powerful GSM phone masts, and thousands of mobile phones (although not in such a close proximity as onboard phones), and a big mesh of radiowaves on different frequencies flying through the air.

It must be said that these restrictions are also put up largly because the public, with their overanxious feelings towards flying, demands neurotic safety rules. There were a few newspaper articles about cell phones and how they might have interfered with plane instruments back when cellphones became popular, and bam! cellphones banned on planes. All the aircraft carriers wanted to show how 'responsible' they were. Then the banning of computers and CD players and all that, followed suit. Now they're slacking the rules again, at least between take off and landing.

I've had my cellphone accidently turned on during entire flights, too , and of course we didn't crash. I hope they soon remove these rules, as they are just annoying to most passengers, and not rooted in reality.


Thomas.

[Fitch]

I think the real reason airlines allow no GPS devices is because they are afraid that the passengers will panic if we see the plane making large drops in altitude! Actually quite a few airlines have no problem with a GPS device. I've often used my Garmin with an external antenna held next to the window.
Southwest Airlines let me use my Garmin GPS, and then I get on an American Airlines flight, and the stewardess asked me to turn it off. I said, "oh, sorry, I was allowed to use it on a Southwest flight, but I guess you guys don't let is?" meanwhile she's LEFT to ask the captain, and then comes back (after I've put it away) "yes, the captain said that you are not to use that."
Dude, she went and TOLD on me!

[R K]

Perhaps, but I'm not a big fan of it. 2.4GHz devices can certainly cause interference -- my cordless phone and the WiFi network at home sometimes get in each others' way. Certainly more so than a cellular phone, which emits much lower-power signals. I agree with you attendants are clueless about it -- and it's not clear how to clue them in.

Your cordless phone and wireless network probably interfere because they're both on the 2.4GHz frequency, correct?
I think radio waves on different frequency, especially on digital equipment as mentioned before, shouldn't interfere with each other.
I thought one of the whole points of regulated radio spectrum licensing was to eliminate interference between military, government, and consumer radio devices.

[R K]

Hmm... it seems that a lot more people are peeved about this than I thought would be.

I took the time to get a few links for contacting the airlines so we can tell them how we feel. If we're really annoyed at this, we should start letting our voice be heard.


American Airlines (http://www.aa.com/apps/utility/contactAA/ContactAAHome.jhtml?fileName=aaCustomerRelations.jhtml)

America West Airlines (http://www.americawest.com/contact/ct_email.htm)

Soutwest Airlines (http://www.iflyswa.com/about_swa/luvbook.html)

United Airlines (http://www.ual.com/page/middlepage/0,1454,1277,00.html)

[Janak Parekh]

Your cordless phone and wireless network probably interfere because they're both on the 2.4GHz frequency, correct?
I think radio waves on different frequency, especially on digital equipment as mentioned before, shouldn't interfere with each other.
Correct; I think the thinking is that old analog equipment is more susceptible to errors. But now we go out of my area, and I'll defer to others' experience on this issue. ;)

--janak

[thomas1973]

The only reason cigarettes were banned on the flights is because of fear mongering again.Don't forget - it also saves the airline quite a bit of cash. That's because they don't have to filter the air so effectively and can recirculate it many, many more times. Of course, both these practices make transmission of infective agents more likely. So one contributing factor to SARS is the fact that they';ve banned smoking on planes :devilboy:
Actually, normal air filtering won't stop virus or bacteria, so it is in fact increased air circulation that spreads disease (think 'Outbreak' :wink: )

Thomas.

[Jonathan1]

I said it last time this subject was brought up and I will say it again. Most of the complaints here pertain to luxuries. Forget the argument for a second that the FAA\Airline Ind is overreacting. Do you NEED to play your CD player on takeoff and landings? Do you NEED WIFI on the plane. Do you NEED your dang cell phone. Etc etc etc. I think people have gotten way too spoiled on what they can and can’t do on an airplane. For a second keep in mind that this isn’t your property. The only thing provided with that $300+ plane ticket is transporting your butt from A to B and that’s it. Everything else is a perk. The airlines can ban all electronic devices if they want. It’s their right. No one has some inherent right to play quake wirelessly on a plane, or make calls.

Also while its not a popular opinion I still stand by my view “better safe then sorry” Until some serious testing is done on the effects of transmission signals in the ranges that WIFI, cell phones, and Bluetooth all use I agree with the FAA, the airline industries or whoever is making these rules that caution is warranted. The loss of life (Which before anything dealing with $$$ is the most important.) aside can you imagine the multi billion dollar lawsuit from the passengers families if it was found that a WIFI device brought down a plane when it was trying to land. IMHO, of course, I consider it prudent caution.
People here are spouting off info as if they work in the airline industry. (Heck it’s a pretty good bet some here do.) You know something about wireless. That’s great, but is also only half of the equation. Unless you KNOW with a 100% certainty how the internal components of that 747 react with the afore mentioned devices I would suggest that you can’t speak intelligently on the subject. Can anyone here tell me what components of the plane are shielded? Are there any? Which ones aren’t? Which specific components in the plane are susceptible to interference? What kind of interference are they susceptible to? To what extent? And what would the consequences be of interferences with those components?

The SmartPhone PPC Phone Edition thing is another matter. A steward or stewardess shouldn’t need to keep on top of the latest technologies. For god sake their primary purpose is to shell out the drinks, peanuts, pillows, and do their little speech at the beginning of the flight. I can fully understand their overreaction. Think about it a second. This board comprises, for the most part, techno geeks. We know how to turn on and off the various components on our systems blindfolded. What about the average user? They walk onto a plane and start dinking with their SmartPhone or Pocket PC: PE do you think they know what they are doing? You can’t tell from just looking at the device if it’s transmitting a signal or not so they do a blanket cover for all devices. It’s the whole one person spoils it for everyone type thing.

I think people bring up totally legit and valid point here but for a second try to see it from the airlines standpoint.
*X-Files music plays in the background*
They aren’t sitting in a back room trying to think up ways to keep you from enjoying your trip. They are doing what they think is best for your safety even if you don’t see it as such. And as a final personal note I’d rather have an industry be overly sensitive to a _potential_ safety issue then ignoring it altogether until it bit someone in the butt. Just wish more industries were like that. :?

*shrugs* Just trying to play devils advocate. :devilboy:

[bbarker]

But this subject does bring up another good reason for two devices :) (Bluetooth enabled cell phone and PPC).
Good point.

[dlauri]

Most of the complaints here pertain to luxuries. ... The only thing provided with that $300+ plane ticket is transporting your butt from A to B and that’s it. Everything else is a perk. The airlines can ban all electronic devices if they want. It’s their right. No one has some inherent right to play quake wirelessly on a plane, or make calls.


Couple things about this:

Flying itself is a luxury and not a right. Witness those people banned from flights not because they've been found guilty of terrorism but because they're on a federal no fly list. (Innocent until proven guilty doesn't seem to apply to flying.)

The airlines certainly have the right to do what they want, and we have the right not to buy tickets from airlines who do things we don't like. However, I think it's a shame that airlines don't see us as customers who they'd like to please. They figure they don't have to please us and perhaps that's part of why the airline industry is in such bad shape.

I guess I can understand your better safe than sorry perspective. I just think if cell phones were really that dangerous they'd have been screening luggage for them and making absolutely certain that none were left on accidentally. Since they don't do that, common sense tells me that a cell phone left on is not going to cause an airplane to crash.

[Busdriver]

Here is the FAA regulation:

Sec. 121.306 Portable electronic devices.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may
operate, nor may any operator or pilot in command of an aircraft allow the
operation of, any portable electronic device on any U.S.-registered civil
aircraft operating under this part.
(b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to--
(1) Portable voice recorders;
(2) Hearing aids;
(3) Heart pacemakers;
(4) Electric shavers; or
(5) Any other portable electronic device that the part 119 certificate
holder has determined will not cause interference with the navigation or
communication system of the aircraft on which it is to be used.
(c) The determination required by paragraph (b)(5) of this section shall be
made by that part 119 certificate holder operating the particular device to
be used.

[Amdt. 121-270, 64 FR 1080, Jan. 7, 1999; 64 FR 7066, Feb. 12, 1999]

[AKBishop]

Here is the FAA regulation:
(5) Any other portable electronic device that the part 119 certificate
holder has determined will not cause interference with the navigation or
communication system of the aircraft on which it is to be used.


Now at least I know what the N119 on my iPAQ and other electronic devices is for.

[DaleReeck]

The only reason cigarettes were banned on the flights is because of fear mongering again. But at least there IS some proof of second hand smoke creating a cancer risk. Not to mention the fact that if you have more then one or two smokers on the flight you'd have a rough time filtering the smoke!

I would have thought a good justification for banning smoking is the potential fire risk, in addition to the unpleasant atmosphere for fellow travellers, along with increased wear and tear on aircraft furnishings (cigarette burns, staining etc).

Getting back to topic though, the airlines are not required to provide proof - and in the current mood following several air rage cases, I wouldn't want to push it if a flight attendant told me to stop using a piece of electronic equipment. I can do without it - If I have to! :-)

Yes, having an option flame in an enclosed space surrounded byu thousands of gallons of aviaton fuel is usually not a desirable thing ;)

[griph]

and there you have the nub - this is why they banned smoking - because it saves them money. They don't really care about health matters - if it were to cut into profits, they would allow smoking. Yes, it increases the fire risk but if it were by much then smoking would have been banned long ago.

Personally I think it is a combination of issues:
Non-smokers don't like being in a small enclosed environment with smokers. As the majority are non-smokers - its a reasonable issue to promote
Increased wear and tear on a fleet of aircraft can be a serious cost that would probably get passed onto higher fares.
Having butane lighters, matches and other similar heat sources is a risk - actually using them is another. I have no idea whether the upholstery would burn - but why take the risk.

[CTSLICK]

Here is the FAA regulation:

Sec. 121.306 Portable electronic devices.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person may
operate, nor may any operator or pilot in command of an aircraft allow the
operation of, any portable electronic device on any U.S.-registered civil
aircraft operating under this part.
(b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to--
(1) Portable voice recorders;
(2) Hearing aids;
(3) Heart pacemakers;
(4) Electric shavers; or
(5) Any other portable electronic device that the part 119 certificate
holder has determined will not cause interference with the navigation or
communication system of the aircraft on which it is to be used.
(c) The determination required by paragraph (b)(5) of this section shall be
made by that part 119 certificate holder operating the particular device to
be used.

[Amdt. 121-270, 64 FR 1080, Jan. 7, 1999; 64 FR 7066, Feb. 12, 1999]

So the question is why has the FAA gone to this extreme? The answer is because they simply don’t know the effect of every different device in every different aircraft. The lack of concerted studies to figure it out is disheartening but then again who should bear the cost of this testing…airline?, FAA?, device manufacturer? Having been with an airline that worked to get a laptop certified for use in the cockpit during all phases of flight I can tell you the effort is high as are the dollars. engineering, ground testing, flight testing…ouch!

Sadly all we have is the anecdotal evidence presented by pilots who have watched erroneous flight path readings or radio interference disappear after having one passenger turn off a device of some sort. To balance against that we have scientific studies done on some (not all) devices related to some (not all) aircraft and theories based on scientific principal and calculations.

So I guess I can almost agree with the majority of folks here. I would be willing to bet that 99%+ of devices don’t interfere with 99%+ of the aircraft out there. But that’s simply not good enough for me. I am well aware of the number of things that need to go right for an aircraft to get you safely from point A to point B. I don’t feel the need to introduce a new variable into that equation. For now, until someone can tell me unequivocally that my PDA, laptop, CD Player, cell phone etc will not interfere with the operation of the aircraft I will comply with the regs as stated. The price of assuming every device is ok to use on an aircraft and being wrong is simply too high.

Well, there you have it...let the flames commence. :roll:

[CTSLICK]

...I have no idea whether the upholstery would burn - but why take the risk.

Fabric on the aircraft is treated to be "flame retardant" and must meet specific burn certification standards. But it will burn given a good persistant heat source.

[Chris Edwards]

Here are a few ideas:

"Why can't I listen to music on my CD player unless the seatbelt sign is turned off?"

I remember one flight attendant telling me that it isn't the interference-- it's that they need to be able to have everyone's attention during take-off and landing in case something were to go wrong. After hearing this, on future flights I decided to wear my headphones with one side on my ear, and the other off my ear... I haven't been hassled to turn off my music since. (I would still be able to hear the flight attendant in the case of an emergency)

"Why can't I use my cell phone in the air?"

As most of us have agreed here, the idea of cell phones causing interference has little or no merit. I'd have to guess that this rule is in place to protect the wireless carriers. When you're in the air, you have line of sight to a lot of cell towers. Any given cell tower can only offer so many connections. When you're in the air, because of your speed, you're roaming between many different towers at an extremely fast rate. Imagine if 20 other people on the plane had their phones on as well... You'd have 20 people jumping from tower to tower, taking up connections that should be available to people on the ground.

Also, they want you to use their phones for $5/minute :).

[R K]

Jonathan and CTSLICK, you guys provide excellent points.

I really don't think you can say that the airlines aren't doing anything to make the flight experience more comfortable. After all, refreshments aren't a requirement either.

[Busdriver]

[/quote]So the question is why has the FAA gone to this extreme? The answer is because they simply don’t know the effect of every different device in every different aircraft....... [quote]

Couldn't agree more. BTW, we use laptops in flight for various performance calculations, didn't think many airlines did that.

Not having to much luck with quotes tonight

[gorkon280]

Most of the complaints here pertain to luxuries. ... The only thing provided with that $300+ plane ticket is transporting your butt from A to B and that’s it. Everything else is a perk. The airlines can ban all electronic devices if they want. It’s their right. No one has some inherent right to play quake wirelessly on a plane, or make calls.


Couple things about this:

Flying itself is a luxury and not a right. Witness those people banned from flights not because they've been found guilty of terrorism but because they're on a federal no fly list. (Innocent until proven guilty doesn't seem to apply to flying.)

The airlines certainly have the right to do what they want, and we have the right not to buy tickets from airlines who do things we don't like. However, I think it's a shame that airlines don't see us as customers who they'd like to please. They figure they don't have to please us and perhaps that's part of why the airline industry is in such bad shape.

I guess I can understand your better safe than sorry perspective. I just think if cell phones were really that dangerous they'd have been screening luggage for them and making absolutely certain that none were left on accidentally. Since they don't do that, common sense tells me that a cell phone left on is not going to cause an airplane to crash.

Could not have been better said. My main problem with the "cash strapped" airlines is that sometimes, I ain't got a choice. If I want a direct flight to Washington's Reagan National from Columbus, OH, I got to fly a ERJ-145 (smallest jet I have ever seen) with Chataqua (This is the operator...the flights used to be by America West but I think that Delta is taking their gates over). To go to Phoenix, AZ it's America West. To go to Dallas it's American. See my point? Sometimes you have to go to inhuman efforts to avoid a sucky airline because sometimes you have no choice. If you want to get to point a as quickly as possible, then your stuck with the airline that goes there the most often and flys directly there. Also, the FAA reg(as posted here) is REALLY vague and leaves too damn much room for the Airlines to allow/disallow things and YOU know as well as I that they do not have the cash to test these things.

[Busdriver]

....smallest jet I have ever seen......

And your point is......???? :wink:

[CTSLICK]

So the question is why has the FAA gone to this extreme? The answer is because they simply don’t know the effect of every different device in every different aircraft.......

Couldn't agree more. BTW, we use laptops in flight for various performance calculations, didn't think many airlines did that.

Not having to much luck with quotes tonight

Yeah, we were using them for perf. calcs too. Mostly weight and balance and take off settings. If I remember right we never did get permission to plug them into a power source during flight. We could never convince the FAA that we had enough safety factors built into the charging system.

[dlauri]

This pilot writes a column on salon.com and his latest column isn't about the luxuries of cell phone/laptop usage on planes but he does make a point about "if it makes flying safer" that jives with me. The column is at http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2003/04/25/askthepilot38/index.html

[Jason Dunn]

This all seems much ado about nothing. Until airlines can offer me WiFi Internet access from a plane, why the heck would I need to be able to use WiFi, Bluetooth, or anything else wireless for that matter? The example of playing Quake 3 over WiFi is cool, but talk about a rare example!

Now mobile phones, that's a different story - no one wants to use those $5 a minute phones, and I can understand people wanting to stay in touch. That said, I do sort of wonder why people can't "unplug" for a few hours now and then. I think we're addicted to communication a little TOO much sometimes.

I'd be happy if I could just get an AC adaptor plug to plug my damn laptop in! It amazes me that even on 8 hour cross-Atlantic flights there wasn't a SINGLE power plug on the plane I was on! That totally drives me insane...

[disconnected]

The only thing that might make it more inconvenient than much ado about nothing is that as more and more devices (laptops, PDAs, or whatever) come with various types of built-in wireless, airlines might just outlaw the use of all electronic devices during the whole flight because cabin attendants will be unable to tell which devices have wireless capability turned on.

As most people now have cell phones, a certain percentage of them are inevitably left on during flight, either accidentally or on purpose. I've never seen cabin attendants going through anyone's pocket to check that their phone was turned off, so they can't really think the phones are dangerous. If they did, they'd check for them while they're checking for knives or any other dangerous item before you get on the plane; business people might not stand for actually having their phones confiscated, but I guess the airlines could require them to be turned off and put in checked luggage, rather than carried on board.

[FredMurphy]

According to The Register (http://theregister.co.uk/content/69/30482.html) it seems that one airline is intending to issue WiFi connected PDAs to their flight attendants.

My opinion on all this...

I can't believe any cunsumer electronic devices could significantly interfere with a plane. If they did I wouldn't want to fly and Al Qaeda would be stocking up on iPAQs.

If I'm asked not to use certain devices at certain times I've go no problem going along with that. I don't need to use my phone or WiFi or GPS in flight.

I think the real reasons they don't want people using mobile phones on a plane are:
* It's annoying for other passengers.
* They can charge you for their phone service.
* The carriers can't cope with phones moving at aircraft speeds between cells