FAA to Reevaluate Inflight Electronic Device Use

CommanderFrank

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,399
The FAA is forming a group to study the use of electronic devices on commercial airlines. The guidelines presently being used are outdated since both the avionics and the portable electrical devices have changed considerably.

The FAA says this group will look at a variety of issues, including the testing methods aircraft operators use to determine which new technologies passengers can safely use aboard aircraft and when they can use them
Click to expand...
 
FAA is far too anal.

Its a culture thing with them, where they often ban things because it hasn't been proven that it is safe, rather than banning things because they have a legitimate reason or even a hint that even the slightest problem has ever occured.

It should be obvious by now that picking up your iPhone is not going to send the aircraft plummeting thirty thousand feet.
 
Ducman69 said:
FAA is far too anal.

Its a culture thing with them, where they often ban things because it hasn't been proven that it is safe, rather than banning things because they have a legitimate reason or even a hint that even the slightest problem has ever occured.

It should be obvious by now that picking up your iPhone is not going to send the aircraft plummeting thirty thousand feet.
Click to expand...

On the other hand, if there should be an organization that's paranoid, it should be the FAA. They're responsible for making sure 300 people don't come plummeting to the earth.
 
Ducman69 said:
FAA is far too anal.

Its a culture thing with them, where they often ban things because it hasn't been proven that it is safe,
Click to expand...

I think I preferr it this way for Aircraft, the impact that air disasters have on Lives and Image are far to great to allow unknown devices on aircraft that could potentially cause problems. Aircraft are vulnerable, they are only built about 1.5 times stronger than they need to be to operate.

This is one case where I agree that better safe than sorry, saying that, I to appriciate them reviewing the case

Now if we were talking about the TSA that is a different story lol
 
k1pp3r said:
I think I preferr it this way for Aircraft, the impact that air disasters have on Lives and Image are far to great to allow unknown devices on aircraft that could potentially cause problems. Aircraft are vulnerable, they are only built about 1.5 times stronger than they need to be to operate.

This is one case where I agree that better safe than sorry, saying that, I to appriciate them reviewing the case

Now if we were talking about the TSA that is a different story lol
Click to expand...

pretty much this.
 
Ducman69 said:
FAA is far too anal.

Its a culture thing with them, where they often ban things because it hasn't been proven that it is safe, rather than banning things because they have a legitimate reason or even a hint that even the slightest problem has ever occured.

It should be obvious by now that picking up your iPhone is not going to send the aircraft plummeting thirty thousand feet.
Click to expand...

I don't know. I can imagine people plummeting 30,000 feet after the passengers push them out the airlock for being rude with their cell phones.

Flying is bad enough as it is. The last thing we need is another place where people can be obnoxious with their cell phones.
 
k1pp3r said:
I think I preferr it this way for Aircraft, the impact that air disasters have on Lives and Image are far to great to allow unknown devices on aircraft that could potentially cause problems.
Click to expand...
A bit of common sense goes a long way.

You know what signals cellphones emit. You know the power that they emit them. None of the aircraft's controls are wireless. A worst case scenario might be that you would have interference on a com line with a wireless device.

If that were to occur, the pilot could simply in that extremely unlikely event ask that passengers turn off all electronic devices as a reactionary response. This would be plenty safe.

And the FAA sucks ass for general aviation. Its the reason that certified aircraft are far too expensive and use inefficient archaic designs, rather than adapting and certifying modern automotive engines for example (a near impossible task). We had a tiny crack on the spinner nose on my dad's 1940 airplane and it could be so very easily and inexpensively fixed. But FAA says you have to buy a whole new one. And even just things like regular anual maintenance basically involves taking the entire airplane apart and putting it back together. Its rediculous.

The result? Look up in the sky when you are driving home today. Tell me how many GA airplanes you see overhead. One? MAYBE two? Somehow we let fourteen year olds pilot planes around in the 60s with virtually no regulation and the world did not end.
 
Ducman69 said:
FAA is far too anal.

Its a culture thing with them, where they often ban things because it hasn't been proven that it is safe.
Click to expand...

That's the way flying works. You PROVE something is safe before you allow it or do it. They want to maintain a highly controlled environment and I can see why.

People are retards when it comes to flying, they probably don't know much about aviation to start with and then you throw on things like extreme tiredness and lack of focus from travel, language barriers and the selfish/self entitled attitude of passengers and I totally understand why they want to maintain as controlled an environment as possible.
 
This might be sparked because lets be honest... Will a plane full of say 300 people actually listen and do what they are told in turning off electronic devices?

I do because an iPhone kills it's battery searching for 3g the whole flight, hah.
 
so how hard is it to take a plane up with some interns on board each with 10 different models of cell phone, some lap tops, ipads, etc have everything going all at once and see if ANYTHING changes at all.
 
Ducman69 said:
A bit of common sense goes a long way.

You know what signals cellphones emit. You know the power that they emit them. None of the aircraft's controls are wireless. A worst case scenario might be that you would have interference on a com line with a wireless device.

If that were to occur, the pilot could simply in that extremely unlikely event ask that passengers turn off all electronic devices as a reactionary response. This would be plenty safe.

And the FAA sucks ass for general aviation. Its the reason that certified aircraft are far too expensive and use inefficient archaic designs, rather than adapting and certifying modern automotive engines for example (a near impossible task). We had a tiny crack on the spinner nose on my dad's 1940 airplane and it could be so very easily and inexpensively fixed. But FAA says you have to buy a whole new one. And even just things like regular anual maintenance basically involves taking the entire airplane apart and putting it back together. Its rediculous.

The result? Look up in the sky when you are driving home today. Tell me how many GA airplanes you see overhead. One? MAYBE two? Somehow we let fourteen year olds pilot planes around in the 60s with virtually no regulation and the world did not end.
Click to expand...

Small aircraft rules could be redone, perhaps by a different agency and let the FAA take care of commercial.

The problem is, there are so many different models out there that it could cost a crap ton and take decades to research and test various fixes for different issues, which could in turn create much more confusion than the simple "Replace it" fix, which cost more, but is guarenteed to fix it
 
Nacho said:
I do because an iPhone kills it's battery searching for 3g the whole flight, hah.
Click to expand...

Not to mention the searching for 3G makes your battery heat up, explode into a thermite like reaction, burning a hold in the airframe causing decompression which drops the air masks, then people freak out and over run the pilots causeing the aircraft to crash
 
I gotta go with the "better safe than sorry" crowd on this one. I don't find it that hard to turn my device off for the 10 minutes or so during take-off and landing. Gives me a chance to read a magazine or even thumb through the ridiculous Skymall catalog if I forgot a magazine. The world won't end if I can't play angry birds for 10 minutes ... if my plane falls out of the sky my world actually does end ;) :D
 
Azhar said:
On the other hand, if there should be an organization that's paranoid, it should be the FAA. They're responsible for making sure 300 people don't come plummeting to the earth.
Click to expand...

And possibly hundreds more on the ground...
 
kbrickley said:
I gotta go with the "better safe than sorry" crowd on this one. I don't find it that hard to turn my device off for the 10 minutes or so during take-off and landing. Gives me a chance to read a magazine or even thumb through the ridiculous Skymall catalog if I forgot a magazine. The world won't end if I can't play angry birds for 10 minutes ... if my plane falls out of the sky my world actually does end ;) :D
Click to expand...

The only reason I object is because it re-enforces a society of ignorance. Aside from the fact that the plane is already being bombarded with EMI from all around the world, cellphone signals arent directionally beamed to your phone. The nearest antenna broadcasts everything when you're on that cell, so the plane is plenty well saturated with cell phone signals even if nobody on the plane had a cellphone at all. These rules were put in place before they even understood how wireless signals worked. We have long since learned that nothing will ever happen unless planes start functioning wirelessly that these rules are simply stupid. I dont like obeying outright STUPID rules.
 
This is good. Now if we can get the FAA to take care of the snakes on my plane, life would pretty much be perfect.
 
McFry said:
The only reason I object is because it re-enforces a society of ignorance. Aside from the fact that the plane is already being bombarded with EMI from all around the world, cellphone signals arent directionally beamed to your phone. The nearest antenna broadcasts everything when you're on that cell, so the plane is plenty well saturated with cell phone signals even if nobody on the plane had a cellphone at all. These rules were put in place before they even understood how wireless signals worked. We have long since learned that nothing will ever happen unless planes start functioning wirelessly that these rules are simply stupid. I dont like obeying outright STUPID rules.
Click to expand...
Amen to that.

And when it comes to safety, it is not free and it almost always comes at the cost of innovation, costs, practicality, time, etc, so being too anal causes a lot of problems and stiffles aviation.

Now if there were serious safety issues with the industry to where we needed draconian rules to bring the risks in line with other forms of travel that would be one thing. But per mile traveled, flying has a greater fatality safety record than any other form of transportation (car, boat, rail).

Personally, I would be quite happy if flying a plane were statistically an equal risk to riding a bus or taking a train to the same destination, only faster. And that means regulation can be relaxed.
 
Ducman69 said:
Personally, I would be quite happy if flying a plane were statistically an equal risk to riding a bus or taking a train to the same destination, only faster. And that means regulation can be relaxed.
Click to expand...

So you would be OK flying on an airline that had the same safty record as Amtrac? I sure as hell wouldn't
 
k1pp3r said:
Not to mention the searching for 3G makes your battery heat up, explode into a thermite like reaction, burning a hold in the airframe causing decompression which drops the air masks, then people freak out and over run the pilots causeing the aircraft to crash
Click to expand...

im not sure about the last part of that....

i'd personally image that they'd panic, take out their one phones in hopes to try to find out on facebook/twitter to see what was going on, which will just lead to a domino effect of sorts.
 
k1pp3r said:
So you would be OK flying on an airline that had the same safty record as Amtrac? I sure as hell wouldn't
Click to expand...
I commute daily on a Suzuki DL650 motorcycle through Houston traffic. I'd be perfectly fine.

People die on the roads every day. Its no big deal, doesn't even make the news unless it explodes into a bus of nuns with dash cam footage.

But one airplane goes down ever ten years, and the world holds its breath and demands action. In a quick google, the number of deaths per passenger mile on commercial airlines in the United States between 1995 and 2000 is about 3 deaths per 10 billion passenger miles, approximately ONE HUNDRED times safer per mile than a car.

If we were to even see a doubling of fatalities from relaxed regulation (highly unlikely), it would stll be extremely safe. The real problem IMO is that people are very poor at making logical risk assesments. Smoking is seen by many for example as the biggest public health risk imaginable, when realistically health issues linked to obesity and lack of physical activity (joint pain, back problems, diabetes, cardiovascular health etc) absolutely dwarf tobacco concerns.
 
Ducman69 said:
But one airplane goes down ever ten years, and the world holds its breath and demands action. In a quick google, the number of deaths per passenger mile on commercial airlines in the United States between 1995 and 2000 is about 3 deaths per 10 billion passenger miles, approximately ONE HUNDRED times safer per mile than a car.
Click to expand...
Yet an airplane will often have ONE HUNDRED times as many people, so they get that many more "passenger miles", plus the numbers are even skewed further by the fact that there are many miles to be flown, I can't exact drive to Hawaii, hell I won't drive halfway across the country if I can avoid it. Also it'd be interesting to factor in deaths due to your own negligence (drunk drivers, texting, etc) vs death due to others, in a plane you only die when someone else screws up.
 
Ducman69 said:
I commute daily on a Suzuki DL650 motorcycle through Houston traffic. I'd be perfectly fine.

People die on the roads every day. Its no big deal, doesn't even make the news unless it explodes into a bus of nuns with dash cam footage.

But one airplane goes down ever ten years, and the world holds its breath and demands action. In a quick google, the number of deaths per passenger mile on commercial airlines in the United States between 1995 and 2000 is about 3 deaths per 10 billion passenger miles, approximately ONE HUNDRED times safer per mile than a car.

If we were to even see a doubling of fatalities from relaxed regulation (highly unlikely), it would stll be extremely safe. The real problem IMO is that people are very poor at making logical risk assesments. Smoking is seen by many for example as the biggest public health risk imaginable, when realistically health issues linked to obesity and lack of physical activity (joint pain, back problems, diabetes, cardiovascular health etc) absolutely dwarf tobacco concerns.
Click to expand...

Well, since the cost of airfare is more a function of fuel than safety I don't have any problem holding them to the same safety requirements they are under now ... although the risk for the wireless devices is actually low (I agree that the rules are probably getting long in the tooth and aren't aligned to the latest technologies) ... I also think alot of the big push for the devices is for self entitled people who don't like to turn anything off (I am that way sometimes myself) ... I don't think it hurts for folks to turn their devices off for the 10 minutes or so while the plane lands and takes off ... but let the government do a million dollar study to verify whether it is reasonable or not ... at least it will create a few jobs in the process :D
 
not sure if trolling or if somepeople here are just that dumb

First of all, if you think that the FAA electronics policy is ANY WAY related to how safe the statistics say flight is over rail/auto travel, you are so wrong its not even funny. You know why flying is safer? The machines are built to a higher standard all around than your average car, and they don't just let any idiot behind the wheel (or sticks in this case, but you get the idea). Don't even get me started on this one if you are too thick to see why flying shows better %'s

Second, if your damn cell phone SOOO important that you NEED it on for that 10 minutes or so during take off and landing? If you can't survive those 10 minutes than you need to get off the plane, give your seat to me if you were first class, and go hang yourself so your gene's cant continue. How'd they ever survive before lap tops and angry birds? I have no clue. You arent that important, I dont give 2 shits who you think you are. Also, I don't want to sit beside you and listen to you lip smack about how you are that important.

Third, yes the air is filled with EMI as it is, and planes are shielded from the outside against these for the most part. Pretty obvious. Whats also clear enough for any idiot to see is that all those phones and PDAs and tablets and laptops and everything else also EMIT EMI, from the inside, where it's not shielded. Think about it... Think some more because I know you need the extra time... And for the people that say it only messes with wireless signals, think about that for a minute... when's the last time you seen a play fly from ATL to DFW and was dragging a huge ass cable behind it? ALL planes are wireless. And, when you think you are smart and come back with "o well we know the freq's they operate on so lah blah blah" OK, yea, we know what freq's some things operate on, but the FAA would have to go through MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of devices to test each one specificly to avoid a lawsuit in the case that one or two things may be off spec and actually mess with the plane. Think about that for a minute and than tell me why the ungodly man hours and money going into that is better than a 10 minute blanket policy.

God I could keep going on but the sheer stupidity of some of these people confuses me, amazes me even
 
sfsuphysics said:
so how hard is it to take a plane up with some interns on board each with 10 different models of cell phone, some lap tops, ipads, etc have everything going all at once and see if ANYTHING changes at all.
Click to expand...

Ducman69 said:
Personally, I would be quite happy if flying a plane were statistically an equal risk to riding a bus or taking a train to the same destination, only faster. And that means regulation can be relaxed.
Click to expand...

I only glanced over this so haven't really checked it's validity, but the fatalities
http://www.meretrix.com/~harry/flying/notes/safetyvsdriving.html

GA: 11.2 fatal accidents and 19.7 fatalities per million hours
driving: .528 fatal accidents and .588 fatalities per million hours

In terms of "miles travelled" GA fairs slightly better, but still is many times worse than driving.

GA: 7.46 fatal accidents and 13.1 fatalities per 100M miles
driving: 1.32 fatal accidents and 1.47 fatalities per 100M miles

Compared to commercial airlines, flying is still on the higher side...

driving: 1.32 fatal accidents and 1.47 fatalities per 100 million miles
airlines: .05 fatal accidents and 1.57 fatalities per 100 million miles
GA: 7.46 fatal accidents and 13.1 fatalities per 100 million miles

I haven't done an extensive study on the rate of accidents for flying, I just googled it and looked at it now. But personally I feel "better safe than sorry" is the way to go when flying. Especially when you consider

1. Planes are "designed" to allow for flaws. Rigorous inspection and maintenance is required to monitor those flaws.

2. A flaw which results in an accident has many times higher chance of actually killing someone.

Aircraft components can't be designed with an "infinite lifespan" in mind because the aircraft would be too heavy and the concept of an infinite lifespan is false anyway. Even when we were learning about air worthiness and damage tolerance of aircraft one of the first things they teach you is forget about the damage tolerance you learned in mechanical engineering because it is to imprecise to account for aircraft for various reasons.
 
Sorry I quoted this and forgot to reply and there's no edit button :p

sfsuphysics said:
so how hard is it to take a plane up with some interns on board each with 10 different models of cell phone, some lap tops, ipads, etc have everything going all at once and see if ANYTHING changes at all.
Click to expand...

That's not a scientific test. Not unless you are Mythbusters :D

All the time you get the thing of "we tested it but then later it failed because we didn't consider X" and then there's an outcry "you fools why didn't you consider X!"

Things need to be tested rigorously.

But all in all I think the aviation industry is more concerned about controlling passengers than actual fear that an iPad will come along and bring down a plane. It's easiest to say "don't do it, full stop, no exceptions" and I personally have no problem with that.
 
Tudz said:
But all in all I think the aviation industry is more concerned about controlling passengers than actual fear that an iPad will come along and bring down a plane. It's easiest to say "don't do it, full stop, no exceptions" and I personally have no problem with that.
Click to expand...

This ... I think this is probably a critical consideration. I think the airlines actually like the passengers having their devices shutdown so they can concentrate on any safety warning or other communication during take off and landing :cool:
 
and then some dumb fuck will sue the FAA because he was playing angry birds, missed the safety brief, had a water landing and didnt know where his flotation device was. Stupid people like that ought to drown, but nope, they'll likely get millions instead
 
Vaulter98c said:
and then some dumb fuck will sue the FAA because he was playing angry birds, missed the safety brief, had a water landing and didnt know where his flotation device was. Stupid people like that ought to drown, but nope, they'll likely get millions instead
Click to expand...

Most Americans are floating devices
 
Personally I enjoy not having to listen to some asshole talk about his day on his cell 35,000 feet up. Listening to people bitch and moan all day (especially in an airport where no one has a reasonable volume level) is tiring and knowing I can get on a flight and just relax is a bonus.

I think they should just wire up all the plans with wifi and make the prices reasonable. If you simply must talk to someone then you pay for it , it will deter away the mouth flapping cheapskates but also provide options for surfing the web or whatever.

It'll be interesting none the less to see the out come of this investigation. I'm betting that they will still keep things as is.
 
Tudz said:
I only glanced over this so haven't really checked it's validity, but the fatalities
http://www.meretrix.com/~harry/flying/notes/safetyvsdriving.html
Click to expand...
Why would you compare hours and not miles? Airplanes don't sit at red lights and usually go at least 100mph.

For miles traveled, you have to adjust for the higher average occupancy of aircraft. Especially now most aircraft are filled to capacity. Smaller commercial craft usually carry around 50 passengers (plus crew) and some of the bigger flights as much as 400.
 
Ducman69 said:
Amen to that.

And when it comes to safety, it is not free and it almost always comes at the cost of innovation, costs, practicality, time, etc, so being too anal causes a lot of problems and stiffles aviation.

Now if there were serious safety issues with the industry to where we needed draconian rules to bring the risks in line with other forms of travel that would be one thing. But per mile traveled, flying has a greater fatality safety record than any other form of transportation (car, boat, rail).

Personally, I would be quite happy if flying a plane were statistically an equal risk to riding a bus or taking a train to the same destination, only faster. And that means regulation can be relaxed.
Click to expand...

There's a saying about the FAA and it's rules. They're written in blood. Usually the FAA has only implemented new rules after an airliner filled with a hundred passengers goes down. We used to have a VERY cavalier laissez-faire attitude about aircraft...and people got tired of airplanes coming apart in mid air over design flaws or cheap construction that saved a penny. Innovation is great, read about the history of the DeHavilland Comet, a beautiful innovative airplane, and you'll see that innovation can wait a while.

Put me in the safe than sorry crowd.
 
MavericK96 said:
BMI is a load of shit, though, so you can dismiss a lot of that.
Click to expand...

Photo analysis of Wal-Mart supports me, not you :p
image016.jpg
 
SkribbelKat said:
Photo analysis of Wal-Mart supports me, not you :p
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm not saying there aren't a lot of legitimately obese people, but the fact that BMI only takes into account mass versus height makes it totally bunk for any sort of measure of health.
 
MavericK96 said:
Oh, I'm not saying there aren't a lot of legitimately obese people, but the fact that BMI only takes into account mass versus height makes it totally bunk for any sort of measure of health.
Click to expand...

Okay, I surrender to reality and facts. :) You're right that it's not a fair measurement at all. There are some hugely buff people out there who are also way over what is considered a healthy weight, but they're certainly not fat.

Still...there's a lot of self-floating people around and it's scary trying to find someone to date who meets superficial flab criteria. >.<
 
MavericK96 said:
Oh, I'm not saying there aren't a lot of legitimately obese people, but the fact that BMI only takes into account mass versus height makes it totally bunk for any sort of measure of health.
Click to expand...

Use the pinch test it is a little better for that
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top