[stevvooe]

If they can come to my seat and tell me to turn off my device because they detected a source of interference, then I will turn off the device. If they can't or aren't willing to detect the source of interference, the real risk is likely dubious.

Furthermore, avionics equipment should be and is designed to work despite minor external interference. If a consumer electronics device, such as an iPhone or laptop, could drastically effect the operation of avionics equipment, it should not be considered flight worthy. Granted, certification tests probably don't consider such radiation sources, but the risk is so small its likely its not even worth testing.

[ScottWhigham]

I'm sorry but your first sentence is just bad logic. Just to play devil's advocate, while you are on the ground/taxi-ing in the plane, let's say that you play a disconnected game (one that is a single player game and requires no connection of any kind). No interference is detected. An hour into the flight, you launch an app that proceeds to send your contact list to their home servers. You surely don't expect the pilots to stop what they are doing and come show you, "Look - here's what the problem you are causing is. Turn off your phone!"

The second paragraph - sure, fine. I think that's what we all want to know.

[Goronmon]

I'm sorry but your first sentence is just bad logic.

I don't see a problem with the logic. If personal electronic devices could truly cause interference, then just reminding people to turn off devices seems like pretty weak protection.

How many people intentionally or unintentionally leave an electronic device powered on during any given flight? I know I've forgotten to turn off my phone a couple of times in the past.

Only going as far as reminding people to turn off devices is the equivalent of airport security checkpoints that just have a person standing there reminding people to remove dangerous items from their bags before boarding.

[Karunamon]

>You surely don't expect the pilots to stop what they are doing and come show you, "Look - here's what the problem you are causing is. Turn off your phone!"

No, but I would expect one of the pilots to notice something that looks, smells, or feels like electronic interference, and ask the FA's to make an announcement asking everyone to make sure their devices are off because actual interference has been found and is causing a problem.

[ScottWhigham]

I agree with you that the FAA has done a poor job of explaining what electrical interference there is, and what it's effects are. I also agree that avionics gear is not so sensitive that an iPhone's connection should harm it. But your argument that the pilot should deal with problems like this in-flight is just a tad bit on the silly side IMO.

The typical pilot's mindset is, "Fly the plane but, when a problem occurs, stop focusing on flying the plane and solve/identify the problem. Once the problem is solved/identified, get back to flying the plane." You're effectively wanting to change this to something more like, "Fly the plane but, when a problem occurs, stop focusing on flying the plane and solve/identify the problem except if the problem is 'electrical interference'. If that's the case, ask yet again that people turn their phones off. Hopefully they'll listen this time. Wait for all of the people to comply and, once the problem is solved, get back to flying the plane."

It just sounds silly, doesn't it? I think we'd all agree that, if there's a problem with electrical interference during flight, we want the pilot to be flying the plane rather than having him/her wait for the passengers to do anything. Again - I'm not arguing whether this is right/wrong; I'm simply pointing out that the logic of having a pilot wait on passenger behaviors before being able to continue doing his/her job is a bit silly.

[Karunamon]

Admittedly yes, but I think the average person would have a different reaction to "Hey, someone's electronics are actually causing an actual problem, shut down everything" rather than ignored much like the safety briefing that any air traveler who has flown more than twice can recite from memory.

Why? Because anyone who has flown and forgot to put their phone in airplane mode and didn't experience a firey death can attest, the usual warnings lack both urgency and a factual connection to reality. Having them announce "there is a problem due to interference" solves both of these.

[nollidge]

> I'm simply pointing out that the logic of having a pilot wait on passenger behaviors before being able to continue doing his/her job is a bit silly.

If a passenger's device is causing actual interference, then what other option does the pilot have?

[brandon272]

You want pilots to be trying to find someone's iPhone during a critical phase of flight? No thanks.

[Karunamon]

How on earth did you jump from "Ask the FA's to make an announcement" to "Pilots trying to find someone's iPhone"!?

[brandon272]

Sorry, I'll rephrease:

You want pilots to be troubleshooting malfunctioning avionics and summoning FA's to try to find someone's iPhone during a critical phase of flight, for no other reason than to allow a passenger the convenience of not having to shut his phone off? No thanks.

[nollidge]

Karunamon is not asking for them to find a specific phone, just make a general announcement for everyone to double-check that their phones are off, and possibly to specifically cite interference as the reasoning.

[stevvooe]

Devices emit radiation whether they are using the radio or not. If its burning power, there is an emission, albeit small in comparison and probably hard to detect without specialized instruments.

If the radios are simply on, link layer protocols will be transmitting control signals that can easily be detected with something as simple as a smart phone.

[lawnchair_larry]

Statements like that are not meaningful. Bananas and humans also emit radiation.

Flying in the upper atmosphere? Loads of radiation. A lot more than any phone.

[duaneb]

Yea, but wifi is already enabled on flights. It's only during takeoff and landing that it's an issue.

[mturmon]

During takeoff or landing, especially in overcast conditions, there may not be time to isolate the problem.

RF in multipath environments tends to be spooky.

[fnordfnordfnord]

"Tends to be spooky..." Finally! We're narrowing in on a more precise definition of the problem.

[mturmon]

I think the safety culture is, if you can't prove it is safe, you may not assume that it is. This places the burden of proof on the other side. I don't see any more quantitative arguments from you.

This conservative approach is a pain, it's slow, it's expensive. But it's hard to have such a safe environment for commercial aviation without a similar culture.

[fnordfnordfnord]

That's a fine sounding slogan but back in reality, your safety culture turns out to be a farce. Compliance is impossible to ensure, and this will only get worse. Continued insistence upon this farce erodes confidence and respect in the competence of the authorities, and in the flight crews carrying out the policies. It's also hard to have a safe environment where the authorities are widely regarded as buffoons.

>I don't see any more quantitative arguments from you.

You don't see, or you don't care to see?

[mturmon]

You're arguing pretty hard here. I'm not with the FAA, so it's not "my" safety culture you're arguing against. I actually don't have a strong opinion on this matter (I'm an EE PhD, but without particular expertise in RF; I don't feel qualified to have a strong opinion on RF effects across all commercial airliners).

OTOH, I do have some insight into aeronautical safety, and I'm trying to present that viewpoint, which is clearly lacking in this comment thread.

[gnaffle]

I think you forget that many of these instruments have _antennas_. While they are very well insulated against unwanted interference, it's not like it's feasible to protect against _any_ interference. After all, the pilots are talking on an unencrypted air band with the tower, and the same is the case with DME, VOR, ILS and GPS.

[ratsbane]

Yes. Furthermore, if the people responsible for these rules really believe there is a need for them then surely they are being derelict in not requiring RF monitoring devices in the cabin.

[hristov]

Unless of course the interference comes when the plane is already in flight, at which point your notice that your phone causes interference may come when you catch on fire.