http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/03/19/faa-to-review-controversial-gadget-ban/

 

Interesting article. Hopefully it passes.

 

Now for the pilots and aviation people... Is there real risk to people using devices during take offs and landings? Or was this from the days of... pay $5 a min for using an air phone.

I hope not.. I don't want some broad sitting next to me talking constantly on her phone for 4 hours.

I always listen to my MP3 player on the plane, they never bothered me about it.

 

Now, there was a redneck sitting next to me on a flight back from Florida and had a GPS with him. He stuck it against the window and after awhile it actually got the signal and started working. We were cruising along at 550mph.

I hope not.. I don't want some broad sitting next to me talking constantly on her phone for 4 hours.

I'm with you....I fly to Asia 2 to 3 times a year and the last thing I need is 15 hours of incessant chatter even with noise cancelling phones on.

I have used my cell phone when in flight, pretty regularly at times. Sending & receiving text messages, checking weather if I had 3G service. We have an iPad in the cockpit with us receiving weather info over 3G now as well. We have a satellite phone in the aircraft that we have used in flight and the passengers have access to it as well..

 

I've never turned my phone off for take-off or landing and that includes shooting an instrument approach down to a 200' ceiling and 1/2 mile visibility minimum and never had a problem with any of my avionics or navigation signals.

 

It is all B.S.

 

Now, I agree with Paul, I don't want people talking on their cells for an entire flight. Would be extremely annoying and would probably cause fights.

Is there a risk? No. Not at all. The only thing they can do, is cause a somewhat annoying noise over comms. This is more common with those fancy smart phones now, but it isn't like a huge thing that happens all the time, and it doesn't last either. Just a second or two, once or twice. Usually when this happens though, it is from a crew member.

 

As mentioned above, if you have one of those gps thingamagys you can get them to work.

But it is not like you have cell phone reception at 36,000 feet, or when going trans continental. I just find it annoying how you are scolded into turning off an ipod.

 

I typically have ear plugs for flying, or better yet, shooting muffs, but when I do not, I put on headphones to listen to music during take off.

Theoretically, yes, any electronic device is capable of potentially generating unwanted EM noise that could potentially interfere with the aircrafts avionics.

 

Is it a realistic thing to worry about? No, not really.

Can cell phones really cause an explosion at a gas station? No. Does tat mean they're going to change he regs on it anytime soon? probably not.

All BS. Apparently 25 some-odd years ago, some crackpot scientist convinced someone at the FAA that a few "unexplained" plane crashes were the result of portable compact disc player interference. It was probably a defense/excuse for one of the big plane manufactures, as it was an easier scapegoat than admitting they had a bug in their avionics electronics software...

 

Now for the pilots and aviation people... Is there real risk to people using devices during take offs and landings?

 

If handheld mobile devices were a problem during takeoff and landing, planes would be falling out of the sky. I've accidentally left my phone on and so have millions of others.

 

If this were a real issue, all devices would be required to have their batteries removed and inspected before being packed in cargo, think guns x100.

 

The earliest bag phones in the 3-5 watt range could potentially disrupt communication to the cockpit or Loran navigation, but that's the extent of it. Modern cell phones are under 1 watt.

It's all BS and we have used phones up to just after takeoff up to the pint of loosing reception, tape players, cd players and now mp3, iPods,iPads ets and none of them mess with anything. Actually the iPad is now starting to be used for Jep's paged for the flight deck crews so what they are asking you turn off in the back of the A/C they may have on, on the flight deck.

This topic always amazes me. Heres how I see it...RF is everywhere, yes even inside a plane while its on the ground. If someone say is on the tarmac with their phone, and the plane is in the line of site between the person and the cell tower...the RF doesn't see the plane, stop and says to itself, oh crap a plane, and go around it lol...planes have windows...it goes through it.

Mythbusters already busted the myth that cell phones (and other devices) can send planes out of control.

I don't know what the risk is or what controls have been designed and applied to mitigate it. I do know that during the mid-90s, we could turn off the cruise control on our fleet of Ford vans by making a cell phone call.

 

I believe there is or was a realistic basis to the concerns at one time. It was new that these technologies were being thrown into widespread use and they were changing rapidly. The vehicles were old and testing them would require a lot of effort and never result in perfect certainty, especially with the contstantly changing EM landscape.

It really has nothing to do with damaging the plane.

It has to do with you paying attention to directions of flight crew.

During takeoffs and landings is the greatest chance of something going wrong.

This topic always amazes me. Heres how I see it...RF is everywhere, yes even inside a plane while its on the ground. If someone say is on the tarmac with their phone, and the plane is in the line of site between the person and the cell tower...the RF doesn't see the plane, stop and says to itself, oh crap a plane, and go around it lol...planes have windows...it goes through it.

 

So then cell phones can't cause tumors when you put them to your head because cell phone signals are everywhere. Standing 10 feet in front of a high power microwave transmitter can't increase your cancer risk because the signals are everywhere.

 

Signal intensity disspates with distance under an inverse cubic level function. Vehicle skin provides shielding. Keying a radio does not do to an object 1000 feet away what it does next to my computer (battery operated).

 

Mythbusters already busted the myth that cell phones (and other devices) can send planes out of control.

 

I've only watched a a handful of episodes of their show, but I don't think they've ever proven or busted a damn thing.

So then cell phones can't cause tumors when you put them to your head because cell phone signals are everywhere. Standing 10 feet in front of a high power microwave transmitter can't increase your cancer risk because the signals are everywhere.

 

Signal intensity disspates with distance under an inverse cubic level function. Vehicle skin provides shielding. Keying a radio does not do to an object 1000 feet away what it does next to my computer (battery operated).

 

What? lol

 

You suggested that RF is everywhere and therefore there should be no concern about it. Such as (I have added) bringing an RF generator close to a senstitive component or conductor thereof. I pointed out that it does not work that way, RF can be a concern and always has been.

 

RF transimtters cause interference. They can cause significant induced voltage. Back when we were using bag phones in the 90s, they would peg our amp clamps briefly when we dialed out. I just tried it now with a more recent cell and there was not a response on the amp clamp.

 

I am saying there is every reason to be concerned that extremely critical equipment could be affected by nearby RF generators when you are performing a hazard analysis. Especially with old equipment that has never been tested against this new challenge that is suddenly introduced completely outside of your control.

You suggested that RF is everywhere and therefore there should be no concern about it. Such as (I have added) bringing an RF generator close to a senstitive component or conductor thereof. I pointed out that it does not work that way, RF can be a concern and always has been.

 

RF transimtters cause interference. They can cause significant induced voltage. Back when we were using bag phones in the 90s, they would peg our amp clamps briefly when we dialed out. I just tried it now with a more recent cell and there was not a response on the amp clamp.

 

I am saying there is every reason to be concerned that extremely critical equipment could be affected by nearby RF generators when you are performing a hazard analysis. Especially with old equipment that has never been tested against this new challenge that is suddenly introduced completely outside of your control.

Ok, I think you're talkin way higher level than this needs to be. Wheather you're inside the plane making a call before takeoff or outside the plane...it doesn't matter. The RF inside thats allowing the call is virtually the same RF outside. If a plane is in direct line of any antenna azimuths, the signal is going through it. We're not talking about being 10' away from a cell tower's antenna...that couldn't happen. My original point being, even no one makes a phone call in the plane before takeoff, RF signals are still being passed through it.

 

Ok, I think you're talkin way higher level than this needs to be. Wheather you're inside the plane making a call before takeoff or outside the plane...it doesn't matter. The RF inside thats allowing the call is virtually the same RF outside. If a plane is in direct line of any antenna azimuths, the signal is going through it. We're not talking about being 10' away from a cell tower's antenna...that couldn't happen. My original point being, even no one makes a phone call in the plane before takeoff, RF signals are still being passed through it.

 

Actually, I don't agree at all. It DOES matter. I have first hand experience with RF generators, including cell phones, producing unexpected results in electrical equipment at VERY close range. I posted a few examples in this thread. Everyone knows nearby RF generators can cause BOTH decreased signal to noise ratio AND simple discrete failure, or even activation, of even the simplest electromechanical devices. Heck, I've had to design equipment to be protected against equipment that was designed to actually work with it, using loop isolators and such. Shielding requirements have changed over the years for even analog components and RF is in all Hazard Analyses. RF is even considered in Inherently Safe Technology evaluations.

 

Let's back up a minute. I have been 100% consistent. I never said cell phones cause problems with airplanes. I said that, without testing, it was a completely valid concern when they suddenly came on the scene.

 

Actually, I don't agree at all. It DOES matter. I have first hand experience with RF generators, including cell phones, producing unexpected results in electrical equipment at VERY close range. I posted a few examples in this thread. Everyone knows nearby RF generators can cause BOTH decreased signal to noise ratio AND simple discrete failure, or even activation, of even the simplest electromechanical devices. Heck, I've had to design equipment to be protected against equipment that was designed to actually work with it, using loop isolators and such. Shielding requirements have changed over the years for even analog components and RF is in all Hazard Analyses. RF is even considered in Inherently Safe Technology evaluations.

 

Let's back up a minute. I have been 100% consistent. I never said cell phones cause problems with airplanes. I said that, without testing, it was a completely valid concern when they suddenly came on the scene.

Ok cool, being you're in the field, I'm interested in seeing the data of the amount of RF within an airplane waiting for take off w/o any cell phones on vs the amount of RF within an airplane waiting to take off with one person being on a call, 5 people on a call, 10 people on a call and so forth. Be interesting to see.