What kind of electronics can I use on an airplane?

[Bradckey]

When the flight attendant say, "You may now use your electronics," what kind of electronics can I use? Can I use a phone? If I had an iPhone, could I be able to use the internet or something? And why aren't you allowed to use electronics sometimes when you fly on a plane anyway?

[runner pat]

Reported for forum change.

[MarcusF]

The general rule is that you are not allowed to use any electronic equipment that transmits as there is a theoretical danger that it could interfere with aircraft systems (I am not aware of any real world incidents caused by this but no doubt someone will be along to correct me!). In the UK airlines also tell you to turn off all electronic equipment during take-off and landing, presumably to eliminate the even smaller risk that your laptop or mp3 player may interfere with systems at these highly critical times. Not sure is this is universal.

You can turn on your iPhone but only in "Flight" mode where it does not attempt to connect to a network so, no, you can't surf the internet at 30000 ft.

There have been previous threads on this including - as I remember - a lot of discussion on the extent of the real risk.

[Cheez_Whia]

Some planes are now equipped with satellite internet access and offer free WiFi during a flight.

[LSLGuy]

Assuming the OP is in the USA and interested in the FAA's take on things ...

As MarcusF said. If it transmits or receives a signal, that is verboten all the time. If it doesn't transmit or receive, it's permitted in cruise, but not during taxi out, takeoff, and landing plus the first few & last few minutes of flight. Like with tray tables being stowed.

With the recent exception that some airliners now have 802.11 WiFi aboard & you can use your WiFi connection (but no other transmitter/receivers, e.g. no bluetooth) when it's available. And the aircraft access point automatically turns on at cruise and off for takeoff & landing.

And FYI, every airlines' WiFi that I know of is set up to block all known VoIP arrangements, so no phoning from the plane. I'm not sure that's a regulation, but the industry has pretty well agreed that having 50 boorish louts shouting into their cellphones throughout each flight would probably trigger more air rage than we could handle.

[Zsofia]

If you ever wonder, it's always in the inflight magazine.

[md2000]

There has never been a documented case I am aware of that electronics interefered with aircraft operation.
-all devices sold in the USA (and most developed countries) must pass standards tests that limit general interference output so you don't override the neighbour's TV or a pilot's instruments.
-logically, takeoff and landing are the most critical pars of the flight; if there are problems, it is hardest to recover safely. In this case, the airlines err on the side of caution, by suggesting ALL equipment that may pose a risk be turned off; even though they do not pose a risk.
-during takeoff and landing is when there may be an emergency evacuation. That's why you cannot wear earphones. They may interfere with your ability to hear instructions. Plus, those long string wires many tangle you up when you hav to move fast.
-the FCC has always wanted cell phones disabled in flight. Cells are passed from tower to tower as the signal fades; plus, cells (especially in the old days of analog, where a signal used an entire channel) take up a channel on every tower that can hear them, whether that's their home tower at that time or not; and need to hand off far faster than on the ground. A cell phone 7 miles up will have line of sight to substantially more towers than on the ground. Some bozo flying high over a city would use up a channel on every tower in a large metropolitan area. So the FCC and airlines have cooperated to forbid cell use in the air. The fact that a seat-back phone can generate several dollars a minute hasn't hindered the situation. As some people found out on 9-11, despite these issues cells work just fine in the air.

Technically, you must only use devices that don't broadcast. Now that some aircraft offer wifi, we see the hypocrisy of this logic once there's a profit to be made. But really, without in-plane wifi or messing up cellular systems, what real broacast needs do you have? Break out the portable ham radio? CB, good buddy? Play bluetooth games between two iPads might be legit...

[kenobi 65]

Originally Posted by md2000

The fact that a seat-back phone can generate several dollars a minute hasn't hindered the situation.

Are there still any U.S. airlines that have working in-flight phones? I don't think I've seen an operational one in years.

[mnemosyne]

There have been documented cases of electronics interfering with on-board avionics. From this past month, reported from the Air Transport Intelligence news (received in the Curt Lewis Flight Safety Information newsletter on March 10):

Wi-Fi interference with Honeywell avionics prompts Boeing action

Honeywell Phase 3 Display Units (DUs) have shown themselves susceptible to "blanking" during airline electro magnetic interference (EMI) certification testing of wireless broadband systems (Wi-Fi) on various Boeing 737NG airplanes, prompting Boeing to cease linefit installs of in-flight connectivity systems across its portfolio, including widebody aircraft.

...

Fallout from the event is already occurring. Multiple sources tell ATI and Flightglobal that one of the conditions for STC is that 737NG operators place placards in the flight deck saying that Wi-Fi devices are to be powered off.
Another condition, say sources, is that 737NG operators are not to have DU 3 displays installed with the presence of in-flight connectivity systems, be they Wi-Fi or cellular-based.

The problem occurred during certification, and not an actual in-flight event, but not all electronics are certified and approved for use in-flight. That's where the concern is; that some electronics - even ones designed to be used in flight - can interfere with avionics is a fact. Without knowing and individually verifying each and every device brought on board by passengers, the risk is there. The size of the risk is debatable, but air safety people tend to want to err on the side of caution.

[Procrustus]

Originally Posted by Cheez_Whia

Some planes are now equipped with satellite internet access and offer free WiFi during a flight.

WiFi yes, free no.

I actually enjoy accessing the internet in flight, even skyped with my wife on a flight. (silently, of course, so as not to disturb the other passengers). AC power for my aging laptop would be a big help. One airline had AC outlets, but most (U.S.) still don't.

[Dewey Finn]

Here's an article from IEEE Spectrum suggesting that while use of electronics devices by passengers has not been known to cause an accident, such an occurrence is more and more likely.

[Bytegeist]

Originally Posted by Bradckey

When the flight attendant say, "You may now use your electronics," what kind of electronics can I use?

Jacob's Ladders are frowned upon, I bet.

[Dewey Finn]

Here is the detailed information from United Airlines. And while it doesn't mention it, I seem to remember reading in the inflight magazine on one flight that Bluetooth technology was not allowed.

[ZenBeam]

Originally Posted by md2000

But really, without in-plane wifi or messing up cellular systems, what real broadcast needs do you have?

My wireless mouse.

ETA: a wireless mouse isn't listed on either the Allowed or Not Allowed list on the United site.

[Peg Leg]

Emirates allows the use of cell phones in-flight, and only restricts electronics usage during take-off and landing. Qantas permits text messaging, but not voice calling. To my knowledge, these permissions have not yet caused any issues.

Given this, what leg does the FAA have to stand on prohibiting the use of electronic devices besides custom and superstition?

[Dewey Finn]

Where did you get the idea that Qantas permits text messaging? The website says, "Flight mode capable mobile phones and portable digital assistants (PDAs) may be used inflight when the aircraft seat belt sign is extinguished after take-off and until we prepare the cabin for landing, provided the phone has been switched to flight mode before take-off. Flight mode enables you to operate the basic functions of your mobile phone or PDA while the transmitting function of your phone is switched off. You cannot make phone calls or send SMS whilst in flight mode."

And I'll bet that Emirates also only permits cell phone use in "flight mode."

[mnemosyne]

Originally Posted by Peg Leg

Given this, what leg does the FAA have to stand on prohibiting the use of electronic devices besides custom and superstition?

Read my post above. Devices that transmit can - and do - interfere with other electronic devices. This is a known fact, it happens all the time in electronics. On the ground, it's not such a big deal, but 34 000 feet up, you kind of want things to work. In order to know that devices do not interfere with the critical electronics onboard an aircraft, the devices need to be tested accordingly, which essentially means testing each and every possible device, variation, configuration, etc. This takes both time and money (who's going to pay for it? Will you, if it means ticket prices go up?) and since electronic devices change every few months, it's nearly impossible to accomplish.

It's not so much "custom and superstition" as "safest scenario given known science and the realities of the market". The FAA and airlines aren't doing this to piss customers off. They are doing this because they do not have sufficient evidence to show that allowing the use of transmitting electronic devices won't kill you and everyone else on board. Even in my previous post, a Wi-Fi system designed for aircraft use caused problems with onboard flight displays. Would you really trust that nothing else a passenger might want to use won't do the same?

[Arkcon]

Clearly, there must be some electric components that you can use, since the plane itself has some. To insure compatibility, they should be the same sort of components:

1). Co-designed, engineered and fabricated with the plane itself. Or at the very least, rigorously tested for compatibility with existing electronics, since I guess planes do change internal components from time to time without a complete redesign.

2). Carefully maintained by the plane's pre-flight crew, run down a checklist to see it's in working condition, not interfering, repaired if needed or disabled until repair if possible.

3). Under complete control of the pilot, to be disabled at his discretion, or whim, he is the Captain, after all. For example, I'd heard there's a switch in the cockpit that shuts off the microwave ovens. Exactly why this is so I don't know, perhaps if they suspect the microwave ovens are the source of a problem, they get to shut it off for safety's sake..

It's not likely that you own anything that meets those criteria, although the airlines may own something like that. Don't know if you can purchase it 'tho. People have tested the effects of modern electronics on various pieces of equipment, airline, hospital, you name it. And yes they've often found no bad effect.

But they never said they tried a bootleg, refurbished 10 year old cell phone, with a Hong Kong knockoff battery, refurbished by a one-eyed guy in a sook in a bad quarter of a Bahrain marketplace. We can't discriminate against the owner of that device while some kid plays with his toy, so we've come up with a generalized, "No electronics while inside giant metal bird -- use them on the ground only"

[Dewey Finn]

Originally Posted by Peg Leg

Emirates allows the use of cell phones in-flight, and only restricts electronics usage during take-off and landing. Qantas permits text messaging, but not voice calling. To my knowledge, these permissions have not yet caused any issues.

Given this, what leg does the FAA have to stand on prohibiting the use of electronic devices besides custom and superstition?

OK, after more searching, I found that Emirates does allow passengers to use their GSM phones to place calls on selected planes equipped with a special mobile phone antenna and after the technology was certified by the aircraft manufacturer.

[md2000]

Considering that aircraft have satellite, internet, phone service, televinsion all over the aircraft; on one Virgin flight I crashed the seat-back screen, which seemed to be a linux computer; it displayed the Tux penguin as it rebooted... Not to mention microwave ovens, AC adaptors, and other assorted equipment...

The aircraft is awash in EMF. I suspect the interference failure detected mentioned above was not from passenger 59 using an iPhone; more likely they bombarded the display from a foot away with significantly more than the approved power level. After all, that's how tests are done. iPhones and similar handhelds IIRC are about 20% to 10% of maximum allowed wifi power levels.

I suspect the truth is, there has not been a documented case of normal hand-held electronics interfering with aircraft operation. (As Dewey Finn mentions). But, I agree, where take-off and landing are concerned, it is best to err on the side of caution, at least when I'm in the plane. As for cells in the air, it's annoying enough on the ground when we're waiting. I'd hate to have to listen to that crap for 3 to 5 hours. (Thankfully, it would not happen on transoceanic trips...)

Interference used to be a big problem many decades ago, but with modern technology and stricter standards and lower powered devices, usualy the worst interference nowadays comes from presidential security jammers. (remember a story about some guy who was annoyed at his neighboor's CB interfering with his TV reception... so he went and jammed a pin into the antenna coax and cut it off so it wasn't visible... )

[Dewey Finn]

Originally Posted by md2000

Considering that aircraft have satellite, internet, phone service, televinsion all over the aircraft; on one Virgin flight I crashed the seat-back screen, which seemed to be a linux computer; it displayed the Tux penguin as it rebooted... Not to mention microwave ovens, AC adaptors, and other assorted equipment...

All of those things are designed, built and maintained for use on board commercial airplanes with EM shielding that's maintained properly. There's a big difference between that stuff and the electronics brought on board by passengers that may or may not be properly shielded.

[mnemosyne]

Originally Posted by md2000

I suspect the truth is, there has not been a documented case of normal hand-held electronics interfering with aircraft operation.

There may not be any such documented case, but there may be undocumented ones; system, display, navaid, etc failure with no known root cause. Events like that happen all the time, which is part of why there are redundancies built into the aircraft. Maintenance checks out the plain, finds no faults with the system, sends the plane back up with a note to pilots to keep an eye on it (minimum equipment lists allow this for many systems). Does that mean it was a random glitch in the aircraft's avionics, or did Passenger in seat 23B turn on his phone and it tried to broadcast? Really, how would we know?

Undocumented does not mean impossible, nor does it mean "has not ever happened." It just means we don't know whether or not is has happened, but it could. To our knowledge, no planes have crashed because of the use of electronic devices onboard. But no two crashes are alike, and it seems there's a first time for pretty much everything - up until it happens, we've just been lucky!

Interference used to be a big problem many decades ago, but with modern technology and stricter standards and lower powered devices...[snip]

Avionics upgrades to aircraft don't actually happen all that often - about once a decade, as far as I know, and not every carrier upgrades their fleet, so newer cockpits are only found on the newer planes coming off the assembly lines.

The average age of Delta airline's fleet is 14.5 years. Their MD-80/90s (which haven't even been manufactured in over a decade) average 19.4 years. United Airlines has an average fleet age of 14.3 years, with B757s, B747s and B767s all over 15 years of age (18.5 for the B757). American Airlines average fleet age is 15 years, also operating MD-80s/90s that are 19.7 years old, and lots of 16-18 year old Boeings. Southwest has 200 19 year old B737s and 351 B737NextGen which average 12 years old. (cite)

All of those planes were designed and built before the iPhone, before 3G networks, before wi-fi as we know it, before the "modern technology" we are so used to using in our everyday lives. Since concept to certification is something around 3-5 years, add at least that to the age of the planes in each fleet and consider the "modern" technology available at the time of design. The aircraft were simply not designed to be properly shielded from our "new" wireless technologies, no matter how well the electronic device is made. You really do have to test each device against each type of aircraft, as well as mixed loads at maximum use (say, every passenger using 1 or 2 devices at once, which is realistic in today's world).

Commercial aviation is also very conservative; it took what, 20? 30 years to get fly-by-wire controls on a commercial airliner? Permission to use these devices onboard is coming...just don't expect it to happen very quickly at all!

[Xema]

Originally Posted by mnemosyne

They are doing this because they do not have sufficient evidence to show that allowing the use of transmitting electronic devices won't kill you and everyone else on board.

Of course, if they had anything resembling evidence that electronic devices were actually a problem, it would be spectacularly irresponsible to rely on passengers to voluntarily turn these off - scanning devices would be needed to detect such threats. Anyone who imagines that such devices are all off simply because the flight attendant has requested this is remarkably naive.

[bardos]

This is absurd, really. They are telling us that some electronic gadgets, which are permitted on the plane, should not be used because they could cause "problems" and are potentially dangerous.

Ok, if I am a terrorist org, I simply have ten people on the same flight who turn on their cellphones during flight. Wow! Spectacular crash? Obviously not.

[Raguleader]

On the topic of cell phones, unless things have changed in the last few years, even the cell phone companies are against allowing the use of phones in flight, mainly because they don't want to be associated with the folks who annoy the unholy hell out of their neighbors by chattering incessantly into a cell phone for the entire fourteen hour flight between SFO and Incheon International.

And yes, the safety regs are paranoid, that's how civil aviation works. They're responsible for the safe transport of thousands of civilians in lightly built tubes made from aluminum and plastic and filled with thousands of pounds of jet fuel traveling at hundreds of miles an hour 30,000 feet above the Earth, so I can forgive them for wanting to make sure they're taking proper CYA measures.

Turn off the leash for a few hours, and read a book.

[Xema]

Originally Posted by Raguleader

And yes, the safety regs are paranoid, that's how civil aviation works. They're responsible for the safe transport of thousands of civilians in lightly built tubes made from aluminum and plastic and filled with thousands of pounds of jet fuel traveling at hundreds of miles an hour 30,000 feet above the Earth, so I can forgive them for wanting to make sure they're taking proper CYA measures.

But, as noted, relying on voluntary compliance doesn't actually address any real problem. It may be true, as you imply, that this is simply CYA. If a genuine problem happens, the attitude will be "Okay, we didn't take any steps that would actually ensure electronic devices were not in use - but we did some pitiful and ineffective whining on the subject, so we really shouldn't be held accountable."

[Raguleader]

Originally Posted by Xema

But, as noted, relying on voluntary compliance doesn't actually address any real problem. It may be true, as you imply, that this is simply CYA. If a genuine problem happens, the attitude will be "Okay, we didn't take any steps that would actually ensure electronic devices were not in use - but we did some pitiful and ineffective whining on the subject, so we really shouldn't be held accountable."

They do make sure you aren't using prohibited electronics when they go up and down the aisles. Unless you thought they just walked the aisles for the cardio.

[Xema]

Originally Posted by Raguleader

They do make sure you aren't using prohibited electronics when they go up and down the aisles.

Insert "openly and conspicuously" before "using" and I'll agree.

Plenty of people leave their cellphones on by mistake. Located in pockets and purses, these are most unlikely to be noticed.

[mnemosyne]

And in the admittedly unlikely but possible event that the use of a cell phone or other device seems to be causing issues with the plane's avionics, a non-cooperative passenger (a belligerent, argumentative person who refused to turn off the device, say) could be charged with a federal crime of interfering with a flight crew and could face up to 20 years in prison.

Far fetched? Maybe. But then again, I think it's far fetched to assault someone who won't give you beer, and that happens all the damn time on airplanes.

As an aside, I hate the Bell Canada commercial based on an airplane getting ready for take-of, and the flight attendant lets one moron continue to use his phone to record a show at home because the technology is just so awesome. Yay, let's break the law!

[Machine Elf]

Originally Posted by Xema

But, as noted, relying on voluntary compliance doesn't actually address any real problem.

Sure it does: it significantly reduces the probability of interference. Suppose a plane carries 100 passengers. If one cell phone in a million has a quirk that makes it interfere with flight systems, and one passenger of those 100 leaves his cell phone on during the flight while the other 99 turn theirs off, then the odds of interference on any given flight go from one in 10,000 to one in a million. The threat hasn't been [i]eliminated,[/url] but such a substantial reduction in risk does have value.

If you think my numbers are unrealistic, feel free to insert your own and recalculate.

[md2000]

When I said older equipment created interference, I meant the blender, CB radio, electronic ignition, or TRS-80 monitor that left funny lines on your TV; not cockpit equipment or carry-on electronics. Serious worry about EMF and its effect on reception was addressed statring in the late 70's when unshielded home PC's and CB radios started being a niusance.

Wonky electronics in the cockpit is just wonky electronics. It's more likely that bad hardware or software is to blame, as EMF; after all, even the best-designed computers will do funny things from time to time. If a cockpit piece of equipment cannot say "signal lost" or "signal unreadable" due to picking up interference, then that is a poor design. The most likely source of interference is the cables running along the aircraft, acting as antennas. Nowadays those are shielded. The broadcast equipment a plane flies over are probably a more potent source of EMF.

Still, I think the current rules - no earphones or (broadcast) electronics during take-off and landing, no cell phones in flight - are pretty reasonable and sensible.

[pullin]

I fly in a small plane (single-engine 4 seater) quite frequently. I notice that cellphones often tend to cause buzzing and interference with the pilot's headset. Flying 2 or 3 times a week, it's inevitable that I'll occasionally forget to turn it off (or forget it's in my coat which I tossed into the back seat) and hear a BZZZZZZT in my ears when it gets an incoming text or call. I suppose a collection of cellphones in an airline cabin would play havoc with voice communication if nothing else.

FWIW: I've never noticed any problems with the nav reception. VORs, DME, and GPS seem unaffected. I suppose I really need to add the cellphone to the checklist.

[Xema]

Originally Posted by Machine Elf

it significantly reduces the probability of interference.

A reasonable point for cases where passengers are simply forgetting to turn devices off.