If each single device has zero effect, 199 more won’t change anything.
You’ve never been caught in a riot, obviously. 
If radio-frequency interference between passenger equipment and aircraft controls did cause a problem, it would probably result from multiple flaws acting together. Defective shielding would be one of the causes; this is probably much less likely the more modern the equipment. Nevertheless, the cost of aircraft control failure is high enough to guard against even a very low probability failure.
Here’s a 13-year old report on EMI interference on aircraft. Many reported problems involved radio navigation, as would be expected.
The paper notes a useful side-effect of a ban on consumer electronics during critical flight stages: Undivided passenger attention will be needed if an emergency arises.
It’s the stuff that can transmit that is more problematic. A game that doesn’t transmit isn’t something I’d worry about. You do nothing - let the attendants handle it.
Remember the FAA is paid to err waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay on the side of caution. There are about a bazillion (give or take a jillion) PED’s these days, and no one has the time, funding, or interest to test them all against every possible model of airplane they might be used in. (There ARE 50 year old airliners still in service - think about that for a minute). It’s so much easier just to say “turn them off” than to test them all, or even 10% of them.
Yes, airplane and avionic manufacturers DO try to build their machines to resist interference from any source. Problem is, new gadgets keep coming out. Even if you could guarantee none of today’s PED’s are a problem there’s no way to be 100% sure about tomorrow’s new items.
If a device has an “airplane mode” that should work as well as turning it off from a safety standpoint.
Yep. So even if your blackberry has the airplane mode on put the darn thing down on take-off and landing so if something does go wrong you’ll be able to hear instructions and act accordingly without delay.
The problem isn’t so much the airplane will crash as the devices might interfere with the avionics - all those dials and things up front. As a private pilot I’ve seen accidentally left on cellphones cause small effects on instrumentation and the occasional noise on a headset mentioned previously, but it’s not consistent. I’ll also mention I’ve never seen anything that I’d call a hazard, but I’m not inclined to take chances, if I figure out you’ve got an active PED on my plane I will tell you to turn it off. My plane, my rules. On the other hand, there are circumstances where, with the pilot’s permission, you can use transmitters on board airplanes when such use does not conflict with other regulations. Cellphones are specifically banned by the FCC (not the FAA), but other forms of transmission are not. My husband has occasionally used his CB radio while aloft, and I know a private pilot whose Piper has several ham radios on board.
The one time cellphone use is permitted on an airplane would be in an emergency for purposes of dealing with said emergency - there have been occasions where pilots have used them to call for help when their on-board radios aren’t working. But that’s a highly unusual circumstance.
I almost never use the flash on my camera, and I’d certainly never use it taking a picture through the plane’s window, so it’s all right if the pilot turns around and waves to us.
"In the event of an in-flight emergency, large, jagged holes will appear randomly throughout the cabin for your comfort and convenience.
And in the event of a crash at sea, excuse me, a water landing, your seat cushion may be used as a flotation device, allowing you to die of either hypothermia or shark attack."
I ignore it, for the following two reasons:
-
There is no compelling evidence that modern electronic devices in the United States, on modern aircraft, significantly interfere with the airplane operations or communications, and
-
Every time I have ever politely said to someone that we need to turn off electronics, they have reacted with at best a derisive snort, and at worst mocking hostility which lasted the entire flight.
Telling a stewardess is almost as bad - the last time I said, politely, to a stewardess “there’s a guy two rows up on his phone”, I was told “Ma’am? Don’t tell us how to do our job!” :rolleyes:
EVERY single flight I go on nowadays has folks openly using their computers, Kindles, texting, games, etc. I’ve seen a few flights recently where folks were still on the phone as the plane lifted off the runway! The stewardesses rarely seem to say anything, or at best their enforcement is hit-and-miss, so I figure why should I bother?
And you know this how? Have you ever been in a cockpit on a controlled turn departing an airport and your GPS navigation system spikes off while the directional gyro presseses. The backup compass is about worthless in this situation because it is spinning from the turn. In order to regain directional control of the plane directions have to be given in degrees left/right from current position but that requires stopping the turn so the controller can establish direction of flight.
There is triple redundancy in the electronics guiding commercial aircraft but do you really want a computer deciding which two systems are accurate while moving at 140 mph on short final with a visual range of 1200 feet and a deck ceiling of 200 feet?
Aviation accidents are usually a series of events that when stacked together become a problem in real time.
Would an old fashioned tape player (without radio) walkman be able to interfere? Is a device like that broadcasting anything?
It has electric motors in it so it is emitting EM radiation. (Put a fan near a CRT style TV and you can see the effect an electric motor has on other electronics quite easily.)
How much I have no idea (and I know the motor in most fans are a fair bit more substantial than in a Walkman…just an illustration).
IANAAeronauticExpert but given that planes are not falling out of the sky would suggest this is not much of a problem. I would think if these problems were substantial the FAA would have incident reports on it and flight crews would be instructed to be far more vigilant in having electronics turned off or outrigth ban them which, as noted above, does not happen with any kind of stringency today.
A plane near the ground is in an EM rich environment. Plane radios. Radar. TV/Radio sginals. Cell towers all over.
It seems to me if a plane was that susceptible it would not be hard for a terrorist to sit near an airport and point a small broadcast dish at a plane and zap it enough to screw up the instruments and cause accidents. That could be done very surreptitiously. Never heard of it happening though which I take to mean it is not a way that will actually work to crash planes.
Which airline do you fly? I’d try to avoid it, because clearly the flight attendants are so worn down that they don’t feel like getting hassled to enforce rules. I’ve never seen any of this crap myself, but maybe I’m just lucky.
One other factor not mentioned. It may be true that a properly working electronic device won’t cause a problem, but some might have defects causing them to broadcast a lot more powerfully than their specs say they should be. With the number of devices on flights and the number of flights each month, and the cost in money and life from a mistake, why risk it during a time where there is little chance to recover from a problem.
Thisis an exaggerated example of things going badly but it shows what happens when multiple factors add up to an accident. You don’t see NDB approaches anymore but you do see an increased reliance on satellite navigation. You’re right that a plane near the ground is in an EM rich environment (my example was an actual event). Imagine a plane entering this environment and is getting hammered by various uncontrolled EM spikes from the ground. Do you really need to play video games or talk on the phone the first or last 5 minutes of a flight because it’s a 100,000 to 1 chance of interfering with the plane? This is when birds strikes most often occur as well as mis-communications with the tower and other aircraft. Trust me when I say a lot of stupid shit happens within 10 miles of an airport on a clear day. Imagine a new pilot on his first flight with passengers gets handed off from approach control to the tower and the radio transmitter goes out (happened to me). I didn’t have clearance to land and I’m now in the middle of a flight pattern involving parallel and cross runways. That got sorted out by a quick thinking controller but it could have deteriorated quickly. Imagine flying in a line of aircraft into the Oshkosh air show and visibility drops below a mile and the silver plane 500 feet in front of you vanishes. There are aircraft landing IFR on alternate runways. Shit happens.
As I said before, it’s usually a series of events that occur that kill people. The odds of an electronic device causing problems in a plane are really low. I don’t know how much more reliable glass cockpits are but they still rely on the sending units and miles of wire to feed them. It just makes sense to follow take- off and landing instructions because it’s not going to be the loss of instrumentation that kills. It’s going to be the loss of instrumentation, IFR conditions and a bird strike and a mis-communicated instruction.
If you think you should get to leave your doodad on because you know it’s safe, you’re missing the point. Since there’s no way for the crew to know for sure which of the 57 kazillion devices on board are capable of transmitting a potentially interfering signal, or how strongly, or at what frequency, it makes sense to me just to have everybody turn everything off.
Of course the chances of an incident are miniscule. But the chances of a communication problem, or a gauge acting wonky, or some other minor hiccup, are non-zero. Even if the pilot can easily overcome it, why not eliminate the possibility? It’s a couple minutes twice in the flight. Big deal.
But, CK, I probably wouldn’t bother making a scene over it either.
I hear ya Magiver and I am fine with being told to turn off electronics on takeoff/landing.
As noted in the Mythbusters test they do not see a problem but there are so many electronic devices and so many different electronic systems in a plane it is essentially impossible to test all combinations not to mention new electronic devices coming out all the time.
It is far simpler and cheaper and just makes more sense to tell people to turn their stuff off for the first/last five minutes of a flight.
To the OP though I guess it is weighing the 1 in 100,000 chance the guy’s iPod will crash the plane versus confronting people about it. Yeah, I’d rather not roll the die at all no matter how remote the chances are. Is it enough to have me go and get in someone’s face about it though? I just do not know personally.
I fly many of them. I have less choice nowadays however due to fewer flights going where I need to go.
I feel about the same. I’d weigh the cost of the confrontation against the probability of something bad happening and remain silent. However, if a plane goes down with me on it they’ll be scratching their heads for years trying to figure out how an ipod got shoved so far someone’s ass.
Simple enough - put the passengers in a big Faraday cage. If it’s well-constructed, it could even have crash-absorbing crumple zones.
I think there’s a point which is being overlooked or not given full weight - either you’re not frequent fliers, or you don’t pay attention to your fellow passengers (which isn’t a negative nor a personal attack, no need to Pit me over it), or else you happen to be on flights where everyone obeys the rules.
Let me explain my position better: if I nag the paroled serial killer sitting next to me that he might possibly consider turning his portable TIG welder off during takeoff, and he cheerfully does it and buys me a Delta Airlines “Possum Piss Pinot Noir” as graceful thanks, it almost certainly makes no difference, because I guarantee for every person I confront, 10 others are sitting there texting, streaming Beck on FOX, or snarking on people on the SDMB. I see them every flight.
If I’m stuck on Southwest I can pretty much guarantee 1 out of 6 people in my row are actively using an electronic device during takeoff. And during the flight at least 1 person in my row will be making an actual phone call. I guess one can argue that by confronting a single person that they’ve reduced whatever risk there may or may not be by some incredibly small amount, but is it even quantifiable?
Sure, I obey the instructions - always. And I in no way advocate others disobey the instructions. But I don’t see why I need to risk antagonizing large, angry men (or small, bitchy women) in the hideous travel environment we now have. Some of the flights I’m on - especially the late night ones where the delays have packed up to the point where the Friday 19:30 ORD-DFW is now a 22:45, featuring no drink service, 1 working toilet in the entire plane, and an “unexpected” stop in ATL - seem like powder kegs looking for a match.
I more or less agree with what you say. The chance that an angry passenger will seriously injure you is probably orders of magnitude more likely than one person’s Ipod causing the plane to crash. The most pessimistic estimate for the latter can’t be any more likely than 1 in many millions, I’d imagine. If it was much more likely, given how many people use such devices on planes, and how many flights there are every day, we’d have a whole lot of crashes per year solely from ipods.