On The Stupidity Of Airline Gadget Rules

Some thoughts.

It really is a mess, and it isn’t helped by the technocluelessness of airline personnel. You’re supposed to “turn off” your phone (whatever that means), but you can fire up your laptop in the air. It has Bluetooth and a wireless widget that are almost certainly emitting, unless one is diligent enough to disable them. How many do that? I rarely do. I think that, like what happens before you board the plane at the airport, it is just more security theater, and has nothing to do with actual flight safety.

I wonder if one airline came up with smart policy, it would provide them with a competitive advantage that would force the rest of the industry to follow?

[Via Geekpress]

23 thoughts on “On The Stupidity Of Airline Gadget Rules”

  1. Rand, Rand, Rand, as a “recovering aerospace engineer”, aren’t you supposed to know these things?

    It is widely understood that you are not supposed to use your phone on an airplane because the airline may not care, but your wireless carrier certainly does. The airplane moves so fast and is at such an altitude that it would put demands on your wireless phone provider that your provider does not want to serve.

    So, there may be things that are security theatre. I suppose the “lifeboat drill” they do on each and every leg of every flight is “safety theatre.” As a holder of a private pilot certificate, I pay attention and review the seat card on every single leg of every flight that I take as a passenger — it is an FAR, and an FAR is an FAR and one conforms to the regs, simply because they are there.

    As far as safety theatre is concerned, maybe the “lifeboat drill” that your seat cushion “may be used as a floatation device” is “safety theatre.” But an airliner is not just another bus. It is a type of craft that travels the “ocean of air”, just as a ship travels on a water ocean, and safe operation of such a craft may require somewhat more active participation of its passenger in heeding orders from crew members for the safety of the whole cohort of crew and passengers. Compliance with the lawful crew order to pay attention to the safety demo and review the seat card may be a beneficial exercise, just as it is beneficial for the cockpit crew to use the checklists each and every time, even if they know the systems and procedures cold.

    And as I mentioned, the phone thing is probably not an FAR — it is probably an FCC reg for all I know and has nothing to do with anti-terrorism and everything to do with playing nice with the wireless provider’s net.

  2. Paul:
    The “base station” can be inside the airplane you know? At a time this was considered as an application for satellite phone networks such as Iridium: you would have say a GSM base station inside the airplane to serve cellphones which got routed via a low orbit satellite network to land stations. 9/11 screwed that up.

  3. Rand,
    On my last trip back from Orlando on Southwest Airlines, they offered free wireless to anyone who had a device that used it. It was free as they were just starting to provide that service, but will come with a fee later on. It is my understanding that other airlines provide wireless on their flights as well. I don’t know why cell-phones are any different.

  4. Several years ago, I read in one of my aviation magazines that the FCC and not the FAA was primarily responsible for banning cell phone use in aircraft. According to the article, the concern was saturating the ground cell network like Paul mentioned above. The article stated that the FCC could levy a $10,000 fine for using a cell phone in flight. I don’t know if the article was correct or if the regularion is still in effect. I’ve tried repeated searches online without finding solid information one way or the other.

    When it comes to prohibiting certain electronic equipment on aircraft, some of it is based on the possibility of interference with aircraft systems. For example, people were prohibited from using an FM radio on a plane back in the 1960s. The commercial FM band runs from 88-108 MHz. Aircraft navigation frequencies run from 108-117.95 MHz. Since FM radios OFTEN have intermediate frequencies around 10.7 MHz, the possibility of interference with the navigation frequencies is very real. AM radios are also banned because they might interfere with certain aircraft radios (an old ADF seems the most likely) but that seems much less a problem today.

    When it comes to possible interference from cell phones and WiFi, you have to look at the relative frequencies and power levels. From what I’ve seen, WiFi seems to operate at around 2.4 or 5.0 GHz and at low power levels. The possibility of interference seems low or no airline would risk allowing WiFi on their planes. Cell phones operate on different frequencies and at higher power levels than WiFi so the possibility of interference may be higher.

  5. Paul,

    You are correct that the cell phone thing is more an FCC “thing” than an “FAA.” However, even should the FCC issues be resolved for inflight cell phone usage, the FAA will almost certainly still have issues. First will be not using gadgets during approach and after takeoff will certainly remain in effect. While having your (non RF generating, more below) gadgets on during those phases of flight likely will pose no hazard to the aircraft, that’s not the reason you are told to turn them off. The reason derives from the same reasoning which requires you to have your “tray table up and seat back in the full upright position.” During critical phases of flight the crew might just want to direct you to do something and therefore want your attention. Having the gadgets “off” and sitting up in an uncomfortable position drastically increases the likelihood that you, or someone near you, will actually hear and react to those instructions. Is that “safety theater?” Maybe, but it has evolved from actual safety history. The second issue is that, commercial carriers, and in fact ALL registered aircraft, must be “certified” by the FAA. That includes all equipment installed in them. While airlines have managed to get certain equipment approved (it’s listed in that little booklet in the seat back in front of you) certifying that all of the various and assundery RF emitters will in no way affect ANY equipment on board would add a horrendous amount of cost and liability to the aircraft manufacturers as well as the operators.

    As far as the “airline coming up with a smart policy” it likely isn’t the airline’s call to do so. They MUST operate in accordance with the FAR’s, or lose their ability to operate. The hassle, and cost, of getting a waiver or exception, would be large and to what ends? So you don’t have to be “bothered” to turn off your wireless and bluetooth card? Gee, there’s a marketing effort, “Come fly the freindly skies with us, and save 20 seconds out of your busy day, by NOT having to push that little button on your laptop!”

    About the only thing new with regards to this topic in the not so recent past was the allowance to use your cell phones while taxiing to the terminal. And in a lot of ways, that has been a PR nightmare. Half the people love it (you know, those IMPORTANT people who have to be instantly in touch) and half the people hate having to listen to there seatmate’s personal life story shouted into their cell phone.

    Oh by the way, Rand, what’s so confusing about “turn off your phone?” Would it be more accurate to say: “render it inoperative?” “Remove power?” “Make it so it isn’t ON?” Even an iPhone, can be turned completely “Off,” though I doubt more than 80% know that means something other than “Make the screen go blank.”

  6. “…an FAR is an FAR and one conforms to the regs, simply because they are there.”

    Nonsense. I bring you FAR 91.303(f). I did my whole PP-ASEL program in a 7KCAB Citabria, and departure stall practice alone could easily violate this one. (We’re talking about an airplane with a Vx three MPH below its Vs, according to both the POH and my experience.)

    For the strict purposes of that section, there is no point in even owning an airplane like that or many others.

    No, sir. Only the mindless “conform” simply for the sake of conformity.

  7. Folks,

    I must apologize for my rant. I should actually READ the linked article before ranting. Though, I confess that my sarcastic snarkiness stemmed from our host’s lumping of an entire industry’s personnel under the heading of “technocluelessness.”

    While there are a few flight attendants that fit that description, it’s always an irritant when people belittle them, as is done in the article, while harboring the mistaken impression that flight attendants are there for your comfort when they are actually there for your safety.

    Random thought: Have you ever wondered if flight attendants ever have a GOOD day? It takes a special kind of person to do that job well, I certainly wouldn’t want to do it.

    Billy Beck: What does Part 91 aerobatic flight operations have to do with Part 121 compliance issues? For that matter, what does a prohibition on aerobatic flight when visibility is less than 3 miles have to do with Vx and Vs being within 3 kots of each other? I think you have the wrong FAR listed. Part 121 ops are ALL about conformity my friend, otherwise they shut you down and your shareholders aren’t happy.

  8. Well, I certainly didn’t intend to lump all industry personnel together, and I don’t think I did. I said “of airline personnel,” not “of all airline personnel.” And I share your admiration for flight attendants in general — it’s certainly not a job that I’d enjoy, or be able to do well.

  9. The second issue is that, commercial carriers, and in fact ALL registered aircraft, must be “certified” by the FAA. That includes all equipment installed in them.

    Just a minor quibble: your statement about “ALL” registered aircraft is inaccurate for homebuilt aircraft. Those planes are registered in the experimental category and have a lot more latitude in terms of equipment than factory-built aircraft. The equipment on homebuilt planes doesn’t have to be certified, including the engines (hundreds or perhaps thousands are powered by converted car engines), avionics (I wish I could install some of the glass cockpit and autopilot technology available to homebuilts in my Cherokee), and other equipment.

  10. Into every building and vehicle I go, I find that the owner thereof has some stupid policy that I am required to conform to. I know I am smarter than they are and I know their policy is idiotic and I know that I could tell you a thousand and one ways why their policy is wrong. But no matter what, I still come up against one inescapable fact: it is private property that I wish to enter. No one has to let me enter their private property if they don’t want to. So I respect their stupid rules because I respect that ownership of private property confers upon the owner the right to regulate the manner in which it is used.

  11. Larry J,

    Good quibble, and as a person who dreams of someday building my own airplane, I should have caveated. I will point out that the aircraft itself receives a flight worthiness certificate and if you substantially change any existing equipment (certified or not) you still have to go back to the FAA to get your plane’s certificate updated.

    And, yes, my homebuilt will be equipped with a cell phone input jack, for “in flight emergency use only” of course! Actually, I’ve used cell phones in light planes a number of times, once because of a complete loss of electrical power to get clearance into Class C airspace to land. Of course, in that situation I wasn’t really concerned with “interference.” I’ve found them to be much more reliable than a handheld radio as a backup, though they do tend to drop calls because of the rapid transition between towers. Don’t report me to the FCC!

  12. I remember being on a night flight from Las Vegas to Spokane a few years back. The pilot announced somewhere around Reno that we would be turning back. You could almost read by the bluish glow in the cabin as everyone discretely pulled out their phones and texted their rides. When the pilot announced a half-hour later that we were turning around, again, and flying to Spokane, again, it was pandemonium.

  13. For example, people were prohibited from using an FM radio on a plane back in the 1960s. The commercial FM band runs from 88-108 MHz. Aircraft navigation frequencies run from 108-117.95 MHz. Since FM radios OFTEN have intermediate frequencies around 10.7 MHz, the possibility of interference with the navigation frequencies is very real.

    Interference from a radio receiver?

  14. Actually, you’re supposed to put all of your electronic devices in “the off position.” Given the fact that those devices can have the same position whether off or on, I’ve concluded that no action is necessary.

  15. Interference from a radio receiver?

    Any device that operates at a given frequency emits that frequency, with some level of signal strength. Note that any radio receiver will have an FCC sticker on it to indicate that it meets minimum standards in that regard.

  16. Interference from a radio receiver?

    Take a look at superheterodyne receivers on wikipedia …

    A superheterodyne receiver as found in all modern radios has a local oscillator which in this circumstance is equivalent to a transmitter since some of the power is emitted as RF using the circuit wiring as an antenna. The local oscillator frequency itself or one of the beat frequencies generated could be right in the middle of the aircraft band and so cause severe interference with the aircraft radios.

  17. “What does Part 91 aerobatic flight operations have to do with Part 121 compliance issues?”

    Nothing at all. It has to do with your theory of the value of regulations.

    “For that matter, what does a prohibition on aerobatic flight when visibility is less than 3 miles have to do with Vx and Vs being within 3 kots of each other?”

    If you knew that reg (there’s more to it than that) and that airplane, then you’d know. And if I had time to explain it to you right now, I would.

    “I think you have the wrong FAR listed.”

    Well, then: that’s what you think.

  18. When you make a voice call the cell company uses routing information stored in your account details at a local CO. When you start to roam out of a specific location and make a call your account details are transferred to the appropriate CO delegated to the infrastructure of that given region. If you make voice calls as your zooming along in an airplane you will be constantly forcing your provider to make repeated updates to your account information as it hops from CO to CO. This can cause a total loss of service to your account as there will be a lag time between your physical location and the CO exchange. Look at 9/11 when people were making several calls from cell phones on airplanes. They would stay connected for a few minutes and then get dropped. What this is about is a Quality of Service issue since the potential of causing a disconnect of service to your account increases dramatically. Cell providers are all about metrics and uptime and they make grand pronouncements of this fact on their commercials. If they promise the best coverage in most areas they have to be able to back those assertions up with some hard facts. At the present time they just can’t meet those guaranteed quality of service levels for people riding on airplanes so they work with the FCC to regulate and restrict it.

    Now, on the other hand text messaging works through multiplexed channels specifically dedicated to SMS data exchanges. These are far more robust systems and I believe could handle the rigors of in flight connectivity. So, if the FCC and the cell providers were to give in and allow the use of cell phones of airplanes it should be just for text messaging only, no voice calls allowed. I think most people would be happy with that as a compromise.

  19. “If you knew that reg (there’s more to it than that) and that airplane, then you’d know. And if I had time to explain it to you right now, I would.”

    You didn’t reference a “reg” you referenced a specific paragraph within that reg, FAR 91.303(f), which specifically prohibits aerobatic flight “When flight visibility is less than 3 statute miles.”

    “Nothing at all. It has to do with your theory of the value of regulations.”

    I have no such theory. I was commenting on the fact that your example isn’t germane to the discussion. You seem to be arguing that because you cannot comply with a general operating and flight rule due to safety of flight reasons, (which, oh by the way, is perfectly acceptable to the FAA; pilots in command are expected to operate their aircraft safely) then this shows that you shouldn’t “mindlessly” follow equipment rules in a Part 121 governed aircraft (the topic of this discussion.) Apples, meet oranges.

  20. The problem is twofold with mobiles.

    While the power is long, a mobile phone trying to find a base station will ramp up the local power to the radio and do messy and radio loud frequency band sweeps – basically running up and down the radio time slots for GSM (TDMA) and wideband multiple sweeps for WCDMA networks.

    If you’ve ever left your phone next to a radio alarm clock, car radio, anything with a speaker in it while it’s polling the network you’ll know this isn’t exactly a quiet operation.

    The way to avoid this is simple, put a micro-cell in the plane, and, in fact, that’s what a lot of airlines are starting to do.

    The other problem is the mobile networks just weren’t designed to handle a node running through their network at 500 miles another from 5 miles up. It’s bad for them and screws up users.

    As more networks have in flight cells, the other problem will be simple: do you really want to be on a flight with cell phones?

  21. Dave, at last, sheds some light on the issue. Having heard the interference he speaks of coming through my radio and other devices, I had always assumed frequency bands were being excited which might affect flight avionics. A friend who is an engineer with a major airline once told me that the avionics sometimes experience wild transients, which they ascribed to rulebreakers on the plane.

    The thought of plunging 30,000 feet to my death is just about at the bottom of the list of ways I want to shuffle off this mortal coil. If any of you happen to be on my flight, I hope you will be seized with at least a temporary lapse of humility and discretion, and keep the damned thing turned off.

  22. “You’re supposed to “turn off” your phone (whatever that means), but you can fire up your laptop in the air. It has Bluetooth and a wireless widget that are almost certainly emitting, unless one is diligent enough to disable them. How many do that? I rarely do.”

    Good point, and I couldn’t agree more. But halfway through a recent flight, I ran across a note in the passenger info which said that devices such as a wireless mouse should not be used in flight. I had of course been using one since shortly after takeoff. Can’t remember whether or not I had turned off the wireless networking function in the laptop.

    So according to the rules of that particular airline, you could indeed fire up your laptop, but you were enjoined not to use any of the wireless functions.

    Needless to say, there were no announcements over the PA saying, “Someone on this plane is using a wireless mouse. Please turn it off!”

  23. Wireless mice and other low power, paired 2.5GHz devices almost certainly wouldn’t do anything nasty in flight. The real problems are FM receivers (as mentioned), mobile phones, GPS devices and anything else which can crank up the radio activity to try and do something.

    WiFi isn’t really an issue either, as shown by the number of airlines starting to offering WiFi services.

Comments are closed.